Witness Statement North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna
by Graeme Lorimer PhD, F.AirQual of Biosphere Pty Ltd, 94 Kubis Dr, Ringwood North, Vic
15th July 2019
Contents
1. Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendations ...... 3 1.1. Unassessed Impacts ...... 3 1.2. Regulatory Compliance ...... 3 1.3. Groundwater Drawdown ...... 4 1.4. Risk Assessment ...... 4 1.5. Avoidance of Vegetation Removal ...... 5 1.6. Omitted Values of Flora and Fauna ...... 5 1.7. Compensation for Vegetation Loss ...... 5 1.8. Environmental Performance Requirements ...... 6 2. Scope ...... 7 3. Knowledge Base ...... 7 4. Unassessed Impacts ...... 9 4.1. Works Ancillary to North East Link ...... 9 4.1.1. Bulleen Park Area ...... 10 4.1.2. Simpson Barracks ...... 10 4.2. Fragmentation of Trinity Grammar Wetlands ...... 13 4.3. Downstream Impacts on Wetlands ...... 14 4.4. Planted Understorey ...... 14 5. Regulatory Compliance ...... 15 5.1. Overlay Provisions ...... 15 5.2. Beyond Statutory Planning Requirements ...... 17 5.2.1. Threatened Species Obligations beyond Clause 52.17 ..... 18 6. Groundwater Drawdown ...... 20 6.1. Interaction with Climate Change ...... 21 7. Risk Assessment ...... 22 8. Avoidance of Vegetation Removal ...... 24 8.1. Simpson Barracks ...... 24 8.2. Excision of Certain Areas from Works ...... 25 8.3. The ‘Caltex Tree’ ...... 26 G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 2
9. Omitted and Unassessed Values of Flora and Fauna ...... 26 10. Compensation for Vegetation Loss ...... 30 10.1. Summary ...... 30 10.2. Tree Replacement ...... 31 10.3. Offsets Under Clause 52.17 ...... 32 10.4. Proximity of Offsets ...... 33 11. Environmental Performance Requirements ...... 33 12. Secondary Issues ...... 35 12.1. ‘Native Vegetation’ versus ‘Amenity Plantings’ ...... 35 12.2. Threatened Species ...... 35 12.2.1. River Swamp Wallaby-grass...... 35 12.2.2. Short Water-starwort ...... 37 12.2.3. Studley Park Gum ...... 37 12.2.4. Other ‘Advisory List’ Species ...... 38 Appendix: Summary Response to Item 4 of My Brief ...... 39 Declaration ...... 42 Annexure A – Curriculum vitæ Annexure B – Letter of Instruction from Maddocks (26th June 2019) Annexure C – Request for fee proposal from Maddocks (15th April 2019) Annexure D – Report on EPBC Act matters (February 2018) Annexure E – Review of draft Ecology Technical Report (October 2018) Annexure F – ‘Comments Sheet’ re draft Ecology chapter (Dec. 2018) Annexure G – Response from NELA to Annexure E (December 2018) G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 3
1. Summary of Key Issues, Opinions and Recommendations
1.1. Unassessed Impacts
1 The EES does not document vegetation removal associated with works ancillary to North East Link. Some of those works involve relocation of sports facilities such as the Boroondara Tennis Centre to other land, such as the Freeway Golf Course (where there is significant native vegetation that will be hard to avoid). The other main instance involves the replacement of an existing firebreak and vehicle access at Simpson Barracks.
2 The EES does not address the impacts on flora of fragmentation of habitat or other ecological degradation, as required by the Scoping Requirements. This is an issue at Simpson Barracks and wetlands at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex and Kew Golf Club; possibly elsewhere.
3 The total area described in the EES as ‘amenity plantings’ to be removed occupies 150–200 hectares. Within that area, trees over 3 m tall have been assessed and compensation is proposed through a ‘Tree Canopy Replacement Plan’. However, understorey plants from large shrubs to groundcover have not been assessed at all and the EES proposes no compensation for their loss.
4 In my opinion, all these omissions represent a significant understatement of the impacts of the project and a resultant deficiency in the compensation that is proposed. I recommend that the deficiency be redressed.
1.2. Regulatory Compliance
5 The EES acknowledges the applicability of vegetation-related planning overlays but I see no response to the associated permit triggers, application requirements or decision guidelines, including those related to the compensation that is expected for vegetation removal. In my opinion, this represents a failure to meet the current statutory planning requirements for the project’s vegetation removal.
6 In any case, mere compliance with statutory planning requirements is not adequate for so much vegetation loss in the context of the ministerial Public Works Order and the proposed planning amendment. That is tacitly recognised, I believe, in the proposal for the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan. However, that recognition does not extend beyond planted ‘amenity trees’ over 3 m tall that are neither within the 52 hectares of ‘native vegetation patches’ or classified as ‘scattered trees’.
7 In my opinion, the EES’s approach to statutory planning requirements has resulted in a substantial shortfall in the compensation proposed for vegetation losses. This applies particularly to native vegetation and the threatened species it contains. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 4
1.3. Groundwater Drawdown
8 I expect others will discuss uncertainty in the EES’s groundwater modelling and how it relates to the wetting and drying cycles of the project area’s significant wetlands. I am concerned that the uncertainty has not been adequately conveyed from the groundwater modellers to the people assessing impacts on vegetation and wetlands.
9 The EES Scoping Requirements require consideration of the interaction between ground- water drawdown and climate change. I see no evidence that this has been done. The threat posed to wetland flora and fauna by reduced rainfall is considerable on its own, making wetland environments more sensitive to groundwater drawdown than would otherwise be the case. The same could be said about trees, but to a lesser degree.
10 Because of the uncertainty inherent in the predictions of groundwater drawdown and climate change, I recommend that the impacts on trees, wetland species and the wetting and drying cycles of wetlands be assessed on the basis of ‘best case’, ‘worst case’ and ‘most likely’ scenarios. A risk assessment should be conducted for each scenario. Although the worst-case scenario may be quite unlikely, it may be deemed an unacceptable risk if it is expected to lead to serious and irreversible environmental damage (an outcome that I cannot discount).
1.4. Risk Assessment
11 The risk assessment is flawed in the following respects:
• It is incomplete because it omits certain impacts that I identify in Sections 1.1, 1.3, 1.6 and 12.2.4;
• Statements in the EES such as, ‘No risks pathways were assessed as having a high or very high residual risk’, seem reassuring but they are artifices of the decision not to assign a risk level to ‘planned’ impacts. If not for that decision, some ecological impacts would be of ‘high’ and ‘very high’ residual risk;
• In principle, the risk levels are suitable for comparison with each other (their intended purpose) but not for statements in absolute terms like the one just quoted. That is because the risk levels are determined, in part, by the degree of disaggregation of risks into rather narrow categories for assessment in the EES. Higher risk ratings would result if broader categories were chosen;
• More importantly, some of the ecological risk ratings have been seriously understated due to erroneous assessment or unjustifiable assumptions about the likelihood of impacts and the effectiveness of EPRs. The instance that concerns me most involves the proposed clearing of 43 hectares of endangered Ecological Vegetation Classes. For that impact, proper use of the EES’s own data, risk assessment method and criteria yields a ‘consequence rating’ of ‘Severe’, whereas the EES states it to be ‘Moderate’. Because the clearing represents a permanent impact, the residual risk rating is ‘Very high’, if the likelihood is treated as ‘almost certain’ rather than ‘planned’; and G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 5
• I agree with the EES that the ‘severity level’ of the loss of over 95 plants of Matted Flax- lily would be ‘Very high’. However, I strongly reject the EES’s assumption that salvaging the plants and planting them elsewhere is all it takes to reduce the severity to ‘Low’, which is defined as an ‘insignificant change in population’.
1.5. Avoidance of Vegetation Removal
12 I recommend serious consideration of designating three particular ‘habitat zones’ of native vegetation (81-M at Willsmere Billabong, 104-F at Elgar Park and 131-S at Mont Albert North) and a Tree Protection Zone for the ‘Caltex tree’ as ‘no-go’ zones. I also recommend consideration of alternatives to avoid or greatly reduce the amount of vegetation loss at Simpson Barracks, which would include social and engineering considerations outside my area of expertise.
1.6. Omitted Values of Flora and Fauna
13 Some of the values of flora and fauna (equivalent to ‘beneficial uses’ in some other sectors of the environment) are not recognised at all in the EES. Others are acknowledged but not assessed. Within my areas of expertise, the values that are omitted or not assessed relate to human health; childhood development; community resilience and liveability; and enrichment of lives (excluding visual amenity).
14 In my opinion, the omitted and unassessed values should have been assessed under the ‘Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’ and the EES Scoping Requirements. Their omission means that the overall environmental impact of the project has been understated and the compensation being proposed is inadequate for the lost values.
1.7. Compensation for Vegetation Loss
15 My summary above identifies numerous reasons why I regard the proposed compensation for vegetation loss as inadequate.
16 In addition, I believe that the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan does not fully compensate for the loss of ‘amenity trees’ because the planted trees will be 25–300 years younger than the trees that would otherwise be present in the absence of North East Link.
17 As well as extending the scale of the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan, I recommend that it be extended to cover plants other than trees.
18 I was informed by NELP’s experts at an informal meeting on 8th July 2019 that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning had revised its calculation of native vegetation offsets for the project for unknown reasons. I recommend that the IAC seek transparency from the department about how it calculated native vegetation offsets and, if the offsets have been revised, why that has happened despite no change in the vegetation proposed to be removed. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 6
19 In my opinion, the native vegetation offsets should be achieved as close as practicable to the areas of vegetation loss, to genuinely compensate the local environment and the local human community.
20 I note the provision of the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-Gin Birrarung Murron) Act 2017 that there should be a net gain for the environment in regard to land extending 500 m each side of the top of the banks of the Yarra River. This requirement exceeds the intent of the proposed native vegetation offsets, which only aim for ‘no net loss’ (not ‘net gain’) and allow offsets anywhere in the Port Phillip and Western Port region.
1.8. Environmental Performance Requirements
21 I recommend that the EPRs abandon their frequent use of phrases like ‘to the extent practicable’ and substitute phrases like ‘to the satisfaction of’ or ‘as required by [appropriate authority]’.
22 I recommend the following additional changes to the EPRs:
• AR2 – The two-year monitoring period for planted trees should be extended to at least three years and preferably more, at least in the case of trees above a certain trunk diameter (say, 0.3 m dbh);
• AR3 – The Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (TCRP) needs more detail and should be expanded to include all life-forms of plants, from groundcover to trees. For contractual purposes, I recommend specifications involving the size of the area to be planted and the density of surviving plants in each life-form category (tree, large shrub etc.) five or ten years after planting. The area should exceed the 150–200 hectares of ‘amenity plantings’ that are proposed to be removed. An additional matter is that the TCRP’s target set for 2045 seems unenforceable in a practical sense;
• FF2 – The proposed native vegetation offsets are quite inadequate. Also, if at all possible in view of engineering constraints, I recommend that ‘no-go’ zones be specified for the ‘Caltex tree’ and three small areas of native vegetation;
• FF6 – I recommend rewording the last sentence along the following lines: ‘Where groundwater modelling and inferred changes to the wetting and drying cycles of wetlands imply impacts on wetland flora or Groundwater Dependent Large Trees, mitigation measures such as environmental watering and revision of the Groundwater Management Plan should be implemented. To the extent that such measures fail or are unavailable, offsets must be obtained in accordance with EPR FF2’;
To deal with the combined impacts of climate change and groundwater drawdown on wetlands, I recommend that the Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan be augmented with monitoring of the wetting and drying cycles of wetlands at Banyule Swamp, Bolin Bolin Billabong and the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex; and
• GW1 and GW2 – I am concerned that the combined effects of climate change and groundwater drawdown have not been considered regarding the specifications for the G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 7
groundwater model (GW1) or the monitoring (GW2). I recommend increasing the minimum duration of monitoring and adding a requirement that if the monitoring shows the groundwater model predictions to have been inaccurate, the model must be revised or replaced.
23 In the time available for this statement, I am unable to propose EPRs for the values of flora and fauna that have not been assessed, such as childhood development and human health. To illustrate the sort of measures I have in mind, I see the loss of opportunities for children to engage with nature being compensated with: (a) facilities along the lines of the Children’s Garden at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne; and (b) increased programs and support for pre-school and primary school children. Impacts on health could be mitigated in comparable ways.
2. Scope
24 My brief was provided to me by Maddocks in a Letter of Instruction dated 26th June 2019. A copy is provided as Annexure B to this statement. It followed a letter from Maddocks on 15th April 2019 headed ‘North East Link Project: Request for fee proposal (Fauna and Flora)’ (Annexure C), which foreshadowed the general nature of the work required, subject to acceptance of my fee proposal.
25 The Appendix to this statement provides brief, direct responses to the specific questions I was asked to address, with cross-references to the associated parts of the body of this statement.
26 I have directed my attention to assisting the Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) regarding Item 31 of its Terms of Reference insofar as it relates to flora and fauna. I have been mindful that, under Item 13, the IAC should not address matters of national significance as described in the public environment statement prepared under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth).
27 This statement contains more information regarding the municipalities of Banyule, Boroondara and Whitehorse than other areas because my brief included a request to review the submission to the IAC (no. 716) from the Councils of those municipalities.
3. Knowledge Base
28 My areas of expertise relevant to the North East Link EES are:
• The biology (including ecology) of species and ecosystems of Australian native flora and fauna;
• Assessments of threats facing wild flora and fauna in natural and semi-natural habitats, and how to respond to those threats; G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 8
• Assessment of the values that non-domesticated flora and fauna hold for humanity and how to conserve them;
• Fluid dynamics and meteorology (whose principle relevance is to the role of vegetation in reducing wind).
29 Referring to my curriculum vitæ (provided in Annexure A to this statement), my most relevant professional experience is as follows:
• 31 years as a botanist and occasional lecturer in botany;
• 31 years of assessing and responding to the conservation needs of plants in Victoria (including threatened species) and the habitat they form;
• Approximately 25 years of assessing and responding to the conservation needs of fauna in Victoria.
30 In February 2018, I prepared a report titled ‘North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters in and near Boroondara’ – see Annexure D. Although this report only considered matters under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the species it considered are also dealt with in the EES.
31 In September–December 2018, I reviewed drafts of some EES documents that were provided to my client at the time – the City of Boroondara – in their role on the Technical Reference Group. The documents I reviewed were drafts of the: Works Approval Application; EES chapters on Ecology and Air Quality; and technical reports on Ecology, Air Quality and Health Impact Assessment. My review documents regarding ecology are annexed hereto, comprising one in report format (Annexure E) and the other as a completed pro forma the was provided by the North East Link Authority (Annexure F). The North East Link Authority’s responses to Annexure E appear in Annexure G.
32 I understand that the City of Boroondara sent Annexures E and F to the North East Link Authority promptly after I completed them, via the Technical Reference Group process.
33 In preparing this statement, I have been informed by the documents listed in my brief (Annexure B). A more detailed list of the key documents follows:
• The IAC’s Terms of Reference dated 11th April 2019;
• ‘Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’, 7th Edition (Dept of Sustainability & Environment, 2006);
• ‘Public Works Order: North East Link Project’, Victoria Government Gazette No. S 38, 6th February 2018;
• ‘Scoping Requirements for North East Link Project Environment Effects Statement’ (Victorian Government, June 2018);
• The IAC document, ‘Preliminary Matters and Further Information Request’, dated 20th June 2019; G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 9
• ‘Directions from the North East Link Project Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC)’, signed by the IAC Chair and dated 26th June 2019;
• The Planning Panels Victoria guidance document, ‘Expert Witnesses’, dated April 2019;
• The Victorian Government’s 2017 biodiversity strategy, titled ‘Protecting Victoria's Environment – Biodiversity 2037’;
• Fauna-related and vegetation-related provisions of the planning schemes of the affected municipalities, with a focus on Banyule, Boroondara and Whitehorse;
• ‘Guidelines for the Removal, Destruction or Lopping of Native Vegetation’ (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017), which is an incorporated document in the Victoria Planning Provisions;
• The EES itself, including the draft Planning Scheme Amendment; and
• Submission 716 to the IAC, by the City Councils of Banyule, Boroondara and Whitehorse.
34 Additional documents that I have used in quite restricted contexts are cited at the relevant places in this document.
35 I checked the ‘Information Updates’ page on the North East Link website regularly (most recently, 13th July 2019) but found no updates relevant to me.
36 I have travelled along the whole of the corridors involved in the North East Link project. I have walked over areas of particular relevance to the issues I have identified except for Simpson Barracks and the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex, which I inspected from the surrounding fences. I have also made use of contour maps and Google’s satellite imagery and 3D views.
37 I attended an informal meeting with NELP’s experts in the fields of flora, fauna and arboriculture on 8th July 2019, lasting approximately 90 minutes. At the meeting, I asked for any new information that might inform this statement, including responses to the IAC’s requests for further information. I also asked for several specific pieces of information, which I was told may or may not be made available to me in due course. I understand that NELP will report on the meeting to the IAC.
4. Unassessed Impacts
38 This section deals with impacts on flora and fauna beyond those addressed by the EES.
4.1. Works Ancillary to North East Link
39 The EES addresses vegetation loss only in the context of the project itself, not as a result of works that are made necessary by North East Link disrupting or displacing other land uses. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 10
40 The unaccounted vegetation losses that concern me most relate to Simpson Barracks and sports facilities in the Bulleen Park area.
4.1.1. Bulleen Park Area
41 The ‘Bulleen Park Area Options Assessment’ on pp. 32–35 of Appendix F of Technical Report I (‘Social’) discusses options to replace sports facilities displaced by North East Link. All three of the options under consideration may involve removal of native vegetation and non-native vegetation. Importantly, all three options involve the Freeway Golf Course and two options involve the land between the golf course and the fields to its north used for archery and model aircraft. Significant native vegetation and wetland habitat, including threatened plant species, are scattered liberally through the golf course, with a local concentration in and around the billabong where the golf course abuts the aeromodellers’ field.
42 I am concerned that some native vegetation and some non-native vegetation would be removed in the area of Bulleen Park and Freeway Golf Course under all three options under consideration. It would be hard to avoid impacts on threatened species such as Veiled Fringe-sedge. None of these impacts are considered in the EES.
43 In addition, there are further flow-on effects. For example, ‘option 1’ includes the archery and soccer fields being relocated to an (as yet undetermined) site where further vegetation removal may be required.
44 I am concerned that the EES does not even mention vegetation loss from works ancillary to North East Link, much less assess the potential effects on biodiversity. I think such an assessment is required by the ministerial Public Works Order and EES Scoping Requirements. I would have liked the EES to consider the potential biodiversity outcomes of several scenarios, consistent with the way the potential social impacts have been assessed in Technical Report I.
45 It is beyond my capacity to investigate other vegetation losses that will occur due to works made necessary by North East Link disrupting or displacing other land uses. It should be borne in mind that the Bulleen Park Area may not be the only such case with a significant risk of adverse impacts on vegetation or fauna. Kew Golf Club and North East Link’s occupation of Simpsons Lake may be other instances.
4.1.2. Simpson Barracks
46 Figure 11-8 of Technical Report Q maps the extent of vegetation planned to be removed in Simpson Barracks, south of Blamey Rd. On that map, the only vegetation east of the project area that is shown as being removed is three trees so close to the project area that they are expected to be destroyed by damage to their roots within the project area.
47 I believe additional native vegetation outside the project area will be destroyed and more will be degraded as an indirect consequence of the project, as I will now explain. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 11
Consequential Loss of Native Vegetation
48 Figure 1 shows a representative aerial view of the western margin of Simpson Barracks and Figure 2 shows a view of the margin from beside Greensborough Road. There is a firebreak, a perimeter road and north-south vehicular tracks within the vegetation that is proposed to be removed. When North East Link occupies that space, I would expect that a new firebreak will be required and quite likely at least one new road will be required to replace the road and tracks that will be lost. Such clearing is not discussed in the EES; it would be additional to the 52 hectares of native vegetation that has been assessed.
Figure 1. A representative aerial view of the western margin of Simpson Barracks, with the project boundary outlined in red. See Figure 2 for a broader view.
49 The additional vegetation removal would be through what is presently the core of the woodland. From what I could see from the fence and what I can see from satellite imagery, the vegetation in that core area appears in better ecological condition than the vegetation that the EES acknowledges will be lost. It is certainly less affected by roads/tracks, drainage works and firebreak maintenance. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 12
Figure 2. A view of the western margin of Simpson Barracks (left of the fence) from the nature strip of Greensborough Road, showing the perimeter road and firebreak.
50 Therefore, I would expect that any vegetation removal required to replace the existing firebreak, perimeter road and/or vehicular track will be more ecologically intact than the adjacent vegetation whose removal is acknowledged in the EES. The latter has the third- highest ‘habitat score’ of all the zones in the 52 hectares of assessed native vegetation, barely less than the highest (Table 28, Technical Report Q). Therefore, the core vegetation at issue here may well have a higher ‘habitat score’ than any vegetation assessed in the EES.
51 In addition, Figure 9 of Technical Report Q shows a high density of rare plants (Matted Flax- lilies and Studley Park Gums) in the area that would need to be cleared for a new firebreak and/or vehicle access1.
1 In my February 2018 report to the City of Boroondara regarding the EPBC Act referral, I relied upon the referral’s statement that Matted Flax-lilies ‘located on the eastern portion of the barracks site would be unaffected by the project’. Now that more information is available, I believe that statement to be false. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 13
Degradation of Retained Vegetation
52 For various reasons, it is normal for vegetation at the edge of a patch of habitat to be in poorer ecological condition than core areas, as I observed at Simpson Barracks. Vegetation that is presently in the core of the Simpson Barracks woodland red. in outlined is ndary must be expected to degrade in condition when it becomes the edge of the retained woodland. (The EES offers no proposals to avoid that outcome.) This could call be called ‘degradation by edge effects’.
53 There is another cause of degradation. Figure 3 shows that once the woodland within the project area has been cleared, the retained woodland will be substantially smaller and narrower than at present. It will be even smaller and narrower if a new firebreak and/or roads or tracks are constructed.
54 It is a well-established ecological phenom- enon that the ecological viability of natural and semi-natural habitats tends to
deteriorate with reducing size. It is also bou project The woodland. Barracks Simpson the of view aerial An . 3 well-established that slender shapes
deteriorate more than equally sized areas Figure Figure that are closer to circular.
55 Specification (i)a of the Minister for Planning’s Public Works Order for North East Link requires the EES to document investigations of degradation as one cause of potential effects on biodiversity. I would therefore have expected the EES to investigate and document degradation of the Simpson Barracks Woodland by edge effects, by reduction in size and by narrowing the shape. I am concerned not to see these matters mentioned in the EES.
4.2. Fragmentation of Trinity Grammar Wetlands
56 Simpson Barracks may not be the only location where retained native vegetation will degrade due to North East Link. The Trinity Grammar Sports Complex is the area that arises in my mind in this regard. There are currently four interconnected wetlands there, connected by a culvert beneath Bulleen Road to the Bolin Bolin Billabong. Two of Trinity Grammar’s wetlands – the two closest to Bolin Bolin Billabong – are within the project area. One is proposed to have a cut-and-cover trench cut through it and the other one lies in the path of a sewer realignment. If those two wetlands cease to function as habitat, the two retained wetlands to their east will become separated from other wetlands. This represents G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 14
fragmentation of habitat, which is another potential effect on biodiversity specifically mentioned in specification (i)a of the Minister for Planning’s Public Works Order.
57 I acknowledge that the EES has considered the risk of habitat fragmentation on mobile fauna but there is no assessment of fragmentation on plants. Fragmentation impacts on plants are different from animals and often greater, due to lesser mobility.
4.3. Downstream Impacts on Wetlands
58 The ‘Horizontal plan: Construction’ at Sheet 30 of 42 in the North East Link ‘Map Book’ shows an area designated for drainage works associated with Simpsons Lake at Kew Golf Club. Those works lie within the project boundary and their direct impacts have been taken into account by treating the vegetation as lost. However, I am concerned that the proposed drainage works may have adverse indirect impacts on an unnamed, biologically significant billabong immediately northeast of Simpsons Lake. The impacts could occur during the construction and operational phases, e.g. through overflow of road runoff from the drainage works area into the billabongs.
59 I conducted detailed ecological surveys of the billabong in c. 2006. The only indication I have found that the EES has investigated it is the mention on p. 151 of Technical Report Q about visits seeking threatened frogs and reptiles somewhere at the golf course – nothing regarding impacts or risk assessment. Certainly, the billabong does not appear in the table of vegetation for which offsets have been calculated.
60 I am unable to comment further due to lack of clarity about what the drainage works will entail, except to say that ignoring the potential for adverse impacts concerns me.
4.4. Planted Understorey
61 Parts of the EES under the headings ‘Ecology’ and ‘Flora and Fauna’ deal with ‘native vegetation’ (as defined by the authors) and indigenous fauna. The vegetation amounts to approximately 52 hectares plus 170 ‘scattered trees’ (p. 25-29). A much larger area, estimated as 150–200 hectares2, is described as ‘amenity plantings’ (though much of it is revegetation with indigenous species selected for their ecological roles). Parts of the EES under the heading ‘Arboriculture’ deal with planted ‘amenity trees’ over 3 m tall that are within the 150–200 hectares, excluding ‘scattered trees’.
62 Within the 150–200 hectares, no assessment has been done of shrubs, climbers, creepers, small wildflowers and other groundcovers, as far as I can see. My observations of the study area are that these plants far outnumber trees, whether within the existing road zone, within parks or on private land.
2 Pursuant to a commitment at a meeting with NELP’s experts on 8/7/19, a NELP employee gave me the figure of 184 ha by phone on 10/7/19, with a caution that the figure was not intended to be at all precise. My request for the GIS shapefile to determine the figure and analyse the ‘amenity planting’ areas was unsuccessful. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 15
63 I also find that the EES does not assess the project’s impacts and risks associated with these understorey plants. Whereas the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (TCRP) is a response to the loss of trees, I see no corresponding response to the loss of the much larger number of understorey plants that will be lost.
64 I see this as a serious oversight.
65 I recommend that the TCRP should be replaced by a broader plan that covers all life-forms of plants, from groundcover to trees. It (or a separate EPR) could quantify the density of each life-form per square metre once established and specify an area to be planted.
66 At the informal meeting I attended with NELP’s experts on flora, fauna and arboriculture on 8th July 2019, I learned that the concept of the TCRP was still in a phase of rapid development. I was told that the project team has undertaken a great deal of additional consideration with ‘a lot more to come’. I am hoping those considerations will converge toward my recommendation of a plan or strategy that goes well beyond trees.
67 I further discuss the magnitude of the planting of trees and understorey in Section 10.2 below.
5. Regulatory Compliance
68 The EES purports to perform all the necessary assessment of native vegetation removal, and propose all the necessary compensation, by meeting the statutory planning requirements of clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions.
69 I contest this because:
• Compliance with the applicable planning overlays has not been assessed; and
• Mere compliance with statutory planning requirements would not be adequate for so much vegetation loss in the context of the ministerial Public Works Order and the proposed planning amendment.
I explain these points in the following subsections.
5.1. Overlay Provisions
70 As acknowledged on pp. 17–18 of EES Technical Report Q (‘Ecology’), the project area intersects a range of planning overlays that affect the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation, including the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO), Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO), Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) and Heritage Overlay (HO). The overlays within each municipality are tabulated in Section 4.3.10. Each overlay schedule specifies its own triggers, application requirements, decision guidelines and expectations for compensation or mitigation of vegetation loss. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 16
71 While the abovementioned p. 17 states that the implications of the overlays ‘were assessed for the purposes of this report’, I cannot see any evidence of it. Beyond the references to overlays just mentioned, the only reference to overlay requirements in Technical Report Q is a brief comment on p. 32 in regard to interaction with clause 52.17.
72 The treatment of overlays in Technical Report G (’Arboriculture’) is similar.
73 There is no response in Technical Reports G or Q to the application requirements of any of the overlays, nor any assessment of North East Link’s vegetation removal against any decision guidelines, including expectations or obligations for measures to mitigate or compensate for the impacts.
74 Neither of those technical reports deal with understorey plants outside the 52 hectares of native vegetation that is proposed to be removed. Consequently, overlay provisions affecting those plants are not discussed at all in the EES.
75 Section 4.3.2 of Technical Report Q states that ‘The new Guidelines3 provide instruction on how an application for a permit to remove native vegetation is to be assessed under the P&E Act’. In fact, the ‘new guidelines’ referred to only apply to clauses 52.16 and 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions, not to overlays. The technical report then states that ‘The guidelines are also used to assess native vegetation removal proposed as part of major infrastructure projects in Victoria’. That is true, but it should also have been acknowledged that overlays set different, additional requirements. On p. 17, the technical report states, ‘The biodiversity loss from the removal of native vegetation is required to be offset in accordance with the Guidelines (DELWP, 2017a). Offsets are designed to compensate for the loss of biodiversity value’. Again, that only applies to clauses 52.16 and 52.17. In addition, offsets are designed only to compensate for the loss of some biodiversity values; e.g. not for human health, wellbeing, childhood development or amenity (as discussed below in Section 9). As the guidelines document states, ‘It is not the intention of the Guidelines to address the specific requirements of overlays that require a permit to remove native vegetation. The Guidelines must not be applied in relation to the requirements and decision guidelines of these overlays, unless the overlay specifically states otherwise’. The relevant overlays do not state otherwise.
76 Within the North East Link project area, the Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO) affects most of the land in Manningham and all parts of Banyule on the Yarra River floodplain, plus minor areas further north in Banyule and in Nillumbik and Yarra. The Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO) affects all parts of Boroondara and Manningham west of Bulleen Road and the parts of Banyule on the Yarra River Floodplain. The Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO) affects nearly all the relevant parts of Banyule that are not covered by the Significant Landscape Overlay, as well as a small part of Whitehorse near Winfield Rd, Mont Albert North. Overall, the vast majority of the project area within Banyule, Boroondara and Manningham (excluding Simpson Barracks, which is Common- wealth land) is affected by at least one of these overlays. Each overlay applies planning controls over vegetation removal beyond those in clause 52.17. I am therefore surprised not to find the implications dealt with in the EES.
77 Notably:
3 ‘Guidelines for the Removal, Destruction or Lopping of Native Vegetation’, DELWP 2017. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 17
• ESO1 in Banyule requires a planning permit for the removal of most vegetation within the affected area, including that classified in the EES as ‘amenity plantings’ and regardless of whether it is taller or shorter than 3 m;
• Manningham’s ESOs require permits for removal of Victorian native vegetation (regardless of stature). One of them (ESO3) also makes the removal of Australian native trees subject to permit; and
• Boroondara’s SLO1 (which covers the whole Yarra River floodplain in Boroondara) requires a permit for removal of any native vegetation (including that classified in the EES as ‘amenity plantings’) as well as non-native trees and large shrubs.
78 In each case, removal of vegetation in conformity with these overlays normally requires compensation. There is no particular need for that compensation to match the offsets of clause 52.17, in magnitude or kind. The decision guidelines are also separate from clause 52.17. For example, those of Banyule’s ESO1 place weight on achieving compensation ‘elsewhere on the land’ and in consideration of ‘the conservation and enhancement of vegetation in the area’, whereas clause 52.17 allows offsetting anywhere in the Port Phillip and Western Port region. Another example: Manningham’s ESO2 and ESO3 overlays include the decision guideline to consider ‘The likely impact of the proposal on species of flora or fauna which are threatened at the municipal, regional, state or federal level and the extent to which provisions are made to negate, minimise or manage those impacts’. In other words, a permit may be refused, or ‘offset’ conditions may be imposed, if locally or regionally threatened flora or fauna are affected, despite such powers not applying under clause 52.17.
79 The EES appears to make no effort to respond to the application requirements or decision guidelines of the applicable overlays. Nor does it offer replanting or other compensation that meets the normal requirements under the overlays. My concern about this situation is heightened by the proposed planning amendment for North East Link, which does away with the overlays and the Councils’ roles as Responsible Authorities.
80 Section 10.1 below addresses the compensation associated with overlays in the context of all the other matters for which compensation is due.
5.2. Beyond Statutory Planning Requirements
81 Addressing North East Link’s vegetation removal is not just a matter of meeting the requirements for obtaining a planning permit. The amount and significance of the vegetation to be removed is so great that it represents an important consideration regarding the proposed planning amendment and many aspects of the Public Works Order and Scoping Requirements.
82 Even if the EES were to have properly responded to all the vegetation-related statutory planning requirements (including overlays), there remains an obligation to demonstrate that: (a) the amendment achieves a net community benefit and ecologically sustainable development; and (b) the broader objectives of the Environment Effects Act and the Public Works Order are met. Under the current planning requirements, even if North East Link G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 18
required no planning permit for vegetation removal, there would still be obligations to address the project’s impacts on vegetation and fauna.
83 I see tacit support for this view in the EES’s proposal for a Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (TCRP) in EPR AR3. The TCRP does not emerge from a specific planning requirement; it appears to be offered in recognition that there are higher obligations.
84 I am pleased with that recognition but it only affects planted ‘amenity trees’ over 3 m tall that are neither within the 52 hectares of ‘native vegetation patches’ or classified as ‘scattered trees’. I cannot understand why the same principle has not been extended to the whole range of vegetation. I must, however, acknowledge that the EES has attempted (if imperfectly) to mitigate the impacts to Studley Park Gums, notwithstanding that statutory planning appears to impose no obligation to do so. (I deal with flaws in that mitigation plan in Section 12.2.3 on p. 37.)
85 In regard to native vegetation, I believe the EES should have (but does not) address the following matters beyond statutory planning requirements:
• Degradation and fragmentation of habitat, as discussed in my Sections 4.1.2 (p. 10) and 4.2 (p. 13);
• The Victorian Government’s policy (expressed in the state biodiversity strategy) to achieve an overall net gain for biodiversity, notwithstanding that the objective for permitted clearing is just for ‘no net loss’. Even in the case of the proposed translocation plan for the endangered Matted Flax-lily, the EES’s objective is only for no net loss (p. 18 of Appendix K of Technical Report Q);
• The Victorian Government’s policy (expressed in the state biodiversity strategy) regarding threatened species, beyond the statutory measures in clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions. I discuss this in detail in Section 5.2.1; and
• Values of biodiversity related to human health, childhood development, community resilience, liveability, quality of life and natural heritage, as discussed in Section 9. Some of these values are recognised in planning overlays and all are recognised in the Victorian Government’s biodiversity strategy but they are not considered in the EES;
86 I believe that if these matters were considered, the overall cost-benefit analysis of North East Link may shift materially. At a minimum, I believe that greater compensation would be provided to the affected environment and the affected human community for the loss, degradation and fragmentation of biodiversity values. I address that compensation in Section 8.3.
5.2.1. Threatened Species Obligations beyond Clause 52.17
87 Further in regard to threatened species, page 20 of the state biodiversity strategy sets the following targets:
88 ‘A net improvement in the outlook across all species by 2037, as measured by Change in Suitable Habitat, with the expected outcomes being: G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 19
89 • ‘That no vulnerable* or near-threatened species will have become endangered.
90 • ‘That all critically endangered* and endangered species will have at least one option available for being conserved ex situ or re-established in the wild (where feasible under climate change) should they need it.
91 • ‘A net gain of the overall extent and condition of habitats across terrestrial, waterway and marine environments.
92 ‘* Based on assessments carried out under the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List categories and criteria.’
93 The EES only seeks to meet the minimum regulatory requirements for species’ habitats under clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions. It does not address whether North East Link will jeopardise achievement of the Victorian Government targets above. In my view, North East Link’s planned or potential removal of habitat for the Short Water- starwort, River Swamp Wallaby-grass and Veiled Fringe-rush run a substantial risk of thwarting the above target for vulnerable species. The ‘Near-threatened’ species mentioned in the quote above are dismissed outright in the EES (p. 25–12; also p. 25 of Technical Report Q), even though they are included in the EES Scoping Requirements.
94 The EES has concentrated on meeting regulatory requirements for threatened species at the expense of fully addressing avoidance of, and compensation for, the actual impacts on threatened species. This can be seen in the list of ‘Species offsets’ on p. 2 of the ‘Native Vegetation Removal Report’ in Appendix J of Technical Report Q. Of the five threatened species for which specific offsets are proposed, the EES regards only two (Grey-headed Flying-fox and the Australian Grayling) as being present (or likely to occur) in the project area. The remaining 37 threatened species the EES regards as present (or likely to occur) in the project area appear in Tables 25-1 (flora), 25-3 (non-aquatic fauna) and 25-4 (aquatic fauna) of EES Chapter 25. Even if the proposed offsets were to meet the regulatory requirements (I think they fall short), I am concerned from a broader perspective that no specific offsets or alternative compensation are proposed for most of the threatened species at risk from North East Link.
95 In this regard, it is important to note that the proposed offsets for the Australian Grayling and Yarra Pygmy Perch may well have ancillary benefits for the other five aquatic species in Table 25-4 that are accepted to exist in the project area. However, I have no confidence at all that the offsets proposed for the three other species would provide material benefit to any of the eleven threatened flora species in Table 25-1 accepted to occur in the project area, or 20 of the 21 threatened fauna species in Table 25-3. (The remaining species in Table 25-3 is the Grey-headed Flying-fox, for which specific offsets are proposed.)
96 Importantly, most of the threatened fauna in Table 25-3 and two of the threatened flora in Table 25-1 are species of wetlands. Their habitat does not overlap with any of the species for which specific offsets are proposed in the EES.
97 I was informed at an informal meeting with NELP’s experts on 8th July 2019 that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has recalculated the offsets for the project. I was told that the revision: G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 20
• Deleted the requirement for specific offsets for four of the five threatened species discussed above (excluding the Grey-headed Flying-fox, for which the offsets have remained unchanged); and
• No specific offsets are required for other threatened species that are accepted to occur in the project area, even for the Matted Flax-lily.
98 While a specific offset for just one of the threatened species affected by North East Link may satisfy the statutory requirements of clause 52.17, I contend that the failure to provide specific compensation for any of the others cannot be justified in the context of the EES.
6. Groundwater Drawdown
99 I am concerned that the EES appears to take too little account of uncertainty in the groundwater modelling. I believe this has led to poor consideration of the effects of groundwater drawdown on trees (particularly at Simpson Barracks) and wetlands (particularly at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex). The Studley Park Gum is the species (or strictly, hybrid) of greatest concern at Simpson Barracks. The River Swamp Wallaby- grass and the Short Water-starwort are of greatest concern at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex. All the habitats at issue are listed as ‘endangered’ Ecological Vegetation Classes’.
100 I must add a caveat that I was informed at an informal meeting of experts on 8th July 2019 that the groundwater modelling on which the exhibited EES relies has been ‘refined’ and a Technical Note has been prepared. I requested a copy of the Technical Note but it has not been provided, so I have based my evidence on the exhibited EES.
101 Page 41 of EES Technical Report N (Groundwater) states:
‘It is recognised that groundwater numerical models have their limitations (see Appendix C). Respectful of the limitations of numerical groundwater models, and noting that any proposed changes during detailed design of the project or alternative design proposals can have implications to the predicted groundwater impact, the predictive output nonetheless provides a tool in which EPRs can be developed.’
102 The Groundwater report dedicates quite a few pages to the modelling’s assumptions and limitations. Page 27 of Appendix C of the Groundwater document states the model has ‘high sensitivity’ to three groups of adjustable parameters. The groundwater modelling is clearly not precise. I contend that the uncertainties need to be taken into account when the modelling results are used to infer impacts on flora and fauna.
103 For this reason, the experts in groundwater modelling and its uncertainties must convey to those of us addressing flora and fauna matters not just one set of predictions but also the range of uncertainty, including in regard to the wetting and drying cycles of the project area’s wetlands.
104 I have decades of experience in both the biological sciences and fluid modelling (streams, marine, atmospheric and astrophysical). I feel that background puts me in an unusually G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 21
good position to appreciate the limitations of biologists to appreciate the complexities and uncertainties of the information they accept from modellers.
105 Technical Report Q (Ecology) gives me significant concern in this regard. Its p. 62 states that ‘this report does not seek to verify the accuracy of modelling or provide an indication of the level of groundwater dependence of a potential GDE’. (‘GDE’ refers to Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem, which in turn refers to the habitats I referred to above.) I question the value of modelling that comes with no assurance about its accuracy and no indication about how dependent the existing wetlands and woodlands are upon the groundwater being modelled.
106 Technical Report Q blindly accepts the groundwater model predictions without regard to uncertainty. It uses those predictions to conclude:
• How many trees may die due to groundwater drawdown;
• That there is no material risk of adverse impacts at the Trinity Grammar wetlands, Bolin Bolin Billabong or Banyule Flats; and
• That large trees are the only organisms that need to appear in an EPR regarding ecological impacts of groundwater drawdown (see EPR FF6).
107 I believe all of these conclusions are unsafe because no account has been taken of modelling uncertainty and no evidence appears to have been provided about how groundwater drawdown may affect the wetting and drying cycles of wetlands.
108 For each of the modelled years, I would at least like to see three sets of predictions of groundwater drawdown: best case, worst case and most likely. Take the hypothetical example of a worst-case scenario in which the wetlands on the Banyule Flats, Bolin Bolin Billabong and the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex all dry out within weeks after each filling (perhaps aided by climate change). In that case, the wetlands’ rare plants and the endangered Ecological Vegetation Classes would all die out. Even if this worst-case scenario was unlikely, the consequences would be severe and irreversible, leading to a fairly fundamental reconsideration of the project.
109 At the moment, all I have is one set of groundwater model predictions for each year, and those predictions are obsolete. I cannot rule out the hypothetical example above.
6.1. Interaction with Climate Change
110 Section 4.6 of the EES Scoping Requirements, headed ‘Habitat and biodiversity’, includes this ‘key issue’: ‘Potential for significant effects on biodiversity values including effects associated with changes in hydrology or hydrogeology (including under future climate change scenarios) or threatening processes listed under the FFG Act’ [my emphasis].
111 In response to a comment from me on a draft of EES Technical Report Q, p. 60 of the exhibited version includes the statement, ‘Future climate change scenarios are considered in EES Technical report N – Groundwater and Technical report P – Surface water, and those considerations have been taken into account for the purposes of this assessment’. However, G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 22
I see no evidence of this and there is no other occurrence of the words ‘climate change’ anywhere else in the report, nor anywhere in EES Chapter 25 (Ecology).
112 As intimated in the above-quoted key issue from the Scoping Requirements, climate change affects impacts associated with hydrology and hydrogeology. The EES’s failure to consider the combined effects of climate change and groundwater drawdown on trees and wetlands is a significant omission, in my opinion. My concerns in this regard are heightened by the uncertainties about the effects of groundwater drawdown, which compound the uncertainties in climate change scenarios.
113 I recommend that the joint probabilities of climate change and groundwater drawdown be addressed when determining the ‘worst case’, ‘best case’ and ‘most likely’ scenarios discussed above.
7. Risk Assessment
114 The Scoping Requirements state, ‘the EES approach should be risk-based, so that a greater level of effort is directed at investigating and addressing those matters that pose relatively higher risk of adverse effects’.
115 While I find that the general method for risk assessment adopted by the EES is fit for its intended purpose, I am concerned about aspects of how it has been used.
116 Firstly, the risk assessment is flawed to the extent that it omits certain impacts. My sections 4, 6.1, 9 and 12.2.4 document my opinions regarding numerous impacts that have been omitted.
117 Secondly, the separation of ‘planned’ impacts from other impacts has distorted the representation of the project’s risks, in my opinion. To an unwary reader, the statement in Section 4.2 of Attachment III (‘Risk Report’) that ‘No risks pathways were assessed as having a high or very high residual risk’, is likely to seem reassuring. However, if some of the ‘planned’ ecological impacts were treated the same as risks that are ‘almost certain’, the resultant residual risks would be ‘high’ or ‘very high’ and the superficially reassuring statement could not be made. I recommend a wary approach to such statements in the EES, e.g. on p. 274 of Technical Report Q and p. 23 of the EES Summary Report.
118 The need for such wariness is heightened by the fact that the risk levels are determined in part by the degree to which the project’s impacts are disaggregated. As a hypothetical example, the risk rating that would result for an impact styled as ‘loss of flora and fauna’ would be higher than if each species and each patch of habitat were to be assessed as separate impacts.
119 The ‘ecological’ risk categories in the EES are quite narrow. For example, the impacts of land clearing during the construction phase on flora and fauna are broken up into: – EC01, re threatened flora; – EC02, re non-threatened flora; G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 23
– EC11, re habitat for threatened fauna; – EC12, re habitat for non-threatened fauna; – EC13, re important habitat for EPBC Act migratory fauna; – EC14, re fragmentation of habitat for terrestrial fauna; and – EC17, re reduced viability of non-threatened fauna.
120 Narrow risk categories are appropriate for their intended purpose of comparing impacts against each other to prioritise the investigation effort on the most important issues. However, it would be wrong to interpret the risk assessments in the EES as conveying risk levels in an absolute sense, as in statements like, ‘No risks pathways were assessed as having a high or very high residual risk’, quoted above. One should allow for the likelihood that broader risk categories would have led to higher residual risks.
121 More importantly, in my opinion, some of the risk ratings in Technical Report Q (‘Ecology’) have been seriously understated due to erroneous assessment or unjustifiable assumptions about the likelihood of impacts and the effectiveness of EPRs.
122 The erroneous assessment of greatest concern to me involves the clearing of endangered Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs). That impact falls within Risk EC02 – ‘Land clearing during construction impacting non-threatened flora and ecological communities’4.
123 Table 27 of Technical Report Q shows the area of each endangered EVC to be removed from the project area. The most extensive endangered EVC occupies 18 hectares and the total comes to 43 hectares. The second-last page of Appendix A of the same report assigns a ‘Very high’ severity rating to loss of over 10 hectares of endangered EVCs, as in this case. However, the severity rating for EC02 is given in the EES as ‘Low’, which corresponds to removal of less than 0.1 hectares of endangered EVCs. The difference is huge.
124 Given the EES’s (reasonable) assessment that EC02 has an extent of ‘Corridor’ and a duration of ‘7+ years’, a severity of ‘Very high’ leads to a consequence level of ‘Severe’ (EES pp. III-14 & III-15). Instead, the EES claims the consequence level to be ‘Moderate’.
125 I recommend that the IAC takes the consequence level of the planned clearing of endangered EVCs (and hence EC02) to be ‘Severe’, which is equivalent to a residual risk level of ‘Very high’ (based on parity with ‘almost certain’ likelihood).
126 Decision guideline no. 9 of clause 52.17 requires consideration of the presence of endangered EVCs within vegetation to be removed. The EES does not address that requirement, perhaps in the belief that ‘Moderate’ consequences do not warrant it. My reassessment that the consequences are ‘Severe’ (by the EES’s own criteria) greatly raises the need for a careful assessment of the planned removal of 43 hectares of endangered EVCs.
127 I will now use Risk EC01 to demonstrate the consequences of what I see as unjustifiable assumptions about the likelihood of impacts and the effectiveness of EPRs.
4 I regard endangered EVCs as threatened communities but the EES has defined ‘threatened communities’ in such a way as to exclude them, leading to the statement on p. iii of Tech Report Q, ‘No threatened communities occur within the project boundary’. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 24
128 According to the first line of Appendix A of Technical Report Q (‘Ecology’), the severity of the threat to threatened species from land clearing falls from ‘Very High’ to ‘Low’ as a result of applying EPRs FF7 (translocation of Matted Flax-lilies) and AR3 (replacement of ‘amenity trees’). (EC01 includes threatened ecological communities but the EES claims there aren’t any.) Five pages hence in Appendix A, we read that a ‘Very High’ rating for threatened species means, ‘Threat to the viability of a state or commonwealth listed species (>1% loss of habitat within Victoria)’, whereas ‘Low’ means ‘Insignificant change in populations of state or commonwealth listed threatened species (<0.05% loss of habitat within Victoria)’. The species that gives rise to the ‘Very high’ rating must be the Matted Flax-lily, given the large number of plants involved.
129 Of the two EPRs that are claimed to be responsible for the large difference between the ‘initial risk’ and the ‘residual risk’, AR3 only affects trees and hence not flax-lilies. The other one (FF7 – ‘Salvage and translocation plan for Matted Flax-lily’) is therefore relied upon to reduce the impact on the Matted Flax-lily from ‘very high’ severity to an ‘insignificant change in populations’.
130 I strongly disagree that salvaging plants could convert a ‘very high’ impact upon a species into an insignificant impact, under any conditions. It would set a terrible example to declare that the conservation of such a threatened plant species is negligibly affected by the destruction of their habitat, as long as the plants are relocated.
131 Another contestable aspect of the risk assessment of EC01 is its rating of ‘likelihood’. In the same row of Appendix A as above, the likelihood of land clearing impacting threatened flora is rated as ‘Possible’, both for the initial risk and the residual risk. Six pages on, we read that ‘Possible’ means ‘The event may occur once within a five-year timeframe’. I cannot reconcile that with the acceptance in the EES the impact is ‘planned’, not just ‘Possible’.
132 I believe the example of EC01 shows how the ‘residual risks’ in the EES can be (and in this, have been) unjustifiably reduced.
8. Avoidance of Vegetation Removal
133 Whether removal of vegetation can be avoided in any particular part of North East Link typically depends on engineering or social constraints which I am not qualified to judge, just as civil engineers are not in a position to judge the social impacts or the importance of avoiding the vegetation removal. In this section, I put forward some potential opportunities for avoiding vegetation removal, to be considered alongside engineering and social constraints that I must leave to others.
8.1. Simpson Barracks
134 A substantial proportion of the project’s ecological impacts relate to the 10 hectares of native vegetation removal that is planned at Simpson Barracks. The vegetation there belongs to endangered EVCs. It contains an unusually large population of the globally G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 25
endangered Matted Flax-lily and smaller numbers of two other threatened species. It also raises the majority of the project’s issues under the EPBC Act.
135 The EES does not seem to explain why none of those problems can be avoided, despite the requirement to explain avoidance attempts in an ‘Avoid and minimise statement’ under the application requirements of clause 52.17. In the absence of such an explanation, I raise the point that any measures to avoid clearing at Simpson Barracks (e.g. by shifting works to the west or changing the type of tunnel from cut-and-cover) would yield substantial ecological benefits.
8.2. Excision of Certain Areas from Works
136 Figure 11 of Technical Report Q provides the locations of the many ‘habitat zones’ of native vegetation that have been individually assessed for the EES, including ‘large trees’. Table 28 provides the ‘habitat score’ of each habitat zone.
137 While perusing these parts of Technical Report Q, I noticed that three habitat zones with among the highest habitat scores in the whole investigation were peripheral to the reference design. On referring to the Map Book, I could see no reason why habitat zones that have such high habitat scores and are apparently peripheral to the project need to be at risk from the project.
138 The three habitat zones in question are:
• Habitat zone 81-M at Willsmere Billabong;
• Habitat zone 104-F at Elgar Park; and
• Habitat zone 131-S at Mont Albert North.
139 I would hope that most or all of habitat zone 81-M at Willsmere Billabong can be saved. Not only does it have the highest condition score of anywhere in the project area but it also has two large trees and it belongs to an endangered Ecological Vegetation Class. I gather from the EES ‘Map Book’ that habitat zone 81-M is placed within the project area to provide access for the construction of the proposed busway to its south. Under the reference design, habitat zone 81-M will not be occupied by new road infrastructure.
140 Habitat zone 104-F at Elgar Park and 131-S at Mont Albert North habitat zone are in similar situations. Not only do they share the second-highest condition score in the project area but they both belong to endangered Ecological Vegetation Classes. In addition, habitat zone 104-F has two large trees. Habitat zone 131-S appears from the EES ‘Map Book’ to be included within the project area to facilitate the re-routing of a shared path to its edge. Habitat zone 104-F lies within an area destined for construction of drainage features, as is the abutting oval. I hope and believe that the proposed works could be done without destroying habitat zones 104-F and 131-S.
141 I recommend careful reconsideration about whether habitat zones 81-M, 131-S and 104-F need to be within the project area. If engineering requirements allow, the project boundary G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 26
could be moved slightly to exclude zone 81-M and 131-S. Habitat zone 104-F is less peripheral; perhaps at least part of it could be made a ‘no-go’ zone.
8.3. The ‘Caltex Tree’
142 I assume that I need not provide a description of the importance of the ‘Caltex tree’ beside Manningham Road near Bridge Street, Bulleen. I am concerned that inadequate attention has been given to avoiding the destruction of the tree.
143 I was informed at an informal meeting with NELP’s experts on 8th July 2019 that the reference design for North East Link involves works 6 m from the trunk, meaning that root severance would put the tree in ‘a very precarious position’. I was encouraged that the threat is not greater; there has already been excavation closer than 6 m from the trunk for the construction of Manningham Road and the adjacent service station. It makes me think that, with only a quite modest adjustment to the reference design, the 6 m margin might be increased to beyond the Tree Protection Zone.
144 Of course, I am in no position to discuss the engineering feasibility of such an idea. However, I would like it to be considered, with a view toward making a ‘no-go’ zone that covers a Tree Protection Zone around the tree. Note that the shape of a Tree Protection Zone does not have to be circular, allowing some flexibility in designing works.
9. Omitted and Unassessed Values of Flora and Fauna
145 I contend that the EES has considered an unjustifiably narrow range of values and benefits that flora and fauna embody.
146 Item 31 of the IAC’s Terms of Reference is extremely broad in the type of environmental effects that the IAC must report on. It requires findings about the acceptability of environmental outcomes not just in regard to specific regulatory requirements but also in regard to relevant policy, best practice and the principles and objectives of ecologically sustainable development.
147 Those principles and objectives of ecologically sustainable development are stated on page 3 of the ‘Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environ- ment Effects Act 1978’. The objectives are again broad:
‘(a) to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations;
‘(b) to provide for equity within and between generations;
‘(c) to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life- support systems.’ G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 27
148 I would therefore expect the North East Link EES to take a similarly broad perspective of the environmental values in and near the project area, including such things as wellbeing and intergenerational equity. I do not find that to be the case, as I will explain.
149 The Victorian Government’s recognition of the values of flora and fauna are expressed in its 2017 biodiversity strategy titled ‘Protecting Victoria's Environment – Biodiversity 2037’, along with its ‘Supporting Technical Supplement’. I will refer to this strategy as ‘the state biodiversity strategy’ in what follows. It is the ‘Flora and Fauna Guarantee Strategy’ for the purposes of section 17 of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.
150 Biodiversity is the range of species, communities and genetic diversity of flora, fauna and other organisms, as well as the interactions between them.
151 The state biodiversity strategy falls within what are described as ‘State policies’ on pp. 18– 19 of the EES Scoping Requirements. Page 22 of Technical Report Q says it ‘is implemented in this ecology impact assessment to identify biodiversity characteristics within the study area of greatest value and informs the decision-making process for the EES’. However, I can find no reference to the strategy anywhere else in the EES and I cannot see how it has been implemented. Most of the ‘biodiversity characteristics’ that I would have expected to appear in Technical Report Q and Chapter 25 are absent.
152 Chapters 1 and 4 of the state biodiversity strategy describe the range of values that the Victorian Government recognises to be provided by biodiversity. Some of those values (e.g. Aboriginal culture, tourism and economic benefits) are outside my expertise, so I will say no more about them. The values that I can address can be summarised and categorised as follows:
A. Ecosystem services such as shade, wind reduction, erosion control, pollination, carbon sequestration and purification of air and water;
B. Human health (physical and mental): ‘The health benefits experienced from contact with nature have been linked to increased work productivity, faster recovery rates from surgery, lowering blood pressure, mitigating the symptoms of hyperactivity disorder, mitigating disease, fewer medications, and a strengthened immune system’. (This list is far from exhaustive.);
C. Childhood development of ‘core skills, including observation, problem-solving, reasoning, creativity and imagination, along with emotional and intellectual development and the acquisition of gross motor skills, such as agility, coordination, and balance’;
D. Contributions to the liveability and resilience of our cities and society;
E. Enrichment of our lives, which could be alternatively expressed in terms like wellbeing, quality of life or amenity;
F. Natural heritage, i.e. nature’s contribution to our sense of place and identity as Victorians; passing on natural assets and humanity’s connection with them from generation to generation; G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 28
G. Responsibility to other species: Altruistic recognition that humanity should respect the existence of the millions of other species on Earth and the ecosystems they form, independently of any practical benefit that humanity may derive from them. This relates to protection of species, communities and habitats for their own sakes, particularly those regarded as threatened.
153 My items E and F are sometimes combined; e.g. the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-gin Birrarung murron) Act 2017 defines ‘amenity’ as ‘the features of the Yarra River and its parklands that engage community connection with nature, culture and heritage and enhance community health and wellbeing, whether through tangible or intangible means’.
154 Note the concordance of these values with the objectives of ecologically sustainable development that I quoted at paragraph 147 from the Ministerial Guidelines.
155 I take items A to G above to lie within the ‘biodiversity values’ referred to in Section 4.6 of the EES Scoping Requirements. The first of the ‘Key issues’ in Section 4.6 is ‘Potential for significant effects on biodiversity values including effects associated with changes in hydrology or hydrogeology (including under future climate change scenarios) or threatening processes listed under the FFG Act’. The second dot-point on p. 19 of the Scoping Requirements is ‘Describe the threats posed directly or indirectly by the project to biodiversity values, consistent with State policies’.
156 For each of the categories of biodiversity values I have labelled A to G above, I believe the EES should have recognised them, assessed their current conditions and the risks of impacts upon them, avoided or minimised the impacts and developed appropriate protections such as Environmental Performance Measures (EPRs).
157 However, I find that many biodiversity values have been omitted altogether in the EES and some others are recognised (sometimes scantly) but not assessed.
158 The biodiversity values that appear to have been omitted altogether are:
A. Ecosystem services (in part): Wind reduction, erosion control and pollination; also shade within the 52 hectares of native vegetation that is planned for removal. I acknowledge that the EES does recognise ecosystem services in regard to carbon sequestration, air quality, surface water quality5 and planted ‘amenity trees’ over 3 m tall outside the 52 hectares of native vegetation that is planned for removal;
C. Childhood development – all aspects;
D. Liveability and resilience, except in the very limited context of a single sentence: ‘When considered as a whole population rather than individual trees, Melbourne’s urban forest is a critical civic asset that directly determines our liveability, improves human health and wellbeing and helps our city become more resilient in the face of climate change, particularly in coping with urban heat islands’ (Technical Report G, p. 1). That sentence only applies to planted ‘amenity trees’ over 3 m tall outside the 52 hectares of native vegetation that is planned for removal; and
5 The contribution of vegetation to water quality is only superficially recognised – see p. 94 of Technical Report P. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 29
E. Enrichment of lives (excluding visual amenity): such things as the simple joys of seeing birds, flowers, the passing of seasons, or sitting beneath trees and enjoying the dappled light and birds among the greenery. These are the same things that attract people to parks, ‘green and leafy’ neighbourhoods and participation in ‘planting days’.
159 In addition, even though the contribution of biodiversity to human health (my biodiversity value B) is well recognised in Section 10.6 of Technical Report J, there has been no assessment of its current status, risks from North East Link or appropriate responses (avoidance, mitigation or compensation). I provide more information about that below.
160 The neglect of certain biodiversity values could be accepted if they are minor within the North East Link study areas or if no material impact is likely. However, I do not regard the omissions I have identified in paragraphs 158 and 159 as being minor. Within the constraints that arise from the EES’s absence of information about these biodiversity values, I offer the following information about the importance or potential importance of the omissions:
A Shade and wind reduction: The planned and potential removal of native vegetation totals approximately 52 hectares of native vegetation, 26,000 ‘amenity trees’ and all the understorey that grows with the 26,000 ‘amenity trees’. I expect the removal of so much vegetation will materially increase wind speed in and near the affected area, including parks, streets and homes outside the project area. I also expect it to significantly reduce the availability of shade in places where people receive a great deal of benefit from it, such as in the affected parks. These impacts may vanish by 2045 if the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (EPR AR3) is successful and if understorey is included to improve wind moderation, but that is 26 years from now. I think these matters should have been considered.
B. Human health: I accept the EES’s characterisation of the strong link between health and contact with nature/biodiversity in Section 10.6 of Technical Report J. Similar characterisations appear in the state biodiversity strategy and the 2017 ‘Victorian Memorandum for Health and Nature’ created by the Victorian ministers for health and environment. With that background, I cannot understand why Technical Report J did not assess North East link’s opportunities for contact with nature before or after the project, or the resultant health outcomes. In the absence of such an analysis, I can see no justification for the claim on p. 172 that, ‘As a result, the potential for significant impacts on the health of the local community is considered low’. With so little information being provided, I would have thought that the impacts could be serious enough that the Precautionary Principle should apply, in line with paragraph (3)(b) on p. 3 of the ‘Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’.
C. Childhood development: I think it is important to consider the extent of vegetation loss mentioned above alongside the number of children who live in the catchment area of parks whose vegetation and fauna will be affected. I have observed that families with children are major visitors of the vegetated parklands affected by North East Link. Whitehorse City Council advised me that it runs a ‘Bike It’ program for children to ride through the treed parklands in and near Elgar Park. Boroondara City Council advised me that it has run ‘Nature Play’ programs at Willsmere Park and that school groups use G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 30
vegetated areas affected by North East Link. Examples of affected parks include Koonung Creek Reserve, Koonung Creek Linear Park and Willsmere Park. A toddler who might be adversely affected by the reduced opportunities to play and learn in a semi- natural environment when the construction phase begins might have children of their own by the time the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan achieves its goal in 2045. Numerous cohorts of children will be affected in the interim, hopefully to decreasing degrees as the years go by and the replacement vegetation matures. I cannot see that such a prospect is so minor as to justify its omission from the EES.
161 I do not feel adequately qualified to provide expert evidence on the possible importance of the omission from the EES of impacts on my biodiversity values D (liveability and resilience) or E (enrichment of lives). Nevertheless, it does not seem to me that those impacts are so unlikely to be consequential that their omission from the EES is justified. My concerns in this regard are strengthened by the fact that the Ministerial Guidelines and the state biodiversity strategy identify these values as important.
10. Compensation for Vegetation Loss
162 The compensation that the EES proposes for lost flora, fauna and associated benefits falls into two categories:
• For native vegetation regulated under clause 52.17, ‘offsets’ calculated by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning; and
• For trees over 3 m tall that are excluded from the above, the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (TCRP) of EPR AR3.
163 My main concern about each of these is that they are quite inadequate to compensate for the loss that North East Link will cause. I also see flaws in the details of what they propose.
10.1. Summary
164 I have already mentioned in my Sections 4–9 a range of reasons why the proposed compensation for the adverse impacts to the local ecological and human communities is inadequate. Here is a summary list:
• Compensation is owed for the loss of plants that do not fit either dot point above, i.e. understorey plants in the 150–200 hectares of vegetation removal outside the 52 hectares treated under clause 52.17 (my Section 4.4);
• Vegetation removal has been overlooked in regard to ancillary works for displaced sports facilities (my Section 4.1.1) and the expected need of Simpson Barracks to construct a new firebreak and/or vehicle access (Section 4.1.2); G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 31
• Fragmentation and other causes of ecological degradation have hardly been considered, contrary to the Scoping Requirements and some overlay provisions (Sections 4.1.2, 4.2 and 4.3);
• Compensation is owed for the biodiversity values of native vegetation that are not considered under clause 52.17, such as human health and child development (my paragraphs 160–161);
• The applicable planning overlays’ expectations for compensation (e.g. through a land management plan) have not been met (Section 5.1);
• Inadequate allowance has been made for uncertainty in the groundwater modelling and its consequences for trees and the cycles of wetting and drying of wetlands (Section 6);
• No specific offsets are proposed for loss of threatened species other than the Grey- headed Flying-fox (Section 5.2.1), except arguably in connection with the EPBC Act; and
• Even if the native vegetation offsets currently proposed were to meet the statutory planning requirements, there are obligations on the project to go further (Section 5.2).
165 In addition:
• I believe the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (TCRP) does not fully compensate for the loss of ‘amenity trees’. I explain why in Section 10.2; and
• I am concerned that much of the native vegetation offsets will be remote from North East Link, thereby not compensating the local community and local environment for their losses. I elaborate in Section 10.4.
166 Note that some of these points relate to ‘amenity trees’, some to native vegetation under clause 52.17 and some to other understorey vegetation.
167 It is beyond my capacity as an expert witness to quantify the additional compensation that would redress the inadequacies that I have documented. The additional compensation would take various forms, such as planting, land management and provision of childhood development opportunities.
168 I think the ‘Caltex tree’ provides a good example to explain the inadequacy of the proposed offsets. Despite all the tree’s acknowledged significant attributes, the only proposed compensation for the loss of the tree is seed collection, replacement with new trees (losing perhaps 300 years of growth) and the regulatory offset, which I estimate to be approximately 0.014 ‘general units’. That many general units can be bought for roughly $2,000, which is trifling compared with the value of the tree.
10.2. Tree Replacement
169 I was informed at an informal meeting with NELP’s experts on 8th July 2019 that the TCRP is proposed to replace ‘amenity trees’ on a two-for-one basis. The replacement of a mature tree with two new trees still leaves a deficit of decades of growth. Trees planted following G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 32
North East Link’s construction will (in the case of eucalypts) still be in the early part of their lives in 2045, whereas the trees they are replacing would (but for their removal) be 25 years older than they are now – some of them over 55 years old. The younger trees planted in the TCRP will be generally inferior as habitat for fauna such as birds, microbats, Sugar Gliders and insects. They also lack the majesty, interest, aesthetics and childhood development values of larger, older trees. A net gain in canopy cover does not account for these matters.
170 Taking into account these matters and the quarter-century wait until 2045 when a net gain in canopy cover might be achieved, I believe there is a sound basis for additional compensation for the loss of tree canopy. However, I would caution against over-planting. A large proportion of the revegetation projects I see suffer badly from trees (mainly eucalypts) being planted so close together that they cannot all grow to maturity, and the excessive competition for sunlight, soil moisture and nutrients stunts and distorts the growth of the trees and the plants growing beneath them (other than winter-annual weeds, which are encouraged). High quality is much better than high tree density. I recommend that these matters be addressed in the contractual specifications for the TCRP.
171 A suitable way for the TCRP to mandate a particular level of compensation without leading to overplanting would be for the relevant EPR to specify the area to be planted and the density of trees surviving after (say) five years. To provide adequate compensation in line with my comments above, the area to be planted would have to exceed the area of tree cover that is removed. I understand the latter area is in the process of being quantified.
172 It should be kept in mind that I have proposed that the TCRP be expanded to address understorey planting, as discussed at my paragraphs 65 & 66.
10.3. Offsets Under Clause 52.17
173 I mentioned in paragraph 97 that I was told at an informal meeting with NELP’s experts on 8th July 2019 that the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has revised the offsets for North East Link. I understand that the number of ‘general units’ has increased by roughly 15% and the former requirement for species-specific offsets has been reduced from five species to just for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. I was told that there is still no requirement for specific offsets for the other threatened species that are accepted to occur within the project area (see my Section 5.2.1).
174 I gather that the department’s revised offsets have not resulted from any change in the amount or nature of the vegetation to be offset.
175 When I asked what was the cause of the changes, one of NELP’s experts said that one never knows what offsets the department will come up with for a large infrastructure project and that the absence of specific offsets for the Matted Flax-lily was hard to comprehend. No- one at the meeting had an explanation for the changes.
176 I believe there should be greater transparency about the process by which the department has calculated (and apparently recalculated) the offsets. I think good governance demands G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 33
it, as it involves one part of government implementing regulatory requirements on another part of government.
10.4. Proximity of Offsets
177 It is beyond my capacity as an expert witness to know how much of the offsets under clause 52.17 can be achieved in proximity to the lost vegetation but I expect much of it will be distant. I regard proximity as important, as distant offsets do not compensate the local flora and fauna or the local human community affected by the loss.
178 A related issue arises from the Yarra River Protection (Wilip-Gin Birrarung Murron) Act 2017, which is cited in the EES Scoping Requirements. Section 9(4) of the Act includes the environmental principle that ‘There should be a net gain for the environment in the area of Yarra River land arising out of any individual action or policy that has an environmental impact on Yarra River land’. In this context, ‘Yarra River land’ extends 500 m each side of the top of the banks of the Yarra River, from the upper catchment to Fishermans Bend. That includes parts of the North East Link project area in Kew East, Bulleen and Heidelberg. To meet the environmental principle just cited, North East Link’s offsets (and any additional environmental compensation) would need to provide a net gain on other Yarra River Land. Again, I would recommend that the compensation be in close proximity to the areas being cleared but I am unsure of the opportunities available.
179 I note that Technical Report Q claims an exemption from the Act but the Act is nevertheless cited in the Scoping Requirements.
180 Note that the offsets under clause 52.17 are only intended to achieve ‘no net loss to biodiversity’, as distinct from the ‘net gain for the environment’ mentioned for Yarra River land. The definition of ‘environment’ in the Act is ‘the physical factors of the surroundings of human beings including the land, waters, atmosphere, climate, sound, odours, tastes, the biological factors of animals and plants and the social factor of aesthetics’.
11. Environmental Performance Requirements
181 In regard to EPRs, I wish to make a general observation and then I will address specific EPRs.
182 In my former role as a Council officer involved with strategic and statutory planning, I was regularly involved with planning permit conditions being subject ‘to the satisfaction of the responsible authority’. In my experience, the use of alternative phrases like ‘to the extent practicable’, ‘as far as practicable’ and ‘where practicable’ (all of which appear in the EPRs) open the way for poor compliance and dispute over levels of practicability.
183 I note that the phrase, ‘to the satisfaction of’, appears in EPR FF7 and the phrase, ‘as required by NELP’ appears in EMF2. I would have thought the inclusion of such phrases in other EPRs was desirable, rather than the frequent references to practicability. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 34
184 Apart from that general comment, most aspects of the EPRs related to fauna and flora (including trees) appear to meet best practice and satisfy regulatory requirements and policies. The exceptions are as follows:
• AR2 – In my experience, it can take more than two years for mature, damaged trees to show clear signs of needing attention or replacement. That is particularly the case if the two years provide good or benign climatic conditions and are followed by a more stressful period. I recommend extending the two-year monitoring period to at least three years and preferably more, at least in the case of trees above a certain trunk diameter (say, 0.3 m dbh);
• AR3 – I find the specifications for the Tree Canopy Replacement Plan (TCRP) to be far too sketchy to base contract conditions upon. I have discussed other aspects that I would like changed about the TCRP in my paragraph 65 and Section 10.2. An additional matter is that a target set for 2045 seems unenforceable in a practical sense. For contractual purposes, I recommend specifications involving the size of the area to be planted and the density of surviving plants in each life form category (tree, large shrub etc.) five or ten years after planting;
• FF2 – Avoidance: If at all possible in view of engineering constraints, I recommend that ‘no-go’ zones be specified for the ‘Caltex tree’ and the three habitat zones I discussed in Section 8.2, viz. 81-M, 104-F and 131-S. An alternative response to the habitat zones would be to excise them from the project area;
• FF2 – Minimisation: For a planning permit, the responsible authority normally decides whether vegetation removal has been adequately minimised. FF2 is silent on who will judge it. I recommend consideration of FF2 including a phrase such as ‘to the satisfaction of NELP’;
• FF2 – Offsetting: As will be clear from my Section 9, I find the proposal to offset the loss of native vegetation according to the minimum level of the ‘Guidelines’ document to be quite inadequate.
• FF6 – The last sentence is ‘Where the survival of Groundwater Dependent Large Trees is predicted to be affected based on groundwater modelling outputs, offsets must be obtained…’. I recommend that it be changed to something along the following lines: ‘Where groundwater modelling and inferred changes to the wetting and drying cycles of wetlands imply impacts on wetland flora or Groundwater Dependent Large Trees, mitigation measures such as environmental watering and revision of the Groundwater Management Plan should be implemented. To the extent that such measures fail or are unavailable, offsets must be obtained in accordance with EPR FF2’. My reference here to mitigation measures parallels the reference to contingency measures in EPRs GW4 and GW5.
To deal with the combined impacts of climate change and groundwater drawdown on wetlands, I recommend that the Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan be augmented with monitoring and reporting the wetting and drying cycles of groundwater-dependent wetlands at Banyule Swamp, Bolin Bolin Billabong and the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex; G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 35
• GW1 and GW2 – I am concerned that the combined effects of climate change and groundwater drawdown have not been considered regarding the specifications for the groundwater model (GW1) or the monitoring (GW2). Groundwater monitoring for only two years after construction seems too short for this purpose, given the time scale of climate change. I recommend increasing the duration and adding a requirement that if the monitoring shows the prior predictions to have been inaccurate, the groundwater model must be revised or replaced. Not being a groundwater modeller, I am uncertain about the feasibility of revising or replacing the model.
185 In the time available for this statement, I am unable to propose EPRs for the values of flora and fauna that have not been assessed (Section 9), such as childhood development and human health. To illustrate the sort of measures I have in mind, I see the loss of opportunities for children to engage with nature being compensated with: (a) facilities along the lines of the Children’s Garden at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne (which could be functional within a few years); and (b) increased programs and support for pre- school and primary school children, e.g. ‘Nature Play’ and ‘Leap into Nature’. Impacts on health could be mitigated in comparable ways, which would be supportive of the 2017 ‘Victorian Memorandum for Health and Nature’ between the Victorian ministers for health and environment.
12. Secondary Issues
12.1. ‘Native Vegetation’ versus ‘Amenity Plantings’
186 I disagree with a few of the decisions that have been made in the EES about classifying planted vegetation as ‘Amenity plantings’ (in which case, only trees have been assessed) or what the EES calls ‘native vegetation’ (as opposed to the definition in planning law). As explained above, there are substantial differences between the compensation proposed for vegetation losses in the two categories.
187 However, the extent of the vegetation whose classification I disagree with is small and the consequences are far less than the issues surrounding compensation that I discuss in Section 9. I will therefore say no more on this topic.
12.2. Threatened Species
188 This section details my concerns about the EES’s treatment of threatened species, secondary to those expressed in Sections 5.2.1 and 10.3.
12.2.1. River Swamp Wallaby-grass
189 River Swamp Wallaby-grass grows in wetlands. The only records of its existence in the Melbourne area in recent decades are in the mud of billabongs at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex (within the project area), Bolin Bolin Billabong (just west of the project G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 36
area), Annulus Billabong (just north of Bolin Bolin Billabong) and Banyule Billabong (just east of the project area).
190 The species can remain unseen for years, hidden by other plants prior to a flood, then underwater until the wetland starts to dry out. The plants can then become more exposed but they are prone to be grazed by waterbirds such as Wood Ducks, causing them to remain hard to detect. Before long, other species such as Spear Thistle typically become dense and obscure the River Swamp Wallaby-grass. When the wetland dries out thoroughly, River Swamp Wallaby-grass tends to die back to its underground organs until the next flood.
191 Contrary to EES Technical Report Q, periods of detectability for River Swamp Wallaby-grass do not coincide with particular seasons of the year; they depend on when floods occur. Technical Report Q states that a targeted survey was conducted in December 2018 ‘during the flowering/fruiting season for the species … when plants were known to be in flower in areas where the species had been previously recorded within or adjacent to the project boundary’. In fact, the only prior records of the species within or adjacent to the project area were in mid-August 2007 at Trinity Grammar Wetlands B and D.
192 It is no wonder that GHD failed to detect any River Swamp Wallaby-grass in their targeted survey in summer 2018, during a drought and at the wrong stage of the flood cycle.
193 I find the EES’s dismissal of potential impacts on River Swamp Wallaby-grass glib. Page 211 of EES Technical Report Q states, ‘Despite its assumed presence within the project boundary at Trinity Grammar wetland B, River Swamp Wallaby-grass is not expected to be significantly impacted as the majority of suitable habitat falls within areas not being directly impacted by the project’s surface works’. (A very similar statement appears on p. 25-25 of the EES.) I fail to understand the logic behind this sentence’s contention that the species is not expected to be significantly impacted. Does ‘the majority of suitable habitat’ refer to the whole range of the species, most of which is along the Murray River? Whatever the area, does the majority of the habitat have to be impacted before one classifies the impact as significant? Should one not consider indirect impacts and tunnelling works, not just direct effects from surface works? The potential indirect impacts from groundwater drawdown could be substantial, as discussed in Section 98 (p. 20). Finally, only a tiny fraction of the world’s ‘suitable habitat’ of River Swamp Wallaby-grass actually contains that species, so it is quite wrong to dismiss known locations like Trinity Grammar Wetlands B and D on the basis that they represent less than the majority of ‘suitable habitat’.
194 Page 104 of EES Technical Report Q describes Trinity Grammar Wetlands B and D as ‘poor quality habitat’ for River Swamp Wallaby-grass. No evidence is given for that claim and I doubt that there is any. The habitat certainly wasn’t that poor when the species was seen in Wetland B and Wetland D during the previous flora survey in 2007. For my own part, I have not seen the wetlands from inside the school’s fence because I do not have permission to enter.
195 The cycles of flooding and drying of Wetlands B and D could be changed by North East Link, which would involve the construction of a cut-and-cover tunnel between the wetlands and the Yarra River. ‘Changing water regimes’ is one of three main threats to the species, according to the ‘Species Profile and Threats Database’ website for the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act’. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 37
196 Commensurate with my greater concern about the risk faced by River Swamp Wallaby- grass compared with the EES, I believe there should be greater contingency measures. In particular, I recommend that EPR FF6 be expanded to cover River Swamp Wallaby-grass and the overall habitat of groundwater-dependent wetlands, not just ‘Groundwater Dependent Large Trees’. (Below, I also recommend explicitly mentioning Short Water- starwort.)
12.2.2. Short Water-starwort
197 The Short Water-starwort is a tiny plant that was recorded in 2007 at ‘Wetland D’ at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex, just outside the project area. Like the River Swamp Wallaby-grass, the Short Water-starwort lives on periodically inundated ground following floods and it is very hard to detect except under specific circumstances. It differs in that it is an annual and its only known occurrences throughout history across the whole world are at Trinity Grammar Wetland D (2007), two or three locations in the Plenty River valley (including Banyule Swamp), the Otway Ranges, a 1983 record from Wilsons Promontory and scattered records from Tasmania.
198 The EES gives the Short Water-starwort a ‘moderate’ likelihood of occurrence within the project area, reduced from ‘high’ on the basis that it was not found in a December 2018 field survey. However, the field survey proves hardly anything because the phase of the flood cycle was not conducive to detection. This was acknowledged to some degree on p. 138 of EES Technical Report Q, which says the following about the survey’s non-detection of Short Water-starwort and the related Winged Water-starwort: ‘During the current study, these species were not observed but this may have been due to the temporal variation in the wet-dry cycles or due to the high-level nature of the investigation conducted at Warringal Parklands and Banyule Flats’. I interpret the reference to ‘temporal variation in the wet-dry cycles’ as code for ‘the survey was done during the wrong part of the cycle between floods’.
199 I therefore think there remains a high (or perhaps moderate to high) likelihood that Short Water-starwort remains at the Trinity Grammar wetlands and Banyule Swamp.
200 My comments in Section 12.2.1 about contingency measures for the River Swamp Wallaby- grass apply also to the Short Water-starwort.
12.2.3. Studley Park Gum
201 The Studley Park Gum is a poorly-defined subset of the hybrids between the common eucalypts, River Red Gum and Swamp Gum. It is on the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s ‘Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014’ as ‘endangered’. It is not classified as threatened by the Royal Botanic Gardens of Victoria. It cannot truly be regarded as threatened with extinction because both parent species are abundant and the hybrid could arise sporadically or from deliberate cross-pollination even if every existing one were to die. This argument is used in the international ‘Red List’ criteria for assessing threatened species to specifically exclude hybrids. Nevertheless, Studley Park Gums are of scientific interest for the reasons given at p. 105 of EES Technical Report Q and p. 1 of the ‘North East Link Studley Park Gum Surveys Report’ of June 2019. The stand at G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 38
Simpson Barracks is of particular significance because it is one of (if not the) largest known stand of Studley Park Gums.
202 Page 25-25 of the EES states, ‘To further mitigate impacts on Studley Park Gum, seed would be collected from individuals within the project boundary and propagated in a nursery. Propagated plants would then be incorporated into project landscaping (EPR AR3)’. This is very simplistic. Efforts to propagate Studley Park Gum at Yarra Bend Park demonstrated years ago that the hybrid does not breed true except for a tiny proportion of offspring. Soon after germination, some of the offspring can be recognised as either throw-backs or more complicated hybrids that do not match their parents. Others may take five years before it can be seen that they do not match their parents. True Studley Park Gums might more commonly arise from seed produced by one or other of the two parent species, not from seed of Studley Park Gums.
203 I therefore recommend that the IAC not rely on the proposed propagation and planting of Studley Park Gums to conserve the hybrids.
204 I also urge caution regarding the statements in the ‘North East Link Studley Park Gum Surveys Report’ of June 2019 that one to three Studley Park Gums outside the project area may be affected by groundwater drawdown. The targeted survey within the project area at Simpson Barracks increased the number of known, mature individuals detected from 8 to 43. No targeted survey of Studley Park Gums is claimed to have been done outside the project area, so some individuals outside the project area have probably escaped detection. I believe it is rash to rely on the original, clearly deficient survey to quantify impacts on retained Studley Park Gums.
12.2.4. Other ‘Advisory List’ Species
205 Page 25 of Technical Report Q states that the EES has not considered flora species whose threat rating in the DELWP ‘Advisory List’ is ‘poorly known’. The reason stated for excluding these species is that ‘the current knowledge of their distribution and abundance is not sufficient to determine whether these species should be considered as rare or threatened in Victoria’. That is misleading. The actual definition of the ‘poorly known’ category in the ‘Advisory List’ is ‘poorly known and suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to one of the above categories [extinct, endangered, vulnerable or rare] within Victoria’. Many species in the ‘poorly known’ category are undoubtedly rarer than many in the ‘rare’ category. Three such species occur in or very close to the North East Link project area:
• Anthosachne kingiana subsp. multiflora (a kind of wheat-grass), which grows on the bank of Willsmere Billabong and several other places near the northern edge of the Eastern Freeway in Kew East;
• Green-top Sedge (Carex chlorantha), which is recorded at Bolin Bolin Billabong; and
• The Native Peppercress, Lepidium pseudohyssopifolium, which is scattered around the edges of most billabongs in the vicinity of North East Link, such as Willsmere Billabong, Kew Golf Club, Burke Road Billabong and the billabong between the Freeway Golf Course and the aeromodellers’ field. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 39
206 I believe GHD should have acknowledged that these ‘poorly known’ species are suspected to be rare or threatened with good reason, and that a precautionary approach should have been applied rather than ignoring the species simply due to the absence of complete scientific knowledge. The species are not included in the ‘Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants’ without reason.
207 In addition, the omission of ‘poorly known’ flora species in the DELWP Advisory List appears to conflict with the EES Scoping Requirements. Page 18 of the EES Scoping Requirements includes the following specification for characterising the existing environment:
‘Identify both habitat utilised by listed fauna and the existing or likely presence of vegetation under the FFG Act or DELWP Advisory list within the project area, associated works areas and in the broader area.’
208 No exception is made in this specification for ‘poorly known’ species, so I presume GHD have made a unilateral decision to exclude them from the EES.
209 I believe that the three ‘poorly known’ plant species above should be assessed using the risk-based approach adopted in the EES. An assessment can be made of the joint probability that a ‘poorly known’ species actually is threatened (as suspected) and will be significantly impacted by North East Link.
210 The ‘data deficient’ category of fauna is similar to the ‘poorly known’ category of plants except that it can (in principle) include species for which there is no suspicion of threat. (In practice, I believe the Victorian fauna advisory lists don’t include any species for which there is no suspicion of threat.) In my view, the EES should assess ‘data deficient’ vertebrate and invertebrate species within the study area. It would, of course, be open for GHD to explain why each affected species is under so little threat of extinction in Victoria that the decision to ignore them is justified.
211 In addition, GHD’s decision to omit ‘data deficient’, ‘conservation dependent’ and ‘near threatened’ fauna species from the report conflicts with the EES Scoping Requirements, which include the ‘Key issue’:
‘Potential for direct or indirect impact on vegetation and other landscape elements used by fauna listed under FFG Act or DELWP Advisory lists or by listed migratory species.’
212 An example of a species listed as ‘near threatened’ is the Nankeen Night Heron, which appears to move between Kew Golf Club (its main local roost), Kew Billabong and Hays Paddock.
Appendix: Summary Response to Item 4 of My Brief
213 The body of my statement is ordered in a way that I hope best serves the IAC. That order does not coincide with the order of the questions I was asked to address in Item 4 of my Letter of Instruction from Maddocks (Annexure B). This appendix provides brief, direct responses to Item 4 and cross-references to relevant parts of the body of my statement. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 40
214 (a) Does the EES adequately document and assess the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project? …
215 No. Although I found no fault with most of EES documents relating to my area of expertise, the EES is deficient in documenting and assessing the nature of the environmental effects in regard to: habitat fragmentation at the Trinity Grammar wetlands (Section 4.2); ecological degradation at Simpson Barracks (Section 4.1.2) and Kew Golf Club (Section 4.3); potential drying out of wetlands if groundwater modelling proves inaccurate (Section 6); potential exacerbation of climate change impacts on trees and wetlands by groundwater drawdown (Section 6.1); destruction of endangered EVCs (Section 7) and a range of beneficial uses of flora and fauna such as human health and childhood development (Section 9).
216 The EES is deficient in documenting and assessing the extent of the project’s environmental effects in terms of area and species because it omits: vegetation clearing for works ancillary to the project, including relocation of sport facilities in Bulleen (Section 4.1.1); replacement of an existing firebreak, road and/or vehicle tracks at Simpson Barracks (Section 4.1.2); removal of understorey plants in the 150–200 hectares of so-called ‘amenity plantings’ planned to be removed (Section 4.4); potential loss of wetland plants (including threatened species) if the groundwater modelling proves to be inaccurate (Section 6); and potential impacts on certain species in the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning’s ‘Advisory Lists’ of rare or threatened species (Section 12.2.4). If ‘extent’ is taken to embrace ‘magnitude’, I must add that the EES is flawed because it understates risks (Section 7) and potential impacts upon the River Swamp Wallaby-grass and Short Water-starwort (Section 12.2).
217 (b) Can the Project as described in the EES achieve a level of environmental performance which is consistent with relevant legislation, documented and endorsed policy or acknowledged best practice?
218 The EES’s proposals regarding flora and fauna (including ‘amenity plantings’) do not achieve even statutory compliance (Section 5), which needs to be addressed for the project to become compliant. A level of environmental performance consistent with policy (including the state biodiversity strategy and the Ministerial Guidelines under the EE Act) will require consideration of the beneficial uses of biodiversity discussed in Section 9. In many respects, the EES adopts best-practice approaches but the implementation of those approaches has been impaired by the omissions and flaws identified in my statement.
219 (c) If [not], are there any recommendations that you would make as to specific measures which you consider necessary and/or appropriate…?
220 Many recommendations are contained throughout the body of my statement. Where I am uncertain about feasibility, I say so. Otherwise, I am confident about my recommendations. G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 41
221 (d) How does the Project as described in the EES respond to the principles and objectives of “ecologically sustainable development” as defined in the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (2006)?
222 I have considerable doubts about the project’s ability to meet any of the three objectives of ecologically sustainable development, insofar as flora and fauna are concerned.
223 The first objective is ‘to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations’. The EES pays little if any attention to these matters and there are no proposals to specifically minimise or mitigate impacts on them (Section 9).
224 The second objective is ‘to provide for equity within and between generations’. I contend that: (a) there needs to be more mitigation of impacts on children (Sections 9 and 11); (b) some of the native vegetation offsets are likely to be remote from the affected community; (c) natural heritage has not been adequately assessed and the project will diminish it for future generations, as illustrated by the lack of consideration of protecting the ‘Caltex tree’ and the trifling compensation being proposed for its removal (Sections 9 and 10.3); and (d) the project materially increases the likelihood of extinction of Matted Flax-lily, River Swamp Wallaby-grass, Short Water-starwort and Veiled Fringe-sedge (Sections 5.2.1, 7, 12.2.1 and 12.2.2).
225 The extinction risks also affect the third objective of ecologically sustainable development, which is ‘to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life- support systems’.
226 Most of the principles of ecologically sustainable development are outside my area of expertise. However, the precautionary principle is relevant to consideration of the potentially serious and irreversible consequences of destruction of significant wetlands and threatened plant species that may attend ‘worst-case’ groundwater modelling.
227 (e) Are there any recommendations that you would make as to specific measures which you consider necessary and/or appropriate to improve the response of the Project to the principles and objectives of “ecologically sustainable development”?
228 My recommendations in this regard are to reconsider the planned removal of certain vegetation (Section 8), improve the compensation for vegetation loss (Section 10) and improve certain EPRs (Section 11). I have indicated where I have uncertainty about the feasibility of the recommendations. The reasoning for the recommendations appears in the same parts of my statement, underpinned at a more fundamental level by reasoning in Sections 5.2 and 9.
229 (f) To the extent that the content of the draft planning scheme amendment, works approval application or environmental performance requirements (EPRs) lies within your expertise, do you have any recommendations for changes that should be made to the draft planning G.S. Lorimer: Witness Statement re North East Link EES – Flora and Fauna Page 42
scheme amendment, works approval or planning approval and/or EPRs in order to improve the environmental outcome of the Project.
230 The works approval is not pertinent to matters of flora and fauna. My recommended changes to the EPRs are discussed in Section 11. As the draft planning scheme amendment would have the effect of removing planning controls, I have: (a) drawn attention in Section 5 to planning controls that have not been adequately assessed and would vanish under the amendment; and (b) recommended some changes to EPRs to bring them more in line with permit controls that would otherwise apply.
Declaration
231 I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.
15th July 2019 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Curriculum Vitæ GRAEME SCOTT LORIMER PhD, F.AirQual.
Born 1957, in Adelaide, South Australia.
Qualifications PhD 1983, Monash University, using mathematics, physics and computational hydrodynamic modelling to understand flow inside stars. BSc(Hons) 1979, Monash University High Distinctions in every undergraduate subject taken, including physics, chemistry, astronomy and various branches of mathematics. First Class Honours in Applied Mathematics – head of the class. F.AirQual. – Fellow of the Clean Air Society of Australia & New Zealand (CASANZ). Accredited by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning as a Vegetation Quality Assessor.
Professional Memberships • Member of the Ecological Society of Australia (which requires peer nomination and approval); • Member of the Ecological Consultants Association of Victoria; • Past president and vice president, Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association; • Federal Councillor of CASANZ, 1994-1998; • President, Secretary and committee member of CASANZ Victoria and Tasmania branch during the 1990s. • Member of the federal Peer Review Committee for the National Environment Protection Measure (Ambient Air Quality) from the committee’s inception in 1998 to cessation in 2010;
Awards • Inaugural winner, Banksia Environmental Award for Outstanding Individual (1991-2); • ‘Citizen of the Year’ award for Maroondah City Council, Victoria 2018; • Winner of the ‘Integrity’ award in Manningham City Council’s ‘Outstanding Achievement Awards’ 2006; • Environmental Achiever of the Year for 2001 in the Shire of Yarra Ranges; • Short-listed in 1996 for the Hopes of the Future award of the International Academy of Science and the International Union of Air Pollution Prevention & Environmental Protection Association; • Bronze award under the Responsible Care program of the US Chemical Manufacturer’s Association, 1994.
Present occupation
1988-present: Principal Environmental Scientist and Director, Biosphere Pty Ltd Biosphere Pty Ltd is an environmental science consultancy and research organisation based in Ringwood North, Victoria. Most work is in the fields of: botany; ecology; teaching botany and ecology; preparing biodiversity strategies; translating those strategies into planning amendments; monitoring flora and fauna; and assessing the populations and habitat needs for flora and fauna. Although now a minor part of the business, air pollution research, modelling, monitoring and assessment were formerly major aspects. The company was founded by Dr Lorimer in 1988. Some of the major projects are listed below:
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 1 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Representative Biological Projects • Lecturing on botany, ecology and land management, particularly in connection with grasses and wetlands, for various professional societies, government bodies and the natural resource management industry, every year since 1988; • ‘Biodiversity in Maroondah’ (2017–2019) – an assessment of biodiversity in the municipality of Maroondah with strategic and local-scale recommendations for conserving biodiversity for its intrinsic and human values. A public exposure draft of the 137-page Volume 1 is available at yoursay.maroondah.vic. gov.au/40256/documents/98661; • ‘Biodiversity in Glen Eira’ (2017–2018) – as above but for the municipality of Glen Eira; • A national taxonomic revision of the wallaby-grass genus, Rytidosperma, in Australia, 2012 onwards; • Nillumbik Shire Council, 2016 – Troubleshooting problems that had arisen with Nillumbik Amendment C101 to update planning provisions for Sites of Biological Significance; • Knox City Council, 2015–2016 – In consultation with Council planners, devise new Local Planning Policies, overlays and the Municipal Strategic Statement to strengthen recognition of biodiversity values (e.g. for community wellbeing), partly in response to state-level abandonment of the Native Vegetation Framework in the Victoria Planning Provisions; • Knox City Council, 2001-2004 and 2007-2012 – Major studies of native vegetation and all 118 sites of biological significance across the municipality, including survey work, consultation with Council and community, preparation of a 699-page report, leading the preparation of Knox Amendment C49 (adopted 2013) and many recommendations to Council involving town planning, conservation strategy and community education; • City of Boroondara, 2004-2006 – A major study of wild species of flora and fauna (indigenous and otherwise) in the municipality, as well as >60 sites where these species persist, the habitat features the indigenous species are relying on, the threats they face and the measures that can be taken to conserve them. Work included flora and fauna surveys, historical research, literature surveys, community consultation and community education; • Maroondah City Council, 1995-7 – A similar major study to the ones for Knox and Boroondara cited above, as well as many management plans for the council’s bushland reserves; • Maroondah City Council, 2016 – ‘Ecological Assessment of 118 Exeter Rd, Croydon North’, to advise the Council of the ecological merits and risks of prospective purchase and reservation of the land; • Parks Victoria, 2005 and Department of Sustainability & Environment, 2010 – Mapping, documenting and monitoring the only known populations of a rare shrub, the Shiny Nematolepis (Nematolepis wilsonii, Rutaceæ); • Maroondah City Council 2013 – Preparation of the ‘Management Plan for the Kilsyth South Spider- orchid’, involving a species that has only three known individuals left on Earth; • Since 2012, a taxonomic review of the genus Rytidosperma (wallaby-grasses) in Australia, involving describing new species, relegating some others and elucidating the distinctions between the 45 species involved; • ‘Locally Threatened Plants in Manningham (2010) – An assessment of the risk of local extinction of every plant species in Manningham municipality (excluding non-vascular species such as mosses and algae). One of the outcomes of this project was the recognition of locally threatened species in Manningham’s Environmental Significance Overlays (to which Dr Lorimer was a contributor); • Nillumbik & Yarra Ranges Shire Councils, 2009-2010 – Investigation and advice concerning the recovery of flora and fauna following the bushfires of Black Saturday (7th February 2009); • Knox City Council and Maroondah City Council, 2003-2012 – Assessment of the potential impact of proposed land developments according to the Victorian ‘Native Vegetation Framework’, and associated expert witness testimony; • Parks Victoria, 2002-3 – Vegetation mapping (Ecological Vegetation Classes and floristic communities); • SPI PowerNet, 2002 – Assessment of the potential impact of vegetation management practices in the context of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; • Dept of Natural Resources and Environment, 2001 – Assessments of bushland areas for inclusion in the departmental ‘BioSites’ inventory of sites of biological significance; • Several projects involving the establishment and ongoing conduct of ecological monitoring of native vegetation and habitat, for Knox City Council and Parks Victoria (1998-2007);
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 2 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
• Numerous bushland management plans for conservation parks (see references).
Representative Air Pollution Projects • National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation, 2002-3 – Advising the Peer Review Committee of the ambient air National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) about procedures for handling, analysing and reporting ambient air monitoring data; and also producing software (ANEPMAP) and documentation for those procedures; • Commissioner for the Environment, Victoria, 1991-2 – Principal author of the report ‘Air Quality Monitoring in Victoria’, in which the air monitoring data for Victoria were reviewed and the needs for future monitoring assessed (see Lorimer et al. (1992) under References); • Atmospheric dispersion modelling for licensing of many industrial discharge points; • Atmospheric dispersion modelling of accidental discharges from mining and industry (real and hypothetical), sometimes with associated court appearances; e.g. as principal technical advisor to Western Mining Corporation regarding a criminal prosecution for an alleged release of pollution at Kalgoorlie; • Assessment of potential air pollution impact of proposed major road developments (e.g. the Maroondah Highway Deviation at Lilydale (2003), the Yarra Glen Bypass Road (2000-2002) and City Link (1996-7)). Dr Lorimer is a pre-qualified consultant with VicRoads; • Cities of Stonnington and Yarra (inner Melbourne), 2000 to 2003 – Design, establishment, operation, analysis and reporting of ambient air monitoring conducted at four sites within several kilometres of the Burnley Tunnel vent stack, to assess the tunnel’s impact; • Environment Protection Authority of Victoria – Updating the Ausplume atmospheric dispersion model (which was originally written by Dr Lorimer in 1986); • National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, New Zealand, 1995-6 – Assessment and enhancement of the predictive ability of atmospheric plume models; • EG&G Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, Colorado, 1994 – Creation of a computerised, continuously operating system for tracking potential hazardous atmospheric releases, using a diagnostic wind field model devised by Dr Lorimer; • Chemical Manufacturers Association (Washington, D.C.), 1993-4 – Creation of a computer model of dispersion of dense, chemically reactive clouds or plumes of hazardous chemicals. Some of the other clients regarding air pollution have been: Australian Vinyls Federal Airports Corporation Baw Baw Shire Council Jackson McDonald, Lawyers BHP Iron Ore and BHP Engineering Louisiana Pigment Company Comalco Aluminium Ltd. Monash University Deakin University (lecturing) NEPC Service Corporation Dow Chemicals (Altona, Victoria) SCM Chemicals Ltd (Western Australia) Environment Protection Authority of Victoria Toyota Motor Corporation of Australia European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) VicRoads
Past Employment 2005-2008: Ecologist, Manningham City Council (part time). Responsible for developing and implementing programs for conserving nature, and providing technical guidance on: • Developing provisions for conserving natural habitats in the Manningham Planning Scheme and the Victoria Planning Provisions, such as new overlays (Amendment C54) and revision of Clause 52.17; • Implementing the Native Vegetation Framework through the Planning Scheme; • Monitoring trends in the extent and quality of native vegetation in Manningham; • Determining the location and function of wildlife corridors and how to facilitate wildlife movements; • Management of Council’s bushland reserves; and • Flora and fauna identification and survey work as needed in support of Council programs. 1989-1991: Partnership with Annette Muir (Landscape Architect and Horticulturist) preparing landscape designs for Swinburne Institute of Technology (Mooroolbark campus) and Shire of Lillydale (for Mt Dandenong Rd roadsides), and running a small indigenous nursery to provide plants for the roadside project.
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 3 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
1982-1988: Monash University (formerly Chisholm Institute of Technology). Employed initially as Research Officer, then Senior Research Scientist, specialising in air quality. Major projects undertaken: • Producing the Ausplume air quality model, adopted by several Australian state governments and ANZECC as the standard regulatory dispersion model for assessing applications for licences to emit air pollutants; • Developing the ‘Kernel Method’ for predicting air pollution associated with high-level point sources such as power stations and smelters. • (With other researchers) wind field modelling and development of a computer model for predicting air pollution in complex terrain caused by point sources. Funded by United States Forest Service and National Parks Service; • Development of a computer model for predicting urban air pollution (CO, NOx etc.) from traffic and diffuse sources. Funded by the Road Construction Authority of Victoria; • Use of the model above for projection and analysis of regional air quality in Gardiners Creek and Koonung/Mullum Mullum valleys in Australia (covering vehicle, residential, industrial and commercial sources of NOx and CO); • Lead researcher of a $96,000 project, ‘Validation of Air Pollution Dispersion Models’, funded by the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council, and state electricity authorities. Focused on Latrobe and Hunter Valleys in Australia; • Supervisor of a similar project focusing on experimental data from Illinois. The project was funded by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria; • Invited member of the Latrobe Valley Airshed Study; • An independent overseer of the Bayside Cleanup Project under contract to City of Port Melbourne; • Development of computer graphics software for scientific applications; • Mathematical and graphical analysis for ‘Project Aquarius’ at the National Centre for Rural Fire Research.
Pro Bono Positions • Honorary Associate of the Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne (for botanical research), 2013–; • Member of Maroondah City Council’s Environment Advisory Committee, 2014–2018; • Member of Maroondah City Council’s ‘Greening the Greyfields’ community panel, 2016–; • Member of the Trust for Nature’s Committee of Management for ‘Uambi’ in Heathmont, 2014–; • Treasurer of the Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association Inc, 2017–2018; • President of the Indigenous Flora and Fauna Association Inc, 2015–2017 (and formerly Vice President in 1988-91); • Supervisor of an undergraduate research project on plant taxonomy at Deakin University, 2015; • Member of the federal Peer Review Committee for the National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for Ambient Air Quality from the committee’s inception in 1998 to cessation in 2010;
• NGO representative on federal panels overseeing the variation of the NEPM to include PM2·5 and air toxics, 2002-2010 (approximately); • Associate supervisor of a PhD candidate at Melbourne University School of Environmental Planning, c. 2005; • Delegate to the CFA Regional Fire Prevention Committee for Yarra Region (Region 13), 1997-2003; • Delegate to Yarra Ranges Municipal Fire Prevention Committee, 1988-2003; • Member of the Upper Yarra & Dandenong Ranges Authority Environmental Advisory Committee, 1993-4; • Chairperson, YarraCare Upper Catchment Committee, and member of YarraCare Working Group, 1994-5; • Editor of ‘Advances in Nature Conservation’, a refereed Australasian journal, 1991-2; • President or Vice President of Montrose Environmental Group for every year from 1983 to 2003; • Invited member of the Victorian State Assessment Panel for assessment of federal government natural resource grants (c.1990); • Past member of Greening Australia’s Urban Advisory Committee; • Past member of Greening Australia’s Biodiversity Technical Advisory Group; • Past member of the Technical Advisory Group for the Melbourne Indigenous Seed Bank;
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 4 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
• Past member of the Regional Pest Plant Strategy Working Group (Upper Yarra Valley & Dandenong Ranges); • Past member of the ParkCare committee for Dandenong Ranges National Park.
Some Expert Witness Appearances in Courts, Tribunals and Planning Panels The following list is a partial sample of the cases in which Dr Lorimer has participated. Land and Environment Court, NSW, 1997: EPA ats Waverley Woollahra Process Plant (air pollution). Victorian Civil & Administrative Tribunal and predecessors: Dr Lorimer’s first expert witness testimony was at the Victorian Planning Appeals Board in 1983. He has appeared before VCAT and its predecessors roughly annually ever since. A representative sample of cases follows: Ecology: 5-lot residential subdivision, 20–24 Smedley Rd, Ringwood North (VCAT P214/2015) – 2015; Residential subdivision, 22 Vista Avenue, Ringwood East – 2013; Bulky goods retail subdivision and development, 640 Dorset Rd, Bayswater North – 2012; Enforcement action regarding clearing at 27 Hartley Rd, Wonga Park – 2010; Residential subdivision of 1 Reids Lane, Warrandyte South – 2010; Extension of the Darebin Creek Trail to the Main Yarra Trail – 2009; 6-lot subdivision of 14-20 Rockliffe St, Eltham – 2007 (vegetation & neighbourhood character); 650-lot subdivision proposal for Croydon Golf Course – 2006; Residential development at 39-41 Stewart St, Boronia – 2004; Residential subdivision of the Benedictine Monastery, Croydon, Victoria – 2003; Residential development at 219 Wonga Rd, Warranwood – 1997; Air pollution: City of Casey – Residential development near a major landfill, two concrete batching plants, a quarry and a garden supplies centre – 2009; Lethbridge (Golden Plains Shire) – proposed complex of broiler farms – 2006; Ripplebrook (Shire of Baw Baw) – proposed broiler farm – 1998; Stonehaven Power Station – expert witness on air pollution impact – 2001; City Link Burnley Tunnel Vent Stack Appeal – 1997; Matrix constructions – proposed residential development neighbouring Mobil refinery. Panel hearings: Ecology: City of Knox Amendment C49 – Implementation of my report, ‘Sites of Biological Significance in Knox’, into the Knox Planning Scheme through the local planning policy framework, two ESO schedules and a VPO schedule (adopted 2013); City of Knox Amendment C45 – Ecological assistance to the Panel member about the ecological significance and function of land proposed for an Environmental Significance Overlay – 2008; City of Knox Amendment C46 – Testimony about the effects of proposed implementation of the Housing Statement on the Dandenong Foothills Area – 2005; Shire of Yarra Ranges – Amendment to facilitate expansion of the Launching Place Quarry – 1997; Shire of Yarra Ranges Amendment C41 – Proposed Yarra Ranges Golf development, Coldstream (vegetation issues and air pollution issues) – 2005. Air pollution: Cranbourne East-West Road Link EES – 1998; City Link Tunnel Vent Stacks – EPA works approval review – 1996; Cardinia Shire – Proposal for a new quarry at Tynong North – 1993.
Publications List 1 – Ecological and Botanical, excluding Management Plans
Peer-Reviewed Publications Lorimer G.S. (2014). The ‘Roadside Wallaby-grass’ Rytidosperma popinense – Endangered or weed? Kanunnah 7:54-70. ISSN 1832-536X Lorimer G.S. (2011). Melbourne’s plant life – Past and present. Victorian Naturalist 128(5):175-181. Lorimer G.S. (2010). Comprehensive ‘Red List’ assessments of flora at the municipal scale. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 2010 Conference, page 290. Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 5 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Lorimer G.S. (2005). Municipal-scale conservation of plant species around Melbourne. Australian Plant Conservation 14(2):18-19. Lorimer G.S. & Lorimer D.J. (2005). The Conservation Status of the Shiny Nematolepis (Nematolepis wilsonii) in 2005, a report for Parks Victoria. 21 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Ecological burning trials in degraded open-forest remnants in Melbourne. Proc. Ecological Society of Australia Conference, Melbourne, 29th Nov – 1st December 2000. Lorimer G.S., Reid J.C., Smith L.P. and Moss H. (1997). Sites of Biological Significance in Maroondah. Maroondah City Council: Ringwood. 2 volumes, c. 300 pp.
Selected Unrefereed Publications Lorimer G.S. (2019). ‘Biodiversity in Maroondah’, Volume 1 (public exposure draft). A report to Maroondah City Council, Ringwood, Victoria. 137 pp. Available at yoursay.maroondah.vic.gov.au/40256/documents/ 98661. Lorimer G.S. (2018). ‘Biodiversity in Glen Eira’. A report to Glen Eira City Council, Caulfield, Victoria. 80 pp. Available at https://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/files/assets/public/document-resources/environmental- sustainability/biodiversity-in-glen-eira-report.pdf; Lorimer G.S. (2017). Preliminary Ecological Assessment of the Floodplain at 609-621 Burwood Highway, Knoxfield. Knox City Council, Wantirna, Victoria. 20 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2016). Baseline Monitoring of Habitat Condition at Currawong Reserves and The 100 Acres, for Manningham City Council. 14 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2016). Shiny Nematolepis Monitoring 2016, for Parks Victoria. 42 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2014). Monitoring of Bushland Reserves in Knox – 2014 Review. Knox City Council, Wantirna South. 163 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2014). The Combined Effects of Grazing and Fire in Churchill National Park - Report 6. Report to Parks Victoria, Lysterfield, Victoria. 29 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2013). The Combined Effects of Grazing and Fire in Churchill National Park - Report 5. Report to Parks Victoria, Lysterfield, Victoria. 40 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2012). Knox Revegetation Plan. Knox City Council, Wantirna, Victoria. xii+96 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2012). Assessment and Mapping of Hoddles Creek Riparian Vegetation, 2012. Report to Melbourne Water and the Friends of Hoddles Creek. iv+62 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2012). Vegetation Assessment and Mapping of Hoddles Creek Education Area – 2012 Update. Report to Friends of Hoddles Creek. 18 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2012). Monitoring Vegetation Change at Wicks Reserve Associated with a Bio-infiltration Pond. Report to Knox City Council. 13 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2011). Lake Mountain Leadbeater’s Possum Habitat Quadrat Survey 2011, for Parks Victoria. 52 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2009-2011). A series of nineteen reports for Nillumbik Shire Council containing assessments of how the natural environment was affected by the Black Saturday bushfires on various properties and how nature was recovering. Lorimer G.S. (2011). The Combined Effects of Grazing and Fire in Churchill National Park - Report 4. Report to Parks Victoria, Lysterfield, Victoria. 25 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2011). Baluk Willam Nature Conservation Reserve – Vegetation Monitoring 2011 for Parks Victoria. 146 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). Sites of Biological Significance in Knox, 2nd edition, for Knox City Council. 2 volumes, 127 + 562 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). Locally Threatened Plants in Manningham. Report to Manningham City Council. 31 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). First Anniversary Report on Environmental Impacts of a 2009 Bushfire at Birdsland Reserve, Belgrave Heights. Report to the Shire of Yarra Ranges, Lilydale, Victoria. 19 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). Olinda Reservoir – Weed and Flora Mapping. Report to Melbourne Water Corporation, East Melbourne, Victoria. 24 pp. Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 6 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Lorimer G.S., Baker S. and Lockwood D. (2009). Wildlife Movement and Habitat Needs in Manningham. Report to Manningham City Council, Doncaster, Victoria. 27 pp. Available at www.manningham.vic.gov. au/ file/3071/download. Lorimer G.S. (2009). The Vegetation of Montrose Service Reservoir, 2009. Report to Melbourne Water Corporation, East Melbourne, Victoria. 24 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2009). The Combined Effects of Grazing and Fire in Churchill National Park - Report 2. Report to Parks Victoria, Lysterfield, Victoria. 19 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2008). Landscape-Scale Monitoring of Native Vegetation Condition in Manningham. Manningham City Council, Doncaster, Victoria. 21 pp. (Available via internet.) Lorimer G.S. (2007). The Combined Effects of Grazing and Fire in Churchill National Park - Report 1. Report to Parks Victoria, Lysterfield, Victoria. 19 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2007). Baluk Willam Nature Conservation Reserve – Vegetation Monitoring 2006 for Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2007). Monitoring of Bushland Reserves in Knox – 2007 Review. Knox City Council, Wantirna South. 133 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2006). Inventory and Assessment of Indigenous Flora and Fauna in Boroondara, 1st edition, for the City of Boroondara. 480 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2006). Weed Mapping along Jumping Creek in Warranwood, a report and GIS mapping prepared for Maroondah City Council. 15 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2005). Municipal-Scale Conservation of Plant Species near Melbourne. Paper and presentation for the 6th Australian Network for Plant Conservation Conference, Adelaide, 26th September to 1st October, 2005. Lorimer G.S. (2004). Sites of Biological Significance in Knox, 1st edition, for Knox City Council. 2 volumes, 127 + 482 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2003). Assessment of Native Vegetation on the Mitcham to Frankston Freeway Alignment in Knox, for Knox City Council. 9 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2003). Differing Needs Between Urban and Rural ‘Significant Sites’ Studies. Abstract and presentation for the 5th Australian Network for Plant Conservation Conference, Geelong. Lorimer G.S. (2003). Baluk Willam Flora Reserve – Vegetation Monitoring. 49 pp. Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2003). Baluk Willam Flora Reserve – Vegetation Mapping. 23 pp. Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2003). Monitoring of Flora Relocation from 51 Bayfield Rd, Bayswater North to Bungalook Conservation Reserves – 2003 report. 6pp. Report to Maroondah City Council, Melbourne Water & Mr Charles Demarco. Lorimer G.S. (2002). Monitoring of Bushland Reserves in Knox – 2002 Review, for Knox City Council. 57 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2002). Monitoring of Flora Relocation from 51 Bayfield Rd, Bayswater North to Bungalook Con- servation Reserves. 5pp. Report to Maroondah City Council, Melbourne Water & Mr Charles Demarco. Lorimer G.S. (2002). Flora and Fauna Assessment of the Transmission Line Easement, Bend of Islands, Victoria – under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 35 pp. Report to Environment Australia on behalf of SPI PowerNet Pty Ltd. Lorimer G.S. (2002). Wattle Park Management Trials, 2001. 5 pp. Report to Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2001). Wattle Park - Year 2000 Assessment of Ecological Burns and Other Treatments. 14pp. Report to Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2001). Dandenong Valley Parklands -Flora Recovery after Ecological Burns and Other Treatments. 29 pp. Report to Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2001). Mass Flora Relocation from 51 Bayfield Rd, Bayswater North to Bungalook Conservation Reserves. 7 pp. Report to Maroondah City Council, Melbourne Water & Mr Charles Demarco. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Brief Environmental Management Plan for Relocation of Plants from 51 Bayfield Rd, Bayswater North to Tereddan Dr Retarding Basin, Kilsyth South. 3 pp.
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 7 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Lorimer G.S. (2000). Botanical Assessment of 51 Bayfield Rd, Bayswater North. 7 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Dandenong Valley Parklands - Second Baseline Flora Survey for Fire Research. 9 pp. Report to Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Dandenong Valley Parklands Ground Flora Survey, Revisited. 11 pp. Report to Parks Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Vegetation Survey of Cardinia Creek, Beaconsfield Upper. 21 pp. plus colour maps. Melbourne Water. Lorimer G.S. and Cook D. (2000). Maximising Wildlife Habitat at Lynbrook. 45 pp. Report to the Urban Land Corporation. Moss H. and Lorimer G.S. (2000). Notable Trees of Maroondah - Additions for 2000. Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1999). Monitoring of Bushland Reserves in Knox. Knox City Council, Wantirna South. Lorimer G.S. (1998). A Survey and Management Strategy for Significant Vegetation of Roadsides in Knox. Knox City Council, Wantirna South. Lorimer G.S., Belvedere M., Lockwood D. and Serena M. (1998) Flora and Fauna Study of Stamford Park, Corhanwarrabul Creek, Rowville. Knox City Council, Wantirna South. Reid J.C., Moss H. and Lorimer G.S. (1997). Vegetation Survey of Linear Reserves: A Management Strategy for Riparian and Flood Plain Vegetation. Knox City Council, Wantirna South. Moss H. and Lorimer G.S. (1996). Notable Trees of Maroondah. Maroondah City Council: Ringwood. Lorimer G.S. (1995). Botanical Assessment - ML Skirmish Games Land, Coldstream, for Mountain Leisure Enterprises P/L. Includes assessment of twenty-three hectares of bushland. Lorimer G.S. (1991). Environmental Assessment of Land at 62-64 Warrien Rd, Croydon, for ARPAD Elderly Welfare Society Inc. McMahon A.R.G., Lorimer G.S., Peake P., Saxon M.J. and Thomas V. (1991). The Flora and Fauna of the Pakenham Clay Quarry Site, Pakenham, Victoria. To Stewart Somers, Planning and Landscape Consultant acting for Boral Resources.
Publications List 2 – Management Plans Lorimer G.S. (2017). 2017 Management Plan for Blamey Reserve, Boronia. Report to Knox City Council. 46 pp. Lorimer G.S. and Carr G.W. (2013). Management Plan for the Kilsyth South Spider-orchid, 2013. Report to Maroondah City Council. iii+78 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2013). 2013 Management Plan for the Bateman Street Bush, Wantirna. Report to Knox City Council. ii+67 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2011). 2011 Bushland Management Plan for Flamingo Reserve, Wantirna South. Report to Knox City Council, Wantirna South. ii+58 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). Shiny Nematolepis Management Plan 2010, for the Department of Sustainability & Environment and Parks Victoria. 52 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). Management Plan for Locally Threatened Species in Knox – 2010. Report to Knox City Council. 17 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2010). 2010 Bushland Management Plan for Roselyn Crescent Reserve, Boronia. Report to Knox City Council, Wantirna South. ii+47 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2009). 2009 Bushland Management Plan for Heany Park, Rowville, and adjacent Girl Guides’ Land. Report to Knox City Council, Wantirna South. iv+53 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2009). 2009 Bushland Management Plan for Lakewood Nature Reserve, Knoxfield. Report to Knox City Council, Wantirna South. ii+49 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2008). Bushland Management Guidance for 56 The Avenue, Ferntree Gully and Adjacent Land, for Knox City Council. 14 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2007). 2007 Bushland Management Plan for W.G. Morris Reserve, Wantirna. Report to Knox City Council, Wantirna South. vii+52 pp.
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 8 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Lorimer G.S. (2006). Bushland Management Plan for Koolunga Native Reserve, Ferntree Gully, for Knox City Council. 37+ii pp. Lorimer G.S. (2004). Managing Native Vegetation and Fire Risk at Sheffield Rd, Montrose, for the Shire of Yarra Ranges. 15 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2004). Bushland Management Plan for Hubbard Reserve, 2004, for Maroondah City Council. 28 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2002). Flora Management Plan for Mt Dandenong Rd Median, Croydon & Ringwood East, 2002, for Maroondah City Council. 19 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2001). Fire in Knox Bushland Reserves, for Knox City Council. 40 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2001). Warranwood Reserve Management Plan 2001, for Maroondah City Council. 33 pp. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Hochkins Ridge Flora Management Plan, Volumes 1-3, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Vegetation Survey of Cardinia Creek, Beaconsfield Upper, for Melbourne Water. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Bushland Management Plan for Starlight Reserve, Rowville, for Knox City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1999). A Management Plan for Coppelia Street Bushland, Wantirna South, for Knox City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Power Street Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Oban Road Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Mulgrave Way Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Heathmont Railway Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Grandfill Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Eastfield Park Bushland Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Cherry Tree Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Birts Hill Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1998). Alto Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1997). Warrien Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1997). Loughies Bushland Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Three hectares of bushland; fire is a significant issue. Lorimer G.S. (1997). Bushland Management Plan for Wombolano Park, for Maroondah City Council. 7 hectares of bushland. Lorimer G.S. (1997). Bushland Management Plan for Hubbard Reserve, for Maroondah City Council. 6·5 hectares of bushland; fire is a significant issue. Lorimer G.S. (1997). A Management Plan for Cathies Lane Bushland, Wantirna South. For Knox City Council. Reid J.C., Lorimer G.S. and Moss H. (1997). A Management Plan for Blind Creek Billabong, Ferntree Gully, for Knox City Council. Lorimer G.S. (1995). Warranwood Reserve Management Plan, for Maroondah City Council. Eleven hectares of bushland; fire is a major issue. Lorimer G.S. (1994). A Botanical Study of the Old Pound Reserve, Lilydale, Victoria, for Shire of Lillydale. Includes assessment and management recommendations for approx. five hectares of bushland and grassland, including fuel loading assessment and specific recommendations for cyclic burning. Lorimer G.S. (1991). Nature Conservation Considerations for Grazing of Abandoned Pasture at K.H. Fraser Reserve, Montrose, for Shire of Lillydale. Includes assessment of approximately 3 ha of bushland and 2 ha of former pasture.
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 9 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Publications List 3 – Atmosphere-related
Peer-Reviewed Publications Lorimer G.S. (2003). ‘Air NEPM Analysis Program (ANEPMAP) Instruction Manual’, 2nd Edition. NEPC Service Corporation : Adelaide. 9 pages. Dr Lorimer designed and produced this software for national standard processing and analysis of air monitoring conducted under the Ambient Air NEPM. Lorimer G.S. (2001). ‘Air Quality Data Handling and Reporting’. NEPC Service Corporation : Adelaide. 28 pages. Produced for, and refereed by, the Peer Review Committee of the Ambient Air NEPM. Lorimer G.S. and Godfrey J.J. (1996). Plume models: Techniques for better usage. Proc. 13th.Intl. Clean Air & Environment Conference, Glenelg, S.A., pp.507-512. Published by the Clean Air Society of Aust. & NZ, phone (03) 9872-5111. Lorimer G.S. (1994). A new model for jets or plumes in the atmosphere. Proc. 12th.Intl. Conference of the Clean Air Society of Aust. & NZ / 6th Regional Conference of IUAPPA, Perth, W.A. Vol. 2, pp161-177. Published by Promaco Conventions Pty Ltd, P.O. Box 890, Canning Bridge, W.A. ISBN 1 86308 026 0 Lorimer G.S. (1993). A review of reactive plume models. Clean Air (Aust.) 27:194-197. Lorimer G.S., Whillans F.D. and Kinhill Engineers (1992). Air Quality Monitoring in Victoria. Published by Office of the Commissioner for the Environment, Melbourne, Australia. 250 pages (approx.) Lorimer G.S. (1989a). Validation of Air Pollution Dispersion Models. 1st Edition, 2 volumes. Publications EG89/777 and EG89/778 of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council, Canberra, Australia. Lorimer G.S. (1989b). Data sets for model evaluation from the Latrobe Valley and Hunter Valleys. Clean Air (Aust.) 23:66-70. Lorimer G.S. (1989c). Validation of air pollution dispersion models. Clean Air (Aust.) 23:82-88. Lorimer G.S. (1986). The AUSPLUME Gaussian Plume Dispersion Model. 1st. Edition. Publication no. 264 of the Environment Protection Authority of Victoria : Melbourne, Australia. Lorimer G.S., Nguyen T., Ross D.G., Hurley P.J. and Lewis A.M. (1988). Assessment of air quality model performance using data from the Latrobe Valley Plume Tracking Study. Clean Air (Aust.) 22:175-176. Lorimer G.S. (1986). The Kernel Method for air quality modelling – I. Mathematical foundation. Atmospheric Environment 20:1447-1452. Lorimer G.S. and Ross D.G. (1986). The kernel method for air quality modelling – II: Comparison with analytic solutions. Atmospheric Environment 20:1773-1780. Lorimer G.S. and Ross D.G. (1984). Tests of a new particle model for simulating air pollution. Proc. 8th. International Clean Air Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 1984. pp.29-35. Lorimer G.S. and Monaghan J.J. (1980). A numerical investigation of rotational instabilities in differentially rotating polytropes. Proc. Astron. Soc. Aust. 4:45. Natoli V., Lorimer G.S. and Clarey P. (1999). Emissions to air in and around Melbourne International Airport and the ground level impact of pollutants. In Proc.‘Airports 99’ Conference, Melbourne, 16-17 August 1999. Institute of Engineers Australia and Royal Aeronautical Society. Ross D.G., Lorimer G.S., Ciolek J.T. and Fox D.G. (1993). Development and evaluation of a wind field model for emergency preparedness in complex terrain. In: Reprint volume, 86th. Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management Association, June 1993, Denver, Colorado. Ross D.G., Lorimer G.S., Fox D.G. and Smith I.N. (1989). Results of applying wind and dispersion models in complex topography. In: Reprint volume, 82nd. Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management As- sociation, June 1989, Anaheim, CA. Hurley P.J., Ross D.G. and Lorimer G.S. (1988). Comparison of Predicted Sulphur Dioxide Concentrations with Measurements in the Latrobe Valley, Using a Puff Model Approach. State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Research and Development Department Report No.LO/88/055. Ross D.G., Lorimer G.S., Hurley P.J. and Li L. (1988). Latrobe Valley Configuration of Citpuff/Nuatmos - An Air Quality Modelling System. State Electricity Commission of Victoria, Research and Development Department Report No. LO/88/057.
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 10 Annexure A – Curriculum Vitæ
Ross D.G., Lorimer G.S., Hurley P.J. and Li L. (1988). Comparison of predicted sulphur dioxide concen- trations with measurements in the Latrobe Valley, using CAPAS. Clean Air (Aust.) 22:177-178. Ross D.G., Krautschneider M., Smith I.N. and Lorimer G.S. (1988). Diagnostic Wind Field Modelling: Development and Validation. 1st.Ed. NERDDP Publication EG89/776. National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council : Canberra.
Selected Unrefereed Publications Lorimer G.S. (2003). Maroondah Highway Deviation at Lilydale – Predicted Air Quality Impact. 56 pp. VicRoads, Kew, Victoria. Lorimer G.S. (2000). Yarra Glen Bypass Road – Predicted Air Quality Impact. 47 pp. VicRoads, Kew, Victoria. McKendry I., Fisher G., Godfrey J.J. and Lorimer G.S. (1996). Guidelines for the Application of Dispersion Models in New Zealand. A report of the NZ Natl. Inst. of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) for the NZ Ministry for the Environment. 33 pp. Natoli V., Clarey P. and Lorimer G.S. (1995). Melbourne Airport Air Emissions Inventory and Air Quality Management Plan. Report for the Federal Airports Corporation, Melbourne Airport. Lorimer G.S. (1994). The CMA Titanium Tetrachloride Dispersion Modelling System. Report to Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington. Lorimer G.S. (1991). Modelling of Emergency Vent Emissions for SCM Chemicals Ltd., Kemerton, Western Australia. Report to SCM Chemicals Ltd., P.O. Box 245, Bunbury, W.A. 6230, Australia. 32 pp. Lorimer G.S. (1987). Eastern Corridor Road Development Air Quality Study - Chapter 6. A Regional Air Quality Model. Report to the Road Construction Authority of Victoria. Ross D.G., Lorimer G.S., Li L. and Smith I.N. (1987). CITPUFF: A Gaussian puff model for estimating pollutant concentration in complex terrain. CAMM Report No. 21/87. Ross D.G., Thompson M.C., Smith I.N. and Lorimer G.S. (1987). 3-D Diffusion and Wind Modelling for Complex Topography. Final Report of Cooperative Agreement 28-C4-322 between Centre for Applied Mathematical Modelling (CAMM) and Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service. CAMM Report No. 22/87. Lorimer G.S. (1985). Gardiners Creek Valley Air Quality Study - Chapter 6. A Regional Air Quality Model. Report to the Road Construction Authority of Victoria
Curriculum Vitæ, Dr Graeme S. Lorimer – July 2019 Page 11 Annexure B
Lawyers Collins Square, Tower Two Level 25, 727 Collins Street Email Letter Melbourne VIC 3008 Australia
Telephone 61 3 9258 3555 Facsimile 61 3 9258 3666
[email protected] www.maddocks.com.au
DX 259 Melbourne
From Date Terry Montebello 26 June 2019 Direct Email 03 9258 3606 [email protected]
To Organisation Email Dr Graeme Lorimer Biosphere Pty Ltd [email protected]
Our Ref TGM:7849160
North East Link Inquiry and Advisory Committee Hearing
Dear Dr Lorimer
We continue to act for Banyule City Council (Banyule), City of Boroondara (Boroondara) and City of Whitehorse (Whitehorse) (collectively, the Councils) in relation to the Joint Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) for the North East Link (Project).
We are instructed to engage you to provide expert evidence in the area of ecology.
The IAC has been appointed:
▪ to hold an inquiry into the environmental effects of the Project under section 9(1) of the Environmental Effects Act 1978; and
▪ to review the draft planning scheme amendment prepared to facilitate the Project under section 151 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
Further details regarding the role of the IAC is set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Terms of Reference. The biography for each committee member of the IAC is available here.
The IAC will hold a public hearing commencing on 25 July 2019.
Scope of Instructions
You are instructed to:
1. review the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (2006);
2. review the exhibited North East Link Environment Effects Statement (EES) documents, relevant to your area of expertise;
3. review:
(a) the Councils submission on the EES, dated 7 June 2019;
(b) the IAC report on Preliminary Matters and Further Information Request; and
Interstate offices Canberra Sydney Affiliated offices around the world through the [7849160: 24393483_1] Advoc network - www.advoc.com
(c) any other submissions or documents we subsequently refer to you;
4. prepare an expert witness report that contains your opinion on the following matters, as relevant to your area of expertise:
(a) does the EES adequately document and assess the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project? In addressing this question please explain where you are satisfied with the content of the EES and why, and if not, what if any deficiencies exist in the documentation and/or assessment of the nature and extent of environmental impacts contained in the EES;
(b) can the Project as described in the EES achieve a level of environmental performance which is consistent with relevant legislation, documented and endorsed policy or acknowledged best practice?
(c) if the Project, as described in the EES cannot achieve a level of environmental performance which is consistent with relevant legislation, documented and endorsed policy or acknowledged best practice, are there any recommendations that you would make as to specific measures which you consider necessary and/or appropriate to prevent, mitigate and/or offset adverse environmental effects? If so, please explain your reasoning in detail. To the extent that it is within your expertise to comment upon the feasibility of any of your recommendations, please state whether or not any recommendations are feasible, explaining your reasoning.
(d) how does the Project as described in the EES respond to the principles and objectives of “ecologically sustainable development” as defined in the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (2006);1
(e) are there any recommendations that you would make as to specific measures which you consider necessary and/or appropriate to improve the response of the Project to the principles and objectives of “ecologically sustainable development”? If so, please explain your reasoning in detail. To the extent that it is within your expertise to comment upon the feasibility of any of your recommendations, please state whether or not any recommendations are feasible, explaining your reasoning; and
(f) to the extent that the content of the draft planning scheme amendment, works approval application or environmental performance requirements (EPRs) lies within your expertise, do you have any recommendations for changes that should be made to the draft planning scheme amendment, works approval or planning approval and/or EPRs in order to improve the environmental outcome of the Project.
5. in due course, review and comment on other parties’ expert evidence in relation to your area of expertise.
6. participate in any expert conclave requested by the IAC; and
7. present your evidence at the IAC Hearing. You should anticipate preparing a short (no more than 30 minutes) presentation to facilitate the delivery of your evidence. The presentation is to be drawn from your expert witness report and may respond to other expert reports (as relevant).
Please ensure you are familiar with the requirements of the Planning Panels Guide to expert evidence (DOCX, 81.8 KB), April 2019 and ensure that your evidence is prepared in accordance with the requirements set out in the Guide.
1 At page 5.
[7849160: 24393483_1] page 2
Relevant documents
The exhibited EES documents can be accessed at: https://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/environment/environment-effects-statement-ees/environment-effects- statement-documentation.
Please also consider any relevant “information updates” contained on the NELP website: https://northeastlink.vic.gov.au/environment/environment-effects-statement-ees/information-updates
Please let us know if you require any of these documents in hard copy.
We also consider the background information contained in our letter requesting your fee proposal dated 18 April 2019.
Key Dates
We are currently waiting on written directions from the IAC to confirm the key dates for the hearing. We will provide these to you when they come to hand. In the meantime, please note the following anticipated key dates:
▪ Your expert witness statement will need to be circulated by 10:00am on Monday 15 July. We kindly ask that you provide us with a copy of the report no later than 5:00pm on Tuesday 9 July.
▪ A conclave of specified fields of experts is likely to be scheduled to occur on the week of 15 July. We will confirm this as soon as possible;
▪ Presentation of the proponent’s case is scheduled to commence on Thursday 25 July; and
▪ Presentation of the Councils’ case is likely to be scheduled to commence in mid-August. We will confirm this as soon as possible.
Key Contacts
Council’s representative for this engagement will be Terry Montebello, Partner, Maddocks [email protected] and Phone: 03 9258 3698.
Terry is being assisted by Sophie Jacobs, Senior Associate, Maddocks Phone: 03 9258 3546 Email: [email protected]
Please contact Sophie Jacobs on 03 9258 3546 if you have any queries or wish to discuss any aspect of these instructions with us.
Yours faithfully
Terry Montebello Partner
[7849160: 24393483_1] page 3 Annexure C
Annexure D
North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters in and near Boroondara
A report to the City of Boroondara by Dr Graeme Lorimer, Biosphere Pty Ltd
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018
1. Introduction
The federal government’s regulation of the ecological impacts of projects such as the proposed North East Link road is confined to rather narrow matters of national significance that fall under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (‘EPBC Act’). The North East Link Authority (NELA) has made a formal request for the federal Minister for Environment to approve the proposed road, under the Act. The NELA acknowledges that ministerial approval is required because of: • The planned removal of large numbers of the endangered Matted Flax-lily (Dianella amoena); and • Impacts on Commonwealth land in and abutting Simpson Barracks; namely landscape alteration, excavation, alteration of Banyule Ck and potential impairment of Aboriginal heritage sites and/or views of a heritage place (Meares House).
Only the first of these points is within the scope of the present report, which is ecological.
In referring the project to the minister for his approval, the NELA have also put forward documentation in support of their contention that no other matters of national environmental significance need the minister’s approval.
In what follows, I provide my opinion about whether the ecological risks are adequately conveyed by the information provided to the minister by the NELA. This report deals only with the EPBC Act, not environmental risks that fall outside the Act (but which may fall under state legislation). Also, the report is focused strongly on impacts inside the City of Boroondara or in nearby areas, notably the Bolin Bolin Billabong and wetlands at the adjacent Trinity Grammar sports complex.
North East Link is only at a concept stage, subject to possible changes in its alignment, nature of construction and details such as drainage. As a result, some of the ecological impacts are uncertain. North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters Page 2
2. Matted Flax-lily
According to the documentation referred to the federal Minister for Environment by the NELA, the aforementioned removal of many Matted Flax Lilies would occur at various locations north of Lower Plenty Rd, from Yallambie to Greensborough. Those locations are outside the geographical focus of this report. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the NELA acknowledges the significance under the EPBC Act of the removal of so many individuals of an endangered species. Even if other environmental impacts are deemed not to be significant in isolation from each other (as contended by the NELA), the Minister for Environment might reasonably consider them in aggregate with the Matted Flax-lily, and deem the total to be unacceptable or in need of conditions.
I have no concerns about the accuracy or adequacy of the NELA referral documents in describing the impacts on the Matted Flax-lily.
3. River Swamp Wallaby-grass
Within the bounds of uncertainty created by the lack of project detail, the most substantial ecological risk posed by North East Link to matters covered by the EPBC Act, in or near Boroondara, is to the habitat of the River Swamp Wallaby-grass (Amphibromus fluitans) in wetlands along the Yarra River. That species is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act. It occurs in wetlands at the Bolin Bolin Billabong1 and the Trinity Grammar sports complex2, both of which are in Manningham. These wetlands are shown on Figure 1. River Swamp Wallaby-grass has also occurred (and may still occur) in close proximity to the proposed project area in Bulleen and Balwyn North, but detection difficulties mean that we cannot be sure whether it persists there. The species is usually undetectable except when it is in flower or seed, arising from the mud of a wetland that is drying out slowly during the warmer months – something that happens only sporadically. Seeds can be carried by water to other locations within the parent plant’s wetland or into wetlands downstream. No search for the species has been done within Boroondara in recent decades during suitable conditions.
If the River Swamp Wallaby-grass does still occur in Boroondara or has recolonised from upstream, the most likely locations are the Freeway Golf Course, Burke Road Billabong and Willsmere Billabong. (Strictly speaking, the relevant parts of the Freeway Golf Course are in Manningham, even though the course is owned and run by Boroondara.) There is a 1942 herbarium specimen of River Swamp Wallaby-grass from Balwyn North on or near the current- day Freeway Golf Course. Two reliable observers have given me verbal reports of seeing the species in the 1960s in a billabong, part of which remains within the golf course. However, the part of that billabong that extended outside the golf course was destroyed for a rubbish tip during the 1960s (now part of the Carey Grammar sports complex). Of these potential sites for the River Swamp Wallaby-grass, the one most vulnerable to the proposed road project is Willsmere Park, because its billabong lies partly within the referred project area for the proposed widening of the Eastern Freeway.
1 Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (an online resource of the Government of Victoria), accessed 29 Jan 2018. 2 ‘Ecological Assessment of Wetlands at the Trinity Grammar School Sporting Complex, Bulleen’, report to Man- ningham City Council by D. Osler, D. Frood and D. Cook of Australian Ecosystems, August 2007. ii+43 pp.
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018 North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters Page 3
Figure 1. Satellite image showing Bolin Bolin Billabong and the Trinity Grammar sports complex in relation to the referred project area..
The threats that North East Link poses to the River Swamp Wallaby-grass in or near Boroondara fall into four categories: • Habitat may be destroyed by excavation to build the North East Link road. The two wetlands in which the species is known to occur, namely Bolin Bolin Billabong and the northern wetland at Trinity Grammar Sports Complex, are separated by approximately 50 m, which is just wide enough to accommodate Bulleen Rd with two traffic lanes in each direction. North East Link will presumably be substantially wider. Whether the road is constructed above ground or as a cut-and-cover tunnel, it will have to extend into the Trinity Grammar land and its wetland system, noting that the referred project area skirts around Bolin Bolin Billabong. The known location of the River Swamp Wallaby-grass in the Trinity Grammar wetland system is far enough away from Bulleen Rd that it is outside the referred project area, but the system may contain undiscovered plants of the species within the project area. If Trinity Grammar has no objection, a targeted search should be conducted when suitable conditions of drying mud arise; • The Bolin Bolin Billabong and Trinity Grammar wetland system may become drier due to changed hydrology and hydrogeology caused by North East Link. The NELA’s referral documents acknowledge that the project may affect groundwater levels on the Yarra River floodplain, which ‘could result in stress and degradation of ecosystem health’ (see ¾ of the way down p. 25 of the referral). The main concern is alteration of the cycles of inundation and drying on which the River Swamp Wallaby-grass depends. However, the magnitude of the impacts cannot be determined until more details of the road design are decided; e.g. will the section of road that separates the Bolin Bolin Billabong from the Trinity Grammar sports complex be constructed as a tunnel (as described in the text of the referral document) or be above ground (as mapped in their ‘Figure 1’)?
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018 North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters Page 4
The wetland system at the Trinity Grammar sports complex was once part of Bolin Bolin Billabong, and in both cases, the River Swamp Wallaby-grass needs the Yarra’s floodwaters to periodically inundate the habitat and for the water level to recede slowly. No information has been provided about the degree to which the new road will either: - Impede floodwaters from flowing across the road to the sports complex; or - Increase the rate of drying of the Trinity Grammar wetland system due to the barrier created against percolation of groundwater from the river. Late 2017 saw the first implementation of a plan to periodically flood Bolin Bolin Billabong with pumped water, for environmental reasons. It may be that future pumping could partly compensate for drying that may occur to the billabong as a result of North East Link. This may not work well because the main hydrological risk to the River Swamp Wallaby-grass from North East Link is not from too little water filling the wetlands but from too rapid drying out after the water level peaks. In addition, it may be difficult to use pumping to slow the drying rate of the wetlands at the Trinity Grammar sports complex, because the complex is on private land and it is situated on the opposite side of Bulleen Rd from the Yarra River; • The proposed widening of the Eastern Freeway may involve earthworks that directly alter the Willsmere Billabong, where the River Swamp Wallaby-grass may possibly grow. One might have expected that the freeway would be widened only on the side opposite the billabong, but the referred project area actually extends slightly into the billabong; and • Drainage works associated with the freeway widening (whichever side of the freeway) may alter the cycle of wetting and drying of the Willsmere Billabong and (with lower likelihood, due to distance) at Burke Road Billabong and the Freeway Golf Course billabongs.
Misleading Information in the Referral
Page 5 of the NELA referral states that Bolin Bolin Billabong ‘is a known site of cultural significance and ecological value (non-EPBC related)’. In fact, the billabong has been known for decades to contain River Swamp Wallaby-grass, an ecological value which is indeed ‘EPBC related’. The error is repeated, verbatim, in the ‘attached referral document’ and ‘Attachment B’.
The ecological report that forms ‘Attachment D’ of NELA’s documentation is somewhat misleading about the appearance and stature of the River Swamp Wallaby-grass, raising concerns about unfamiliarity with the species. The claimed 1.2 m maximum height is actually the length of the stems, which are normally horizontal except when they float upward when submerged. Page 29 of ‘Attachment D’ states that ‘While there are some suitable areas of habitat such as Banyule Swamp and Bolin Bolin Billabong, these areas are outside the referred project area or are within no go zones…there is a low likelihood that River Swamp Wallaby- grass is located within the project area’. This is not true of the abovementioned possible sites in Boroondara or of the Trinity Grammar wetland system. It is too bold to dismiss the chance that there is some River Swamp Wallaby-grass within the project area, roughly midway between the known locations of River Swamp Wallaby-grass at Bolin Bolin Billabong and the Trinity Grammar wetland system. In addition, the claim in ‘Attachment D’ that the River Swamp Wallaby-grass is unlikely to be within the project area conflicts with p. 32 of the associated document named ‘2018-8142 Referral-Attach-referral_document.pdf’, which claims that ‘There is a low likelihood that River Swamp Wallaby-grass is located [sic.] would be impacted as the project proposes tunnelling beneath areas of potential habitat’. For tunnelling to occur under potential habitat, that habitat must be within the project area, contrary to
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018 North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters Page 5
‘Attachment D’. In fact, no tunnelling is proposed beneath some of the potential habitat, and in any case, tunnelling poses a risk of changing the cycle of wetting and drying that is critical to the species.
‘Attachment D’ acknowledges that the impact of North East Link on groundwater is uncertain, and that ‘There may be some disturbance of groundwater due to tunnelling activities… and reduce water available to wetlands reliant on groundwater’. It then states, without explanation, that ‘it is not anticipated that dewatering would impact the River Swamp Wallaby-grass’. The federal Department of the Environment recognises ‘changing water regimes’ as a ‘main identified threat’ to the River Swamp Wallaby-grass3. The statement in ‘Attachment D’ that such impacts are ’not anticipated’ from North East Link is more wishful thinking than an objective analysis of the risk.
Page 25 of the referral document explains that on floodplains, ‘there can be a high degree of connectivity between surface water and groundwater’, i.e. the two interact. The last full paragraph on that page explains how dewatering of a tunnel can lead to ‘stress and degradation of ecosystem health, e.g. water levels could be lowered making groundwater less accessible to ecosystems’. However, the subsequent paragraph is misleading in stating that ‘No EPBC Act- listed groundwater dependent communities or species have been identified within the referred project area’. In fact, the River Swamp Wallaby-grass is critically dependent on the rate of drying of its wetland habitat, and hence on groundwater. It is not surprising that the River Swamp Wallaby-grass was not ‘identified within the referred project area’ at the Trinity Grammar wetland complex because the consultants evidently did not look there and the phase of the wetting and drying cycle was not suitable. That shortcoming should have been acknowledged.
The referral documents dismiss any potential impact to Bolin Bolin Billabong on the basis that it is designated a ‘no go area’. Changed water tables will not respect an arbitrary designation of a ‘no go area’, and Bolin Bolin Billabong is unavoidably at risk of such change. The ‘no go area’ designation has had the unfortunate consequence of effectively quarantining it from investigation, even in regard to off-site impacts.
‘Attachment C’ of the referral documents deals with the effects of a tunnel on groundwater, wetlands and streams. Strangely, it only considers the hydrogeological impacts of the proposed tunnel north of Manningham Rd, even though Section 1.2 of the same document indicates a plan to construct another tunnel past Bolin Bolin Billabong, ending south of the Veneto Club. This seems a significant oversight.
4. Other Species and Ecological Communities
In addition to the Matted Flax-lily and River Swamp Wallaby-grass, all other species and communities listed under the EPBC Act are considered in the documents referred to the federal Minister for Environment by the NELA. In my view, these additional species and communities have been adequately assessed and there is a sound basis for the conclusion that none of them, considered individually, would be significantly impacted by North East Link, in the sense of the EPBC Act. Even when the impacts are considered in aggregate rather than in isolation, I believe only the Matted Flax-lily and River Swamp Wallaby-grass are at risk of creating a significant impact at the national scale.
3 Department of the Environment (2018). ‘Threats’ paragraph of the web page for Amphibromus fluitans in the ‘Species Profile and Threats Database’ of the federal Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed 29 Jan 2018.
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018 North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters Page 6
5. Impacts Outside the EPBC Act
The EPBC Act has a very narrow purview because the Australian constitution gives states and territories jurisdiction for most environmental matters. In addition, some species are not listed under the Act simply because nobody has yet nominated them.
As a result, most environmental impacts of North East Link cannot be considered under the EPBC Act. Separate assessment processes at the state and municipal level are commencing to consider the additional impacts.
6. Inconsistencies and Oversights in the Referral
Review of the documents referred by the NELA under the EPBC Act has faced difficulties because of the internal inconsistencies and oversights listed below. Unless these inconsistencies are resolved, I believe the federal Minister for the Environment and his staff will have difficulty making a properly informed assessment of the referral. I would recommend seeking further information from the NELA. • The primary referral document and several of the attachments refer to a tunnel with a southern portal south of the Veneto Club. ‘Figure 1’ provides a plan of the project area and it indicates that the North East Link road will be above ground, not a tunnel, along Bulleen Rd. Where the documents refer to the potential for tunnels to affect wetland ecosystems, they do so only in regard to the proposed tunnel north of Manningham Rd. If NELA really does consider a tunnel along Bulleen Rd to be an option, its effects should have been assessed. • In the primary referral document, at the junction between pp. 25 and 26, is the paragraph: ‘No EPBC Act-listed groundwater dependent communities or species have been identified within the referred project area. Further assessment of groundwater interactions with ecological values will be undertaken as part of the EES. This will include preparation of a groundwater model based on the reference design to assess changes to groundwater levels and potential impacts on this community.’ If no groundwater-dependent communities have been identified, how can the NELA assess ‘potential impacts on this community’? • In the ‘attached referral document’ and ‘Attachment D’, the River Swamp Wallaby-grass is recognised as being listed under the EPBC Act. A record of the species’ occurrence from 2011, which is from Bolin Bolin Billabong, is specifically cited. Yet the same documents and the primary document all state that Bolin Bolin Billabong ‘is a known site of cultural significance and ecological value (non-EPBC related)’. The phrase in parenthesis is wrong. • ‘Attachment D’ correctly describes the habitat of the River Swamp Wallaby-grass as being wetlands. Several of the referral documents indicate that a tunnel will be constructed adjacent to Bolin Bolin Billabong, and there are clear acknowledgments that tunnel dewatering can reduce the water in wetlands. Page 29 of ‘Attachment D’ draws the inconsistent conclusion that ‘it is not anticipated that dewatering would impact the River Swamp Wallaby-grass’, without explanation. • The referral documentation states that Bolin Bolin Billabong, and what the authors regard as potential habitat for the River Swamp Wallaby-grass, are outside the ‘referred project area’ and hence at no risk from the project. It is a significant oversight to ignore the potential for off-site impacts such as altering the groundwater table.
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018 North East Link’s Impacts on Nationally Significant Ecological Matters Page 7
• The referral documents have been prepared without an awareness that the River Swamp Wallaby-grass grows in the wetland system at the Trinity Grammar sports complex. That wetland system was part of Bolin Bolin Billabong before Bulleen Rd was constructed. • The referral documents overlook the reality that the proposed North East Link road would have to pass through the wetlands at the Trinity Grammar sports complex.
Version 1.0, 6th February 2018 Annexure E
Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology
A report to the City of Boroondara by Dr Graeme Lorimer, Biosphere Pty Ltd
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 2 2. Overview ...... 2 2.1. Incompleteness ...... 2 2.1.1. Unfinished Fieldwork ...... 2 2.1.2. Unaddressed Scoping Requirements ...... 2 2.1.3. Unaddressed Planning Provisions ...... 4 2.1.4. Unaddressed Works ...... 5 2.2. Contestable or Inconsistent Content ...... 6 3. Further Detail ...... 7 3.1. Misunderstanding of Planning Provisions ...... 7 3.2. Threatened Communities ...... 9 3.3. Threatened Species ...... 10 3.3.1. Dismissal of Certain Categories ...... 10 3.3.2. Greenhoods ...... 11 3.3.3. Melbourne Yellow Gum ...... 11 3.3.4. Trinity Grammar Wetlands ...... 12 3.3.5. Spurious Plant Records ...... 13 3.3.6. Glossy Grass Skink ...... 13 3.3.7. Crakes and Rails ...... 14 3.3.8. Bitterns ...... 15 3.3.9. Threatened Ducks ...... 15 3.4. Aquatic Ecology ...... 16 3.5. Groundwater Impacts ...... 16 3.6. Literature Survey ...... 18 3.6.1. Yarra Bend Park ...... 18 3.6.2. Yarra Flats Park...... 19 3.6.3. Kew Golf Club, Kew Billabong, Willsmere Park, Kilby Reserve and Hays Paddock ...... 19 3.6.4. Other Sites in Boroondara...... 20 3.7. Risk Assessment ...... 20 3.7.1. The Risk Matrix ...... 20 3.8. Impact Assessment ...... 21 4. Document Structure, Repetition and Minor Errors ...... 23 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 2
1. Introduction
This document contains a critical review of the draft ‘North East Link Project Environmental Effects Statement Technical Report – Ecology’ by GHD, dated September 2018. For compactness, the term, ‘draft Technical Report’ is used in what follows.
The draft Technical Report was provided to the City of Boroondara’s representatives on the Environmental Effects Statement’s ‘Technical Reference Group’ for review. They then referred it to me for independent peer review, with a request to focus on Boroondara and adjacent areas that may affect Boroondara. They also gave me the corresponding draft report on groundwater, which I have I have searched for parts relevant to ecology.
2. Overview
The draft Technical Report covers a large amount of work in its 626 pages. However, it appears to have been rushed and it is not ready for the review by me or the EES Technical Reference Group. It is incomplete and contains many errors and inconsistencies that need to be corrected. This section of my review provides an overview and Section 3 provides more detail.
I have highlighted ‘action items’ that I would particularly like to see addressed, other than those already foreshadowed in the report.
2.1. Incompleteness
2.1.1. Unfinished Fieldwork
The draft Technical Report acknowledges that there is unfinished botanical fieldwork regarding the River Swamp Wallaby-grass, Short Water-starwort, Silurian Striped Greenhood, Green- striped Greenhood. The remaining fieldwork cannot be completed until December 2018 at the earliest, followed by incorporation of the findings into several sections of the report. Depending on the findings, there may be a need for translocation plans, offsetting and/or changes in project design or construction processes.
Another indication of incomplete fieldwork is the first paragraph of p. 100, which ends, ‘Field surveys will be required to complete these assessments’ (being Habitat Hectare assessments).
Because additional fieldwork will delay completion of a future draft of the report, there is an opportunity to do fieldwork in Boroondara that the report says would have been done if not for delayed permission from the council.
There is also an opportunity to fill gaps in the investigation that the report does not address. One such gap is the failure to conduct a targeted survey for the Glossy Grass Skink, for which the report identifies a number of possible locations within ‘a large area of potential habitat’ (p. 142). Other gaps in the fieldwork are discussed below.
2.1.2. Unaddressed Scoping Requirements
Section 4.6 of the EES Scoping Requirements, headed ‘Habitat and biodiversity’, includes this ‘key issue’: ‘Potential for significant effects on biodiversity values including effects associated with changes in hydrology or hydrogeology (including under future climate change scenarios)
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 3 or threatening processes listed under the FFG Act’. The draft Technical Report does not address future climate change scenarios and their interactions with North East Link’s impacts on water availability for flora or fauna.
Another ‘key issue’ in the EES Scoping Requirements that has not been addressed in the draft Technical Report is ‘Reduction in environmental quality due to increased transmission or generation of pollutants from loss of vegetation, including aquatic vegetation and algae’.
Among its ‘Priorities for characterising the existing environment’, the EES Scoping Requirements includes a requirement to ‘Identify both habitat utilised by listed fauna and the existing or likely presence of vegetation under the FFG Act or DELWP Advisory list within the project area, associated works areas and in the broader area’. Listed fauna and the DELWP Advisory List for plants include a range of categories of species. The draft Technical Report has chosen not to assess all those categories (see my Section 3.3.1 below). I can see no basis for GHD to have done so and I am concerned that some of the omissions could be quite important.
Action: Correct the neglect of requirements related to climate change, pollution / vegetation interactions and DELWP Advisory Listed-species.
Another EES Scoping Requirement is to ‘Develop potential and proposed design options and measures that can avoid or minimise significant direct and indirect effects on vegetation, listed ecological communities, or other landscape elements utilised by protected fauna and flora (including remnant, planted and regenerated vegetation)’. The draft Technical Report’s response is presumably the use of tunnelling and the ‘Environmental Performance Requirements’ (EPRs) in Section 13. However, most of the EPRs provide only a superficial response because they represent only a promise that design options or mitigation measures will be developed later.
For example, in response to the EES Scoping Requirement to ‘Develop potential and proposed design options and measures that can avoid or minimise significant direct and indirect effects on vegetation’, EPR FF2 proposes, ‘Through detailed design, minimise the removal of native vegetation and fauna habitat and impacts on habitat connectivity’, leaving the actual measures to an as-yet unwritten ‘Construction Environmental Management Plan’. As another example, for ‘Weed and pathogen management measures’, EPR FF3 is ‘Develop and implement measures to avoid the spread or introduction of weeds and pathogens during construction, including vehicle and equipment hygiene’.
In the many cases like these, I feel the EPRs do not respond to the requirement to provide solutions but instead simply restate that the requirement exists. I expect an EES to produce evidence that solutions actually exist, not just statements that solutions will be sought. I am concerned that corners appear to have been cut and an important role of the EES is being devolved to later work without the same level of oversight.
Action: Develop actual solutions to the ecological threats, not just statements that solutions will be sought at some later time.
The EES Scoping Requirement quoted above is not the only one to refer to planted vegetation. The ‘Evaluation objective’ for habitat and biodiversity is ‘To avoid or minimise adverse effects on vegetation (including remnant, planted and regenerated) …’. In most respects, the draft Technical Report dismisses planted vegetation on the (mistaken) basis that its removal is not generally subject to a planning permit. Even revegetation funded by government to provide
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 4 habitat is dismissed as ‘amenity planting’, which is inaccurate and arguably disingenuous. I do not regard the draft Technical Report as meeting the EES Scoping Requirements for planted vegetation. I provide more detail in Section 3.1 below.
Action: Assess planted vegetation as required under current planning provisions, without using the term ‘amenity plantings’ as a euphemism.
The EES Scoping Requirements incorporate the associated ‘Minister’s Procedures and Requirements’, which commence as follows:
‘The EES is to document investigations of potential environmental effects of the Public Works, including the feasibility of design alternatives and relevant environmental mitigation and management measures, in particular for: (a) potential effects on biodiversity, …’ [my emphasis].
I do not see any documentation of investigations into the feasibility of design alternatives. That is not to say that alternatives have not been considered; I regard the use of tunnelling and the designation of no-go zones as appropriate measures to reduce effects on biodiversity. There may well have been other steps taken. In view of the quote above, I would like the draft Technical Report to document what has been done. To a large degree, the same documentation needs to be prepared anyway for the applicable planning permit under clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions.
Action: Document what design alternatives, mitigation measures and management options have been considered to reduce ecological impacts and why they were adopted or rejected.
2.1.3. Unaddressed Planning Provisions
Misunderstandings of planning law have led the draft Technical Report to omit various investigations that are required under planning schemes.
Page 11 and Section 4.3 wrongly suggest that no planning permit is required for vegetation removal as long as an exemption applies under the state-wide controls over removal of native vegetation (clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions). In reality, an exemption from clause 52.17 does not also represent an exemption from any other planning control. Most of the project area lies within overlays that require a permit to remove various types of vegetation (native or otherwise), regardless of any exemption under clause 52.17.
The draft Technical Report has only assessed locally indigenous species. Even clause 52.17 is more general, while many of the overlays (including in Boroondara) extend to species from overseas.
The draft Technical Report says that properties smaller than 0.4 hectares were not assessed for flora or fauna on the basis that an exemption applies to such properties under clause 52.17. The overlays generally do not provide such an exemption, so properties smaller than 0.4 hectares should be assessed. In any case, the EES Scoping Requirements do not say that flora and fauna only need to be assessed on larger properties.
Manningham’s Environmental Significance Overlays ESO2 and ESO3 require an assessment of locally and regionally threatened flora and fauna, as well as measures to negate, minimise or manage those impacts. The draft Technical Report does not address these requirements and additional fieldwork would be required to do so.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 5
The draft Technical Report deals with ‘offsets’, but only those associated with clause 52.17. In general, an offset that satisfies clause 52.17 may not be of the right kind or magnitude to meet the requirements of the applicable overlays.
I understand that it is intended that the EES will be exhibited alongside a planning amendment to effectively exempt North East Link from planning controls and substitute other requirements approved by the Minister for Planning, guided by the EES. The present draft of the amendment would effectively remove the relevant overlays. I therefore regard it as particularly important to deal thoroughly with all the currently relevant planning controls during the EES process.
I provide more detail about planning controls in Section 3.1 below.
Action: Take advice from a planner and complete the assessments required under current planning provisions.
2.1.4. Unaddressed Works
I am surprised that the draft Technical Report does not even mention that some wetlands at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex will be destroyed by excavations for a cut-and-cover tunnel and an adit (or launch point) for a mined tunnel. The vulnerable-listed River Swamp Wallaby- grass was found in one of those wetlands during the most recent thorough botanical survey, in 2007. (Page 93 wrongly states that River Swamp Wallaby-grass was only detected ‘within close proximity to the project boundary’, whereas it was actually recorded in ‘Wetland B’, all of which is within the project area and much of which will be excavated for a cut-and-cover tunnel.) It is not clear to me what will be the fate of the Trinity Grammar wetlands that are not, or only partly, excavated. Without even acknowledging these facts, and before a targeted search has been done, the draft Technical Report should not have concluded that the species ‘is not expected to be significantly impacted’ by North East Link. See my Section 3.3.4 below for more detail.
I have only been given a few of the draft EES documents, so I may be missing something, but there are bulges in the project boundary which make me wonder whether there are works proposed which have not been properly considered in the draft Technical Report.
The most straightforward example is Simpsons Lake in the Kew Golf Club’s course. As stated by Lorimer (2006), the lake’s trees are believed to represent the only breeding site in the Melbourne area for the Australasian Darter. A range of other cormorant species also breed there. The project area boundary bulges around the lake, for reasons I do not know. Given that the project area is said to be where construction work and associated activities are concentrated, I would have expected those activities at Simpsons Lake to be addressed in the draft Technical Report.
Similar situations in Boroondara occur at the southernmost pond at the Freeway Golf Course and at the freeway underpass next to the Kew Billabong.
Action: Reveal all the relevant works in proximity to significant natural assets and update the risk assessment, impact assessment and environmental protection requirements accordingly.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 6
2.2. Contestable or Inconsistent Content
There are many cases in which I think the draft Technical Report has taken an unjustifiably optimistic view that North East Link’s impacts can be dismissed. The most important of these are as follows: • I am concerned that some of the native vegetation to be removed appears to have been overlooked and some of it has been misrepresented. For example, at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex, I see on Figure 10-13 that: • The indigenous revegetation along the northern boundary (generally north of the tennis courts) is not shown as being subject to removal despite being at the junction between the cut-and-cover tunnel and the mined tunnel, where works will be at their most intense; • No vegetation is shown as being removed from the eastern half of ‘Wetland B’ where Australian Ecosystems (2007) found the listed-vulnerable River Swamp Wallaby-grass, despite that area being within the project boundary; and • The rest of ‘Wetland B’ and all of ‘Wetland A’ are depicted as ‘Floodplain Riparian Woodland’ whereas they are actually wetlands, identified by Australian Ecosystems (2007) as ‘EVC 932 Wet Verge Sedgeland’ and ‘EVC 172 Floodplain Wetland Aggregate’, respectively. My task in checking for errors and omissions in vegetation removal has been confounded by the apparent absence of a map or plan that shows labels on the ‘habitat zones’ that appear in Table 25. In this situation, I cannot (and should not have to) check all of the vegetation to be removed but more checking is needed. Action: Correct the errors above, check the remaining areas and make corrections as required. Put labels on Figure 10 to allow independent checking. I and others have found the draft Technical Report equivocal about how much vegetation is to be removed, not just because the project design is not final. Within the project boundary, pages iii, 76, 186 and 240 say that there are 52 ha of native vegetation, 74 large trees in patches and 284 scattered trees lie within the project boundary, whereas p. 99 and Tables 23, 24, 25 and 50 indicate that there are 109–110 ha of native vegetation, 111 large trees in patches and 433 scattered trees. Uncertainty is understandable but internal inconsistencies of more than a factor of two are worrying. Action: Resolve the inconsistencies just mentioned, be open about what the quoted figures represent and acknowledge that more or less clearing may be required. • The project area is acknowledged in various tables in the draft Technical Report to contain eight threatened Ecological Vegetation Classes (or vegetation communities). However, the text of the report makes repeated erroneous statements that the native vegetation within the project boundary is ‘non-threatened’ and that there are no threatened communities (e.g. pp. iii, 76 and 186). I am also not satisfied that the project area contains no community that is listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (‘EPBC Act’), as claimed in several places in the report. The community at issue is called either ‘EVC 55-04 – Western Basalt Plains (River Red Gum) Grassy Woodland’ or ‘Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain’. For details, see my Section 3.2 below.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 7
Action: Correct the misrepresentation of threatened Ecological Vegetation Classes. Either explain why the abovementioned listed communities do not occur, or correct the mistake and make the necessary arrangements under the two Acts. • I know the listed vulnerable species, Melbourne Yellow Gum, to be common around Yarra Bend Park and the ‘Victorian Biodiversity Atlas’ holds a 2018 record of it in within the project area. The draft Technical Report conflicts with these observations, as detailed in my Section 3.3.3 below.
Action: Check tree identifications and resolve the discrepancy with the conflicting data. • The draft Technical Report dismisses the impacts of North East Link upon many of the threatened flora and fauna species with statements like ‘Direct impacts on the most suitable habitat for these species are being avoided by tunnelling’. These dismissals ignore indirect impacts (contrary to the EES Scoping Requirements) as well as habitat that may be substantial but less so than the most suitable habitat. No justification is given for doing so. Tunnelling is also given credit for avoiding certain risks even at locations remote from the tunnels. I provide details in Section 3.3 below.
Action: Remove spurious dismissals of impacts and replace them with either valid arguments or appropriate acknowledgement of, and responses to, the threats. • The many descriptions in the report of impacts from groundwater changes appear to me to be inconsistent, and I think the need for mitigation has been unjustifiably dismissed (see my Section 3.5 below). The draft Technical Report states that ‘this report does not seek to verify the accuracy of modelling’ of groundwater changes. In the absence of any evidence about the accuracy or otherwise of the modelling, I think the report should not draw so heavily on the modelling to dismiss groundwater impacts.
Action: Report on how different the groundwater modelling predictions may be from reality (including an allowance for climate change, as per the EES Scoping Requirements). Address the impacts that would result if groundwater drawdown turns out to be at the upper end of the range of uncertainty in the modelling results. • I see shortcomings in the ‘Risk assessment’ and ‘Impact assessment’ processes in Sections 11 and 12 (see my Sections 3.7 and 3.8). In my view, some of the ‘Impact assessments’ are superficial and based on unreasonable assessments of the likelihood of impacts occurring.
3. Further Detail
3.1. Misunderstanding of Planning Provisions
The last column of Table 3 on p. 11 of the draft Technical Report implies that in overlay areas, permits are not required if there is an exemption under clause 52.17. This suggests the authors have a fundamental misunderstanding about statutory planning. Exemptions under clause 52.17 are restricted to that clause and do not represent exemptions from any other part of a planning scheme, including overlays. Overlays have separate and independent exemptions, about which the table is silent.
There is also a misunderstanding about ‘offsets’ under overlays. There is no particular need for the ‘offsets’ or other permit requirements under an overlay to match those of clause 52.17, in
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 8 magnitude or kind. For example, Manningham’s ESO2 and ESO3 overlays include the decision guideline: ‘The likely impact of the proposal on species of flora or fauna which are threatened at the municipal, regional, state or federal level and the extent to which provisions are made to negate, minimise or manage those impacts’. In other words, a permit may be refused, or ‘offset’ conditions may be imposed, if locally or regionally threatened flora or fauna are affected, despite such powers not applying under clause 52.17. At any location where clause 52.17 applies as well as one or more overlays, it is quite possible that offsets satisfying clause 52.17 will not satisfy the overlay(s).
The misunderstanding about how planning permit exemptions work may explain why the fieldwork described in Section 5.4.5 of the draft Technical Report does not describe any attempt to detect or quantify the presence of locally threatened plant species in areas affected by Manningham’s ESO2 and ESO3.
The misunderstandings just described have also impaired Section 4.3.2 of the draft Technical Report. The part of that section headed ‘Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation’ describes various aspects of planning permits under clause 52.17 but it is presented as if they apply also to permits under other provisions such as overlays. For example, the paragraphs headed ‘Offset requirements’ are not, in general, applicable to the requirements of an overlay. The text under the heading ‘Planning overlays and Planning Zones’ on p. 17 does not acknowledge that overlays may require compensation for vegetation removal beyond what is required by clause 52.17, even in a situation where there is an exemption from clause 52.17.
The misunderstandings above carry into the treatment of ‘amenity plantings’ on page 31 of the draft Technical Report. (The report takes the unusual course of calling revegetation ‘amenity plantings’, which I think is inaccurate and value-driven, if not disingenuous.) There, the report assumes that vegetation which is exempt under clause 52.17 does not require a permit for its removal. This is not true if an overlay triggers a need for a permit. Take the example of Significant Landscape Overlays (SLOs), which (according to p. 21 of the report) affect the project in six municipalities. (All of the Boroondara section of the North East Link project is affected.) All of those overlays require a permit for removal of vegetation, whether planted or not and whether ‘native’ or not. Exemptions apply but not the exemption from clause 52.17 relied upon on page 31 of the draft Technical Report.
The subsequent page then states that planted plants were only treated as needing a permit for their removal if they met all of four criteria (GHD’s emphasis). In fact, no plant can meet all four criteria, because they would have to be planted (criterion 3) and naturally regenerated (criterion 4), which are mutually exclusive requirements. There has presumably been a mistake in the way the criteria have been expressed. However, there are more fundamental faults: • The first criterion is ‘Canopy trees were over three metres tall’. Even if there were no overlays involved, there is no exemption from clause 52.17 on the basis of a plant not being a canopy tree or being less than 3 m tall. For example, the project area includes revegetation at Willsmere Park that contains many locally indigenous understorey species, planted and managed for conservation purposes. Even ignoring the SLO that applies, clause 52.17 requires a permit to remove the revegetation. There is no legal basis for GHD to create their own criteria to exclude the revegetation from their assessment; • The second criterion is, in effect, that species must be considered likely to be locally indigenous. Again, there is no such requirement under clause 52.17 or the overlays, and there is no legal basis for GHD to unilaterally apply it; and
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 9
• Regardless of planning controls, the EES Scoping Requirements include the Evaluation Objective ‘To avoid or minimise adverse effects on vegetation (including remnant, planted and regenerated)…’.
GHD’s stated reason for devising its own criteria for exempting planted vegetation is because there is ‘often a difficult distinction’ between purely amenity plantings and ‘vegetation planted or managed with public funding for land protection or enhancing biodiversity’. I think it is often not a difficult distinction and I question what effort was taken to find out.
The misunderstanding about the level of independence between clause 52.17 and overlays is a likely partial cause for an unjustified failure to conduct fieldwork on private lots smaller than 4,000 m². Page 30 of the draft Technical Report refers to ‘Numerous private land holdings not accessed’ during fieldwork, with the explanation, ‘private properties covering less than 0.4 ha were not assessed, as Clause 52.17 of the Planning and Environment Act does not apply to these areas’. This argument has the following faults: • Clause 52.17 is within planning schemes, not the Planning and Environment Act; • Clause 52.17 relates only to vegetation removal whereas the EES is supposed to be looking at fauna as well; • Clause 52.17 is not the only relevant planning control over vegetation; overlays may also apply; • The project’s ecological impacts are affected by legal requirements other than just planning schemes and the Planning and Environment Act, e.g. other federal and Victorian Acts and the EES Scoping Statement; and • The EES is supposed to be conducting a complete, risk-based analysis of the project’s ecological impacts, regardless of whether an impact triggers a legal breach or permit requirement.
I believe the draft Technical Report should either provide a valid justification for the omission of fieldwork from private lots smaller than 4,000 m² or else correct the omission.
3.2. Threatened Communities
Page 186 of the draft Technical Report makes repeated erroneous statements that the native vegetation within the project boundary is ‘non-threatened’. In reality, the project area includes eight threatened Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs), as indicated in Tables 21, 23 and 25 as well as Appendices J and M. Seven of the EVCs are in the highest possible threat category of ‘endangered’ and one is in the next-highest category of ‘vulnerable’.
There are also misleading statements on pp. iii and 76 that no threatened communities were found to be present within the project boundary. Each of the eight threatened EVCs is a threatened vegetation community or a group of related threatened communities. Page 24 states (without explanation) that the words ‘threatened community’ are taken in the report to exclude threatened EVCs, which is unconventional and, in my view, misleading.
I am also not satisfied that there are no communities listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (‘EPBC Act’), as claimed in several places in the draft Technical Report, e.g. p. 100. Patches of Plains Grassy Woodland are mapped on the Western Basalt Plains (aka Victorian Volcanic
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 10
Plain) within the project area on Figures 10-24 and 10-25 and there is a corresponding entry in Table 23 (p. 99). I would have expected those patches to represent EVC 55-04 – ‘Western Basalt Plains (River Red Gum) Grassy Woodland’, which is listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act. I would also have expected those patches to meet the broader definition of the EPBC Act-listed community, ‘Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain’. If there is evidence to the contrary, it should be given in the report; Otherwise, the report should be corrected and there may be consequences under each of the relevant Acts.
3.3. Threatened Species
Table 8 on p. 24 of the draft Technical Report refers to ‘DELWP Advisory List’ (singular). There are actually three such advisory lists: one for plants, one for vertebrates and one for invertebrates. Table 8 only deals with the one for plants, titled ‘Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014’. Different threat categories are used for fauna.
3.3.1. Dismissal of Certain Categories
Page 25 of the draft Technical Report states that the EES has not included flora whose threat rating in the DELWP ‘Advisory List’ is ‘poorly known’. The reason stated for excluding these species is that ‘the current knowledge of their distribution and abundance is not sufficient to determine whether these species should be considered as rare or threatened in Victoria’. More precisely, the definition of the ‘poorly known category’ is ‘poorly known and suspected, but not definitely known, to belong to one of the above categories [extinct, endangered, vulnerable or rare] within Victoria’. Many of the species in the ‘poorly known’ category are undoubtedly rarer than many in the ‘rare’ category. An example is Anthosachne kingiana subsp. multiflora (a kind of wheat-grass), which grows on the bank of Willsmere Billabong and several other places near the northern edge of the Eastern Freeway in Kew. Another example is Green-top Sedge, which is recorded at Bolin Bolin Billabong. I believe GHD should have acknowledged that ‘poorly known’ species are suspected to be rare or threatened with good reason, and that the ‘precautionary principle’ should have been applied rather than ignoring the species simply due to the absence of complete scientific knowledge.
Perhaps more seriously, the omission of ‘poorly known’ flora species in the DELWP Advisory List appears to conflict with the EES Scoping Requirements. Page 18 of the EES Scoping Requirements includes the following specification for characterising the existing environment:
‘Identify both habitat utilised by listed fauna and the existing or likely presence of vegetation under the FFG Act or DELWP Advisory list within the project area, associated works areas and in the broader area.’
No exception is made in this specification for ‘poorly known’ species, so I presume GHD have made a unilateral decision to exclude them from the study.
I believe that ‘poorly known’ plant species in the study area should be assessed using the risk- based approach adopted in the EES. (I do not expect there to be many species.) An assessment can be made of the joint probability that a ‘poorly known’ species actually is threatened (as suspected) and will be significantly impacted by North East Link. I cannot tell how important this step is because the draft Technical Report does not even list the ‘poorly known’ species that the consultants decided not to investigate further.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 11
The ‘data deficient’ category of fauna is similar to the ‘poorly known’ category of plants except that it can (in principle) include species for which there is no suspicion of threat. (In practice, I believe the Victorian fauna advisory lists don’t include any species for which there is no suspicion of threat.) In my view, the EES should assess ‘data deficient’ vertebrate and invertebrate species within the study area. It would, of course, be open for GHD to explain why each affected species is under so little threat of extinction in Victoria that the decision to ignore them is justified.
In addition, GHD’s decision to omit ‘data deficient’, ‘conservation dependent’ and ‘near threatened’ fauna species from the report conflicts with the EES Scoping Requirements, which include the ‘Key issue’:
‘Potential for direct or indirect impact on vegetation and other landscape elements used by fauna listed under FFG Act or DELWP Advisory lists or by listed migratory species.’
An example of a species listed as ‘near threatened’ is the Nankeen Night Heron, which appears to move between Kew Golf Club (its main local roost), Kew Billabong and Hays Paddock.
Action: To satisfy the EES Scoping Requirements, I believe the draft Technical Report should assess all species in the categories of ‘poorly known’, ‘data deficient’ and ‘near threatened’.
3.3.2. Greenhoods
Page 35 of the draft Technical Report includes an apparently self-contradictory section on orchids. It begins by stating that there was no targeted survey for four orchid species because ‘field investigations were being conducted at a time when these species were observable’. The next sentence but one states that the fieldwork was not done during the flowering time of two of the four species, namely Green-striped Greenhood and Silurian Striped Greenhood. Those two species could not be deemed ‘observable’ outside their flowering period.
This deficiency in the fieldwork is eventually acknowledged on p. 57, where there is a statement that targeted surveys would be done during August 2018. I am unclear how to reconcile that statement with the date of the draft Technical Report being September 2018. I am also unclear why p. 92 appears to pre-empt the planned searches by stating that ‘No individuals [of Green- striped Greenhood] were observed during field assessments and potential suitable habitat is unlikely to be impacted by proposed works’.
Action: After the planned targeted surveys for greenhoods, update and correct the report as necessary. This may require changes to impact assessments, risk assessments and mitigation measures.
3.3.3. Melbourne Yellow Gum
Page 83 of the draft Technical Report describes Box Ironbark Forest as being dominated by Red Ironbark with fewer River Red Gum. In reality, no wild Red Ironbark grow within at least 15 km. I cannot tell whether the mistake is due to a drafting error, misidentification or mistaking planted trees for wild ones. In addition, there is no reference to Melbourne Yellow Gum in the Box Ironbark Forest, even though it is actually common in that community in Yarra Bend Park (Beardsell 2003) – suggesting another possible misidentification.
Melbourne Yellow Gum is easily mistaken for River Red Gum. Such a misidentification would be a problem because Melbourne Yellow Gum is listed as vulnerable in the Advisory List of
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 12
Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014 and is therefore a target for the EES. Appendix E of the draft Technical Report says it was detected during the fieldwork but it is not mentioned in Section 7.3.2 as having been found, or likely to occur, within the project area. This conflicts with my recollections of the Yarra Bend area and with a record by Biosis Research of the species at Fairlea Reserve within the project area. This record can be viewed in the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas and it derived from a targeted survey on 26/6/18. At the very least, it seems unjustifiably optimistic to dismiss the possible occurrence of the rare Melbourne Yellow Gum within the project area, as has been done in Section 7.3.2.
3.3.4. Trinity Grammar Wetlands
Page 36 of the draft Technical Report states:
‘Given the proximity of works within Trinity Grammar, and current uncertainty around the potential for groundwater drawdown associated with the project and subsequent surface water impacts, it is recommended that targeted survey for River Swamp Wallaby- grass be conducted at Trinity Grammar Sporting Complex wetlands, Warringal Parklands and Banyule Flats wetlands in December 2018’.
It therefore appears odd that page 93 states:
‘Despite a high likelihood of occurrence within the project boundary, River Swamp Wallaby-grass is not expected to be significantly impacted as the majority of suitable habitat falls within areas not being directly impacted by surface works. However, potential groundwater drawdown in the vicinity of the southern portal due to tunnelling activities under the Yarra River, could reduce water available to wetlands reliant on groundwater to some degree, and subsequently affect population viability’.
In reality, a cut-and-cover tunnel is to be excavated through ‘Wetland B’ at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex where River Swamp Wallaby-grass was observed in 2007. This could hardly be regarded as not being within the majority of the habitat for the species in the area, as the only other known occurrences are in a neighbouring wetland at the sports complex and at Bolin Bolin Billabong.
In addition, the population of River Swamp Wallaby-grass at the sports complex is already near the edge of its tolerance of dry conditions and hence quite vulnerable to potential disruption to flood frequency and the height of the water table by North East Link. This vulnerability is exacerbated by climate change, which the draft Technical Report ignores.
Therefore, the draft Technical Report seems unreasonably optimistic to conclude, even before a targeted survey for River Swamp Wallaby-grass, that the species ‘is not expected to be significantly impacted’.
The discussion of the vulnerable-listed Short Water-starwort on the same page (p. 93) repeats the same words as the last quote above, except that the species name is different. This raises similar concerns to the River Swamp Wallaby-grass.
Incidentally, p. 93 cites Practical Ecology (2007b) as a source of information about River Swamp Wallaby-grass but that report was actually by Australian Ecosystems.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 13
3.3.5. Spurious Plant Records
Page 77 of the draft Technical Report states that the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas contains a record of the rare Green Scentbark within the project area. That species does not occur naturally any closer than the Yarra Glen area, although it is common for hybrids involving Mealy Stringybark to be misidentified as such. I expect the report’s reference is to a record from 1989 before the Eastern Freeway was built over the location. The species was not even described until 1996. The record is completely unreliable.
A similar naivety affects the entries in Table 19 of Venus-hair Fern and Wilga. A simple check of the records would have revealed that they should not have been included in the EES. The Venus-hair Fern record is a specimen of a weed growing in cracks in the brickwork at Hawthorn railway station. The Wilga record is a specimen from a tree grown in the Royal Botanic Gardens.
3.3.6. Glossy Grass Skink
No targeted survey was conducted for the Glossy Grass Skink, which is on the DELWP ‘Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna’. This is despite the acknowledgment on p. 142 of the draft Technical Report that the project area ‘is likely to contain potentially suitable habitat along each of the waterways, but particularly along the Yarra floodplain’. In addition, my 2006 ‘Inventory and Assessment’ report stated on p. 50:
‘The Glossy Grass Skink: This rare lizard species was recorded at a billabong at the Freeway Golf Course when last surveyed in 1991. There is a strong chance that it persists there and at other secluded swampy habitat where Swamp Paperbarks grow, such as at the Kew Golf Club. A survey for the Glossy Grass Skink would be very valuable.’ and on p. 80:
‘The well-vegetated billabong between the 10th fairway and the Carey Grammar Sports Complex deserves particular comment. It supported three broods of Purple Swamphen and large numbers of frogs during the surveys in 2004-5. The same billabong also supported the rare Glossy Grass Skink when inspected in 1991, and the habitat still appears suitable.’
The observer of Glossy Grass Skinks at Freeway Golf Course was Cam Beardsell of Parks Victoria. He visited Freeway Golf Course with me in 2006 and confirmed that suitable habitat remained, including among paperbarks along Koonung Creek within the golf course.
I believe Kew Billabong and the large billabong at the Kew Golf Course are other potential sites.
I do not understand why GHD did not conduct a targeted survey for Glossy Grass Skinks. Unless an explanation can be given, I believe a targeted survey should be done. So far, only ‘opportunistic’ inspections have been conducted incidentally while searching for Growling Grass Frogs. This approach is no substitute for a targeted survey, which may involve techniques such as laying roof tiles and checking beneath them periodically.
The ‘opportunistic’ searches were at only three sites, each on one day. The weather was evidently not always appropriate, as p. 44 says appropriate conditions applied only ‘as much as possible’. The three sites represent a small fraction of the ‘large area of potential habitat’
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 14 described on p. 142 of the draft Technical Report. None of the sites were in Boroondara despite the information quoted above. Page 44 of the draft Technical Report states, ‘Another site was identified for assessment (Kew Billabong and banks of the Yarra River), but access permission was not granted by Boroondara City Council in time for the seasonal survey’. I am informed that delayed permission only affected the Boroondara Tennis Centre and Freeway Golf Course. In any case, delayed permission is not an explanation for why no search was done at Kew Golf Course, where Growling Grass Frogs were searched on 6/11/17 and 13/11/17 (p. 132).
I understand that a slide presentation to the EES Technical Reference Group on 13th September 2018 declared the effort to find Glossy Grass Skinks to be a ‘targeted survey’. The draft Technical Report indicates otherwise.
Overall, I regard GHD’s treatment of the Glossy Grass Skink as unsatisfactory in relation to the EES Scoping Requirements.
Action: Conduct a targeted survey for the Glossy Grass Skink, then update and correct the report as necessary. This may require changes to impact assessments, risk assessments and mitigation measures.
3.3.7. Crakes and Rails
Page 136 of the draft Technical Report acknowledges that Lewin’s Rail and Baillon’s Crake may be resident along the Yarra and that there are recent reports of Baillon’s Crake at Trinity Grammar Sports Complex and along Koonung Creek. The report then states, ‘Direct impacts on the most suitable habitat for these species in the project boundary are being avoided by tunnelling’.
Exactly the same sentence is used for Little Egret, Intermediate Egret, Eastern Great Egret.
I cannot reconcile the claim that ‘direct impacts … are being avoided by tunnelling’ with: • The fact that there is no tunnel proposed for Koonung Creek, which the report acknowledges to be habitat for the species. Page 197 of the draft Technical Report states that 1 km of the creek will be covered over and another 500 m will be diverted, thereby reducing the habitat available; • The acknowledgment on p. 36 that ‘Given the proximity of works within Trinity Grammar, and current uncertainty around the potential for groundwater drawdown associated with the project and subsequent surface water impacts…’. The Trinity Grammar wetlands are acknowledged to be habitat for these threatened waterbirds, particularly Baillon’s Crake. Some of the Trinity Grammar wetlands are proposed to be destroyed for a cut-and-cover tunnel and the hydrological impacts of the tunnel through the site threatens to render the remaining habitat unsuitable; and • The report ignores Kew Billabong and the large billabong at Kew Golf Course next to Simpsons Lake, both within a few metres of the project area and remote from any tunnel. My recollection of these billabongs and their fringing vegetation is that there is suitable habitat for egrets, crakes and rails.
Action: I believe GHD should either explain why these matters should not raise concern or else deal with them through a revised impact assessment, risk assessment and consideration of mitigation measures.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 15
3.3.8. Bitterns
Page 43 concludes that the Australasian Bittern is unlikely to occur at sites such as Koonung Creek (and presumably Kew Billabong and the golf courses lining the Yarra River) because such sites: ‘are typically degraded, disturbed (particularly by people walking dogs) and within urbanised areas. That, in association with the few VBA/e-Bird [sic.] records, suggests that those areas are very unlikely to support this species. Assessment for this species was restricted to habitat assessment and opportunistic observations’.
This statement contains a number of contestable elements: • The absence of records at these sites could be simply due to the species’ secretive behaviour (as acknowledged on p. 137) and the absence of investigation by GHD at Kew Billabong and the golf courses (particularly the large billabong at Kew Golf Course). It is no wonder that a billabong on a private, fenced golf course would have few records in the VBA and eBird; • Kew Golf Course is not available for walking dogs and the large billabong is somewhat secluded, as are parts of the Kew Billabong; • I think GHD underestimates the adaptability of the Australasian Bittern to urban water bodies. I have seen wild Australasian Bitterns hunting in clear sight at ponds at Melbourne Zoo in recent years, within a short distance of very busy footpaths between the exhibits. There are other recent records of the species at the zoo. Clearly, the Australasian Bittern can tolerate very urbanised environments in close proximity to heavy pedestrian traffic.
Page 137 of the draft Technical Report concludes that for bitterns on the Yarra floodplain, ‘Direct impacts on this area are being avoided by tunnelling’. This is clearly not true of the Kew Billabong and the Kew Golf Club’s large billabong. It is also contestable at the Trinity Grammar wetlands because the excavation of a cut-and-cover tunnel will destroy part of the wetlands and the rest is at risk, as acknowledged on p. 36.
I believe the draft Technical Report is too dismissive of the likelihood of occurrence of Australasian Bittern and the potential for its habitat to be adversely affected.
Action: I believe GHD should either explain why these matters should not raise concern or else deal with them through a revised impact assessment, risk assessment and consideration of mitigation measures.
3.3.9. Threatened Ducks
Page 138 of the draft Technical Report discusses four threatened duck species, for which possible habitat is identified along Koonung Creek and at golf courses (presumably including Kew Golf Course, on the edge of the project area). It claims, ‘Direct impacts on the most suitable habitat for these species (Yarra floodplain) are being avoided by tunnelling’. Firstly, there is no tunnelling in the vicinity of the golf courses (or the Kew Billabong). Secondly, it is not adequate to simply ‘avoid direct impacts on the most suitable habitat’; the EES should be investigating indirect impacts and to any substantial habitat, not just the ‘most suitable’.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 16
Action: GHD should deal with indirect impacts and all substantial habitat for the four duck species, not just near tunnels. This may precipitate a revised impact assessment, risk assessment and consideration of mitigation measures.
3.4. Aquatic Ecology
Page 44 of the draft Technical Report mentions that Kew Golf Course was not inspected for aquatic ecology. It mentions ‘an amenity dam’, which I gather is Simpsons Lake (even though it is not an amenity dam). The report does not mention the adjacent natural billabong to the northeast, just a few metres outside the project boundary. The latter has clearer water and is better vegetated, much more natural and not so easily dismissed as the report has done with Simpsons Lake. Neither of these wetlands is as disconnected from the Yarra River as a reader of the report might infer: Their banks are at the same elevation as that of the river with flat land between, so they fill whenever the river floods.
I am also unclear why the same page (44) states that Simpsons Lake will experience a ‘lack of direct impacts’, given that it is within the mapped project area and hence is open to construction work and associated activities. If there is evidence to back up this claim, it should be stated.
Page 47 of the draft Technical Report lists the locations where aquatic invertebrates such as insect larvae were sampled for a ‘rapid bioassessment’. Glass Creek is not included, on either side of the Eastern Freeway. If there is a compelling reason for excluding Glass Creek, I believe it should be stated; Otherwise, I believe Glass Creek should be assessed.
Action: Acknowledge Glass Creek and the large billabong next to Simpsons Lake. Either justify why these water bodies will not be adversely impacted or else do the required fieldwork and revise the impact assessment, risk assessment and mitigation measures.
Page 48 of the draft Technical Report includes a section on ‘Environmental Quality of Victorian Lakes’. The section states that the only two still waterbodies assessed in the EES were Bolin Bolin Billabong (a no-go zone) and Banyule Swamp (in a conditional no-go zone). I am left wondering why, of the many wetlands in and adjacent to the project area, the only two that were assessed are in areas that should be unaffected by the project. If there are reasons for excluding wetlands such as the Kew Billabong, the Trinity Grammar wetlands and the large billabong northeast of Simpsons Lake, I believe they should be stated. If no compelling reason can be provided, I believe those wetlands should be assessed.
Action: I believe GHD should either justify why only the two lakes were surveyed or else do additional fieldwork and revise the impact assessment, risk assessment and mitigation measures.
3.5. Groundwater Impacts
It is comforting to some degree to see in Figures 15-2 and 16-2 of the draft Technical Report that one groundwater modelling scenario predicts less than half a metre of water table change around Bolin Bolin Billabong and the Trinity Grammar wetlands. However, the report only gives results from the one scenario, without any information about sensitivity analysis. Another model or another modeller may produce rather different results.
Page 33 of the draft EES Groundwater Technical Report states:
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 17
‘It is recognised that groundwater numerical models have their limitations (see Appendix C). Respectful of the limitations of numerical groundwater models, and noting that any proposed changes during detailed design of the project or alternative design proposals can have implications to the predicted groundwater impact, the predictive output nonetheless provides a tool in which Environmental Performance Requirements can be developed.’
The Groundwater report dedicates quite a few pages to the modelling’s assumptions and limitations. Page 26 of Appendix C of the Groundwater document states the model has ‘high sensitivity’ to three groups of adjustable parameters.
Returning to the draft Ecology Technical Report, p. 57 states that ‘this report does not seek to verify the accuracy of modelling or provide an indication of the level of groundwater dependence of a potential GDE [Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem]’. I question the value of modelling that comes with no assurance about its accuracy and no indication about how dependent the existing wetlands and floodplain woodland are upon the groundwater being modelled.
My concerns accord with the following words from the section about Bolin Bolin Billabong on p. 179:
‘However, the groundwater modelling has limited ability to predict the changes to surface water levels in the billabong and floodplain landscape, with variability in topography in the billabong (approximately 8 m drop from upper bank of billabong to base of pool) being considerably greater than the uncertainty in the model across the corresponding distance. Therefore, the ecological significance of lowered groundwater levels is uncertain, although there is no evidence that this pool provides refuge habitat for any threatened aquatic species. However, it does provide habitat for other aquatic species that enter the billabong during the sporadic periods of connectivity with the Yarra River during floodplain inundation, including native and exotic fish. It is also likely to provide important water supply for the native terrestrial fauna. Managed water levels in this wetland may be required to maintain the ecological condition of the billabong.’
The Trinity Grammar wetlands were effectively part of the Bolin Bolin Billabong until they were separated by Bulleen Rd last century. They remain connected through the water table and the flows that occur between them during floods. I can see a substantial likelihood that the tunnel will substantially alter the movement of groundwater and surface water between the Bolin Bolin Billabong and those parts of the Trinity Grammar wetlands not destroyed outright during excavations for North East Link. I expect the alteration of groundwater movement to cause greater uncertainty in the modelled groundwater drawdown of the Trinity Grammar wetlands than described in the quote above regarding Bolin Bolin Billabong. That makes me concerned about the reliability of the modelling of groundwater drawdown at the Trinity Grammar wetlands.
My concerns are mirrored on p. 36, which recognises uncertainties in the groundwater modelling and the potential for ecological impacts at the Trinity Grammar wetlands.
These concerns contribute to my view that the draft Technical Report is unjustified in its repeated assurances that tunnelling will avoid ‘direct impacts’ to a range of threatened flora and fauna species that occur (or are likely to occur) on the floodplain in Bulleen.
I note that changes to groundwater during construction (EC08) and operation (EC30) are identified as a ‘Medium’ risk on pp. 181–182.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 18
The report proposes that if groundwater drawdown is found to be a problem for Bolin Bolin Billabong, water could be pumped into it to compensate. I believe that a mitigation plan should also be in place for the Trinity Grammar wetlands. Such problems may take quite some years to identify. The proposed Environmental Performance Requirements may not remain in force at that time, thereby limiting their value.
Action: Consider a mitigation plan to counter potential changes to the Trinity Grammar wetlands, considered alongside climate change.
While my brief is to focus on Boroondara, it would be remiss of me not to pass on my observations about groundwater modelling above the northern part of the tunnel. Figures 15-3, 16-3, 17-2 and 18-2 show the results of a groundwater modelling scenario, but the contour colouring is abruptly truncated at the edge of the Yarra River floodplain. I would have thought that Banyule Flats and its wetlands would be items of concern, particularly as Figure 16-3 shows a drawdown of 1–2 m abutting the floodplain. I note that Section 10.3.3 claims that Figure 16 shows the Banyule Flats to experience a drawdown of less than 0.1 m, but that conflicts with my interpretation of Figure 16.
Action: Expand the area of colour-coding on Figures 15–18 to include the Banyule Flats and remove the obscuration by vegetation mapping.
3.6. Literature Survey
I think it is odd that the draft Technical Report has evidently not looked at the state government’s ‘BioSites’ register (‘BioSites Maps and Reports for Land & Water Management Agencies – Port Phillip Region’, 2005). Most of the North East Link project area through Bulleen and west of Bulleen Rd lies within BioSites of State or Regional significance. I will cite these BioSites in the relevant subsections below. I think the draft Technical Report should mention BioSites and their significance ratings wherever they intercept the study area.
Action: Acknowledge the study area’s BioSites.
The following subsections skip over areas that are of little or no relevance to the City of Boroondara or about which I have no comments to make.
3.6.1. Yarra Bend Park
Yarra Bend Park occupies BioSite 3558, which the state government rated as being of State significance in 2002.
The last sentence on p. 59 of the draft Technical Report describes the significance of Yarra Bend Park as being of National Significance (on the basis of my 2006 assessment) or of local to state significance on the basis of a 2000 assessment by Parks Victoria. The explanation for the different ratings is that the 2002 BioSites assessment and the 2000 Parks Victoria assessment pre-dated the state government’s ‘Standard Criteria for Sites of Biological Significance in Victoria’ of 2004 and therefore do not meet current standards. As such, I think the draft Technical Report should at least explain the reason for the differences.
Page 60 cites my 2006 report regarding the significance of Valley Grassy Forest in Yarra Bend Park. There is no Valley Grassy Forest in the park and I made no reference to it, so the whole paragraph is spurious. I did, however, mention the other EVCs appearing on p. 60 as well as
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 19
Riparian Woodland, which is mapped within the project area on Figure 10-25 but is overlooked on p. 60.
Page 61 refers to ‘Blue Prickly Tussock Grass Poa labillardieri (Basalt Plains form)’. The common name is quite informal and has been applied by different people to various forms of Common Tussock-grass (Poa labillardierei) of no particular scientific significance. The qualifier ‘(Basalt Plains form)’ is sufficiently similar to the informal entity, ‘Poa labillardierei var. (Volcanic Plains)’, that the two have perhaps been confused, but the latter does not occur as far east as the Melbourne area.
Action: Correct the above errors.
3.6.2. Yarra Flats Park
‘Yarra Flats Park’ is commonly taken to include the Parks Victoria land on the western side of the river between Banksia Street and Burke Rd, and council reserve on the opposite side of the river between Burke Rd and the Freeway Golf Course. The official ‘VicNames’ register of gazetted place names shows Yarra Flats as comprising both the above areas as well as Kim Reserve behind Bulleen Art and Garden.
The draft Technical Report applies the term ‘Yarra Flats Park’ and ‘Yarra Flats’ to a much larger area but I cannot work out the full area intended. Pages iii and iv say North East Link will be tunnelled beneath the Yarra Flats, which suggests that areas either north of Banksia St and/or in the vicinity of Bulleen Rd have been added to the usual concept of Yarra Flats. Pages 61–62 associate Yarra Flats Park with information from Foreman et al. (2004), Practical Ecology (2010) and Van der Ree (2017) regarding Freeway Golf Course, which could hardly be construed as truly part of Yarra Flats Park.
Page 62 states that Manningham City Council’s 2012 Bushland Management Strategy identifies Yarra Flats Park as ‘a high priority with regards to bushland management’. I find that confusing because the strategy does not refer to Yarra Flats Park and it does not appear to give high- priority to any council bushland on the floodplain of the Yarra River within the study area. The draft Technical Report also cites my own 2009 report about wildlife movement in Manningham but I cannot reconcile my report with the draft Technical Report’s concept of Yarra Flats Park. Page 70 even refers to Willsmere Park as being on the Yarra Flats, and p. 178 seems to suggest that the southern portal is within or near Yarra Flats.
While I cannot work out what the draft Technical Report is including as ‘Yarra Flats Park’, it seems unavoidable that most or all of it lies within the BioSite 4860, which the state government rates as being of State significance.
Action: Edit the report to restrict the use of ‘Yarra Flats’ to the areas officially recognised under that name.
3.6.3. Kew Golf Club, Kew Billabong, Willsmere Park, Kilby Reserve and Hays Paddock
These sites lie within the Regionally-significant BioSite 5063.
My 2006 report is stated on p. 69 of the draft Technical Report to indicate that rarer waterbirds are frightened off the Kew Billabong and Willsmere Park by humans and dogs. More
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 20 accurately, my report states that those species are ‘easily frightened off’ and ‘unlikely to breed there’. That does not mean that rarer waterbirds do not occur there; they do.
Action: Correct the misrepresentation.
3.6.4. Other Sites in Boroondara
The State-significant BioSite 4860 includes Bolin Bolin Billabong, the western part of the Trinity Grammar Sporting Complex wetlands and the section of Koonung Creek downstream of the Boroondara Tennis Centre.
3.7. Risk Assessment
The ecological assessment of North East Link has appropriately taken a risk-based approach at all stages, e.g. in the chosen size of the study area, the amount of effort put into searching for particular species, the locations searched and the efforts taken to avoid or minimise impacts. A risk-based approach essentially means that the effort dedicated to different tasks reflects the likelihood, magnitude and duration of the expected impacts. As the report states, this requires an iterative process to progressively refine the understanding of impacts and possible responses, leading ultimately to the greatest effort being directed toward the most important impacts.
I perceive in the report a lack of clarity about the risk associated with some anticipated impacts and why some of them appear to have been dismissed. For example, I have been left wondering why so little effort has been expended on assessing habitats within Boroondara, despite the (unaddressed) presence of BioSites, threatened fauna and endangered communities (Ecological Vegetation Classes) in and adjacent to the project area. I note the report’s reference to a delay in gaining permission to access council-owned sites in Boroondara but I understand that only applies to the Boroondara Tennis Centre and Freeway Golf Course.
As a more specific example, I see no explanation of what works or impacts are expected at Simpsons Lake (a noted waterbird rookery); just a statement on p. 44 that this lake will experience ‘a lack of direct impacts’ and that a desktop assessment indicated a low risk to aquatic ecology, without any explanation of the risk assessment – not even what the threats are. In many other cases like these, I was left thinking that a proper risk assessment has not been undertaken or it has not been validly explained or a shortcut has been taken.
Action: I believe the reasons for the many dismissals of risks should be explained to a depth that allows a reader to be satisfied that corners have not been cut.
3.7.1. The Risk Matrix
I perceive inconsistencies in the ‘Severity definitions’ used in the risk assessment, listed in Appendix A of the draft Technical Report (p. 360 of the PDF file). For example, two separate situations in the ‘Medium’ category of severity are: • ‘Measurable change in populations of a state or commonwealth listed threatened species (between 0.05% and 0.5% loss of habitat within Victoria; Substantial change to common species population’; or • ‘Temporary loss of habitat connectivity associated with planted vegetation’.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 21
I disagree that these are equivalent in severity; The temporary loss of planted vegetation cannot compare with the loss of up to 0.5% of the state-wide habitat of a species that may be nationally listed as critically endangered. By the time a species meets the criteria to be listed as threatened, its survival typically relies on keeping every bit of its remaining habitat. For a highly threatened species to lose up to 0.5% of its remaining habitat is considerably more serious than ‘Temporary loss of habitat connectivity associated with planted vegetation’, in my view.
More generally, I am concerned that some of the severity ratings on p. 360 of the PDF file downplay the severity of some risks. That would result in less attention being given to mitigate the risks.
Action: I would like the report to explain the origin and basis for the thresholds in the table of severity definitions.
The table of ‘Characterisation of consequence’ on p. 361 of the PDF file appears to be incomplete. I believe the purpose of the table is to translate a combination of categories of ‘Extent’, ‘Severity of impact’ and ‘Duration of threat’ into a ‘Consequence level’ (from ‘Negligible’ to ‘Severe’). The ‘Consequence level’ is then to be used in the table on the subsequent page to yield the risk rating (low to very high). However, the table on p. 361 of the PDF file does not provide the method for determining the ‘Consequence level’, leaving a gap in the process to complete the risk rating.
Action: Fill the gap in the risk assessment methodology by showing how ‘Consequence level’ is determined.
3.8. Impact Assessment
Even ignoring the points about the risk assessment above, I question the impact assessments of some of the identified threats in Section 12 of the draft Technical Report, as follows:
EC04 – Construction activities resulting in erosion/sedimentation, dust, litter or release of contaminants leading to loss or degradation of threatened flora and ecological communities
The main ecological threat under this category is from sediment etc. moving out of the construction zone and affecting organisms and habitat. Page 194 of the draft Technical Report only describes impacts within the project boundary but the subsequent page deals with mitigation measures that will also deal with off-site impacts.
I am concerned that nowhere in the report is there any recognition that the proposed tunnel will be digging through an old rubbish tip at and near the southern portal. The rubbish must be embedded within the water table.
EC16 (p. 195) and EC17 (p. 186) are similar to EC04, as they all involve environmental contamination during construction. The risk of contaminant release or mobilisation while excavating the former rubbish tip affects all three.
Action: I recommend that EC04, EC16 and EC17 be reconsidered with a view toward recognising the risk of contaminant release and mobilisation while the former rubbish tip is being excavated. The risk assessments would then need to be re-done. Mitigation measures may need to be added to those already planned.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 22
EC38 – Changes to stormwater drainage resulting in hydraulic impact to waterways that degrades aquatic ecosystems
This risk involves the increased paving and hence runoff caused by the Eastern Freeway modifications, resulting in exacerbation of flow pulses during rainfall events and correspondingly reduced flows between events. Page 225 of the draft Technical Report treats this as inevitable, as I do. However, the table on p. 359 of the PDF document rates it as ‘Unlikely’, defined thus: ‘The event may occur under unusual circumstances but is not expected (i.e. once within a 20-year timeframe)’.
Even raising the estimated likelihood to ‘Possible’ might increase the risk rating from ‘Low’ to ‘Medium’, using the adopted risk matrix. ‘Possible’ means ‘The event may occur once within a five-year timeframe’.
Page 225 acknowledges that ‘Urban stormwater is regarded as one of the two most threatening processes to aquatic ecosystems in the urban environment (Walsh & Webb 2016), with the major mechanisms of impact from flow velocity and scouring of aquatic habitats’. I regard this as important because runoff may flow into significant aquatic habitat such as Kew Billabong, the large billabong at Kew Golf Course, Glass Creek and the Hays Paddock wetland.
Page 225 proposes that various mitigating steps be devised, which I support. These steps could reduce the consequence of the impacts but not their likelihood of occurrence.
Action: Reassess the estimated likelihood of increased stormwater discharge to waterways and hence the associated risk level. Devise appropriate mitigation measures, not just say that they will be devised.
EC39 – Increased road traffic resulting in increased pollutants (metals, hydrocarbons) in stormwater runoff to waterways that degrades aquatic ecosystems
This risk is presumably meant to include pollutants other than metals and hydrocarbons, such as sediment and litter. However, the only consequences mentioned on p. 226 relate to toxicity and pollutant accumulation, not impacts such as those related to turbidity, oxygen demand and wildlife hazards from plastic in litter.
I regard the risk characterisation as inadequate, and hence the risk assessment and mitigation measures. (See also below.)
The report continues with the remarkable paragraph:
‘The design of the road and drainage network should avoid impacts to aquatic habitats (EPR FF4), through placement of drainage inputs to waterways at locations that avoid input of pollutants to aquatic ecosystems. Any works on the drainage network and waterways should include elements that enhance the ecosystem services to build resilience to degradation from pollutants (EPR SW9).’
A waterway is an aquatic ecosystem. It is an oxymoron to suggest that there are locations where polluted stormwater can be discharged to a waterway without the pollutants entering the waterway’s aquatic ecosystem. The second quoted sentence looks as if it’s designed to impress with its use of buzzwords but it offers no meaningful indication of what will actually be done.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Peer Review of North East Link EES Technical Report – Ecology Page 23
As with EC38, the likelihood of EC39 is treated in the risk assessment as ‘Unlikely’, which I reject.
Action: If GHD wishes to argue that water pollution from increased traffic will not enter waterways or wetlands, the mechanisms for prevention should be explained. Otherwise, there should be a proper impact assessment and risk assessment, and appropriate mitigation measures should be clearly explained.
EC42 – Groundwater changes in the vicinity of the tunnel causing long-term detrimental changes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems
Action: For the reasons in my Section 3.5, I believe there should be monitoring of groundwater levels and the ecological condition of vegetation in the Trinity Grammar School Sports Complex. The top of p. 227 of the draft Technical Report would have to be modified to include that monitoring.
4. Document Structure, Repetition and Minor Errors
The draft Technical Report includes a ‘Native vegetation removal report’ in Appendix J (PDF page 446–) and an apparently identical ‘Native vegetation removal report’ in Appendix M (PDF page 565). I think cross-referencing instead of duplication would save a lot of time and confusion on the part of readers.
I also wonder whether GHD could avoid having appendices within appendices within appendices; e.g. Appendix M includes Appendix A which, in turn, includes Appendix 1, 2 & 3. That makes it hard to navigate the document; particularly as some of the appendices are duplicates of others.
The paragraph that forms Section 4.3.6 of the draft Technical Report has errors of syntax and punctuation and is poorly written in general.
Section 4.3.8 says the Wildlife Act 1975 involves native wildlife. In fact, the Act also involves ‘all kinds of deer, non-indigenous quail, pheasants, and partridges and any other taxon of animal which the Governor in Council by Order published in the Government Gazette declares to be wildlife for the purposes of this Act’.
The last paragraph of Section 4.4 is cumbersome. Its intended purpose appears to be to state how the draft Technical Report responds to ‘Biodiversity 2037’ but I am left none the wiser.
I encountered many typographical errors and minor errors such as erroneous cross-references. I have marked them in red on a copy of the PDF file, excluding the Appendices.
Version 1.0, 1st October 2018 Annexure F
North East Link Environment Effects Statement - Review Comments Register Report Name
Scope Reviewers: City of Boroondara - Dr Graeme Lorimer Purpose Date received 7/12/2018 Due date 21/12/2018 Comments review YES/NO Please send this completed worksheet to: Comment Category Legend Comment Type Legend
3 - Critical Issue 1 - Report structure comment 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific 1 - Suggestion / Data 3 - Technical comment - broad
# Comment Version/R Section Sub-section Commenter Commenter name Comment Category Comment Type Comment Changes sought Date evision organisation
1/01/2001 V2 1.1 Paragraph 2 1 - Suggestion / Data Validation1 - Report structure comment This section is incorrectly located. It should be located at section 2.5. 21/12/2018 Rev. A Table of Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 1 - Report structure comment The Contents does not match the headings in Fix the section numbering and make the Contents Contents the report; e.g. Section 25.5 is actually headed tables match the actual contents. 'Operation impact assessment'. There is no actual Section 25.2.
p.1 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25 Para before heading 25.1 Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific The 'Arboriculture' report is only about trees, Reword the paragraph to make clear where not vegetation in general. The Scoping revegetation is adressed. I can't find it in this Requirements require assessment of chapter, where its ecological importance should be revegetation (not just trees) that supports assessed. biodiversity but this paragraph leaves me wondering whether, or where, it is addressed. Explain why planted understorey has not been considered in this chapter. p.1 Change the last sentence to replace 'vegetation' 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3 3rd bullet point Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific It is incorrect to say that the Advisory List has withDelete 'tree thes'. claim that the Advisory List has no legal no legal status. For a start, the fact that it is status, or at least restrict the claim to legal status referenced in the EES Scoping Requirements under clause 52.17 of the VPPs. means that the EES must address it in order to meet the legal requirements of the Environmental Effects Act 1978 . The Advisory List also has legal status under the P&E Act because it is cited in various Ministerial Directions (e.g. Banyule), Local Planning Policies (e.g. Banyule 21.09, 22.02) and overlay schedules (e.g. Knox, Frankston). 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3 Para before Table 25.1 City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 1 - Suggestion / Data Validation2 - Technical comment - specific Comment about ..No threatened ecological Confirm whether the Grassy Woodland of the communities listed under the EPBC or Volcanic Plain north of the M80 is within the project communities of flora and fauna under the FFG area and note this in the report. Act were present within the project boundary .Is the offset site of Grassy Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plains north of the M80 in the project area? Apparently it is a project no- go area, so therefore may be in the project area and should be noted in the document.
1 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3 Para before Table 25.1 Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific As pointed out in Section 3.2 of my comments Either explain why the Plains Grassy Woodland that on the Technical Report, the study detected was detected on the Victorian Volcanic Plain does and mapped patches of Plains Grassy not match the community listed under the FFG Act Woodland on the Western Basalt Plains (aka and EPBC Act, or else withdraw the claim that no Victorian Volcanic Plain) within the project area such community was detected and address the on Figures 10-24 and 10-25 and there is a possible impacts. corresponding entry in Table 23. Unless an explanation can be provided to the contrary, Plains Grassy Woodland on the Victorian Volcanic Plain corresponds to a community listed under both the FFG Act and the EPBC Act.
19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.1 Flora and ecological City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific It's important to note where targeted surveys State explicitly if targeted surveys were not communities were not undertaken. The authors note when undertaken or explain the difference between targeted surveys were done for example - the targeted surveys and field assessments. Matted Flax Lily - and refer to the term 'field assessments' when targeted surveys were not undertaken. This seems confusing and the difference needs to be explained. 4–6 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.1 River Swamp Wallaby-grass City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific River Swamp Wallaby-grass was recorded at Note that River Swamp Wallaby-grass has been the Trinity Grammar wetlands in 2007. This recorded at the Trinity Grammar Wetlands in 2007. historical record should be noted 6 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.1 Studley Park Gum City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific Targeted surveys were not undertaken for Acknowledge that the surveys for Studley Park Gum Studley Park Gum, so the comments here are were only undertaken at Simpson Park Barracks. incomplete and misleading. It sounds as though the hybrid species was only found to occur at Simpsons Barracks.
6 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.1 Protected Flora Species Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific It is incorrect to say that plants are 'considered Remove the claim that no permit is required for weeds in the local area, as such these would removal of Sallow Wattle or Wirilda. Address the not require permits'. A permit is required for consequences. native vegetation (regardless of whether someone regards it as 'weeds') unless there is an exemption, and in this case, there isn't. Clause 52.17 is not the only permit trigger, either - there are also SLOs in force. 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.1 Ecological Vegetation Classes City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific It's not clear why EVCs are not considered Provide a clear rationale in the report why EVCs are threatened for the purposes of the report when not considered threatened in this report even there are eight threatened EVCs within the though they are listed as such by the state project area, as listed in Table 25.2. government and in Table 25.2.
6 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.2 Fauna habitat and non- City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific The introductory paragraphs to this section of Change wording in the second paragraph consistent threatened native fauna the report portray the project area as being with section 6.3 introductory paragraphs of the unremarkable in terms of fauna diversity - Technical Report. which is in contrast to the text in the Technical Report see description Section 6.3 which still acknowledges the modified urban environments but notes a quote remarkable diversity of fauna species and the environmental significance of sites especially in the Yarra Valley Parklands.
8 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.2, p. 9, Threatened and migratory fauna Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific As for the 3rd bullet point for flora, it is Delete the claim that the Advisory List has no legal 3rd bullet incorrect to state that the Advisory Lists have status, or at least restrict the claim to legal status no legal status. under clause 52.17 of the VPPs.
19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.2 Glossy Grass Skink City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific Note that the Glossy Grass Skink was recorded Include Freeway Golf Course as one of the locations at a billabong at Freeway Golf Course when where Glossy Grass Skinks were recorded in 1991. 8 surveyed in 1991. 14 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.3.2 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4 Groundwater drawdown City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 1 - Suggestion / Data Validation2 - Technical comment - specific How do you know the number of Studley park Revise text to note that the one of the eight large Gums that will be affected if there were no Studley Park Gums identified in targeted surveys targeted surveys undertaken? has a moderate risk of being impacted by groundwater drawdown and a further two of the eight etc.. 20 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4.2 Non-threatened native fauna City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific Risk EC07 - low seems underrated. Increase rating to moderate. and ecological communities Environmental weeds are the most serious threat to native flora and fauna in Boroondara. Construction activities such as clearing and soil disturbance will provide significant opportunities for weed spread. 21 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4.2 Land clearing Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific As for my comment about p. 1. In the first full para of p. 22, replace 'vegetation' with 'trees'. Explain why planted understorey has not been considered. 22 21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4.2 Land clearing Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific The native vegetation in Table 25.7 and Remove the 'non-threatened' claims. discussed in the text is overwhelmingly of threatened EVCs (Vulnerable or Endangered). The repeated descriptions of it as 'non- threatened' are wrong. 22 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4.2 Spread of weeds, pests and City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific Why is the EPR only considering Noxious Review the text (and EPR) to acknowledge pathogens weeds? Environmental weeds (as noted environmental weeds. above) are the most serious threat to ecological values in Boroondara and this is likely to be similar in neighbouring municipalities.
23 19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4.3 Threatened and migratory City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 3 - Critical Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific Table 25.8 Risk Ratings for construction seem Review and update risk ratings. terrestrial fauna too low and should be revised. There will be extensive clearing of thousands of planted amenity trees within the project boundary as noted in the arboriculture report. Although this is outside the scope of this report, it seems an oversight that habitat loss is not being considered in a relation to these lost canopy trees. 25.4.3 Rev. A 25.4 and Construction impacts City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific The use of words such as 'would' and 'should' Revise the use of would and should and consider 25.5 are spread through this section e.g. 25.5.4 The use of stronger words such as 'will' and 'must'. operation of North East Link 'would' generate noise from vehicles - change would to will.
21/12/2018 Rev. A 25.4.1, Biosphere Pty Ltd Graeme Lorimer 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific Fragmentation is a significant risk for some Include habitat fragmentation in the risk tables 25.5 25.4.2 threatened and non-threatened flora species & 25.6, consistent with EC15 in Table 25.8. Edit the and threatened communities. For example, text accordingly. River Swamp Wallaby-grass occurs on each side of Bulleen Rd at Bolin Bolin and Trinity Sportsgrounds, and the construction of the cut- and-cover tunnel will widen the gap in this once- continuous population.
19/12/2018 Rev. A 25.5.6 Modification of Waterways City of Boroondara Andrea Lomdahl 2 - Important Issue 2 - Technical comment - specific We are concerned about the proposed covering Use stronger wording change (may to will) to of Koonung Creek over quite a lengthy section acknowledge the impacts of these changes. of the creek. The construction of further covered sections will create additional barriers and change conditions for aquatic species. Annexure G
North East Link Environment Effects Statement - Review Comments Register Ecology report
Date received 1/10/2018 Reviewers: Multiple Due date cob 31/10/2018 Comments review YES/NO Organisation multiple
overal # Section Sub- Commenter Commenter name Comment Category Comment Type Comment Comment date Changes sought NELA Agreed NELA Response l ID# section organisation / For further discussion / Closed
240 1 City of Graeme Lorimer Section 4.6 of the EES Scoping Requirements, headed ‘Habitat and biodiversity’, includes this ‘key issue’: 1/10/2018 Correct the neglect of requirements related to climate change, Closed - no Future climate change scenarios are considered in the groundwater Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) ‘Potential for significant effects on biodiversity values including effects associated with changes in hydrology pollution / vegetation interactions and DELWP Advisory Listed- action and surface water assessments, and those considerations therefore or hydrogeology (including under future climate change scenarios) or threatening processes listed under the species. flow onto the assessments considered by the ecological team. FFG Act’. The draft Technical Report does not address future climate change scenarios and their interactions This has been stated at the end of section 5.6 Methods used for with North East Link’s impacts on water availability for flora or fauna. Impact Assessment. Another ‘key issue’ in the EES Scoping Requirements that has not been addressed in the draft Technical The risk associated with pollutant generation/transmission from los Report is ‘Reduction in environmental quality due to increased transmission or generation of pollutants from of aquatic vegetation has been addressed as ecosystem services in loss of vegetation, including aquatic vegetation and algae’. section 12.2.1. Risk EC40 Among its ‘Priorities for characterising the existing environment’, the EES Scoping Requirements includes a DELWP-Advisory listed species defined in Methods section 5.2. requirement to ‘Identify both habitat utilised by listed fauna and the existing or likely presence of vegetation Project staying with DELWP definitions of Threatened and non- under the FFG Act or DELWP Advisory list within the project area, associated works areas and in the broader threatened species, based on DELWP classifications. area’. Listed fauna and the DELWP Advisory List for plants include a range of categories of species. The draft Technical Report has chosen not to assess all those categories (see my Section 3.3.1 below). I can see no basis for GHD to have done so and I am concerned that some of the omissions could be quite important.
241 2 City of Graeme Lorimer Another EES Scoping Requirement is to ‘Develop potential and proposed design options and measures that Develop actual solutions to the ecological threats, not just Agreed - change Ecology team has reviewed the EPRs and identified measures to Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) can avoid or minimise significant direct and indirect effects on vegetation, listed ecological communities, or statements that solutions will be sought at some later time. made further strengthen the EPRs. EPRs updated accordingly. other landscape elements utilised by protected fauna and flora (including remnant, planted and regenerated vegetation)’. The draft Technical Report’s response is presumably the use of tunnelling and the Also, NELA is looking into options for incentives to be built into the ‘Environmental Performance Requirements’ (EPRs) in Section 13. However, most of the EPRs provide only a contracts to minimise loss of native vegetation and habitat. superficial response because they represent only a promise that design options or mitigation measures will be developed later. For example, in response to the EES Scoping Requirement to ‘Develop potential and proposed design options and measures that can avoid or minimise significant direct and indirect effects on vegetation’, EPR FF2 proposes, ‘Through detailed design, minimise the removal of native vegetation and fauna habitat and impacts on habitat connectivity’, leaving the actual measures to an as-yet unwritten ‘Construction Environmental Management Plan’. As another example, for ‘Weed and pathogen management measures’, EPR FF3 is ‘Develop and implement measures to avoid the spread or introduction of weeds and pathogens during construction, including vehicle and equipment hygiene’. In the many cases like these, I feel the EPRs do not respond to the requirement to provide solutions but instead simply restate that the requirement exists. I expect an EES to produce evidence that solutions actually exist, not just statements that solutions will be sought. I am concerned that corners appear to have been cut and an important role of the EES is being devolved to later work without the same level of oversight.
242 3 City of Graeme Lorimer The EES Scoping Requirement quoted above is not the only one to refer to planted vegetation. The Assess planted vegetation as required under current planning Closed - no Section 5.4.5 has been updated to more accurately reflect the Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) ‘Evaluation objective’ for habitat and biodiversity is ‘To avoid or minimise adverse effects on vegetation provisions, without using the term ‘amenity plantings’ as a action vegetation assessment, including amenity plantings, and what is (including remnant, planted and regenerated) …’. In most respects, the draft Technical Report dismisses euphemism. regarded as exempt from requirements for a planning permit. planted vegetation on the (mistaken) basis that its removal is not generally subject to a planning permit. Even revegetation funded by government to provide habitat is dismissed as ‘amenity planting’, which is inaccurate and arguably disingenuous. I do not regard the draft Technical Report as meeting the EES Scoping Requirements for planted vegetation. I provide more detail in Section 3.1 below.
243 4 City of Graeme Lorimer The EES Scoping Requirements incorporate the associated ‘Minister’s Procedures and Requirements’, which Document what design alternatives, mitigation measures and Closed - no This is beyond the scope of the EES. The EES is required to consider Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) commence as follows: management options have been considered to reduce action the project that is referred in the project outline. The business case ‘The EES is to document investigations of potential environmental effects of the Public Works, including the ecological impacts and why they were adopted or rejected. and Corridor assessment reports are publically available and these feasibility of design alternatives and relevant environmental mitigation and management measures, in provide an assessment of the broader options that were considered, particular for: (a) potential effects on biodiversity, …’ [my emphasis]. and these will not be added to the EES. I do not see any documentation of investigations into the feasibility of design alternatives. That is not to say that alternatives have not been considered; I regard the use of tunnelling and the designation of no-go zones as appropriate measures to reduce effects on biodiversity. There may well have been other steps taken. In view of the quote above, I would like the draft Technical Report to document what has been done. To a large degree, the same documentation needs to be prepared anyway for the applicable planning permit under clause 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions. 244 5 City of Graeme Lorimer Misunderstandings of planning law have led the draft Technical Report to omit various investigations that are Take advice from a planner and complete the assessments Agreed - change Section 5.4.5 has been updated to reflect the nuances of the Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) required under planning schemes. required under current planning provisions. made Planning Scehme in relation to exemptions, etc. Page 11 and Section 4.3 wrongly suggest that no planning permit is required for vegetation removal as long as an exemption applies under the state-wide controls over removal of native vegetation (clause 52.17 of the In reality, private properties <0.4 ha within the project boundary did Victoria Planning Provisions). In reality, an exemption from clause 52.17 does not also represent an exemption not contain native vegetation, based on aerial photo interpretation from any other planning control. Most of the project area lies within overlays that require a permit to remove and assessment from nearby publicly accessible areas. various types of vegetation (native or otherwise), regardless of any exemption under clause 52.17. The draft Technical Report has only assessed locally indigenous species. Even clause 52.17 is more general, The project is required to assess the imapcts as specified by the while many of the overlays (including in Boroondara) extend to species from overseas. Scoping requirements, and this has been done. Specific responses to The draft Technical Report says that properties smaller than 0.4 hectares were not assessed for flora or fauna issues around planning controls are provided in the following on the basis that an exemption applies to such properties under clause 52.17. The overlays generally do not responses. provide such an exemption, so properties smaller than 0.4 hectares should be assessed. In any case, the EES Scoping Requirements do not say that flora and fauna only need to be assessed on larger properties. Manningham’s Environmental Significance Overlays ESO2 and ESO3 require an assessment of locally and regionally threatened flora and fauna, as well as measures to negate, minimise or manage those impacts. The draft Technical Report does not address these requirements and additional fieldwork would be required to do so. The draft Technical Report deals with ‘offsets’, but only those associated with clause 52.17. In general, an offset that satisfies clause 52.17 may not be of the right kind or magnitude to meet the requirements of the applicable overlays. I understand that it is intended that the EES will be exhibited alongside a planning amendment to effectively exempt North East Link from planning controls and substitute other requirements approved by the Minister for Planning, guided by the EES. The present draft of the amendment would effectively remove the relevant overlays. I therefore regard it as particularly important to deal thoroughly with all the currently relevant planning controls during the EES process. I provide more detail about planning controls in Section 3.1 below.
245 6 City of Graeme Lorimer I am surprised that the draft Technical Report does not even mention that some wetlands at the Trinity Reveal all the relevant works in proximity to significant natural Agreed - change Wetlands at Trinity Grammar - note that Australian Ecosystems 2007 Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) Grammar Sports Complex will be destroyed by excavations for a cut-and-cover tunnel and an adit (or launch assets and update the risk assessment, impact assessment and made briefly reports Amphibromus in wetlands B and D (p9), but decribes point) for a mined tunnel. The vulnerable-listed River Swamp Wallabygrass was found in one of those environmental protection requirements accordingly. it in more detail (elsewhere in doc) in Wetland D only. We have wetlands during the most recent thorough botanical survey, in 2007. (Page 93 wrongly states that River updated the report in the relevant sections and are assuming Swamp Wallaby-grass was only detected ‘within close proximity to the project boundary’, whereas it was presence of Amphibromus in Wetland B despite not finding it during actually recorded in ‘Wetland B’, all of which is within the project area and much of which will be excavated targeted survey in Dec 2018. for a cut-and-cover tunnel.) It is not clear to me what will be the fate of the Trinity Grammar wetlands that are not, or only partly, excavated. Without even acknowledging these facts, and before a targeted search has Simpsons Lake in Kew Golf course and the waterbody in Freeway been done, the draft Technical Report should not have concluded that the species ‘is not expected to be Golf Course - these wetlands are not being used for critical significantly impacted’ by North East Link. See my Section 3.3.4 below for more detail. infrastructure for the project, but may be required for effective I have only been given a few of the draft EES documents, so I may be missing something, but there are bulges WSUD. The project is considering a new EPR to protect the in the project boundary which make me wonder whether there are works proposed which have not been ecological values within and surrounding these waterbodies. properly considered in the draft Technical Report. The most straightforward example is Simpsons Lake in the Kew Golf Club’s course. As stated by Lorimer Works in the vicinity of the freeway underpass next to the Kew (2006), the lake’s trees are believed to represent the only breeding site in the Melbourne area for the Billabong are not expected to impact on the ecological values of that Australasian Darter. A range of other cormorant species also breed there. The project area boundary bulges area. around the lake, for reasons I do not know. Given that the project area is said to be where construction work and associated activities are concentrated, I would have expected those activities at Simpsons Lake to be addressed in the draft Technical Report. Similar situations in Boroondara occur at the southernmost pond at the Freeway Golf Course and at the freeway underpass next to the Kew Billabong.
246 7 City of Graeme Lorimer There are many cases in which I think the draft Technical Report has taken an unjustifiably optimistic view Correct the errors above, check the remaining areas and make Agreed - change Recent vegetation mapping has incorporated native vegetation near Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) that North East Link’s impacts can be dismissed. The most important of these are as follows: corrections as required. Put labels on Figure 10 to allow made the northern boundary of the tennis courts. I am concerned that some of the native vegetation to be removed appears to have been overlooked and independent checking. some of it has been misrepresented. For example, at the Trinity Grammar Sports Complex, I see on Figure 10- Re Wetland B - see previous comment. 13 that: • The indigenous revegetation along the northern boundary (generally north of the tennis courts) is not Re EVC classification - comment noted and to be addressed. Habitat shown as being subject to removal despite being at the junction between the cut-and-cover tunnel and the zones are being added to Fig 10. It should be noted that wetland mined tunnel, where works will be at their most intense; EVC classification is not static, and in the 11 years since the AE • No vegetation is shown as being removed from the eastern half of ‘Wetland B’ where Australian Ecosystems assessment, the classification has changed. Wetlands have been (2007) found the listed-vulnerable River Swamp Wallaby-grass, despite that area being within the project mapped accordingly. boundary; and • The rest of ‘Wetland B’ and all of ‘Wetland A’ are depicted as ‘Floodplain Riparian Woodland’ whereas they are actually wetlands, identified by Australian Ecosystems (2007) as ‘EVC 932 Wet Verge Sedgeland’ and ‘EVC 172 Floodplain Wetland Aggregate’, respectively. My task in checking for errors and omissions in vegetation removal has been confounded by the apparent absence of a map or plan that shows labels on the ‘habitat zones’ that appear in Table 25. In this situation, I cannot (and should not have to) check all of the vegetation to be removed but more checking is needed.
247 8 City of Graeme Lorimer I and others have found the draft Technical Report equivocal about how much vegetation is to be removed, Resolve the inconsistencies just mentioned, be open about Agreed - change Text updated Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) not just because the project design is not final. Within the project boundary, pages iii, 76, 186 and 240 say that what the quoted figures represent and acknowledge that made there are 52 ha of native vegetation, 74 large trees in patches and 284 scattered trees lie within the project more or less clearing may be required. boundary, whereas p. 99 and Tables 23, 24, 25 and 50 indicate that there are 109–110 ha of native vegetation, 111 large trees in patches and 433 scattered trees. Uncertainty is understandable but internal inconsistencies of more than a factor of two are worrying. 248 9 City of Graeme Lorimer The project area is acknowledged in various tables in the draft Technical Report to contain eight threatened Correct the misrepresentation of threatened Ecological Closed - no As acknowledged in Sections 5.4.6 and 7.3.3, Grassy Eucalypt Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) Ecological Vegetation Classes (or vegetation communities). However, the text of the report makes repeated Vegetation Classes. Either explain why the abovementioned action Woodland of the VVP occurs in an offset site north of the M80, erroneous statements that the native vegetation within the project boundary is ‘non-threatened’ and that listed communities do not occur, or correct the mistake and which is a designated no go area for the project. Surveys have there are no threatened communities (e.g. pp. iii, 76 and 186). I am also not satisfied that the project area make the necessary arrangements under the two Acts. identified no further areas of EPBC or FFG Act listed communities contains no community that is listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act or the within the project boundary. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (‘EPBC Act’), as claimed in several places in the report. The community at issue is called either ‘EVC 55-04 – Western Basalt Plains (River Red Gum) Grassy Woodland’ or ‘Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain’. For details, see my Section 3.2 below. 249 10 City of Graeme Lorimer I know the listed vulnerable species, Melbourne Yellow Gum, to be common around Yarra Bend Park and the Check tree identifications and resolve the discrepancy with Agreed - change VBA was re-checked and no 2018 record was found within the Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) ‘Victorian Biodiversity Atlas’ holds a 2018 record of it in within the project area. The draft Technical Report the conflicting data. made project boundary. Melbourne Yellow Gum has however, been added conflicts with these observations, as detailed in my Section 3.3.3 below. to the report in sections 5.4.8 and 7.3.2.
250 11 City of Graeme Lorimer The draft Technical Report dismisses the impacts of North East Link upon many of the threatened flora and Remove spurious dismissals of impacts and replace them with Closed - no The intent of these statements is not to dismiss impacts entirely, but Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) fauna species with statements like ‘Direct impacts on the most suitable habitat for these species are being either valid arguments or appropriate acknowledgement of, action to provide high-level commentary that helps to identify the most avoided by tunnelling’. These dismissals ignore indirect impacts (contrary to the EES Scoping Requirements) as and responses to, the threats. concerning potential impacts. Indirect impacts are considered well as habitat that may be substantial but less so than the most suitable habitat. No justification is given for throughout the impact assessment. doing so. Tunnelling is also given credit for avoiding certain risks even at locations remote from the tunnels. I provide details in Section 3.3 below. 251 12 City of Graeme Lorimer The many descriptions in the report of impacts from groundwater changes appear to me to be inconsistent, Report on how different the groundwater modelling Closed - no Groundwater modelling was undertaken by skilled and experienced Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) and I think the need for mitigation has been unjustifiably dismissed (see my Section 3.5 below). The draft predictions may be from reality (including an allowance for action professionals. We have relied upon that report, as we have the work Technical Report states that ‘this report does not seek to verify the accuracy of modelling’ of groundwater climate change, as per the EES Scoping Requirements). of other professionals in other disciplines. Accuracy of the modelling changes. In the absence of any evidence about the accuracy or otherwise of the modelling, I think the report Address the impacts that would result if groundwater is outlined in the Groundwater report. should not draw so heavily on the modelling to dismiss groundwater impacts. drawdown turns out to be at the upper end of the range of uncertainty in the modelling results. 252 13 City of Graeme Lorimer I see shortcomings in the ‘Risk assessment’ and ‘Impact assessment’ processes in Sections 11 and 12 (see my Closed - no Comment acknowledged. Risk assessment and impact assessment Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) Sections 3.7 and 3.8). In my view, some of the ‘Impact assessments’ are superficial and based on unreasonable action processes have been developed to be consistent across the project. assessments of the likelihood of impacts occurring.
253 14 City of Graeme Lorimer Dismissal of Certain Categories To satisfy the EES Scoping Requirements, I believe the draft Closed - no The focus of the report is on threatened species, as per EE Act Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) No exception is made in this specification for ‘poorly known’ species, so I presume GHD have made a Technical Report should assess all species in the categories of action criteria. unilateral decision to exclude them from the study. ‘poorly known’, ‘data deficient’ and ‘near threatened’. The intent of the Key Issue is to address threatened and Migratory In addition, GHD’s decision to omit ‘data deficient’, ‘conservation dependent’ and ‘near threatened’ fauna species. We then define what is considered threatened, and species from the report conflicts with the EES Scoping Requirements, which include the ‘Key issue’: consider those species. ‘Potential for direct or indirect impact on vegetation and other landscape elements used by fauna listed under FFG Act or DELWP Advisory lists or by listed migratory species.’
254 15 City of Graeme Lorimer Page 35 of the draft Technical Report includes an apparently self-contradictory section on orchids. It begins by After the planned targeted surveys for greenhoods, update Agreed - change Targeted orchid surveys have now been undertaken at the Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) stating that there was no targeted survey for four orchid species because ‘field investigations were being and correct the report as necessary. This may require changes made appropriate time of year and no rare or threatened orchids were conducted at a time when these species were observable’. The next sentence but one states that the to impact assessments, risk assessments and mitigation found within the project boundary. The text within the report has fieldwork was not done during the flowering time of two of the four species, namely Green-striped measures. been updated. 255 16 City of Graeme Lorimer No targeted survey was conducted for the Glossy Grass Skink, which is on the DELWP ‘Advisory List of Conduct a targeted survey for the Glossy Grass Skink, then Closed - no Additional searches for the species are planned for spring/summer Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) Threatened Vertebrate Fauna’. This is despite the acknowledgment on p. 142 of the draft Technical Report update and correct the report as necessary. This may require action 2018. Assessment for fauna for this EES is risk-based, and impacts on that the project area ‘is likely to contain potentially suitable habitat along each of the waterways, but changes to impact assessments, risk assessments and this species are expected to be minor, given that there are only 2 particularly along the Yarra floodplain’. [...] Overall, I regard GHD’s treatment of the Glossy Grass Skink as mitigation measures. historical records within 5 km, most recently in 1991, and that most unsatisfactory in relation to the EES Scoping Requirements. of the habitats most suitable for the species (as determined through literature review and VBA records) are being avoided. Our approach to fauna assessment and surveys was endorsed by DELWP in the early phases of the project. DELWP indicated that targeted surveys for Advisory-listed species were not mandatory, and that impacts on Advisory-listed species are able to be mitigated through species-specific offsets as outlined in the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP, 2017). NELA/GHD chose to include Glossy Grass Skink as part of the assessment, because they are ground-dwelling fauna with limited dispersal mobility, unlike birds.
256 17 City of Graeme Lorimer Page 136 of the draft Technical Report acknowledges that Lewin’s Rail and Baillon’s Crake may be resident I believe GHD should either explain why these matters should Agreed - change Comment acknowledged. Tunnelling under the Yarra will not reduce Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) along the Yarra and that there are recent reports of Baillon’s Crake at Trinity Grammar Sports Complex and not raise concern or else deal with them through a revised made impacts along Koonung Creek, and that was not the intended claim. along Koonung Creek. The report then states, ‘Direct impacts on the most suitable habitat for these species in impact assessment, risk assessment and consideration of The Yarra River floodplain provides the largest area and highest the project boundary are being avoided by tunnelling’. mitigation measures. quality habitat for these species, and is being tunnelled under. Parts Exactly the same sentence is used for Little Egret, Intermediate Egret, Eastern Great Egret. I cannot reconcile (but not all) of Koonung Creek, Trinity Grammar Sports Complex, and the claim that ‘direct impacts … are being avoided by tunnelling’ with: the Kew and Freeway golf courses that are expected to be impacted • The fact that there is no tunnel proposed for Koonung Creek, which the report acknowledges to be habitat may or are used by these species to varying degrees, but are for the species. Page 197 of the draft Technical Report states that 1 km of the creek will be covered over and considered to provide marginal low-quality habitat. The wording in another 500m will be diverted, thereby reducing the habitat available; relevant sections has been amended to reflect this more clearly. • The acknowledgment on p. 36 that ‘Given the proximity of works within Trinity Grammar, and current A risk-based approach was used for the fauna assessment. Historical uncertainty around the potential for groundwater drawdown associated with the project and subsequent records and assessment of habitats to be retained versus lost suggest surface water impacts…’. The Trinity Grammar wetlands are acknowledged to be habitat for these threatened that impacts from the project on these species would be minor. It is waterbirds, particularly Baillon’s Crake. acknowledged that impacts may occur, but given the existing Some of the Trinity Grammar wetlands are proposed to be destroyed for a cut-and-cover tunnel and the landscape and history of disturbance, the impacts are expected to be hydrological impacts of the tunnel through the site threatens to render the remaining habitat unsuitable; and minor and not jeopardize the persistence, distribution or recovery of • The report ignores Kew Billabong and the large billabong at Kew Golf Course next to Simpsons Lake, both the species. within a few metres of the project area and remote from any tunnel. My recollection of these billabongs and their fringing vegetation is that there is suitable habitat for egrets, crakes and rails. 257 18 City of Graeme Lorimer Page 43 concludes that the Australasian Bittern is unlikely to occur at sites such as Koonung Creek (and I believe GHD should either explain why these matters should Closed - no Risk-based approach used for fauna assessment. Historical records Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) presumably Kew Billabong and the golf courses lining the Yarra River) because such sites: not raise concern or else deal with them through a revised action and habitats to be retained versus lost suggest that impacts would ‘are typically degraded, disturbed (particularly by people walking dogs) and within urbanised areas. That, in impact assessment, risk assessment and consideration of be minor. It is acknowledged that impacts may occur, but given the association with the few VBA/e-Bird [sic.] records, suggests that those areas are very unlikely to support this mitigation measures. landscape and history of disturbance, the impacts are expected to be species. Assessment for this species was restricted to habitat assessment and opportunistic observations’. minor and not jeopardize the persistence, distribution or recovery of This statement contains a number of contestable elements: the species. • The absence of records at these sites could be simply due to the species’ secretive behaviour (as acknowledged on p. 137) and the absence of investigation by GHD at Kew Billabong and the golf courses (particularly the large billabong at Kew Golf Course). It is no wonder that a billabong on a private, fenced golf course would have few records in the VBA and eBird; • Kew Golf Course is not available for walking dogs and the large billabong is somewhat secluded, as are parts of the Kew Billabong; • I think GHD underestimates the adaptability of the Australasian Bittern to urban water bodies. I have seen wild Australasian Bitterns hunting in clear sight at ponds at Melbourne Zoo in recent years, within a short distance of very busy footpaths between the exhibits. There are other recent records of the species at the zoo. Clearly, the Australasian Bittern can tolerate very urbanised environments in close proximity to heavy pedestrian traffic. Page 137 of the draft Technical Report concludes that for bitterns on the Yarra floodplain, ‘Direct impacts on this area are being avoided by tunnelling’. This is clearly not true of the Kew Billabong and the Kew Golf Club’s large billabong. It is also contestable at the Trinity Grammar wetlands because the excavation of a cut-and- cover tunnel will destroy part of the wetlands and the rest is at risk, as acknowledged on p. 36. I believe the draft Technical Report is too dismissive of the likelihood of occurrence of Australasian Bittern and the potential for its habitat to be adversely affected.
258 19 City of Graeme Lorimer Page 138 of the draft Technical Report discusses four threatened duck species, for which possible habitat is GHD should deal with indirect impacts and all substantial Closed - no Risk-based approach used for fauna assessment. Historical records Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) identified along Koonung Creek and at golf courses (presumably including Kew Golf Course, on the edge of the habitat for the four duck species, not just near tunnels. This action and habitats to be retained versus lost suggest that impacts would project area). It claims, ‘Direct impacts on the most suitable habitat for these species (Yarra floodplain) are may precipitate a revised impact assessment, risk assessment be minor. It is acknowledged that impacts may occur, but given the being avoided by tunnelling’. Firstly, there is no tunnelling in the vicinity of the golf courses (or the Kew and consideration of mitigation measures. landscape and history of disturbance, the impacts are expected to be Billabong). Secondly, it is not adequate to simply ‘avoid direct impacts on the most suitable habitat’; the EES minor and not jeopardize the persistence, distribution or recovery of should be investigating indirect impacts and to any substantial habitat, not just the ‘most suitable’. the species. Koonung Creek and its associated WSUD wetlands provide marginal habitat for these species - for the purposes of the assessment, and with a conservative approach, it is considered potential habitat, but it is not considered high quality habitat.
259 20 City of Graeme Lorimer Page 44 of the draft Technical Report mentions that Kew Golf Course was not inspected for aquatic ecology. It Acknowledge Glass Creek and the large billabong next to Agreed - change Included reference to Simpsons Lake and adjacent billabong, Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) mentions ‘an amenity dam’, which I gather is Simpsons Lake (even though it is not an amenity dam). The Simpsons Lake. Either justify why these water bodies will not made Removed text indicating lack of direct impacts. report does not mention the adjacent natural billabong to the northeast, just a few metres outside the project be adversely impacted or else do the required fieldwork and Text added to explain that Glass Creek was assessed in preliminary boundary. The latter has clearer water and is better vegetated, much more natural and not so easily dismissed revise the impact assessment, risk assessment and mitigation habitat assessment, And the repaid bioassessmenrt decide not to as the report has done with Simpsons Lake. Neither of these wetlands is as disconnected from the Yarra River measures. proceed due to highly degraded habitat conditions. as a reader of the report might infer: Their banks are at the same elevation as that of the river with flat land between, so they fill whenever the river floods. Simpsons Lake in Kew golf course is not being used for critical I am also unclear why the same page (44) states that Simpsons Lake will experience a ‘lack of direct impacts’, infrastructure for the project, but may be required for effective given that it is within the mapped project area and hence is open to construction work and associated WSUD. The project is considering a new EPR to protect the activities. If there is evidence to back up this claim, it should be stated. Page 47 of the draft Technical Report ecological values of this waterbody. lists the locations where aquatic invertebrates such as insect larvae were sampled for a ‘rapid bioassessment’. Glass Creek is not included, on either side of the Eastern Freeway. If there is a compelling reason for excluding Glass Creek, I believe it should be stated; Otherwise, I believe Glass Creek should be assessed.
260 21 City of Graeme Lorimer Page 48 of the draft Technical Report includes a section on ‘Environmental Quality of Victorian Lakes’. The I believe GHD should either justify why only the two lakes Closed - no Section 5.4.9 states "The assessment was undertaken for the Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) section states that the only two still waterbodies assessed in the EES were Bolin Bolin Billabong (a no-go zone) were surveyed or else do additional fieldwork and revise the action following sites with significant aquatic ecosystems that are at risk of and Banyule Swamp (in a conditional no-go zone). I am left wondering why, of the many wetlands in and impact assessment, risk assessment and mitigation measures. hydrological impacts from the project". These sites are considered adjacent to the project area, the only two that were assessed are in areas that should be unaffected by the potentially impacted by groundwater or surface water modification. project. If there are reasons for excluding wetlands such as the Kew Billabong, the Trinity Grammar wetlands Other wetlands across the study area either are not significant and the large billabong northeast of Simpsons Lake, I believe they should be stated. If no compelling reason aquatic ecosystems or not at risk from the project. can be provided, I believe those wetlands should be assessed.
261 22 City of Graeme Lorimer The report proposes that if groundwater drawdown is found to be a problem for Bolin Bolin Billabong, water Consider a mitigation plan to counter potential changes to the Closed - no Trinity Grammar wetlands are not modelled to receive groundwater Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) could be pumped into it to compensate. I believe that a mitigation plan should also be in place for the Trinity Trinity Grammar wetlands, considered alongside climate action drawdown. If anything, there may be slight mounding of Grammar wetlands. Such problems may take quite some years to identify. The proposed Environmental change. groundwater in this area, so no supplementary watering mitigation is Performance Requirements may not remain in force at that time, thereby limiting their value. deemed necessary.
262 23 City of Graeme Lorimer While my brief is to focus on Boroondara, it would be remiss of me not to pass on my observations about Expand the area of colour-coding on Figures 15–18 to include Closed - no Current mapping shows full extent of predicted DDN - it has not Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) groundwater modelling above the northern part of the tunnel. Figures 15-3, 16-3, 17-2 and 18-2 show the the Banyule Flats and remove the obscuration by vegetation action been clipped to show/remove certain areas results of a groundwater modelling scenario, but the contour colouring is abruptly truncated at the edge of mapping. the Yarra River floodplain. I would have thought that Banyule Flats and its wetlands would be items of concern, particularly as Figure 16-3 shows a drawdown of 1–2m abutting the floodplain. I note that Section 10.3.3 claims that Figure 16 shows the Banyule Flats to experience a drawdown of less than 0.1m, but that conflicts with my interpretation of Figure 16. 263 24 City of Graeme Lorimer I think it is odd that the draft Technical Report has evidently not looked at the state government’s ‘BioSites’ Acknowledge the study area’s BioSites. Closed - no Biosites not included because they do not form part of legislative Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) register (‘BioSites Maps and Reports for Land & Water Management Agencies – Port Phillip Region’, 2005). action assessment requirements and are no longer actively used and Most of the North East Link project area through Bulleen and west of Bulleen Rd lies within BioSites of State updated by DELWP for land management decisions. or Regional significance. I will cite these BioSites in the relevant subsections below. I think the draft Technical Report should mention BioSites and their significance ratings wherever they intercept the study area. 264 25 City of Graeme Lorimer Yarra Bend Park occupies BioSite 3558, which the state government rated as being of State significance in Correct the above errors. For further Noted, some of this needs further examination. It is noted that the Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) 2002. discussion Biosites relate to old guidance that has been superseeded so this The last sentence on p. 59 of the draft Technical Report describes the significance of Yarra Bend Park as being terminology is not used in this assessment. of National Significance (on the basis of my 2006 assessment) or of local to state significance on the basis of a 2000 assessment by Parks Victoria. The explanation for the different ratings is that the 2002 BioSites assessment and the 2000 Parks Victoria assessment pre-dated the state government’s ‘Standard Criteria for Sites of Biological Significance in Victoria’ of 2004 and therefore do not meet current standards. As such, I think the draft Technical Report should at least explain the reason for the differences. Page 60 cites my 2006 report regarding the significance of Valley Grassy Forest in Yarra Bend Park. There is no Valley Grassy Forest in the park and I made no reference to it, so the whole paragraph is spurious. I did, however, mention the other EVCs appearing on p. 60 as well as Riparian Woodland, which is mapped within the project area on Figure 10-25 but is overlooked on p. 60. Page 61 refers to ‘Blue Prickly Tussock Grass Poa labillardieri (Basalt Plains form)’. The common name is quite informal and has been applied by different people to various forms of Common Tussock-grass (Poa labillardierei) of no particular scientific significance. The qualifier ‘(Basalt Plains form)’ is sufficiently similar to the informal entity, ‘Poa labillardierei var. (Volcanic Plains)’, that the two have perhaps been confused, but the latter does not occur as far east as the Melbourne area.
265 26 City of Graeme Lorimer ‘Yarra Flats Park’ is commonly taken to include the Parks Victoria land on the western side of the river Edit the report to restrict the use of ‘Yarra Flats’ to the areas Agreed - change Comment acknowledged - we used the term Yarra Flats in some Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) between Banksia Street and Burke Rd, and council reserve on the opposite side of the river between Burke Rd officially recognised under that name. made sections as a convenient description for a large area of Yarra River and the Freeway Golf Course. The official ‘VicNames’ register of gazetted place names shows Yarra Flats as floodplain, not anticipating that it would cause confusion or concern. comprising both the above areas as well as Kim Reserve behind Bulleen Art and Garden. Inaccurate references to Yarra Flats have now been amended. The draft Technical Report applies the term ‘Yarra Flats Park’ and ‘Yarra Flats’ to a much larger area but I cannot work out the full area intended. Pages iii and iv say North East Link will be tunnelled beneath the Yarra Flats, which suggests that areas either north of Banksia St and/or in the vicinity of Bulleen Rd have been added to the usual concept of Yarra Flats. Pages 61–62 associate Yarra Flats Park with information from Foreman et al. (2004), Practical Ecology (2010) and Van der Ree (2017) regarding Freeway Golf Course, which could hardly be construed as truly part of Yarra Flats Park. Page 62 states that Manningham City Council’s 2012 Bushland Management Strategy identifies Yarra Flats Park as ‘a high priority with regards to bushland management’. I find that confusing because the strategy does not refer to Yarra Flats Park and it does not appear to give high priority to any council bushland on the floodplain of the Yarra River within the study area. The draft Technical Report also cites my own 2009 report about wildlife movement in Manningham but I cannot reconcile my report with the draft Technical Report’s concept of Yarra Flats Park. Page 70 even refers to Willsmere Park as being on the Yarra Flats, and p. 178 seems to suggest that the southern portal is within or near Yarra Flats. While I cannot work out what the draft Technical Report is including as ‘Yarra Flats Park’, it seems unavoidable that most or all of it lies within the BioSite 4860, which the state government rates as being of State significance.
266 27 City of Graeme Lorimer Kew Golf Club, Kew Billabong, Willsmere Park, Kilby Reserve and Hays Paddock Correct the misrepresentation. Agreed - change Reference to waterbirds revised. Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) These sites lie within the Regionally-significant BioSite 5063. made My 2006 report is stated on p. 69 of the draft Technical Report to indicate that rarer waterbirds are frightened off the Kew Billabong and Willsmere Park by humans and dogs. More accurately, my report states that those species are ‘easily frightened off’ and ‘unlikely to breed there’. That does not mean that rarer waterbirds do not occur there; they do.
267 28 City of Graeme Lorimer The ecological assessment of North East Link has appropriately taken a risk-based approach at all stages, e.g. in I believe the reasons for the many dismissals of risks should be Agreed - change No short cuts have been taken in the risk assessment - all thought Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) the chosen size of the study area, the amount of effort put into searching for particular species, the locations explained to a depth that allows a reader to be satisfied that made behind the risks is explained and summarised in Appendix A. searched and the efforts taken to avoid or minimise impacts. A risk-based approach essentially means that the corners have not been cut. The risk assessment has been used as a screening tool to prioritise effort dedicated to different tasks reflects the likelihood, magnitude and duration of the expected impacts. As the focus of the assessment at a high level. the report states, this requires an iterative process to progressively refine the understanding of impacts and Biosites are no longer used in DELWP guidance, hence why they have possible responses, leading ultimately to the greatest effort being directed toward the most important not been included in the assessment. impacts. Noting the value of the birds at Simpsons Lake, an EPR has been I perceive in the report a lack of clarity about the risk associated with some anticipated impacts and why some been added to the report to protect their habitat, should the project of them appear to have been dismissed. For example, I have been left wondering why so little effort has been plan works in the vicnity. expended on assessing habitats within Boroondara, despite the (unaddressed) presence of BioSites, threatened fauna and endangered communities (Ecological Vegetation Classes) in and adjacent to the project area. I note the report’s reference to a delay in gaining permission to access council-owned sites in Boroondara but I understand that only applies to the Boroondara Tennis Centre and Freeway Golf Course. As a more specific example, I see no explanation of what works or impacts are expected at Simpsons Lake (a noted waterbird rookery); just a statement on p. 44 that this lake will experience ‘a lack of direct impacts’ and that a desktop assessment indicated a low risk to aquatic ecology, without any explanation of the risk assessment – not even what the threats are. In many other cases like these, I was left thinking that a proper risk assessment has not been undertaken or it has not been validly explained or a shortcut has been taken.
268 29 City of Graeme Lorimer I perceive inconsistencies in the ‘Severity definitions’ used in the risk assessment, listed in Appendix A of the I would like the report to explain the origin and basis for the Closed - no Agreed, the loss of planted vegetation was on an inappropriate scale Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) draft Technical Report (p. 360 of the PDF file). For example, two separate situations in the ‘Medium’ category thresholds in the table of severity definitions. action to the more sensitive ecological impacts and this has been deleted of severity are: from the Appendix since this assessment is focussed on removal of • ‘Measurable change in populations of a state or commonwealth listed threatened species (between 0.05% important habitat. and 0.5% loss of habitat within Victoria; Substantial change to common species population’; or • ‘Temporary loss of habitat connectivity associated with planted vegetation’. I disagree that these are equivalent in severity; The temporary loss of planted vegetation cannot compare with the loss of up to 0.5% of the state-wide habitat of a species that may be nationally listed as critically endangered. By the time a species meets the criteria to be listed as threatened, its survival typically relies on keeping every bit of its remaining habitat. For a highly threatened species to lose up to 0.5% of its remaining habitat is considerably more serious than ‘Temporary loss of habitat connectivity associated with planted vegetation’, in my view. More generally, I am concerned that some of the severity ratings on p. 360 of the PDF file downplay the severity of some risks. That would result in less attention being given to mitigate the risks. 269 30 City of Graeme Lorimer The table of ‘Characterisation of consequence’ on p. 361 of the PDF file appears to be incomplete. I believe Fill the gap in the risk assessment methodology by showing Agreed - change This has been added to Appendix A and further context is available in Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) the purpose of the table is to translate a combination of categories of ‘Extent’, ‘Severity of impact’ and how ‘Consequence level’ is determined. made the risk report. ‘Duration of threat’ into a ‘Consequence level’ (from ‘Negligible’ to ‘Severe’). The ‘Consequence level’ is then to be used in the table on the subsequent page to yield the risk rating (low to very high). However, the table on p. 361 of the PDF file does not provide the method for determining the ‘Consequence level’, leaving a gap in the process to complete the risk rating.
270 31 City of Graeme Lorimer EC04 – Construction activities resulting in erosion/sedimentation, dust, litter or release of contaminants I recommend that EC04, EC16 and EC17 be reconsidered with Closed - no Contaminated sites, such as former landfill sites, are considered in Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) leading to loss or degradation of threatened flora and ecological communities a view toward recognising the risk of contaminant release and action the Contamination specialist report. The management of The main ecological threat under this category is from sediment etc. moving out of the construction zone and mobilisation while the former rubbish tip is being excavated. contamination during construction is addressed in EPR CL1, which affecting organisms and habitat. Page 194 of the draft Technical Report only describes impacts within the The risk assessments would then need to be re-done. includes the requirement for identification of contaminated site, and project boundary but the subsequent page deals with mitigation measures that will also deal with off-site Mitigation measures may need to be added to those already remediation plan caused by or exacerbated during the course of the impacts. planned. project under EPA approval. I am concerned that nowhere in the report is there any recognition that the proposed tunnel will be digging through an old rubbish tip at and near the southern portal. The rubbish must be embedded within the water table. EC16 (p. 195) and EC17 (p. 186) are similar to EC04, as they all involve environmental contamination during construction. The risk of contaminant release or mobilisation while excavating the former rubbish tip affects all three.
271 32 City of Graeme Lorimer EC38 – Changes to stormwater drainage resulting in hydraulic impact to waterways that degrades aquatic Reassess the estimated likelihood of increased stormwater Closed - no The likelihood refers to degradation of aquatic ecosystems, not to Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) ecosystems discharge to waterways and hence the associated risk level. action the frequency of the discharge. This risk involves the increased paving and hence runoff caused by the Eastern Freeway modifications, Devise appropriate mitigation measures, not just say that they The change to directly connected impervious surfaces, and resultant resulting in exacerbation of flow pulses during rainfall events and correspondingly reduced flows between will be devised. increase in rate of rainfall runoff entering the drainage system is events. Page 225 of the draft Technical Report treats this as inevitable, as I do. However, the table on p. 359 of compensated through the inclusion of water sensitive urban design the PDF document rates it as ‘Unlikely’, defined thus: ‘The event may occur under unusual circumstances but included as part of the project. The function of WSUD can include is not expected (i.e. once within a 20-year timeframe)’. peak flow attenuation, sediment collection, or pollutant capture. The Even raising the estimated likelihood to ‘Possible’ might increase the risk rating from ‘Low’ to ‘Medium’, using impact of WSUD on the hydrology of watercourses is quite possibly the adopted risk matrix. ‘Possible’ means ‘The event may occur once within a five-year timeframe’. an improvement in some areas, as the technology of drainage design Page 225 acknowledges that ‘Urban stormwater is regarded as one of the two most threatening processes to has improved since the construction of existing infrastructure. The aquatic ecosystems in the urban environment (Walsh & Webb 2016), with the major mechanisms of impact likelihood that the aquatic ecosystems will be degraded by the from flow velocity and scouring of aquatic habitats’. I regard this as important because runoff may flow into changes to stormwater drainage is unlikely. significant aquatic habitat such as Kew Billabong, the large billabong at Kew Golf Course, Glass Creek and the Hays Paddock wetland. Page 225 proposes that various mitigating steps be devised, which I support. These steps could reduce the consequence of the impacts but not their likelihood of occurrence.
272 33 City of Graeme Lorimer EC39 – Increased road traffic resulting in increased pollutants (metals, hydrocarbons) in stormwater runoff to If GHD wishes to argue that water pollution from increased Closed - no The impact of increased traffic is pollutants caused by motor Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) waterways that degrades aquatic ecosystems traffic will not enter waterways or wetlands, the mechanisms action vehicles. These are most typically hydrocarbons and metals. Litter This risk is presumably meant to include pollutants other than metals and hydrocarbons, such as sediment for prevention should be explained. Otherwise, there should and sediments are not increased by the operation of roads, but more and litter. However, the only consequences mentioned on p. 226 relate to toxicity and pollutant be a proper impact assessment and risk assessment, and so from urban residential and industrial areas. The use of accumulation, not impacts such as those related to turbidity, oxygen demand and wildlife hazards from plastic appropriate mitigation measures should be clearly explained. appropriate WSUD, designed for capture of fine suspended in litter. sediments (the vast majority of traffic pollutants entering waterways I regard the risk characterisation as inadequate, and hence the risk assessment and mitigation measures. (See are bound to sediments, not dissolved), and so the sediment traps also below.) are effective at preventing these pollutants from entering The report continues with the remarkable paragraph: waterways. Ecosystem services such as sediment retention, bank and ‘The design of the road and drainage network should avoid impacts to aquatic habitats (EPR FF4), through erosion control and bioremediation assist with the ability of a placement of drainage inputs to waterways at locations that avoid input of pollutants to aquatic ecosystems. waterway to capture, hold and process pollutants. These services are Any works on the drainage network and waterways should include elements that enhance the ecosystem replicated in constructed wetlands, and form part of the desing services to build resilience to degradation from pollutants (EPR SW9).’ options for WSUD. A waterway is an aquatic ecosystem. It is an oxymoron to suggest that there are locations where polluted stormwater can be discharged to a waterway without the pollutants entering the waterway’s aquatic ecosystem. The second quoted sentence looks as if it’s designed to impress with its use of buzzwords but it offers no meaningful indication of what will actually be done. As with EC38, the likelihood of EC39 is treated in the risk assessment as ‘Unlikely’, which I reject.
273 34 City of Graeme Lorimer EC42 – Groundwater changes in the vicinity of the tunnel causing long-term detrimental changes in terrestrial For the reasons in my Section 3.5, I believe there should be Closed - no As mentioned in the previous responses, mounding is expected at Boroondara (Biosphere Pty Ltd) and aquatic ecosystems monitoring of groundwater levels and the ecological condition action this location, but at levels 5 m beneath ground level, therefore of vegetation in the Trinity Grammar School Sports Complex. ecological imapcts are not anticipated. The top of p. 227 of the draft Technical Report would have to be modified to include that monitoring.