Friends of Wonthaggi Heathland & Coastal Reserve

Inquiry into the Environmental Effects Statement process in Victoria Submission no. 48

Friends of Wonthaggi Heathland & Coastal Reserve Inc PO Box 849, Wonthaggi VIC 3995

28th April 2010

Executive Officer Environment and Natural Resources Committee Parliament House Spring Street East Melbourne, VIC, 3002

Dear Sir/Ms

Re: Inquiry into the Environmental Effects Statement process in Victoria

The Friends of Wonthaggi Heathland & Coastal Reserve Inc (FOWH&CR) thanks the Committee for the invitation to make a submission to the inquiry in the letter dated 16 March 2010.

The members of Friends of Wonthaggi Heathland & Coastal Reserve Inc (FOWH&CR), are an active Friends group, vitally interested in the flora and fauna of our area and the revegetation of public land for wildlife corridors, refuges, biodiversity and to provide green space for health and recreation pursuits.

As a Friends Group working closely with Parks Victoria, it has as its prime foci

the identification and recording of natural history values

the identification of any potential threats

working to maintain and improve habitats where appropriate

The Friends Group also liaises with other Groups, including the Cape Paterson Coastal Plains Landcare, Wonthaggi Seedbank, the Bass Coast Friends of the Hooded Plover, the South Gippsland Conservation Society, Greening Australia, Cape Paterson Residents and Ratepayers Association and Birds Australia on projects of common interest, both formally and informally.

The sites of the Wonthaggi Windfarm and the Victorian Desalination Plant adjoin our main areas of interest, the Wonthaggi Heathland and Coastal Reserve stretching from Coal Point at Harmers Haven to the cemetery at Kilcunda.

The Friends Group was closely involved with the Environment Effects Statement (EES) for the Wonthaggi Windfarm and the Victorian Desalination Project (VDP). FOWH&CR presented submissions for both studies and made presentations at both Panel Hearings. The Friends Group also maintained a close interest in the planning and EES process for the Bald Hills Wind Farm.

As a result of concerns for the potential for environmental impact, the Friends Group was involved in the EES process including:

Presentation at the Panel Hearing for the Wonthaggi Windfarm (September 2003)

Written submission to the EES Referral documents dated November 2007 for the Victorian Desalination Project (December 2007)

Written submission to the Referral of proposed action to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (January 2008)

Representation in the Community Forums

Formal discussions with scientists representing CEE and Biosis Research in relation to flora and fauna studies for the terrestrial and marine environments in the study areas prior to the EES Inquiry

Written submission on EES Draft Scoping Requirements Environmental Effects Statement (March 2008)

Written submission to the EES inquiry and presentation at the EES inquiry public hearing for a time allocation of twenty minutes (October 2008)

Communication with DSE and Aquasure informally and in written form in respect to environmental concerns in relation to the Project post planning approval

Therefore the Friends Group feels that it is in a position to offer some comment on Victoria’s EES process. Our comments have largely arisen out of the EES process for the Victorian Desalination Project and focus on paragraphs A and C.

The Friends Group is concerned that the current level of environmental protection could be improved. Our experiences as part of the EES process are offered as constructive criticism in the hope that the EES process is strengthened in order to offer better protection for the environment and that all local environmental, social and economic concerns are addressed for future Projects required to undergo the EES Process.

Yours faithfully,

Geoff Glare

President,

Friends of Wonthaggi Heathland & Coastal Reserve Inc

Submission: Inquiry into the Environmental Effects Statement process in Victoria

Response to paragraph A. “Any weaknesses in the current system including poor environmental outcomes, excessive costs and unnecessary delays encountered through the process and its mechanisms.”

1.1 Difficulties encountered in obtaining hard copy of the EES, Technical Reports and the Works Approval Application for the Victorian Desalination Project

In order to cross reference between Technical Reports and the EES Document, a hard copy was considered an advantage when preparing a response for the EES process, especially when stakeholders were seeking to read and assess the maps on disk, especially given that a significant number of people still do not have access to computers and/or the Internet. A number of issues with the initial release on 20 August 2008 were identified. These included:

At several venues, disks in the initial release were recalled There were limited numbers of hardcopies available at the Official Exhibition venues at the start of the Exhibition period There were delays of more than one week in the availability of additional hard copies at the various Exhibition venues There were delays of more than one week in the availability of hard copies

Given that an EES Exhibition period is limited (6 weeks for the VDP EES), access to the material and reports presented is important.

1.2 Allowing enough time for the EES process

In a National Water Week advertising feature in the Sunday Herald Sun (October 19, 2003), the Victorian State Government launched the Regional Urban Water Authorities. An article on page 2 of the eight page liftout stated:

Seven years of below average rainfall have put Melbourne’s water storage levels at their lowest point in 20 years.

A predicted increase in Melbourne’s population of one million people by 2030, combined with expected climate changes will place yet more pressure on our limited water resources, says John Thwaites, Minister for Water.

So the challenge we all face is how to ensure Melbourne’s future water supplies are sustainable, he says.

Water restrictions and other measures can only go so far in reducing consumption of our most precious natural asset.

The key to securing our future water supplies is changing the way we each use water.

The need for augmentation of Melbourne’s water supply was well known and had been documented by the Victorian State Government and the relevant authorities for many years before the State Election in 2006 and before the announcement of the Water Plan in June 2007.

The need to secure Melbourne’s water supply had been clearly established in the year 2007. However, the need for the Proposed Desalination Plant had not yet been clearly established and, in our opinion, the production of potable water using desalination by reverse osmosis should have been the method of last resort.

Alternative methods that should have been considered as a first resort to supply additional water for Melbourne included recycling, harvesting of urban stormwater, state- wide reduction of private, industrial and agricultural water use, the use of domestic ‘grey water’, plugging leaks, leading to an increase in the efficiency of the current transfer system both in Melbourne and regional Victoria, and the addition of water tanks on private and public properties that should be seriously considered as part of the EES process. Some of those measures have been since adopted in part.

The wording of the decision by the Minister for Planning (28 December, 2007) that an Environment Effects Statement is required for the Desalination Project and the document Draft scoping requirements for the Desalination Project, February 2008 suggested that the Desalination Project works would have proceeded regardless of the findings of the EES and that the only considerations need to be “How, Where and When” rather than “Whether or not the Project should proceed at all”.

The EES process for the VDP could have considered whether or not this method of production for augmenting Melbourne’s water supply is, in fact, appropriate for Victoria or, in fact, whether or not it should be one of the key options at all.

The following references suggest that the perceived urgency and set deadlines for the Project influenced the approach taken throughout the study period and throughout the EES Exhibition process.

The Technical Appendix 31, EES, CEE, page 94 stated:

DSE have stated the urgency for the project and the need to commence production of potable water by desalination in 2011 due to forecast reductions in water levels for Melbourne (Figure 48).

The Technical Appendix 31, EES, CEE, page 3 states:

In view of the urgency for the project the baseline assessment is based on available information on the marine ecosystem, targeted investigations and the range of physical and chemical processes predicted as a result of the reference design and modelling.

The Technical Appendix 31, EES, CEE, page 94 stated:

In recognition of the urgency for the assessment of impacts and associated risk, the framework of further baseline field studies and

a monitoring program based on the systems assessment of the likely marine ecology effects of the proposal is discussed in Section 20.

The report then documented a number of additional studies needed. For a Project as large and as complex as the Victorian Desalination Project, baseline studies should have been completed before planning approval was given.

The EES process was scheduled to be completed before the end of 2008. Given that this Project is arguably the largest Infrastructure Project ever undertaken in the history of this state and given the scope and magnitude of the potential environmental, social and economic impacts on the local area, the region and the state, a reasonable timeframe should be set in order to facilitate a transparent and comprehensive EES.

Recommendations 1

In relation to access to EES documentation and the EES process and Inquiry:

(i) The release of EES documentation should be available to stakeholders and interested groups in a variety of forms, both in hardcopy form and on disk to allow for timely, comprehensive and informed comment.

(ii) The duration of the EES process should be streamlined with the aim of establishing a complete understanding of the potential environmental impacts involved with a specific Project. The outcomes achieved through the EES should be considered more important than completing a quick but superficial EES process.

(iii) Baseline studies should be completed as part of the EES process and before any planning approvals are given. Baseline studies could be compromised if planning approvals are given and work proceeds before the studies are completed.

(iv) The apparent and stated urgency for the completion of a Project should not be allowed to influence or detract from the quality and rigour of the EES process. The constraint of time set aside for the EES process allowing for the “fast tracking” of a major project should at least be restricted and at best removed.

(v) A time frame of between 18 and 24 months should be set as the minimum timeframe needed for EES studies to allow for seasonality. A comprehensive and transparent EES process needs to make allowances for the any limitations in the Preliminary Studies completed and to allow for comprehensive scientific investigations. Scientists need a reasonable timeline to enable comprehensive studies to be completed.

1.3 Comparison of projects of a similar type

In the Executive Summary, Victorian Desalination Project, Environment Effects Statement, DSE, August 2008, Conclusions of the EES, page 41:

The less familiar elements of the Project are the desalination process, and its impacts on the marine environment. However, with several desalination plants now either operating or under construction interstate, the only aspect of the Project that is without precedent is its scale.

Technical Report 31, CEE, August 2008, page 132

It is common for marine biota to be exposed to short periods of low salinity due to rain events or discharges or rivers. There are no known studies of the effects of hypersalinity on marine communities similar to those offshore from Wonthaggi. Investigations which have been undertaken on other Desalination Plants were detailed in Table 14.

Technical Report 31, CEE, August 2008, Table 14 is included on pages 90-93 with the comment on page 94:

Most of the world’s currently operating desalination plants are small in comparison or in countries with different environmental priorities from Victoria. Hence the comparison of marine environmental issues and impacts with many of the currently operating desalination plants has limited relevance to the scale of operation proposed in the Victoria Project.

Recommendations 2

(vi) An EES process following best practice:

would allow considerations of “whether or not the Project should proceed at all” rather than just “how, where and when”.

would allow for sufficient time for comprehensive, quantitative scientific studies allowing for seasonality thereby avoiding potentially superficial investigations and the need for further major scientific studies to be carried out after the completion of an EES process

would avoid the potential for an overreliance on desktop studies and literature studies to supplement field data or in the absence of field observations

would allow for an adequate number of EES Hearing days to enable time and opportunity for stakeholders to present complete submissions

would allow for the presentation of additional reports during the Hearing, whilst giving stakeholders adequate time or the ability to analyse and respond to additional reports and information as it became available.

Recommendations 3

(vii) Clear finalised details and information about a proposed project should be provided to enable the task of evaluating or predicting with a high degree of certainty the potential environmental impact on State and EPBC listed concerns.

(viii) Planning and Environmental considerations for each project application at each location should be considered in the light of local conditions and on their own merit. Conditions at other projects of a similar type could be taken into account, but should not be the sole predictor of potential environmental impacts at a particular site. Desktop studies related to other project sites should not take the place of comprehensive studies as part of a full and comprehensive EES.

1.4 Comprehensive studies with a focus on whales

EPBC listed fauna species

In reference to the Pelagic Environment in Bass Strait, the Technical Appendix 31, EES, CEE, page 58 states:

The waters of Bass Strait are well mixed during winter, however in late summer the central part of Bass Strait becomes strongly stratified. (Baines and Fandry, 1983). Literature about pelagic species within Bass Strait is limited compared to the neighbouring embayments of Port Phillip Bay and Westernport Bay. The general nature of plankton and pelagic communities in Bass Strait based on available information is discussed in the following sections.

The absence of flora and fauna records was recorded in the observation in the Report by Biosis Research. (Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Plant, Bass Coast, Victoria, Existing Conditions, Biosis Research, November 2007: page 9.)

The DSE Flora Information System (FIS) contains no pre-existing flora records from the study area however it contains records of 373 flora species within 5 kilometres of the study area.

Similar issues potentially could apply to the results obtained from searches of DEWHA database. Desktop studies alone using these databases cannot give a complete, comprehensive assessment of existing conditions of flora and fauna in the Study Area and the surrounding area.

Similar issues with the DEWHA database in relation to whale species may also occur. It was observed that one whale sighting (Southern Right Whale) was recorded in the Study area for 1993. There have been many cetacean sightings, some as recently as April 2010, for several species including the EPBC listed and EPBC listed migratory species Humpback Whale, Southern Right Whale, Great White Shark and the EPBC listed migratory species the Killer Whale. Many of these sightings were presented at the EES Inquiry.

Report 13, Biosis Research, August 2008, Section 3.2.1 Mammals, page 9 includes:

Most species of the 23 cetaceans (dolphins and whales) known from Victorian waters have been reported on fewer than ten occasions.

The only cetacean that has been recorded on the AVW database from within 5 kilometres of the Desalination Project area is the Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis for which there is a sighting from 1993.

The Report goes on to discuss the possibility at least four species including the Killer Whale Orcinus orca likely to routinely utilise or pass through the marine area of the marine environment of the Desalination Plant. Also included on page 9:

A few individuals of the Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis and the Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae, are considered likely to pass through, or within proximity of, the marine environment of the Desalination Project area during their annual migrations, between May and December.

Report 13, Biosis Research, August 2008, Section 3.4.7 Southern Right Whale Eubalaena australis, page 19 includes:

Southern Right Whales are encountered sporadically in Bass Strait, more frequently in western Bass Strait where they are known to calve and intermittently in central Bass Strait. Southern Right Whales may pass close to shore all along the central Victoria region including the Wonthaggi region, but the area is not known to be particularly important the (sic) species.

Report 13, Biosis Research, August 2008, Section 3.4.7 Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeangliae, page 20 includes:

Central Bass Strait including the Wonthaggi area is generally outside the migratory path of Humpback Whales, and is not a feeding, breeding or calving area. Nonetheless, occasional Humpback Whales may pass close to, or even through the Desalination Project area.

Report 13, Biosis Research, August 2008, Section 5.4.5 includes in reference to the Southern Right Whale and the Humpback Whale:

The Project area does not provide important habitat for an ecologically significant proportion of the populations of any of these species.

Approval of the Victorian Desalination Project – Federal Minister for the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, in relation to the Blue Whale (Endangered), Southern Right Whale (Endangered) and the Humpback Whale(Vulnerable):

... , marine environment in the Wonthaggi area does not provide important breeding, feeding or calving habitat of these species ..

Southern Right Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 includes:

Areas or processes that do not support significant aggregations of whales, but are potentially suitable, are also explicitly recognised as important habitat, the context of facilitating the recovery of the species.

Numbers of the species, the Southern Right Whale, the Humpback Whale and the Great White Shark have been recorded for waters off the Bass Coast coastline since 1993 on many separate occasions, often within 200 metres of the shoreline. The description Likely but not resident can be applied to these species anywhere along the coast of Victoria because they are migratory species. These species should be afforded the same level of protection along the Bass Coast as they would be anywhere along the rest of the Victorian coastline.

It can be said that these EPBC listed threatened and migratory species are not resident within the Study Area. However, as many of these species feed in and pass through the near-shore marine environment at Wonthaggi on a regular basis, these waters do form an important link in the general distribution areas, migration patterns and aggregation areas.

The Killer Whale has been seen on many occasions along the Bass Coast coastline from Inverloch to Kilcunda and beyond. Specific sightings include a pod of Killer Whales sighted by Peter MacEntee (Inverloch) at 7:30am on the 28th November 2007 at Williamsons Beach and Killer Whales sighted at Cape Paterson at 12:00pm on 31st December, 2007. Killer Whales have been observed at least twice off the coast of Kilcunda and towards Williamsons Beach during the past twelve months and again at Harmers Haven from close range by two groups of divers.

Adult Humpback Whale and juvenile, possibly mother and young were observed by more than twenty people including the author throughout the day from midday on 4 November 2008, moving from Eagles Nest towards Cape Paterson. Photographs were taken at Second Surf Beach, Cape Paterson from an estimated range of 800 metres. At times, both whales were within an estimated 100 metres of the shoreline. The whales remained in the area until late afternoon before moving off in the direction of Harmer’s Haven.

Two large whales, probably Southern Right Whales were observed moving down the coast from west to east within 150-200 metres of the shoreline at Williamson Beach by a number of people including the author during late morning on 21 June 2007. About two hours later they were observed at F Break an estimated 300-400 metres from shore.

A Humpback Whale was observed to jump clear of the water three times while moving east to west off Williamsons Beach by Mike Cleeland, Geoff Glare and a group of approximately thirty visiting tertiary students and staff. Many of these observations were presented at the EES Inquiry.

Naturalist and Friends Group member Geoff Glare recorded sightings of more than 35 whales and dolphins in the time period 28 June 2009 and 27 September 2009 including

29 Humpback Whales and 7 Southern Right Whales (including 2 sightings of a calf). Many of these whales were photographed within 100 metres of the shoreline and several within 50 metres. On occasions, whales were observed over the period on more than six hours. Several male Humpback whales were observed displaying courtship behaviour. The female Southern Right Whale and calf were observed and reported on a number of separate occasions over the area of coastline from Inverloch to Cape Woolamai.

The number of sightings by a number of observers during 2009 highlights the need for targeted surveys of all protected species in order to establish the baseline for these species and to establish the importance of the Study Area in relation to these protected species.

Recommendations 4

(ix) The significant flora and fauna information obtained from a desk-top search (Literature and Database Review) of the DSE: Flora Information System (FIS) and Department of Environment and Water, Heritage and the Arts Database (DEWHA) does not always take into account a number of observations of flora species, including species of FFG and EPBC listed flora species from a particular site and surrounding habitats. Consideration should be given to other observations made by other botanists and naturalists not connected with the EES studies.

(x) Desktop flora and fauna searches should not be restricted to a five kilometre radius of the Study Area. Some consideration of a wider search should be given to the important links between the various land and marine reserves both within five kilometres of a Study Area and outside this range, regarding matters of State and National Environmental Significance.

(xi) Desktop studies related to other project sites should not take the place of comprehensive studies as part of a full and comprehensive EES.

(xii) If additional studies are to be completed, the results of these studies and suggested additional studies should be made public for further comment as part of the environmental assessment process.

2. Response to paragraph C.

“The independence of environmental effects examination when government is the proponent.”

The general objective of the EES process is to provide for the transparent, integrated and timely assessment of the environmental effects of the projects capable of having a significant effect on the environment. (Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978).

The independence of environmental effects examination can be questioned if government is the proponent. The Victorian Desalination Project is a case in point. The design phase proceeded at the same time as the EES process. As the Concept Design for the Project was modified and refined, it was difficult to quantify or make comment on the potential environmental impacts on a project that continued to change week by week. Modifications continued to occur throughout the EES Exhibition period.

At Community Forums, frequently quite technical questions were asked to which the response was along the lines of “as further details become available, the information will be given”.

The Technical Appendix 31, EES, CEE, page 94 stated:

This urgency results in a compressed and parallel series of environmental approvals processes (EES, Coastal Management consent, Works Approval and discharge licence) as well as parallel environmental and design investigations, development of reference design and Public-Private Partnership contract tendering and evaluation.

In the Executive Summary, Victorian Desalination Project, Environment Effects Statement, DSE, August 2008, 1.0 Introduction, page 1-7:

Conventional approaches to an EES often describe a project under assessment in its intended, final form. In the case of the Victorian Desalination Project, the State wishes to benefit from comparing different solutions developed by the bidders to meet the Project Objectives and outputs expressed as Performance Requirements.

The Technical Appendix 15, EES, Biosis Research, page 66 stated:

The EES considers a Reference Project as one possible solution. Under the PPP model for project delivery, the implemented project will almost certainly differ from the Reference Project. For this reason, residual risk could not be comprehensively assessed.

The Technical Appendix 22, EES, Underwater Noise, GHD, August 2008, page 45 stated:

The EES considers a Reference Project as one possible solution. Under the PPP model for project delivery, the implemented project

will almost certainly differ from the Reference Project. For this reason, residual risk could not be comprehensively assessed.

The Technical Appendix 27, EES, Invasive Marine Species Specialist Report, GHD, August 2008, page 37 states:

This statement appeared thirty-six times in thirty-four of the eighty-four Technical Reports.

Synthesis of environmental effects, 4.3.2 Approach to field investigations, page 4-25 to 4-26

The EES presents sufficient data, analysis and opinion to asses (sic) the potential environmental effects of the Project. However on a limited number of matters, further investigations will be undertaken to inform further assessment, decision-making and detailed design by the Project Company.

The PPP character of the Project has also shaped the way field investigations for the EES have been conducted, especially when the Project has four components, which could be potentially delivered in a variety of forms using different technologies or following different alignments.

Field studies have focussed intensely on the plant site and marine area in which the Marine Structures will be located. This focus reflects the certainty of the envelope location, the sensitivity of the marine and coastal environment, the intensity of the proposed construction activity and the longevity of the operational impacts of the Project as a result of the continuous intake of seawater and discharge of saline concentrate to ocean.

In relation to the Transfer Pipeline where the certainty of the form of component is high and the certainty of the alignment is high, field studies have been conducted within a 400 metre wide corridor along approximately 85-kilometre alignment based on areas of sensitivity identified through desktop survey and topographically significant features such as floodplains and roadway and waterway crossings. More detailed analysis has occurred within the proposed easement.

For the Power Supply, where the final form of component is less certain, field studies have been more targeted and prioritised to sensitive areas identified through desktop survey.

Recommendations 5

An EES process should:

not be allowed to proceed in parallel with the design process

produce findings that are binding; the ability of a proponent or even a Minister to alter recommendations arising from the findings of an EES process without further public review should be removed.

only be allowed to proceed if the design of a project is finalised and if the winning bidder is known. The winning bidder should then be the proponent for the Project, not a State Government Department.

References

In the preparation of our responses and concerns, the following submissions, information sources and reports have been used as References:

Victorian Desalination Project, Environment Effects Statement, Department of Sustainability and Environment, August 2008

Victorian Desalination Project, Technical Appendices

o Addendum to Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Plant, Wonthaggi, Victoria Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Flora and Fauna Assessment: Gas Fired Power Station for Desalination Plant, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 12, EES) o Assessment of marine animals, birds and reptiles for the Desalination Project, Bass Coast, Wonthaggi, Victoria Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 13, EES) o Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Plant, Wonthaggi, Victoria Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 14, EES) o Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Project Transfer Pipeline corridor, Wonthaggi to Cranbourne, Victoria, Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 15, EES) o Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Project Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 16, EES) o Environment Effects Statement Underwater Noise, Bassett, Melbourne, Victoria, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 22, EES) o Extreme Water Levels at the Powlett River Mouth, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 25, EES) o Marine Biology Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment, CEE, Richmond, Victoria, August 2008 (Technical Appendix 31, EES)

The Environment Effects Statement for the Wonthaggi Wind Farm Project February 2003, Appendix 1: Flora and Fauna Report, Brett Lane & Associates Pty. Ltd. Bass Coast Strategic Coastal Planning Framework, Bass Coast Shire Council, June 2005 Bunurong Marine National Park Management Plan, Parks Victoria, July 2006