UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS ACT 1978 (VIC) PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT ACT 1987 (VIC) PIPELINES ACT 2005 (VIC) ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT 1970 (VIC) ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 (CTH)
GAS IMPORT JETTY AND PIPELINE PROJECT
INQUIRY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGL Wholesale Gas Limited and APA Transmission Pty Ltd
Direction 40: further instructions to Expert Witness - Andrew McCowan
Ashurst Level 26 181 William St MELBOURNE VIC 3000 T +61 3 9679 3000 F +61 3 9679 3111
RWJ SCO 1000 000 480
From: Meg Lee Subject: Crib Point Queries [HW-Active.FID2613209] To: Dr. Andrew McCowan Cc: Bianca McCormack Sent: August 26, 2020 11:49 AM (UTC+10:00)
Dear Andrew
You asked for information on how the gas pipeline crosses the desalination pipeline?
APA has advised: The proposed pipeline will cross the desalination pipeline and associated infrastructure at kp41.215, approximately 12m north of Ballarto Road. The pipeline will be installed below the desalination pipeline with an HDD that also takes in Toomuc Creek, Deep Creek and Ballarto Road. rgs
Meg Lee | Partner
Privacy Information [email protected] | professional profile
www.hallandwilcox.com.au
From: Bianca McCormack Subject: RE: Crib Point - further information [HW-Active.FID2613209] To: 'Dr. Andrew McCowan' Cc: Meg Lee Bcc: '134395_0001 _ Crib Point gas _ Property EES' Sent: September 3, 2020 3:38 PM (UTC+10:00)
Hi Andrew
With respect to your query regarding the minimum depth of cover at each of the waterway crossings, we have received the response below from APA:
For an open cut crossing the minimum DOC for each watercourse crossing is 2m at the invert. We are open cutting only 1 named watercourse Olivers Creek at ~KP10.
Trenchless crossings always have a minimum of 2m at the invert also. In the case of HDD this is 10m+ at the invert due to the required roping radius of the pipe. We have several drains at sealed road crossings with horizontal bores. These will have 2m doc at the invert.
Please let us know if this information is sufficient. We will otherwise write to you again soon regarding your remaining queries.
Regards
Bianca McCormack | Senior Associate
[email protected] | professional profile
www.hallandwilcox.com.au
From: Dr. Andrew McCowan < > Sent: Wednesday, 2 September 2020 7:07 PM To: Bianca McCormack
Hi Bianca,
My apologies. I’m still not fully operational yet. The main things I was looking for were: - Contour values to go with the contours shown on the Digital Terrain Model of the pipeline route (I can get these from our own GIS specialists if necessary as they have access to all DELWP’s LiDAR survey). - A profile of the ground surface elevations along the proposed pipeline route.
Also, it would be useful to know the minimum depth of cover at each of the waterway crossings.
Best regards Andrew
Dr. Andrew McCowan Chairman | Senior Principal Engineer From: Bianca McCormack Subject: RE: Crib Point Queries [HW-Active.FID2722664] To: 'Dr. Andrew McCowan' Cc: Meg Lee Bcc: '134395_0005 _ Crib Point EES Emails' Sent: September 7, 2020 5:46 PM (UTC+10:00) Attached: GHD (2008)_ Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline (Technical Appendix No. 63) (2).PDF
Hi Andrew
Further to our emails below, attached is a copy of the GHD report you requested.
Regards
Bianca McCormack | Senior Associate
| professional profile
www.hallandwilcox.com.au
From: Bianca McCormack Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2020 9:56 AM To: Meg Lee
Hi Andrew and Meg
Yes, I sent the Alluvium report yesterday, as an attachment. Another copy is attached. I will search for the desalination plant report today,
Regards
Bianca McCormack | Senior Associate
[email protected] | professional profile
www.hallandwilcox.com.au
From: Meg Lee
I think Bianca sent you the Alluvium report yesterday – in a link ?
Bianca will see if we can track down the Desal one through our library.
Meg Lee | Partner
[email protected] | professional profile
www.hallandwilcox.com.au
From: Dr. Andrew McCowan < > Sent: Thursday, 27 August 2020 8:24 AM To: Meg Lee
Thanks Meg,
I thought that must have been the case. I’ll look through the project description sections in a bit more detail.
Any news of the Alluvium report?
Also, could you see if it’s possible to get a copy of the desalination plant EES surface water report:
GHD (2008): Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline (Technical Appendix No. 63)
I think it may be available in electronic form from the State Library but I don’t have ready access to it.
Heading out on site shortly.
Best regards Andrew
Dr. Andrew McCowan Chairman | Senior Principal Engineer WATER TECHNOLOGY • +61 3 8526 0800 • www.watertech.com.au •
Confidentiality & Privilege Notice This email is intended only to be read or used by the addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone, you should destroy it and notify the sender by reply email. Confidentiality and legal privilege are not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you. Please consider the environment before printing this email. From: Meg Lee
Dear Andrew
You asked for information on how the gas pipeline crosses the desalination pipeline?
APA has advised: The proposed pipeline will cross the desalination pipeline and associated infrastructure at kp41.215, approximately 12m north of Ballarto Road. The pipeline will be installed below the desalination pipeline with an HDD that also takes in Toomuc Creek, Deep Creek and Ballarto Road. rgs
Meg Lee | Partner
[email protected] | professional profile
www.hallandwilcox.com.au
In compliance with the Victorian Government Stage 4 restrictions, our Melbourne office is closed until Thursday 17 September 2020. Please click here for delivery details during this time.
Hall & Wilcox | Smarter Law Update Workplace biometric scanning: Emerging issues in employment law
If our bank account details change, we will notify you by letter, phone call or face-to-face, but never by email.
Hall & Wilcox acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of the land, sea and waters on which we work, live and engage. We pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging.
This email and any attachment is confidential and for the use of the intended recipient(s) only. It may also be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. Hall & Wilcox handles information according to relevant privacy laws.
Our privacy policy can be reviewed at our website: http://www.hallandwilcox.com.au/privacy/ Technical Appendices Appendix 63 Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
A Victorian Government project
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Table of Contents – Technical Appendices
Technical Appendix Title
Department of Sustainability and Environment (2008) 1 Community Consultation Plan, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne, Victoria
(2008) Legislation, Policy and Key Guidelines, 2 Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Map Books – Transfer Pipeline, GHD, 3 Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Map Books – Northerly Grid 4 Connection, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) High Sensitivity Map Books – Whole 5 of Project, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Risk Assessment Report, 6 Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Greenhouse Gas 7 Assessment Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Waste Management 8 Assessment Report, Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Proposed Gas Fired Powered Station 9 Option Waste Management, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Essential Economics (2008) Existing Conditions 10 Report (Economic), Essential Economics, Carlton, Victoria
Essential Economics (2008) Impact Assessment 11 (Economic), Essential Economics, Carlton, Victoria
1 Table of Contents
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Addendum to Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Plant, Wonthaggi, Victoria Existing Conditions and 12 Impact Assessment Report, Flora and Fauna Assessment: Gas Fired Power Station for Desalination Plant, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Assessment of marine mammals, birds and reptiles for the Desalination Project, Bass Coast, Victoria 13 Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Plant, Wonthaggi, 14 Victoria Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Project Transfer 15 Pipeline corridor, Wonthaggi to Cranbourne, Victoria, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Flora and Fauna Assessment: Desalination Project Northerly Grid 16 Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Phillips Agribusiness (2008) Victorian Desalination 17 Plant Agricultural Impact Assessment, Phillips Agribusiness, Geelong, Victoria
ASR (2008) Bass & Bays Hydrodynamic Model: 18 Calibration and Validation, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
Table of Contents 2
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
ASR (2008) Description of the Bass Straight 19 Physical and Geological Marine Environment, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
ASR (2008) Local Fine-Resolution Model: 20 Calibration and Validation, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
ASR (2008) South-East Australian (SEA) 21 Hydrodynamic Model: Calibration and Validation, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
Bassett (2008) Environmental Effects Statement 22 Underwater Noise, Bassett, Melbourne Victoria
GHD (2008) Water & Sediment Quality 23 Assessment, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Hydrobiology & CSIRO (2008) Toxicity Assessment 24 for the Victorian Desalination Plant, Hydrobiology & CSIRO, Australia
ASR (2008) Extreme Water Levels at the Powlett 25 River Mouth, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
ASR (2008) Numerical Modelling of the Powlett 26 River Freshwater Plume, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
GHD (2008) Invasive Marine Species Specialist 27 Report, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
MAFFRI (2008) The horizontal and vertical distribution of fish eggs and larvae in relation to 28 the proposed desalination plant for Victoria, September to December 2007, MAFFRI, Queenscliff, Victoria
ASR (2008) Mid-Field Numerical Modelling of the 29 Desalination Plant Outlet Plume, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
3 Table of Contents
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
ASR (2008) Near-Field Numerical Modelling of 30 the Desalination Plant Outlet Plume, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
CEE (2008) Marine Biology Existing Conditions 31 and Impact Assessment, CEE, Richmond, Victoria
ASR (2008) Sediment concentrations in the water 32 column near the intake – outlet, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
ASR (2008) Particle Dispersal Modelling: 33 Seasonal and Spatial Variations, ASR, Raglan, New Zealand
ERM (2008) The Desalination Plant Component 34 Landscape & Visual Assessment, ERM, Richmond, Victoria GHD (2008) Addendum to the Land Contamination Existing Conditions and Impact 35 Assessment Report, Plant Site, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Land Contamination Existing 36 Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Plant Site, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) Existing site conditions, Impacts and Risk Assessment 37 GEOLOGY, GEOMORPHOLOGY and ACID SULPHATE SOILS, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) Gas fired Power Station Addendum, Specialist Study, Existing 38 Conditions Report Geology and Geomorphology, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) Gas Fired Power Station IMPACT and RISK ASSESSMENT 39 Geology, Geomorphology and Acid Sulphate soils, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
Table of Contents 4
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
GHD (2008) Existing Conditions Report and 40 Impact Assessment Groundwater, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Gas Fired Power Station Option - 41 Surface Water EES – Addendum to Plant Report, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Addendum to Report for Melbourne Desalination Project, Surface Water EES – Plant, 42 Waterways Assessment of Gas Supply Options, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Surface Water EES - Plant, GHD, 43 Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Addendum Report Gas-Fired Power Station – Cultural Heritage, 44 Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Desalination Plant Component Cultural Heritage Existing 45 Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Addendum Report for Assessment of Impacts on Air Quality, Desalination Plant, Gas 46 Fired Power Generation Options, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Existing Conditions Report Air 47 Quality Desalination Plant, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Report for Assessment of Impacts on 48 Air Quality, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Impact Assessment Report - Noise 49 and Vibration (Gas-Fired Power Station), GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
5 Table of Contents
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
GHD (2008) Report for Desalination Project 50 Impact Assessment Report Noise and Vibration (Plant), GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Existing Traffic Conditions – Plant, 51 GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Traffic Impact Assessment Addendum Report – Gas Fired 52 Power Station, Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Victorian Desalination 53 Project Traffic Impact Assessment, Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Report for Victorian Desalination 54 Plant Preliminary Hazard Analysis, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Victorian Desalination Plant Environment Effects Statement, Social 55 Impact Assessment Existing Conditions Report, Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Victorian Desalination Plant Environmental Effects Statement, Social 56 Impact Assessment Report, Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Services Impact Assessment Plant 57 and Transfer Pipeline, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
ERM (2008) The Desalination Project Water Transfer Pipeline Component Landscape & 58 Visual Assessment For Department of Sustainability and Environment, ERM, Richmond, Victoria
GHD (2008) Land Contamination Existing 59 Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Transfer Pipeline, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Table of Contents 6
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) TRANSFER PIPELINE Existing Conditions GEOLOGY 60 GEOMORPHOLOGY ACID SULFATE SOILS, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) Transfer Pipeline IMPACT and RISK ASSESSMENT Geology, 61 Geomorphology and Acid Sulfate Soils, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
GHD (2008) Desalination Pipeline Corridor Final 62 Impact Assessment Report - Groundwater, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings 63 Assessment for the Transfer Pipeline, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Water Transfer Pipeline Component, Cultural Heritage Existing 64 Conditions Report and Impact Assessment, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Report for Desalination Project 65 Construction Dust Assessment – Transfer Pipeline, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Impact Assessment Report – Noise 66 and Vibration (Transfer Pipeline), GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Existing Traffic Conditions – Transfer 67 Pipeline, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
ERM (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure Landscape and 68 Visual Impact Assessment, ERM, Richmond, Victoria
7 Table of Contents
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
GHD (2008) Land Contamination Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, 69 Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure, 70 Impact and Risk Assessment, Geology, Geomorphology & Acid Sulfate Soils, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure 71 Specialist Study, Existing Conditions Report, Geology and Geomorphology, Rosengren. N, and Boyd. C, Bendigo, Victoria
GHD (2008) Gas Fired Power Plant Option Addendum to the Existing Conditions and 72 Impact Assessment Report – Groundwater, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for 73 the Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure Existing 74 Conditions and Impact Assessment Report – Groundwater, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure 75 Component - Cultural Heritage Existing Conditions and Impact Assessment Report, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Air Quality Impacts Assessment of 76 the Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Table of Contents 8
Victorian Desalination Project Environment Effects Statement
Technical Appendix Title
GHD (2008) Impact Assessment Report – Noise and Vibration (Northerly Grid Connection and 77 Ancillary Power Infrastructure), GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Existing Traffic Conditions – 78 Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
GHD (2008) Services Impact Assessment - Power 79 Supply, GHD, Melbourne, Victoria
Maunsell Australia (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power Infrastructure 80 Electric and Magnetic Field Impact Assessment, Maunsell Australia, Melbourne, Victoria
Hydro Tasmania (2008) Electrical Network 81 Connection Options, Hydro Tasmania Consulting, Melbourne Victoria Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Desalination Plant 82 Component Cultural Heritage Management Plan, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Transfer Pipeline 83 Component: Cultural Heritage Management Plan, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
Biosis Research Pty Ltd (2008) Northerly Grid Connection and Ancillary Power infrastructure 84 Component: Cultural Heritage Management Plan, Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne, Victoria
9 Table of Contents Department of Sustainability and Environment Report for Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
August 2008 Contents
1. Desalination Project Overview 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Limitations 2 1.3 Study Objectives 3 1.4 Background and Data Sources 3
2. Existing Conditions 5
2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Catchment Characteristics 6 2.3 Water Quality Analysis 12 2.4 River Health 18 2.5 Waterway Characteristics 27 2.6 Hydrologic Assessment 36
3. Agency Requirements 44 3.1 Introduction 44 3.2 Catchment Management Authorities 44 3.3 Catchment Management Authority Requirements 44
4. Environmental Risk Assessment 49 4.1 Introduction 49 4.2 Desalination Project Risk 49 4.3 Detailed Waterway Risk Assessment 61
5. Impacts of Transfer Pipeline 66
5.1 Introduction 66 5.2 Available Construction Techniques 66 5.3 Potential Impacts 70
6. Risk Mitigation 73 6.2 Standard Management Measures 74 6.3 Construction Management Measures 75 6.4 Specific Mitigation Measures 76 6.5 Operational Management Measures 78 6.6 Application of Mitigation and Rehabilitation Measures 79
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 6.7 Implications of Risk Assessment for Construction Methodology at Waterway Crossings 81 6.8 Booster Pump Station Operation and Construction Mitigation 84 6.9 Performance Requirements 86
7. Conclusions 93
8. References 97
Table Index Table 1 Catchments and named waterways crossed by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment 6 Table 2 SEPP Water Quality Guidelines for Waters of Western Port and catchment (Source Melbourne Water (2006)) 13 Table 3 SEPP Water Quality Guidelines for Waters of Western Port and catchment (Source: EPA Victoria (2003)) 14 Table 4 Summary of ISC Ratings for the Powlett River (Reaches 5 and 6) 19 Table 5 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Bass River 20 Table 6 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Land Lang River 21 Table 7 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Lower Bunyip River 22 Table 8 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Middle/ Upper Bunyip River 23 Table 9 Summary of IRC Ratings for Cardinia, Toomuc, Deep and Ararat Creeks 24 Table 10 Summary of IRC Ratings for Eumemmerring Creek 25 Table 11 Summary table of the distribution of waterway types along the alignment 30 Table 12 Terrain units of Transfer Pipeline corridor (Rosengren, 2008) 36 Table 13 Review of Streamflow Data 38 Table 14 Preliminary flood frequency analysis of stream gauging stations translated to river crossings (ML/day) 42 Table 15 Summary of Sustainable Diversion Limits 43 Table 16 Consequence rankings 51 Table 17 Likelihood Rankings 53
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 18 Risk Assessment Matrix 54 Table 19 Construction Phase Impacts 55 Table 20 Operation Phase Impacts 57 Table 21 Likelihood Rankings 64 Table 22 Waterway crossings where pipe jacking should be considered# 82 Table 23 86
Figure Index Figure 1-1 Waterway crossings along Proposed Transfer Pipeline (Rev E) 4 Figure 2-2 Water Quality Monitoring Sites 16 Figure 2-3 River Health of the waterways along the Proposed Transfer Pipeline 26 Figure 2-4 Terrain Units of the Transfer Pipeline corridor. See Table 1 for details (Rosengren, 2008) 35 Figure 2-5 Waterways stream gauge information 37 Figure 2-6 Monthly Streamflows Cardina Creek at Cardina 39 Figure 2-7 Monthly Streamflows Bunyip River at Iona 39 Figure 2-8 Monthly Streamflows Toomuc Creek at Pakenham 40 Figure 2-9 Monthly Streamflows Bass River at Glen Forbes South 41 Figure 5-1 Standard Trenching Pipeline Construction 68 Figure 5-2 Standard trenching construction with flow diversion in place 69
Appendices A Pipeline Waterway Map Series (30 pages) B Water Quality Assessment for the Proposed Transfer Pipeline C SEPP Assessment of the Transfer Pipeline Alignment D Waterway Crossing Proformas E Waterway Crossing Risk Assessment
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 1. Desalination Project Overview
1.1 Introduction The Victorian Government proposes to construct a seawater desalination plant on the Bass Coast, three kilometres west of Wonthaggi. The plant and ancillary infrastructure would supply water to the Melbourne Water supply system and other regional supply systems. The Victorian Government has announced that the Victorian Desalination Project will be delivered as a Public Private Partnership (PPP) under the Partnerships Victoria Policy, and will be operational by 2011. The Victorian Desalination Project has four components:
9 Marine Structures consisting of the seawater intake and the saline concentrate outlet structures; 9 Desalination Plant with reverse osmosis desalination technology; 9 Transfer Pipeline (approximately 85 kilometres) connecting the Desalination Plant to the Melbourne water supply network; and 9 Power Supply to the Desalination Plant, Transfer Pipeline and ancillary infrastructure. The Minister for Planning has decided that an Environment Effects Statement (EES) is required for the Project. The Project Description and subject matter of the EES are: 9 The Performance Requirements; 9 The Reference Project; and 9 Variations. Performance Requirements govern the Project for EES purposes, and will be the basis of any Contract with the Project Company. These set the environmental parameters for the Project. The Reference Project is an integrated response to the Performance Requirements developed by the State. It is used in the EES to demonstrate the Project’s feasibility and ability to achieve acceptable environmental outcomes. Variations contemplate other design and management solutions which also meet the Performance Requirements and are within the scope of the EES assessment. This study establishes the existing conditions of the Project area and where specific potential impacts or interactions with the environment are identified provides suggested management recommendations to mitigate the potential impacts that relate to the Reference Project primarily.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 1 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 1.2 Limitations This report has been prepared based on the following information and assumptions: The Transfer Pipeline easement will cross 100 designated waterways. At the time of submission of this report, 70 of these waterway crossings have been assessed during the field assessment. Field investigations and analysis will continue to inform this assessment and will be documented in future revisions of this report. It is considered unlikely that this additional field investigation will result in significant changes to the current risk ratings as the majority of sites that are attributed medium or greater risks are based upon issues such as proximity to RAMSAR sites, and flooding characteristics. Where risks are medium or greater pipe jacking, additional controls or alternative alignments have been recommended.
9 Assumptions have been made for waterways that have not yet been visited regarding waterway types, conditions and potential issues based upon aerial investigation; 9 This report does not include analysis completed by other disciplines important to this study, such as aquatic ecology, geotechnical investigation, geological investigation and geomorphological investigation and may be incorporated as investigations are completed; 9 Risk assessment was undertaken based upon the assumptions that appropriate controls, i.e. mitigation measures, will be implemented; 9 The outcomes from the risk assessment process are preliminary in nature and may evolve over time as further investigation is undertaken; 9 This report has been prepared solely for the Client (Department of Sustainability and Environment); 9 The report is based on work carried out in accordance with the specific Project scope as agreed between GHD Pty Ltd and the Client; 9 The results of this investigation should not be used for any other purpose than that for which it is specifically intended; 9 The results of this investigation are to be used by the Client only and must not be used by any other party; and 9 This report may contain certain assumptions upon which preliminary findings are based. These may change as more information becomes available and as fieldwork is undertaken. There are a number of assumptions made in regard to these investigations: 9 Geomorphology interpretations are either based on desktop information and/or a single site visit along the Transfer Pipeline alignment where the alignment was either viewed from roads ways and therefore restricted, or at the Transfer Pipeline crossing point; 9 Geomorphology/hydrology interpretations are based on desktop information and a preliminary assessment of the Transfer Pipeline alignment at the time of the submission of this report; and
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 2 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 An initial discussion has been undertaken with MWC and the WGCMA, but none with other stakeholders.
1.3 Study Objectives The objectives of the existing conditions study were to: 9 Describe existing conditions of waterways, floodplains and significant drainage paths in the vicinity of the preferred Transfer Pipeline alignment and relevant alternatives, in relation to their hydrology, water quality and character; 9 Assess risks of erosion, soil degradation and sedimentation associated with construction of the Transfer Pipeline along the preferred and any proposed control measures; 9 Assess the potential for adverse effects of Transfer Pipeline construction on the hydrology, water quality and character of local waterways, floodplains and drainage paths, including in relation to floodway function; 9 Detail the proposed measures, including the choice of alignment and construction technique as well as the management and timing of works, to minimise adverse effects of Transfer Pipeline construction on the functions and values of waterways, floodplains and drainage paths; and 9 Describe proposed measures to rehabilitate affected sections of waterways, floodplains and drainage paths following Transfer Pipeline construction works. Additional broader objectives of this study were to: 9 Provide information to support preparation of the Desalination Environmental Effects Statement; and 9 Identify authority requirements and timings with a view to obtaining in principle agreements, permits and approvals that are on the critical path. This report aims to address the study objectives listed above, however not all were addressed at submission of this report.
1.4 Background and Data Sources This report is separate to the assessments of the powerline transmission corridor of the Desalination Plant and the assessments of the location of the Desalination Plant. The information contained herein is based upon the Transfer Pipeline alignment Rev E and the “Pipeline Alignment Buffer 400 m” (refer Appendix A and Figure 1-1).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 3 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 350,000 360,000 370,000 380,000 390,000 PRINCES HIGHWAY
OFFICER A R A K 620 R EE PAKENHAM A CR T E E C R TEA T . 619 R D.S TYNONG IN RE EK E RA C E D RO N S D 609 I K GARFIELD N N D E BROWNBILLS DRAIN SO I S E A P A FI R F D R BUNYIP T O M R R - FTE I 608 D OC A T U O D T GRIGGS DRAIN H O 607 R I K S N A T S EN MILE DRAIN T REE R TH DR Y C K E A A E
R E IN K IR CRANBOURNE E A C N A D T N TEEN M N AI M Y R M D AIN N U Y DRAIN MILE EN LONGWARRY L AI AR I R O D E N L C D U 606 K O DR M B E S E N OLDI
E XT
R N P C H ER D ERS DRAIN NORT SI E I
R
5,780,000 LE D 5,780,000 E RD
624 A RAIN D DRAI
I RS
N E 623 R RAIN C E
GUNNS DRAIN AR ILE D W PARISH D RD DRAIN N I O T MIL NI I RAIN L W A E DRAIN H WALKE Y D A EK L R I R IN 1) E E A D A R EIG 4 S EVEN M C IN 545 OS DR DRAIN 9 T H 2 D 622 541 S BUNYIP RIVER MAIN D ( O R IN C A OSTELL LI DR RR A C T D T TLE R A 540 539 FIVE MIL AIN RRAY ROAD YAN N I N N A P 544 A 538 MU AT H N IN G C N N ITHS DR N A I
B I I WEST CATCH DR MUC CREEK H R K S E R GRIFF D LY S A A 537 NORT NUMBER DRAIN D S A DRAI N R R IN I COS L SEVEN YALLOC R N GORS DRAIN A D D R A E C A R TERS DRAIN D K DRAIN N S D N EGAN I C H RE T S DRA D SCAN E R N L LONS D H O RAIN IN B L D T E RAIN R R A D DIN RD E D A M F RY DRAIN A I C A T R D S G H MC G N U G T LOWER TOO M C U O O N I Y T O O. 6 E B K YALLOCK M A S D N C DR L GILES R C R LO AIN MA REEK D E L TOORA L C C D A D D T H A OL RAIN T URRIES R U S Y MS N D A U 510 I K O C MU M E SK C R A E S E N R R T CR O EE AIN R I H . D K N S K 5 T Y MUSK CREE A C E U AL E HEI KOO-WEE-RUP L O LO RAIN X FER W O D W AL CK T CRE S Y GRE E G A DR VE K S D D N CH R R A A A AN AIN I L EVEE N I BR N HOLTS DR PEARCEDALE N AI TOORADIN & L K 5,770,000 M 5,770,000 N 526 AIN I EITH DR A ONOM OLD R 534 M LANG LANG RI D S E 533 G I RAIN G LAN RIVER VER L YALLOCK CUT TH D OLD LAN Y MONOMEI W 530 PORT PHILLIP 531 L ) R ANG E E LAN L IV G RI ID D R VE R (M 428 G N G LA 427 ER LAN W O L 426 425 LITTLE LANG LA N LANG LANG L G IT Western Port Bay T R L IV E E L R 423 A N 424 G LA NG R 411 IVER STH 410 P H A E D A A S M A N S
T 5,760,000 C 5,760,000
HIGHWAY R C 422 EE R K E
ASS E
408 K B CREEK 25 407 04
CREEK 2509 ADAM C 406 421 S R E E 419 420 D K RE BL U F NYORA F C EAC R P O E C E POOWONG K K 418 R O A LE B D LITT AS 340 S D RIV PORT PHILLIP R ER A I N
RE C EK LOCH 3 8 31 323 C 319 RE E 322 AL K 329 L 38 SO 3 P 6 C 328 RE E EEK 3 K 5,750,000 CR 83 5,750,000 9 326 327 C REEK 3 304 84 CREEK 1 301
9 K 303 EE CR GRANTVILLE 302 R 3844 C CORINELLA EEK 3845 TLE 226 W AT CR C E T R CREEK 384 E 225 227 E E K LF E 38 E K K 4 R 223 E
CORONET BAY 3 7 C NT RE E 8 E EK 5 N C R N R 1 E C T E R 231 E E K T T CR 53 214 EN S EEK 38 NE FO NT COWES 230 CRE EK 4 208 85 3 RHYLL K GOR E GE DRAFTE 229 C R R C E 228 EK 220 BLUE MOUNTAIN C 5,740,000 REEK 5,740,000 R 219 IVE R B ASS 115 124 T PORT PHILLIP B 116 ES 113 W 123 EEK CR 114 S B E T CR I S C C A RE RE 112 H E E EK 3 C E R E 8 K 57 C K E 5 E N NEWHAVEN E R 5 E A V K L I A R R 3 C EK 38 856 T S SAN REMO T IE E CRE H L C WEST GIPPSLAND W R O 122 A P W K O E K E O E E L R R S C C 110 H E T E G S D E ID W C R R B
E
120 E K 119 105
5,730,000 103 5,730,000 104 WHITE
ROAD
Legend 350,000 360,000 370,000 380,000 390,000
Waterway Crossing Watercourse Major Levee and Embankment Major Town Watercourse Minor Desalination Plant Boundary Major Roads Current Transfer Pipe Alignment (30m) Parcel Section Breakl Current Pipeline Corridor (400m) CMA Boundary
1:175,000 Dept of Sustainability and Environment Job Number 31-22421 Revision A 024681 The Desalination Project Date 15 May 2008 Kilometres (at A3) Waterway crossing along Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 proposed Transfer Pipeline (Rev E) Figure 1-1 G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\006_A3_Overview_WWay_Croasing21_PipeD.mxd 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DSE; VicMap; GHD. Created by: Khan Kamruzzaman 2. Existing Conditions
2.1 Introduction The primary purpose of this section is to fulfil the requirements outlined within the following objective: 9 Describe existing conditions of waterways, floodplains and significant drainage paths in the vicinity of the preferred Transfer Pipeline alignment and relevant alternatives, in relation to their hydrology, water quality and character.
Project Step: Relevant Report Comments: Section(s):
Existing Section 2.2: This describes the catchments likely to be Condition Catchment Overview affected by the Transfer Pipeline alignment and assists with defining the study area for the purposes of this report.
Section 2.3: Water This section uses relevant water quality Quality monitoring data to discuss the current water quality of the major waterways likely to be affected by the Transfer Pipeline alignment.
Section 2.4: River This section discusses available data that Health characterises the health of waterways crossed by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment. It provides a discussion of the regional catchment strategies and the flora and fauna characteristics of the main waterways crossed by the p Transfer Pipeline alignment.
Section 2.4: Waterway This section discusses the method used to condition characterise the current conditions of the waterways at the waterway crossing locations for the Transfer Pipeline alignment and summarises the waterway types.
Section 2.5: Hydrology This section uses relevant hydrological monitoring stations to discuss the hydrologic conditions of the major waterways likely to be affected by the Transfer Pipeline alignment.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 5 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 2.2 Catchment Characteristics
2.2.1 Catchment Overview The Proposed Transfer Pipeline alignment crosses through seven main catchments and will cross 100 waterways, of which 17 are named waterways and eight are named drains (Table 1). Aerial maps have been overlaid with the defined Melbourne Water waterways and Vic Maps waterways to assist with identifying the location of waterways potentially affected by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline alignment (Appendix A). The waterways defined by Melbourne Water (MWC) and West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) form the basis of investigation within this report.
Table 1 Catchments and named waterways crossed by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment
Powlett River Catchment Bunyip River Catchment 9 Powlett River 9 Bunyip River 9 Bridge Creek 9 Southern Boundary Drain 9 Woolshed Creek 9 South East Catchment Drain 9 North West Catchment Drain Bass River Catchment 9 Himbeck’s Drain 9 Bass River 9 Gray’s Drain 9 Tennent Creek 9 Yallock Creek 9 Gorge Creek Toomuc Creek Catchment South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and 9 Toomuc Creek Creeks 9 Cardinia Creek 9 Peacock Road Drain 9 Deep Creek 9 McDonald’s Catchment Drain Lang Lang River Catchment 9 McGregor’s Drain 9 Lang Lang River 9 Gum Scrub Creek 9 Adams Creek 9 Monomeith Drain 9 Red Bluff Creek Dandenong Catchment 9 Ti-Tree Creek
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 6 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Powlett River Catchment The Powlett River originates upstream of Outtrim, over 30 km upstream of the river mouth. During the mid-Holocene period the Powlett River received a large volume of in-stream channel sediment from the major tributaries. This channel impedance has allowed for the development of natural levee banks. The Powlett River is weakly incised into the alluvium valley deposits covering the floodplain (Rosengren, 2008). Past and on-going human activities have substantially altered the fluvial geomorphology of the Powlett River, with most of the catchment cleared for agriculture. The West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority has documented the changes imposed on the channel and floodplain reaches (2007). These include channel straightening, realignment, swamp drainage, flood cuts, levee bank construction, bank stabilisation, and desnagging (Rosengren, 2008).
Bass River Catchment The Bass River Catchment is approximately 266 km2 (Wallbrink et al., 2003). It originates just south of Poowong where landuse is dominated by dairy farming. From this point it flows south-west past Loch and Glen Forbes and into the south-eastern portion of Western Port Bay near San Remo. Bass River catchment has been subject to large-scale vegetation clearance throughout European development. This has resulted in altered hydrological and morphological processes, which are, at least in part, responsible for channel incision. Throughout much of the Bass River main trunk the channel is disconnected from the floodplain due to its depth below current floodplain levels and its protection by terrace features, which are evidence of former channel levels. Willows are common throughout the catchment and it is thought that these have been planted in response to the wide-spread channel incision that occurred post-European settlement (Earth Tech, 2008). Willows are currently acting as bed control structures (i.e. they stabilise the channel) throughout much of the catchment. Melbourne Water is currently implementing a willow control plan.
South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and Creeks Melbourne Water Corporation has defined surface water catchments for Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL) around a number of waterways within the South Gippsland Basin. This study has employed these surface water catchments for the Bass, Powlett and other rivers when categorising waterway crossings for the transfer pipeline. Two regions crossed by the transfer pipeline within the South Gippsland Basin, remain undefined by SDL surface water catchments and as such are classified as South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and Creeks. The larger, and most northerly of these South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and Creeks catchments, is approximately 133 km2 and is bounded by the Bass SDL catchment in the south and east, Western Port in the west and the Lang Lang SDL catchment in the north. This catchment drains to Western Port.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 7 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline The smallest and most southerly of these regions covers approximately 39 km2 and stretches between San Remo in the west almost to the Powlett River in the east. To the north a line of hills that represent the southern extent of the Bass SDL catchment bound the area. This catchment drains to Bass Strait.
Lang Lang River Catchment The Lang Lang River originates in an area dominated by dairy farming within the foothills of Poowong East. It flows north to Athlone and then west towards the South Gippsland Highway before entering into the north of Western Port Bay. The channel has been artificially straightened downstream of the South Gippsland Highway.
Bunyip River Catchment The Bunyip River originates in the Bunyip State Forest in the north-eastern portion of the Western Port catchment. The Bunyip flows south to the confluence with Tarago River near Longwarry North. It then flows south-west to Bunyip and through the Koo Wee Rup swamp where it has been channelised by past landuse activities. Constructed levee banks are common throughout this portion of the channel and are important in protecting the surrounding land from flooding.
Toomuc Creek Catchment 9 Toomuc Creek Toomuc Creek originates in the Upper Beaconsfield hills and flows through farms within Toomuc Valley and the township of Pakenham. Water then flows through a constructed channel across the Koo Wee Rup swamplands and then out into Western Port Bay. Much of the indigenous riparian vegetation has been removed and has been replaced in some places with introduced eucalypts (Cardinia Shire Council, 2007). In more recent years there has been a significant increase in urbanisation within the catchment. 9 Cardinia Creek Cardinia creek is one of the waterways draining the northern part of the Toomuc Creek catchment. This creek comes together as parallel channels alongside Deep and Toomuc Creeks within the Koo –Wee Rup swampland (EPA, 1998) which then discharge to Western Port Bay at Moody’s Inlet. 9 Deep Creek Deep creek is one of the waterways draining the northern part of the Toomuc Creek catchment. This creek comes together as parallel channels alongside Cardinia and Toomuc Creeks within the Koo-Wee-Rup swampland that then discharges to the bay at Moody’s Inlet (EPA 1998).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 8 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Dandenong Catchment 9 Dandenong Creek The Dandenong Catchment lies south-east of Melbourne and has a catchment area of 855 km2. Dandenong Creek originates in the Dandenong Ranges National Park and flows into both Mordialloc Creek and Patterson River prior to discharging to Port Phillip Bay (Melbourne Water, 2006a).
9 Eumemmerring and Ti Tree Creeks Eumemmerring Creek is one of the major tributaries to Dandenong Creek. Ti Tree Creek, which is a small tributary to Eumemmerring Creek, is the only named waterway to be crossed by the Transfer Pipeline Alignment in the Dandenong Catchment. Eumemmerring Creek is a rural-urban catchment where rapid development is taking place. The creek has been heavily modified in its middle sections to provide flood protection in once extensive wetland areas, as have its upstream tributaries the Hallam Main Drain and Narre Warren and Troups Creeks (Melbourne Water Website 2008b). Stream works are being undertaken to re-establish a more natural channel shape within the creek alignment from South Gippsland Highway to Abbots Road in Hampton Park.
Receiving Waters The catchments discussed above drain to three primary receiving waters, which include Western Port, Port Phillip Bay and Bass Strait. 9 Western Port Catchment The Western Port catchment drains an area of 3,200 square kilometres and is largely characterised by its productive farmland and extensive coastline (EPA 1998). A total of 38 streams contribute approximately 1 100 ML of water to Western Port every day (EPA 1998). Bunyip River, Lang Lang River and Bass River contribute around 75% of the freshwater discharging to the bay each day (EPA 1998). Since European settlement large scale clearance, drainage of the Koo Wee Rup swamp and the construction of channelised drains has greatly altered the landscape within this area. These changes have lead to increased catchment erosion and increased sediment transport efficiency (EPA 1998). A combination of agricultural land use practices and erosion within the catchment will have altered the water quality within this region. Many of the Western Port Catchments crossed by the Transfer Pipeline alignment flow into the Western Port Ramsar Wetlands. The Western Port Ramsar site is a large bay connected to Bass Strait by a wide channel between Flinders and Phillip Island and a narrow channel between San Remo and Phillip Island. French Island lies in the middle of Western Port. Western Port is located where the tidal range reaches a maximum on the Victorian Coast (up to 3 metres) and is characterised by a wide variety of marine habitats ranging from deep channels to extensive sea grass flats, mangroves, saltmarsh and wide tidal mudflats. The Western Port Ramsar site has four marine and coastal wetland types recognised under the classification system used by the Ramsar Convention (DSE, 2003). These are:
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 9 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Marine sub-tidal aquatic beds; 9 Intertidal mud and sand flats; 9 Intertidal marshes (including saltmarsh); and 9 Intertidal forested wetlands (including mangroves). This wetland is an internationally significant wetland because it has an unusually wide variety of habitat types, including White Mangrove, which fringes 40% of the coastline and seagrass beds, which cover 38% of the site. Salt marshes occupy less than 10% of the coastline yet are an important part of the vegetation in this region. They extend a kilometre or more from the shoreline in many places, are floristically rich and relatively undisturbed. The Western Port Ramsar site provides a range of important functions that contribute to the maintenance of the wetland and surrounding ecosystems (DSE, 2003). Sediment and nutrient loads entering the system from surrounding catchments can have severe impacts on the health of the RAMSAR wetlands. Catchments crossed by the Transfer Pipeline that drain to Western Port include Bass Catchment, Lang Lang Catchment, Bunyip Catchment, Toomuc Catchment and the northern most South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and Creeks Catchment.
9 Port Phillip Bay Port Phillip is a large, shallow marine bay that is of immense social, economic and environmental value to Victoria. The Port Phillip catchment is Australia’s most densely populated and drains an area of approximately 9 790 square kilometres. There are eight major creeks and rivers flowing into to the Bay and about 5 000 underground drains collecting runoff from the greater Melbourne area. These drains discharge either to creeks and rivers or directly through more than 300 outlets into the Bay (CSIRO, 2003).
The Yarra River is the largest single source of inflows to the Bay, due to its large catchment (4 000 square kilometres), of which 55% is subject to urban or agricultural development. The second largest input volume is contributed by the treated effluent from the Western Treatment Plant at Werribee (CSIRO, 1996). Increased loads of nutrients, notably nitrogen, from the surrounding catchments are recognised as one of the major threats to the health of the Bay (EPA, 2002). Exotic marine pests also present a critical risk to the Bay, potentially affecting the biodiversity of the Bay and the ecological processes that sustain it. A single waterway crossed by the Transfer Pipeline drains into Port Phillip Bay; namely Ti-Tree Creek. Several unnamed watercourses draining to Ti-Tree Creek are also crossed by the transfer pipeline.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 10 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Bass Strait Bass Strait is a shallow continental shelf separating Tasmania from southern Victoria, and connecting the south-east Indian Ocean with the Tasman Sea. The region supports a diversion marine ecosystem with a wide range of habitats. The submerged temperate rocky reef and canyons contain high species biodiversity with a large proportion being endemic to the area (Sandery, 2005). This is largely due to the fact that the area has been isolated in geological time and by climatic barriers, with a history of variable exposure and immersion during sea-level changes in the last few million years (Esso, 2004). Bass Strait is a high-energy environment exposed to frequent storms and significant wave heights. Waters of Bass Strait are generally well mixed but surface warming sometimes causes weak stratification in calm summer conditions (Esso, 2004). Marine activities of environmental significant include fisheries, shipping and coastal riverine discharges. Production from the Bass Strait oil and gas fields first commenced in 1969. Operations include exploration and production of crude oil, liquids and gas.
Waterways crossed by the Transfer Pipeline that drain to Bass Strait include the Powlett River, Bridge Creek, Woolshed Creek and the southern South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and Creeks catchment.
2.2.2 Floodplains within the Transfer Pipeline corridor The Transfer Pipeline alignment is within the low-lying elevation Eastern Plains that consists of flat or gently undulating surfaces. The plains include the broad lowlands of the drained Koo Wee Rup swamp, the Bass River and Powlett floodplains. Floodplains are the low-lying areas adjacent to rivers, creeks or drainage channels and can be inundated following heavy rainfall in the catchment. Many of the waterways within the Transfer Pipeline corridor are protected by levees within the Koo Wee Rup swamp area which act to reduce the impact of floods to these areas. . The waterways that intercept the Transfer Pipeline that have constructed levees are:
9 Bunyip Main Drain; 9 Yallock Outfall; 9 Yallock Cut and Levee; 9 Deep Creek Catch Drain; 9 Lower Toomuc Creek; and 9 Cardinia Catch Drain. These are predominantly located within the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District (KWRFPD). The KWRFPD lies between the Tyabb and Heath Hill Faults with an area of approximately 400 km2 and includes the Cardinia Creek, Bunyip River and Lang Lang River catchment systems. This is one of Victoria’s richest agricultural areas and was the main swamp around Western Port.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 11 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Historically channels were formed to drain the swamp to allow the land to be used for agricultural activities. Over time many of the channels have incised and are now significant features along the Koo Wee Rup Plains. There are a network of drains throughout the district, that vary in terms of level of flood protection depending on the incision of the channel and presence of levees. Two of the main carrier drains include the Cardinia Outfall Drain and the Bunyip Main Drain. On some of the smaller waterways without formal levees, a relatively minor rainfall event can inundate large areas within the district due to the extremely flat nature of the district.
2.3 Water Quality Analysis This section provides an analysis of the available long-term water quality monitoring results for the relevant waterways affected by the Transfer Pipeline alignment. The water quality data has been assessed to determine the current base line conditions of the waterways and provides a general snapshot across the waterways compared to water quality guidelines. For comparative purposes the monitoring results for each site are presented in tabular form within Appendix B. Limited spatial and temporal analysis was possible due to the small number of sampling points for each waterway. However, this data set provides an initial indication of the existing condition of the waterways of interest.
It is not relevant to base an assessment of water quality on a single data point as water quality can be highly variable over time due to a range of different environmental events. Instead, it is most relevant to base an assessment of the current understanding of the waterway on a number of sample points. Existing water quality information collected over longer than current project timeframes have been used to provide a snapshot of the current condition of waterways. As a result, this assessment has been restricted to existing data locations that in some cases may be some distance from the Transfer Pipeline alignment. Long-term water quality data is not available for all of the waterways crossed by the Transfer Pipeline, however data does exist for many of the major named waterways.
2.3.1 State Environment Protection Policy Water Quality Guidelines The State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) (SEPP) aims to provide a coordinated approach for the protection and, where necessary, rehabilitation of the health of Victoria’s water environments. The SEPP identifies ‘beneficial uses’ of waterways and establishes environmental quality objectives at levels that will ensure the protection of these uses. SEPPs are legally enforceable statutory instruments and provide the cornerstone for a wide range of environmental protection and management activities in Victoria. Construction activities associated with waterway crossings, will need to be managed to minimise land disturbance, soil erosion and the discharge of sediments and other pollutants to surface waters and will be required to demonstrate compliance with relevant SEPP requirements.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 12 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline The Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment will cross waterways which fall within the following SEPP components: 9 State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) – general document; 9 ‘Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of Western Port Bay and Catchment‘ – addition to overall SEPP; 9 ‘Insertion Schedule F6 – Waters of Port Phillip Bay’ - addition to overall SEPP; and 9 ‘Policy Area No. W-28A (Waters of the Dandenong Valley)’ – an additional component of Schedule F6. These documents outline the relevant water quality guidelines specific to each waterway potentially affected by the Transfer Pipeline alignment. The appropriate guidelines for each specific waterway crossed by the Transfer Alignment are outlined within Appendix C. In addition, this appendix outlines the segments of the environment relevant to each individual waterway crossed and the associated beneficial uses. SEPP guidelines provide a basis with which to compare water quality results to determine whether they meet environment protection guidelines. The SEPP guidelines presented in Table 2 and Table 3 provide the relevant water quality guidelines for the waters of the Western Port Catchment. These are the most relevant guidelines to the alignment waterway crossings.
For turbidity and suspended solids (SS) the median value is used for comparison. For total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorous (TP), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) the maximum measured value is used as the water quality parameter indicator. Further, the E.Coli count per 100 mL geometric mean (geomean) is used for the microbial water quality guideline.
Table 2 SEPP Water Quality Guidelines for Waters of Western Port and catchment (Source Melbourne Water (2006))
Turbidity SS TN TP E. coli Pb Zn SEPP NTU mg/L mg/L mg/L org/100mL mg/L mg/L Median Median Max Max Geomean Max Max
Waters of Western Port and catchment
South Eastern Rural and <15 <20 <0.6 <0.05 <200 <0.01 <0.005 Lowlands Philip Island
Northern Hills <5.0 <5 <0.2 <0.03 <200 <0.01 <0.005
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 13 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 3 SEPP Water Quality Guidelines for Waters of Western Port and catchment (Source: EPA Victoria (2003))
DO (%) EC pH SEPP 25th Percentile / 75th 25th/75th Max Percentile Percentiles
Waters of Western Port and catchment
Lowland reaches in the 85/110 500 6.4/7.7 Western Port Catchment
The appropriate guidelines for each specific waterway crossed by the Proposed Transfer Alignment are outlined within Appendix C. In addition, this appendix outlines the segments of the environment relevant to each individual waterway crossed and the associated beneficial uses.
2.3.2 Water Quality Indicators Water quality indicators provide an assessment of the quality of water at a particular time and at a particular location. The following relevant parameters were compared with SEPP guidelines for the purposes of this assessment:
9 Turbidity; 9 Suspended Solids (SS); 9 Escherichia Coli (E.Coli); 9 Nutrients (Total nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP); 9 Lead (Pb); 9 Zinc (Zn); 9 Electrical Conductivity (EC); 9 pH; and 9 Dissolved oxygen (DO). Appendix B provides a description of the key water quality indicators which have been used to assess current water quality condition in relation to SEPP water quality guidelines.
2.3.3 Data Availability Melbourne Water and the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse (VWR) hold water quality data for many of the relevant catchments crossed by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment. This data has provided the basis for the existing conditions assessment, however it is not intended that this assessment be used to define baseline levels. Further investigation will be required prior to construction to establish relevant baseline levels in accordance with SEPP and appropriate performance requirements.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 14 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Melbourne Water Long Term Water Quality Monitoring Melbourne Water’s Waterway Water Quality Monitoring Network consists of 73 sites throughout Greater Melbourne (Melbourne Water 2007a). It is a long-term program where sites are sampled monthly. The following Melbourne Water water quality sample sites have been assessed: – Bunyip River at North Labertouche Road, Labertouche; – Bunyip River downstream Cannibal Creek, Longwarry North; – Bunyip Main Drain at Little Road, Iona; – Bunyip River at Healesville Koo-Wee-Rup Road Koo-Wee-Rup; – Cardinia Creek at Chadwick Road, Upper Beaconsfield; – Cardinia Creek at Ballarto Road, Cardinia; – Deep Creek at Ballarto Road, Rythdale; – Lang Lang River at Drouin-Poowong Road, Athlone; – Lang Lang River at South Gippsland Highway, Lang Lang; – Toomuc Creek at Princes Highway, Pakenham; – Toomuc Creek at Ballarto Road, Rythdale; and – Eumemmerring Creek at Worsley Road, Dandenong. 9 Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse The Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse (VWR) is a Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) website (DSE, 2008a) that provides access to information on Victoria’s water resources. The site provides both raw and summary data on both water quality and quantity. For the purpose of this investigation if has been used to access water quality summaries for waterways of interest not covered by the Melbourne Water Long Term Monitoring data set. Specifically, summaries of the Bass and Powlett River water quality sampling for 2007 have been used. These sites are as follows:
– Bass River at Glen Forbes South; – Powlett River, downstream Foster Creek Junction; and – Powlett River, downstream Wonthaggi. Figure 2-2 presents the locations of the water quality monitoring sites used for this analysis.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 15 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 340,000 350,000 360,000 370,000 380,000 390,000
WPBUN0130 WPCAR0056 at North Labertouche Road, Labertouche NARRE WARREN NORTH at Chadwick Road, Upper Beaconsfield
STUD ROAD
PRINCES HIGHWAY BEACONSFIELD UPPER
HIGH STREET
5,790,000 DAEUM0247 5,790,000 at Worsley Road, Dandenong
WPTOO0041 WPBUN0371 OFFICER at Princes Highway, Pakenham ARARAT downstream Cannibal Creek, Longwarry North CAR PAKEN HAM
DINIA CREEK C TYNONG REEK GARFIELD
PORT PHILLIP CARRUM DOWNS BUNYIP CRANBOURNE LONGWARRY WPBUN0707 at Little Road, Iona 5,780,000 5,780,000
WPCAR0133 EEK WPDEE0082 at Ballarto Road, Cardinia at Ballarto Road, Rythdale BUNYIP RIVER ROAD
S
TOOMUC CR
NG-HASTING WPBUN0720 at Healesville Koo-Wee-Rup Road, Koo-Wee-Rup
DANDENO KOO-WEE-RUP
PEARCEDALE TOORADIN 5,770,000 5,770,000 WPLAN0164 at Drouin-Poowong Road, Athlone SOMERVILLE LANG LANG RIVER
WPLAN0373 at South Gippsland Highway, Lang Lang
GHWAY
TYABB HI LANG LANG
PPSLAND
TH GI
U
SO 5,760,000 5,760,000 HASTINGS
NYORA
B POOWONG AS
S
H PORT PHILLIP IGHWAY BASS RIVER
CRIB POINT LOCH 5,750,000 5,750,000
SOMERS
GRANTVILLE CORINELLA DRAFTCORONET BAY COWES 227231 RHYLL BASS RIVER @ GLEN FORBES SOUTH 5,740,000 5,740,000
PORT PHILLIP
NEWHAVEN
SAN REMO WEST GIPPSLAND 227236 POWLETT RIVER @ D/S FOSTER CREEK JUNCTION 227254 POWLETT RIVER D/S WONTHAGGI 5,730,000 5,730,000 WHITE RO
A D AY GHW HI BASS 340,000 350,000 360,000 370,000 380,000 390,000 Legend
Monitoring Sites Major Roads Current Transfer Pipe Alignment (30m) River Major Town Levee and Embankment Current Pipeline Corridor (400m) Stream Desalination Plant Boundary Waterway Crossing Channel / Drain CMA Boundary Section Break Connector
1:210,000 Dept of Sustainability and Environment Job Number 31-22421 Revision A 03691.5 The Desalination Project Date 15 May 2008 Kilometres (at A3) Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Water Quality Monitoring Sites Figure 2-1 G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\Working Figures\019_A3_Monitoring_Sites.mxd 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DSE; VicMap; GHD. Created by: Khan Kamruzzaman 2.3.4 Existing Water Quality This section provides a summary of the water quality within each of the major waterways where data is available. The available data and results summaries are provided in Appendix B. 9 Bunyip River The long-term water quality monitoring results recorded TN and Zn concentrations in excess of SEPP guidelines. The most upstream sites monitored, Labertouche and Longwarry North, exceeded SEPP guidelines for Suspended Solids. This aligns with the high levels of erosion described in the Western Port Sediment study. The most downstream site monitored, at Koo-Wee-Rup Road, exceeds SEPP guidelines for Turbidity and TP. Additionally, the upstream Longwarry North and Iona sites exceed SEPP guidelines for E. coli indicating faecal contamination has occurred, most likely originating from the agricultural landuses present in the catchment. The Western Port Sediment study indicated that the Bunyip River catchment contributes significant amounts of sediment to Western Port (CSIRO, 2003). The dominant sources of sediment is subsoil from channel and gully erosion (CSIRO, 2003) which is often unstable due to vegetation clearance. 9 Lang Lang River The Melbourne Water long-term water quality monitoring results recorded TN, TP, E.coli and Zn concentrations in excess of SEPP guidelines. The elevated nutrient results are typical of agricultural catchments such as this.
The most downstream site, at South Gippsland Highway site also exceeds SEPP guidelines for turbidity and Pb. The Pb concentrations at this site are elevated significantly above that reported in other waterways investigated. This may reflect the proximity of the monitoring site to the major transport route. The Western Port Sediment study indicated that the Lang Lang River catchment contributes significant amounts of sediment to Western Port (CSIRO Land and Water, 2003). The dominant source of sediment is subsoil from channel and gully erosion and eroded clay banks to the north west of the Lang Lang Jetty (CSIRO Land and Water, 2003). 9 Toomuc Creek The Melbourne Water long-term monitoring results recorded Turbidity, TN, TP and Zn concentrations in exceedance of SEPP guidelines. These exceedances are likely to be the result of past and current agricultural activities and more recent urbanisation. Clearing within the catchment is likely to have resulted in increased erosion and therefore sediment contributions to waterways which has significantly reduced the water quality within the catchment (Cardinia Shire Council, 2007).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 17 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Eumemmerring Creek The Melbourne Water long-term water quality monitoring results highlight an exceedance of all parameters, with the only exception being Pb. These results can be attributed to the high level of urbanisation within the catchment. The Transfer Pipeline does not cross the Euememmerring Creek, however it does cross Ti-Tree creek which is within the Euememmerring catchment. Recent urbanisation within the vicinity of the crossing location may have impacts upon water quality within Ti Tree and therefore Euememmerring Creek. 9 Deep Creek The Melbourne Water long-term water quality monitoring results recorded S S, Turbidity TN, TP, E.coli and Zinc concentrations in excess of SEPP guidelines. The turbidity and suspended solids levels at this site are elevated significantly above that reported in other waterways. This may indicate high levels of disturbance and erosion in the Deep Creek catchment.
9 Cardinia Creek The Melbourne Water long-term water quality monitoring results recorded TN, TP and Zn concentrations in excess of SEPP guidelines. The upstream site, at Upper Beaconsfield also exceeded SEPP guidelines for suspended solids. The downstream site, at Ballarato Road exceeded SEPP guidelines for turbidity. Both elevated turbidity and SS may indicate high levels of disturbance and erosion in the catchment.
Bass River Catchment The VWR long term water quality monitoring results for the Bass River recorded TN, TP, Pb and Zn concentrations in excess of SEPP guidelines. The Znconcentrations at the Bass River site are elevated significantly above that reported in other waterways investigated.
Powlett River Catchment The VWR water quality monitoring results for the Powlett River recorded TN and TP concentrations in excess of SEPP guidelines. The downstream Wonthaggi site also reported the maximum turbidity and SS measurements of all sites monitored. Elevated turbidity and SS may indicate high levels of disturbance and erosion in the catchment.
2.4 River Health Regional River Health Strategies (RRHS) have been developed in partnership with relevant stakeholders in order to protect or improve the health of rivers, streams and floodplains. These documents outline an integrated approach for improving the health of rivers and creeks and document the current health of the major waterways.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 18 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline The Proposed Transfer Pipeline alignment crosses through West Gippsland and Port Phillip and Westernport and Catchment Management Authority areas. Each catchment management authority has its own RRHS. Further information can be found within the Port Phillip and Westernport RRHS (Melbourne Water, 2007a) and the West Gippsland RRHS (West Gippsland CMA, 2007b). The River Health Strategies each use an assessment criteria to determine the condition of the major waterways in order to define appropriate management goals. The condition of the major waterways crossed by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline is summarised in the sections below and in Figure 2-3.
2.4.1 West Gippsland RRHS assessment of waterway condition The ISC methodology, developed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, is used to provide an integrated assessment of river health. This measure uses five sub-indices to assess condition. These include: 9 Hydrology; 9 Physical form; 9 Streamside zone; 9 Water quality; and 9 Aquatic life. Each of these components is given a score between 0 and 10 based on the assessment of a number of indicators. These scores are then combined to give a qualitative condition rating.
Powlett River Catchment The Proposed Transfer Pipeline will cross through the lower reaches of the Powlett River, however there is no current assessment available of river health within the locality of the crossing point. There are four ISC sites in the upper reaches of the Powlett Catchment. The ISC assessment indicated that the Powlett River is between very poor to moderate condition. Reach 5 indicated that the river health is in moderate condition, while the Reach 6 assessment indicated that river health is in very poor condition (www.vicwaterdata.net Table 4). Sub-index data was not available for the other two reaches for the purposes of this assessment, however the summary results indicate that these sites are both in poor condition.
Table 4 Summary of ISC Ratings for the Powlett River (Reaches 5 and 6)
Condition Water Aquatic Physical Streamside Hydrology Rating Quality Life Form Zone
Powlett River 4 4 3 Not 5 Reach 5 available
Powlett River 1 3 3 Not Not Reach 6 available available Source: Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse (www.vicwaterdata.net)
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 19 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline This ISC assessment indicates that there is one priority site (that which scored very poor) requiring management action. The significant risks within this catchment include bank erosion, barriers to fish migration, channel modification, poor water quality, exotic flora, loss of riparian vegetation, loss of instream habitat, introduced fauna and stock access to the riparian zone. As a result of the ISC and subsequent prioritisation process a number of key management areas were identified: 9 Revegetation; 9 Fencing; 9 Exotic vegetation removal; and 9 Bed and bank stabilisation.
2.4.2 Port Phillip and Westernport RRHS assessment of waterway condition Melbourne Water, acting as caretaker for the Port Phillip and Westernport area, use their Index of River Condition (IRC) methodology to provide an overall measure of the condition of waterways. This method is based upon the Index of Stream Condition (ISC) developed by the Department of Sustainability and Environment for rural rivers and creeks. The IRC assessment considers a combination of five sub-indices to assess the condition of each waterway. These sub-indices include: 1. Hydrology or flows – how close to natural they are in terms of quantities and timing; 2. Physical form – the condition of the waterway channel (bed and banks) and associated aquatic habitats; 3. Streamside zone – the type and extent of vegetation along the waterway; 4. Water quality – the physical and chemical characteristics of the water; and 5. Aquatic life – the makeup of the aquatic macroinvertebrate community.
Bass River Catchment A summary of the IRC assessment is provided in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Bass River
Condition Water Aquatic Habitat & Vegetation Flow Rating Quality Life Stability
Excellent X
Good XX
Moderate XX
Poor
Very Poor
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 20 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Overall, the IRC assessment indicates that the Bass River is in moderate condition, however it does have pockets of good condition (Melbourne Water, 2007a). In addition, there are sites of geological, Aboriginal and European heritage value within the catchment and the river is valued for fishing. The lower reaches of the Bass River include a valued saltmarsh community that is important for bird and fish populations. Key risks to the waterway includes stock access and weed infestations and sediment contributions from Bass River pose a risk to the health of the highly valued Western Port. As a result of the assessment completed as a part of the RRHS, a range of river health objectives have been set. Future works within the Bass River catchment will include:
9 Revegetation; 9 Weed control; 9 Fencing; 9 Gully and catchment erosion control; 9 Development of a waterway plan; and 9 Establishment of a water quality, fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring programme.
Lang Lang River Catchment A summary of the IRC assessment is provided in Table 6 below (Melbourne Water, 2006a).
Table 6 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Land Lang River
Condition Water Aquatic Habitat & Vegetation Flow Rating Quality Life Stability
Excellent
Good X
Moderate XX
Poor X
Very Poor X
Overall, the IRC assessment indicates that the environmental values are moderate to low. However, the middle reaches of the Lang Lang River and some sections of smaller rivers such as Adams and Red Bluff Creeks are in better condition (Melbourne Water, 2007).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 21 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Several listed fauna species have been recorded within the catchment, including native fish, platypus, frogs, swamp antechinus and the Giant Gippsland Earthworm (Melbourne Water, 2007a). In addition native orchids and the Strzelecki Gum are found within the catchment. There are European heritage and fishing sites considered to be of social value within the catchment. The major risks to the catchment include a lack of streamside vegetation, stock access, changes to natural stream flows, poor water quality and barriers to fish (Melbourne Water, 2007a). As a result of the assessment completed as a part of the RRHS, a range of river health objectives have been set. Future works within the Lang Lang River catchment will include: 9 Stabilisation of waterways and gullies to reduce sediment loads to Western Port; 9 Construction of fishways; 9 Weed control; 9 Revegetation; and 9 Control of stock access to waterways.
Bunyip River Catchment The IRC assessment for the Bunyip Catchment is separated into two separate sections which includes the Lower Bunyip River (Table 7) and the Middle/Upper Bunyip (Table 8).
Table 7 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Lower Bunyip River
Condition Water Aquatic Habitat & Vegetation Flow Rating Quality Life Stability
Excellent
Good XX
Moderate
Poor XX
Very Poor X
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 22 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 8 Summary of IRC Ratings for the Middle/ Upper Bunyip River
Condition Water Aquatic Habitat & Vegetation Flow Rating Quality Life Stability
Excellent XX
Good XX
Moderate X
Poor
Very Poor
The Lower Bunyip includes Yallock Creek, Monomeith Drain and the Bunyip River and its tributaries from the Princes Highway to Western Port near Koo Wee Rup. The proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment crosses through the Lower Bunyip Catchment. Overall, the IRC assessment indicates that the environmental values for the Lower Bunyip River are moderate to poor. Despite this, significant fauna species such as the Australian Grayling, azure kingfisher, Giant Gippsland Earthworm and Growling Grass Frog are present (Melbourne Water, 2007a).
The Lower Bunyip and Yallock river systems have significant agricultural, European heritage, Aboriginal heritage and fishing values. The key risks to the catchment and downstream receiving waters includes poor water quality, a lack of streamside vegetation, stock access, changes to natural stream flows and barriers to migration of fish and other aquatic life. As a result of the assessment completed as a part of the RRHS, a range of river health objectives have been set. Future works within the Lower Bunyip catchment will include:
9 Water Quality improvement; 9 Stream flow management; 9 Channel improvement; 9 Revegetation; and 9 Stock access control.
Cardinia, Toomuc, Deep, Gum Scrub and Ararat Creeks A summary of the IRC assessment is provided in Table 9 below (Melbourne Water, 2006a).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 23 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 9 Summary of IRC Ratings for Cardinia, Toomuc, Deep and Ararat Creeks
Condition Water Aquatic Habitat & Vegetation Flow Rating Quality Life Stability
Excellent
Good XX X
Moderate
Poor XX
Very Poor
The Transfer Pipeline Alignment crosses through Cardinia, Toomuc, Deep and Gum Scrub Creeks. Overall, the IRC assessment indicates that the environmental values for these waterways are poor. Despite this, native fish, frogs and swamp skink do exist in the catchment. In addition platypus have successfully re-established in upper Cardinia after translocation programmes (Melbourne Water, 2007a). Cardinia has important European heritage and fishing values.
The most significant risks to river health are urban development, loss of streamside vegetation, stock access, poor water quality, and altered stream flow regimes (Melbourne Water, 2007a).
As a result of the assessment completed as a part of the RRHS, a significant range of river health objectives have been set. Future works within this catchment will include: 9 Protection of heritage and recreation values; 9 Stormwater management plans; 9 Water quality improvements; 9 Management of stream flow diversions; 9 Weed management; 9 Stock control; 9 Revegetation; and 9 Stabilisation works
Eumemmerring Creek A summary of the IRC assessment is provided in Table 10 below (Melbourne Water, 2006a).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 24 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 10 Summary of IRC Ratings for Eumemmerring Creek
Condition Water Aquatic Habitat & Vegetation Flow Rating Quality Life Stability
Excellent
Good
Moderate XXX X
Poor X
Very Poor
Overall, the IRC assessment indicates that the environmental values for the waterways within the Eumemmerring Creek are poor. However, the threatened Growling Grass Frog and Dwarf Galaxias are present within the catchment. Key risks to river health are urban stormwater, barriers to fish migration, weeds and a lack of riparian vegetation. As a result of the assessment completed as a part of the RRHS, a range of river health objectives have been set. Future works within this catchment will include:
9 Implementation of stormwater plans; 9 Waterway management plans; and 9 Protection of heritage values.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 25 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 360,000 380,000 400,000 YARRA RANGES YARRA RANGES KNOX TA RAGO RIVER 5,800,000 5,800,000
GREATER DANDENONG
TOOMUC CREEK
BERWICK
ARARAT CR
PAKENHAM
E EK BUNYIP BAW BAW CRANBOURNE CASEY CARDINIA LONGWARRY 5,780,000 5,780,000
CORA LYNN
BUNYIP RIVER
CARDINIA CREEK WARNEET
MORNINGTON PENINSULA R LANG LANG
LANG LANG RIVE 5,760,000 5,760,000
JAM JERRUP NYORA POOWONG
BASS RIVER
MORNINGTON PENINSULA CORINELLA GRANTVILLE
COWES RHYLL DRAFTSOUTH GIPPSLAND BASS 5,740,000 5,740,000 WOOLAMAI BASS COAST NEWHAVEN BASS COAST SAN REMO
KILCUNDA
POWLETT RIVER
WONTHAGGI 5,720,000 5,720,000 360,000 380,000 400,000 Legend Environmental Condition Poor River Desalination Plant Site Boundary Excellent Very Poor Stream Municipality Boundary Good Insufficient Channel / Drain Data Current Transfer Pipe Alignment (30m) Moderate Connector To wn s
1:250,000 Dept of Sustainability and Environment Job Number 31-22421 Revision A 02468101 The Desalination Project Date 21 July 2008 Kilometres (at A3) Map Projection: Transverse Mercator River Health for major waterways crossed Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 by the Transfer Pipeline (Rev E) Alignment Figure 2-2 G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\RiverCondition_PIPE_rev_a.mxd 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DSE; VicMap; GHD. Created by: Khan Kamruzzaman 2.4.3 Transfer Pipeline Alignment Flora and Fauna Assessment Transfer pipeline construction can potentially impact upon both terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna. Construction activities may increase sediment transport within waterways if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented, which could lead to sedimentation instream. This can affect the distribution of species by altering important instream habitats. Construction through waterways may also result in a loss of instream vegetation and large wood which provide important habitat for instream organisms. Riparian vegetation may need to be cleared for construction resulting in a loss of shade, habitat, organic matter inputs to waterways and enhanced sediment transport. Construction activities for the Transfer Pipeline may result in a negative consequence for flora and fauna (Section 4.2.3). Biosis Research Pty Ltd has undertaken an ecological values study as part of their Flora and Fauna Assessment for the Desalination Project (Biosis, 2008). This assessment has incorporated terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna investigations. The aquatic ecology investigations are particularly relevant to this report. Biosis have undertaken fish surveys upstream and downstream of the waterway crossing locations. Findings from Biosis’ studies have been summarised within the waterway crossing proformas (Appendix D).
2.5 Waterway Characteristics
2.5.1 Assessment Method The assessment of the existing waterway condition and type has been based on desktop assessment and field investigation.
Topographic maps overlaid with Melbourne Water and Vic Maps waterways layers were reviewed to identify waterways that would be crossed by the Transfer Pipeline. During this process 100 waterways were identified as being directly crossed by the Transfer Pipeline alignment. Aerial investigation was undertaken at all sites and field based investigation was undertaken at 70 sites. Waterway assessment proformas (Appendix D) have been established for this report to concisely document the findings of the assessment at each crossing location. The variables considered within the assessment include: 9 Channel planform (the shape and layout of the channel as seen from above). Channels along the alignment are generally: – Meandering (a sinuous bend in a waterway which forms a U-shape with the potential for oxbows). Waterways displaying this planform often have oxbows (U-shaped forms) on floodplains which can contain water. – Sinuous (A channel that is not straight, however does not bend in a U-shape); – Straight (a generally straight river due to natural stream processes rather than physical human modification); and – Channelised (artificially straightened).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 27 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Instream geomorphic features (bank height, top of bank width, channel width, channel shape); 9 Floodplain geomorphic features (floodplain width, floodplain position, typical slope, geomorphic features); 9 Geology; 9 Flow conditions (frequency of flow). Channels along the alignment are generally: – Ephemeral - Waterways with flow for more than one month of the year, but with a period of no flow during the year; – Intermittent - Waterways flowing for less than one month of the year; – Perennial - Waterways with flow all year; 9 Land management (fencing, landuse); and 9 Riparian and instream vegetation. Soil degradation is considered for the purposes of this project to include bed, bank and floodplain erosion potential. Further geomorphic and geological based assessment of soil degradation, including acid sulphate soils, compaction, sedimentation, slope failure, subsidence and soil erodability is considered within Rosengren (2008).
2.5.2 Waterways classification along the alignment Based upon aerial and site investigation eight broad waterway types have been identified along the Transfer Pipeline alignment These waterway types include:
Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Channel planform is generally sinuous to meandering and is controlled by floodplain cohesiveness. These systems are generally located within flatter topography areas where they are likely to be competence limited.
Unconfined Channelised Waterway These waterways have been channelised in order to increase drainage efficiency. These systems sometimes have levee banks which often consist of fill material deposited along the banks during excavation. In places, these levees act as flood control structures.
Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Partially confined sinuous channels are characterised by sinuous to meandering planforms with alternating floodplain pockets. Floodplain geomorphic units often include alluvial fans or paleochannels.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 28 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Partially Confined Channelised Waterway These systems occur on waterways which would have once presented as partially confined sinuous channels. These systems show evidence of historic channel alignments and oxbows indicating meander bend cutoffs. The current channel planform is a result of channel straightening during landuse change.
Confined Headwater Channel Confined headwater systems are pinned against the valley margin within steep headwater valley settings. The channel is generally well defined, however in some cases the channel may be discontinuous as a result of direct valley inputs. Channel planform is straight to slightly sinuous with no floodplain pockets and is controlled by the valley margins. Streampower is relatively high and these waterways are likely to act as sediment source zones.
Valley Fill Valley fill systems are laterally unconfined systems with no defined bed and banks. These waterway types generally occur in zones with flat topography where channels are transport limited. Over time valleys will have filled with fine sediment to create relatively flat and featureless plains on the valley floor. Some isolated definition may occur in places, however channels are generally discontinuous or without defined bed and banks. Some sections of the easement have more defined bed and bank valley fill systems, these are likely to be the result of channel straightening, excavation and draining.
Farm/Road Drain – Channelised These systems generally occur on waterways which would have once presented as Valley Fill systems. Channelisation and straightening as a result of agricultural land use and road drainage schemes will have altered the path of these waterways greatly affecting drainage patterns.
Farm Dam The Transfer Pipeline crosses some constructed farm dams. Generally, dams that will be directly affected by the Transfer Pipeline alignment are off line, however some downstream dams may be indirectly impacted by construction. The distribution of these waterway types along the Proposed Transfer Pipeline are summarised in Table 11.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 29 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 11 Summary table of the distribution of waterway types along the alignment
Catchment Classification Named Waterways Crossing number
Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Powlett River 105
Woolshed Creek and Bridge Powlett River Catchment Partially Confined Sinuous Channel 120, 119 Creek
Farm/Road Drain Channelised Unnamed waterways 103, 104
Bass River Catchment Partially Confined Channelised Waterway 3905 Trib of 3904 112
113, 114, 121,123, 208, Farm/Road Drain Channelised Unnamed waterways 225, 226
3906 Trib of 3903 115
3903 Trib of 3901 116
Dam Unnamed waterways 213, 228
Unconfined Channelised Waterway George Creek 229
3907 Trib of 3905 219
Unnamed waterway 124
Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Unnamed waterways 214
Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Unnamed waterways 222, 227, 302, 303
3305 Trib of Bass River 230
3306 Trib of Bass River 212
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 30 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Catchment Classification Named Waterways Crossing number
Tennent Creek 231
3311 Trib of Bass River 223
Bass River 224
Confined Headwater Channel Unnamed waterways 301, 304, 305, 326
Confined Headwater Channel Trib of 3831 320
Creek 3831 329
Unnamed waterways 319, 321, 322, 323, 328
South Gippsland Coastal Farm/Road Drain Channelised Peack Road Drain 341 Rivers and Creeks 340,, 405, 406, 407, Unnamed waterways 408, 421
Valley Fill Unnamed waterways 418, 419
Unconfined Channelised Waterway Red Bluff Creek 420
Lang Lang Catchment Unconfined Channelised Waterway Adams Creek South Brach 410
Unnamed waterway 411
Lower Lang Lang River 420
Monomeith Drain 501, 502, 503, 504, 505
Valley Fill Unnamed waterway 422
Farm/Road Drain Channelised Monmeith Drain 529, 530, 531, 532, 533
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 31 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Catchment Classification Named Waterways Crossing number
Unnamed waterways 427, 428, 534
Unconfined Channelised Waterway Yallock Creek 508
Yallock Outfall Drain 509
Southern Boundary Drain 510
Yallock Cut & Levee 526
South East Catchment Drain 535
Bunyip River Main Drain 514
Bunyip Catchment North West Catchment Drain 515
Valley Fill Unnamed waterways 511
Farm/Road Drain Channelised Himbeck's Drain 516
Gray's Drain 512
McDonald’s Catch Drain 536, 537
McGregors Drain 539
McDonald’s Drain 3043 538
Toomuc Creek Catchment Farm/Road Drain Channelised Hagelthornes Drain 540
Unnamed waterways 541
Unconfined Channelised Waterway Deep Creek Catchment Drain 542
Lower Toomuc Creek 544
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 32 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Catchment Classification Named Waterways Crossing number
Lower Deep Creek Drain 543
Lower Gum Scrub Creek 545
Cardinia Drain 621
Cardinia Catchment Drain 622
Valley Fill Unnamed Waterways 422, 623, 624
Valley Fill Unnamed waterways 606, 607, 608
Farm/Road Drain Channelised Unnamed waterway 609
Patterson River Unconfined Channelised Waterway Ti-Tree Creek D.S. 619
Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Ti-Tree Creek D.S. 620
Partially Confined Channelised Waterway Unnamed waterway 618
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 33 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 2.5.3 Transfer Pipeline Alignment Geology and Geomorphology The geology and geomorphic setting acts as a key factor determining waterway character. Geology plays a role in creating waterway characteristics. The cohesiveness of sediments assist in creating waterway shape. Cohesive sediments within bed or banks of waterways hinder their ability to move either downwards (through channel incision) or sideways (through lateral migration). Uncohesive sediments within bed and banks will allow for much freer movement of the waterway. As a result, the sediments within and surrounding the channel play a part in defining channel stability. An understanding of the surface and superficial sediments can provide some understanding of the likelihood of erosion and sediment transport within the waterway. Construction activity within uncohesive and therefore unstable sediments is more likely to contribute to bank instability and sediment transport in the waterway than cohesive sediments. In addition, construction within waterways with unstable soils may lead to failure of the bed or banks. Further geological and geotechnical investigation is required to ascertain soil stability and construction risk. The Proposed Transfer Pipeline alignment encompasses a wide range of different geological units and landforms. Rosengren (2008) provides further information on the geology along the grid connection alignment. A separate geomorphology report (Rosengren, 2008) has been written for the purposes of the EES process. Rosengren (2008) notes that the geomorphology of the Transfer Pipeline corridor is described as a series of nine Terrain Units with distinctive landforms, surficial geology and soils (Figure 2-4, Table 12). Detailed descriptions of these terrain units are outlined within Rosengren (2008).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 34 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Figure 2-3 Terrain Units of the Transfer Pipeline corridor. See Table 1 for details (Rosengren, 2008)
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 35 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 12 Terrain units of Transfer Pipeline corridor (Rosengren, 2008)
No Terrain Unit Name Geology Geomorphology
1 Powlett River valley Mesozoic sediments, Tidal & river floodplain, Quaternary alluvium low ridges
2 Strzelecki Ranges Mesozoic sediments Steep ridges and valleys, rounded crests
3 Bass valley & floodplain Quaternary sediments Alluvial & colluvial fans, floodplain and channel, cutoffs
4 Heath Hill Ridge Palaeogene and Low plateau, weakly Neogene volcanics & incised valleys sediments overlying Mesozoic sediments
5 Gurdies – Jam Jerup Palaeogene and Colluvial fans, gently coast Neogene sediments sloping plain and low ridges
6 Lang Lang Quaternary sediments Level plain with drains and & Tobin – drained swamps old river channel traces Western- Yallock port plains plain (including 7drained Koo-wee- Quaternary sediments Level plain with drains and swamp- rup Plain – drained swamps old river channel traces, lands) low sand ridges
8 Cardinia- Quaternary sediments Level plain with drains and Dalmore – drained swamps old river channel traces Plain
9 Berwick low ridges Palaeogene basalt Plain and low ridges overlying Silurian sediments
2.6 Hydrologic Assessment
2.6.1 Streamflow Hydrology Available streamflow data from Thiess Pty Ltd and Melbourne Water Corporation has been reviewed to assess the magnitude and seasonality of runoff entering waterways within the Transfer Pipeline. In total, an assessment was undertaken on nine gauged sites where streamflow information was readily available. These are: 227231, 228217, 228222, 227236A, 227209B, 228213, 228228, 228364 and 227219A (Figure 2-4). A summary of these analyses is provided in Table 2.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 36 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 340,000 350,000 360,000 370,000 380,000 390,000 228222 Cardinia Creek NARRE WARREN NORTH @ Beconsfield Upper
STUD ROAD
PRINCES HIGHWAY BEACONSFIELD UPPER
HIGH STREET 5,790,000 5,790,000 228364 KENNEDY CREEK @ PAKENHAM (KENNEDY ROAD) OFFICER PRINCES HIGHWAY ARARAT
PAKEN HAM TARAGO RIVER 228217 TOOMUC CREEK C TYNONG REEK @ PAKENHAM GARFIELD
PORT PHILLIP CARRUM DOWNS BUNYIP CRANBOURNE LONGWARRY 5,780,000 5,780,000 228228 CARDINIA CREEK 228213 @ CARDINIA BUNYIP RIVER BUNYIP RIVER @ IONA
ROAD
S
TOOMUC CREEK
NG-HASTING
DANDENO KOO-WEE-RUP
PEARCEDALE
TOORADIN CARDINIA CREEK 5,770,000 5,770,000
SOMERVILLE
228209 LANG LANG RIVER @ HAMILTONS BRIDGE
TYABB LANG LANG
LANG LANG RIVER 5,760,000 5,760,000
HASTINGS S HIGHWAY
BAS
NYORA POOWONG
PORT PHILLIP BASS RIVER 227219 CRIB POINT BASS RIVER LOCH @ LOCH
PORT PHILLIP 5,750,000 5,750,000
SOMERS
GRANTVILLE CORINELLA DRAFTCORONET BAY COWES 227231 BASS RIVER RHYLL @ GLEN FORBES SOUTH 5,740,000 5,740,000
PORT PHILLIP
NEWHAVEN
SAN REMO WEST GIPPSLAND
227236 POWLETT RIVER POWLETT RIVER @ D/S FOSTER CREEK JUNCTION 5,730,000 5,730,000 WHITE RO
A D AY GHW HI BASS 340,000 350,000 360,000 370,000 380,000 390,000 Legend
Major Town Major Roads Desalination Plant Boundary River Waterway Crossing Levee and Embankment CMA Boundary Stream Surfacewater Gauge Current Transfer Pipe Alignment (30m) Channel / Drain Section Break Current Pipeline Corridor (400m) Connector
1:210,000 Dept of Sustainability and Environment Job Number 31-22421 Revision A 03691.5 The Desalination Project Date 15 May 2008 Kilometres (at A3) Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Waterway stream gauge information Figure 2-4 G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\Working Figures\005_A3_Surfacewater_Gauges.mxd 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2007. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA CUSTODIAN(S), make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Data source: DSE; VicMap; GHD. Created by: Khan Kamruzzaman Table 13 Review of Streamflow Data
Gauge 227231 228217 227219 228222 227236A 228209B 228213 228228 228364 Site A Number
Site Bass Toomuc Bass Cardinia Powlett Lang Lang Bunyip Cardina Kennedy Name River at Creek at River at Creek at River at River at River at Creek at Creek at Glen Pakenham Loch Beconsfi D/S Foster Hamiltons Iona Cardina Pakenham Forbes eld Creek Bridge (Kennedy South Upper Junction Road)
Data 1 April 26 June 20 Dec 2 Feb 19 May 29 Feb 4 Nov 10 April 8 Jul 1978 Range 1973 to 1964 to 11 1973 to 1967 to 1979 to 25 1980 to 16 1971 to 29 1974 to 16 to 16 Mar 23 Jul Nov 2001 7 Jan 2 June Nov 2007 Mar 2008 Dec 2007 Mar 2008 2008 2007 2008 1974
Catchm 219.0 41.0 52.0 39.0 228.0 272.0 697.0 117.0 5.0 ent Size of Main River
Mean 51 000 7 100 ML 15 100 7 900 44 000 ML 53 800 ML 103 800 14 700 ML 580 ML Annual ML ML ML ML Flow
Mean 233 173 330 200 195 915 4 800 540 17 Annual ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 ML/km2 Flow per Catchm ent Area
Base 21% 29% 25% 29% 17% 2% 3% 32% 14% Flow Index
Data THIESS THIESS THIESS THIESS Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne Melbourne Source Services Services Services Services Water Water Water Water Water Pty Ltd Pty Ltd Pty Ltd Pty Ltd
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 38 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Cardinia Creek has a total catchment area of 70.1 km2. The mean annual flow at the Cardina Creek at Cardinia gauge is approximately 14 700 ML (or 540 ML/km2) varying between 26 250 ML in high flow years (1967) and 5 300 ML in low flow years (1997). Streamflow at this location is seasonal with the lowest monthly flows occurring during the November to May period and higher flows occurring during the June to October periods, as illustrated in Figure 2-5 below.
Figure 2-5 Monthly Streamflows Cardina Creek at Cardina
Monthly Streamflow - 228228 Cardina Creek @ Cardina
6000 Peak Flows Monthly Average 5000 Lowest Flow (1997) Highest Flow (1989) 4000
3000
Flow (ML/month) 2000
1000
0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month
The Bunyip River has a total catchment area of about 904 km2. The mean annual flow at the Bunyip River at Iona gauge is approximately 103 800 ML (or 4 800 ML/km2) varying between 263 900 ML in high flow years (1996) and 5 530 ML in low flow years (2007). Streamflow at this location is seasonal with the lowest monthly flows occurring during the December to June period (with high flows in April) and higher flows occurring during the June to October periods, as illustrated in Figure 2-6 below.
Figure 2-6 Monthly Streamflows Bunyip River at Iona
Monthly Streamflow - 228213 Bunyip River @ Iona
45000 Peak Flows Monthly Average 40000 Lowest Flow (2007) 35000 Highest Flow (1996) 30000
25000
20000
Flow (ML/month) Flow 15000
10000
5000
0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 39 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Toomuc Creek is a medium sized sub-catchment (area 41 km2) located in the Toomuc River catchment. The mean annual flow is approximately 7 100 ML (or 175 ML/km2). Streamflow at this location is also seasonal and the lowest average daily flows occurring during the November to March period, and higher flows occurring during the April to October periods, as illustrated in Figure 2-7 below. The baseflow in this stream, (i.e. the contribution from groundwater) represents about 29% of the total flow to the stream.
Figure 2-7 Monthly Streamflows Toomuc Creek at Pakenham
Monthly Streamflow - 228217 Toomac Creek @ Pakenham
4000 Monthly Average Peak Flows 3500 Lowest Flow (1982) Highest Flow (1996) 3000
2500
2000
1500 Flow (ML/month) Flow
1000
500
0 January February March April May June July August September October November December Month
The Bass River has a total catchment area of 507 km2. The mean annual flow at the Bass River at Glen Forbes gauge is approximately 51 620 ML (or 222 ML/km2) varying between 87 175 ML in high flow years (1996) and 8 274 ML in low flow years (2006). Streamflow at this location is seasonal with the lowest monthly flows occurring during the November to May period (with higher flows in April) and high flows occurring during the June to October periods, as illustrated in Figure 2-8 below.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 40 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Figure 2-8 Monthly Streamflows Bass River at Glen Forbes South
Monthly Streamflow - 227231 Bass River @ Glen Forbes South
30000 Monthly Average Peak Flows 25000 Lowest Flow (2006) Highest Flow (1996) 20000
15000
10000 Flow (ML/month) 5000
0
y e r ry ril n er e p July b uar ua A May Ju mber ob m an br March August e e J pt Oct Fe e ec S November D Month
2.6.2 Flood Frequency Analysis Available streamflow data from Thiess Pty Ltd and Melbourne Water Corporation has been reviewed to assess the magnitude of flooding within the Transfer Pipeline. A flood frequency analysis was undertaken of the recorded peak flows at the gauging stations in order to validate the design parameters.
9 227231 (Bass River at Glen Forbes South); 9 228217 (Toomuc Creek at Pakenham); 9 228213 (Bunyip River at Iona); 9 228209B (Lang Lang River at Hamiltons Bridge); and 9 227219 (Bass River at Loch). The period of record of peak flows at the gauge stations are outlined in Table 13 above.
A historical flood frequency curve (Log Pearson III) was then produced, using the methodology outlined in Australian Rainfall and Runoff, for maximum instantaneous flows at each gauging station for the period of data available. Table 14 below summarises the results of the historical flood frequency analysis. Each gauging station was transposed using the relationship of flows (Q) and areas (A) 0.7 0.7 (QTotal = QGauging x A Gauging/A Total) to calculate the relative historical flood frequency analysis at each Transfer Pipeline waterway crossing location.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 41 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 14 Preliminary flood frequency analysis of stream gauging stations translated to river crossings (ML/day)
Gauge Lang Gauge Toomuc Gauge Bunyip Lang Gauge Bass Yallock Lang River ARI Toomuc Creek Bunyip River Lang Gauge Bass River at Glen Creek at (Years) Creek at (Site River at (Site River (Site River at Loch Forbes South (Site 509) Hamiltons Pakenham 525) Iona 514) 414) (Site 218) Bridge
100 2500 3500 10100 10300 5300 9800 12050 3150 5800
50 3000 4200 12200 12400 6400 12800 15650 3550 6200
20 3500 4900 14700 15000 7800 16800 20600 4000 6600
10 3800 5200 16500 16800 8700 20000 24500 4200 6800
Notes - Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) - The long-term average number of years between the occurrences of a flood equal too or larger than the selected event. For example, floods with a discharge equal too or greater than the 20 year ARI flood event will occur on average once every 20 years. - Sites are defined in Appendix A -These preliminary flood frequency results are have been determined using peak information obtained from the stream gauges and are useful as background information in understanding the catchments and the relative flow magnitudes. To appropriately assess the flooding risk, the intent would be to relate the flow magnitudes to the bankfull flow conditions for the waterway channel and floodplain characteristics. More detailed survey information will be required to undertake the hydraulic assessment.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 42 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 2.6.3 Sustainable Diversion Limits SDLs have been developed across Victoria and represent the upper limit on winterfill diversions, beyond which there is an unacceptable risk that additional extractions may degrade the environment. The SDLs for the catchments where the Transfer Pipeline intersects are summarised below in Table 15.
Table 15 Summary of Sustainable Diversion Limits
Catchment SDL (ML) Total Use (ML) Bulk Entitlement (ML)
Powlett River 7 246 3 960 854
Bass River 4 919 2 108 336
South Gippsland 1 057 497 0 Coastal Rivers and Creeks
Lang Lang River 7 333 3 260 0
Bunyip River 11 002 20 589 16 963
Toomuc Creek 2 030 2 995
The SDL estimates show that the Powlett River, Bass River, South Gippsland Coastal Rivers and Creeks and Lang Lang River catchments are currently under allocated, whilst total use in Bunyip River and Toomuc Creek catchments currently exceed the SDL. The Bulk Entitlement (BE) from each catchment is the entitlement applied to the rural water authorities on regulated streams, and for urban water authorities on regulated and unregulated streams. The BE restricts the amount of water allowed to be harvested from the catchment under the Water Act 1989.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 43 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 3. Agency Requirements
3.1 Introduction This section outlines the relevant catchment management authorities responsible for the waterways along the Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment and the relevant CMA requirements.
3.2 Catchment Management Authorities There are two Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) whose jurisdiction is within the Transfer Pipeline alignment.
WGCMA WGCMA is responsible for waterway and catchment management activities across the south to south east Victoria, including the South Gippsland catchment basin.
MWC MWC has a caretaker role in managing the waterways within the Westernport and Port Phillip catchment
3.3 Catchment Management Authority Requirements
3.3.1 Works on Waterway Permit Requirements Under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 the Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) were formed as the caretakers of river health for their designated catchments and waterways and have responsibilities. These responsibilities include licensing and regulation of works on their designated waterways, and floodplains and drainage management within their catchments and waterways. The Works on Waterways permit system is to ensure that works are performed in an environmentally conscientious way and to ensure protection of the waterways. The Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs) issue permits for a person, company or Authority to carry out works on ‘designated’ waterways under By-law No. 1 of the Water Act 1989. “Designated waterway” is defined as any waterway or any part of any waterway which the CMA has declared to be a designated waterway under section 188 of the Act. The CMA are responsible for managing these waterways which have been identified on the VicMap datasets and the Melbourne Water ‘Natural Waterway Centreline’ dataset. A ‘designated’ waterway within the Water Act 1989 has been defined as:
9 A river, creek, stream or watercourse; or 9 A natural channel in which water regularly flows, whether or not the flow is continuous; or 9 A channel formed wholly or partly by the alteration or relocation of a waterway, as described above, or;
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 44 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 A lake, lagoon, swamp or marsh. A more detailed definition of ‘designated’ waterways is available in the Water Act 1989. The ‘works on waterways’ permit system has been created to protect the waterways and to safeguard that works are performed according to the guidelines. The Transfer Pipeline will require obtaining a works on waterways permit for all locations where the Transfer Pipeline crosses a waterway. Permits will need to be sought from both West Gippsland CMA and Melbourne Water.
3.3.2 Floodplain Management Requirements Some of the waterways discussed are within the Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO, DSE, 2008a) as identified in the Bass Coast, Cardinia and Casey Planning Schemes. The LSIO identifies land in a flood storage or flood fringe area, affected by the 1 in 100 year flood or any other area determined by the floodplain management authority. The overlay helps to facilitate appropriate development outcomes that maintain the free passage and temporary storage of floodwaters, minimise flood damage, compatability with the flood hazard and local drainage conditions and will not cause any significant rise in flood level or flow velocity. A permit is generally required to construct a building or to construct or carry out works within the (LSIO DSE, 2008a). Amongst several standard exceptions to this requirement are “The laying of underground sewerage, water and gas mains, oil pipelines, underground telephone lines and underground power lines provided they do not alter the topography of the land.” Hence in general while the LSIO is informative with respect to flooding along the Transfer Pipeline it does not impose additional flood plain management requirements. If however the Booster Pump Station remains within the LSIO it will be subject to permit requirements to the satisfaction of the relevant floodplain management authority.
3.3.3 Catchment Management Authority Consultation
WGCMA Introductory meetings have been held with WGCMA to discuss their requirements with regards to pipeline construction. WGCMA use the Vic Maps Hydro layer 1:25k to define their designated waterways. From this there will be seven identified waterways crossed within the WGCMA region. The primary concerns of the WGCMA are associated with the construction process. It was noted that perception of bed instabilities or weaknesses which could lead to difficulties for either construction methods including pipe jacking. During the meeting WGCMA also outlined the importance of limiting floodplain topographical alterations. In terms of pipe crossings. WGCMA do not have any set requirements for setting the pipe below bed invert levels, and stated that crossings would need to be assessed on a site-by-site basis.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 45 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline The WGCMA provided a number of reference documents: 9 Guidelines for Assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on Waterways, (SKM 2001); and 9 Various standard works procedures for the WGCMA. Submissions will have to be made to WGCMA for works on waterways prior to construction. An additional meeting was held with WGCMA representatives on site on 25 July 2008 to discuss methodology applied to determining a recommendation on construction methodology. The WGCMA outlined they would be keen to work closely with the Project Company to agree on construction methodology and appropriate mitigation controls and rehabilitation.
MWC MWC (letter dated 13 February 2008) have previously commented on preferred construction methods for alignment C and have given an indication of the factors that should be considered when selecting an appropriate construction technique. In this letter MWC provided a summary works procedure document for open trenching associated with service crossings. During a meeting held on 14 March 2008, MWC representatives highlighted the importance of protecting flood bank levees and setting the pipe below the hard invert level. They recommended that a description of each waterway be provided to them to allow them to appropriately assess waterway crossing requirements. This has been undertaken within the scope of this report and the output is located within Appendix D. MWC indicated that approval will need to be sought from them for all transfer pipeline crossings of Melbourne Water assets (including underground assets, waterways, constructed channels, retarding basins and levee banks). Approval from MWC will be required at the design stage and a minimum of two months advanced notification will be required prior to construction commencing to enable evaluation and processing of the application ahead of the construction period. A recent letter from MWC (dated 5 May 2008) states that for all Melbourne Water assets (including waterways), pipe jacking is the preferred method for crossing all waterway assets, except for minor creek tributaries and depressions where, subject to the findings of the EES, an open-cut construction method could be found to be acceptable.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 46 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline An additional meeting was held with a Melbourne Water representative on 17 July 2008 with the purpose of discussing appropriate construction methodologies across waterways with relation to alignment D. It was noted that a site visit would need to be undertaken at each waterway crossing prior to construction. It was also outlined that generally, there was enough information available based upon aerial photo analysis and site investigation to make an assessment of the appropriate crossing method and that Melbourne Water largely agreed with the recommended construction methods outlined within a previous version of this document. Melbourne Water clearly outlined that they were implementing a conservative approach to maintain protection of waterways and that they would not be significantly influenced by options that consider incorporating opportunistic improvements in waterway values into their decisions regarding construction methodologies.
Water Authorities Considerations Westernport Water sources water supplies from Tennent creek (Tributary of Bass River), Lance Creek (Tributary of Powlett River), and Bass River (downstream of Candowie Reservoir) to supply towns such as Cowes, San Reno and Grantville. Water supplies from Tennent Creek and Lance Creek will not be impacted by the construction of the Transfer Pipeline. The diversions from the Bass River are used for emergency supply purposes, however this is located downstream of the Transfer Pipeline. Future investigations will need to consider the potential impacts on the streamflow and quality, to avoid impacting this water source (GHD 2007a). South Gippsland Water sources water from the Little Bass storage system and the Lance Creek (Tributary of Powlett River) to supply towns such as Loch, Nyora, Poowong, Wonthaggi, Inverloch and Cape Paterson. These water sources and supply systems will not be impacted by the construction of the Transfer Pipeline. Melbourne Water is responsible for bulk water supplies across the Melbourne Metropolitan area. The Transfer Pipeline will not impact on any of Melbourne Water’s supply sources. However, the Transfer Pipeline intersects the Tarago Western Pipeline which is a major water supply main which supplies the Mornington Peninsula. Requirements for crossing this Transfer Pipeline will need to be assessed in subsequent investigations. Southern Rural Water (SRW) is responsible for managing water supplies for irrigation purposes and for rural water supply across southern Victoria. SRW supply the irrigators of southern Victoria, and water in bulk to non-metropolitan urban water authorities and to Latrobe Valley electricity generators (SRW, 2007). There are numerous private water users who divert water from streams located downstream of the Transfer Pipeline. This water is typically used for domestic, stock or irrigation purposes. Changes to streamflow regimes and water quality present the greatest risk to these water users. Further investigations are required to locate all water users downstream of the Transfer Pipeline, and to assess the potential impacts on these users during construction.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 47 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Downstream users of the construction site may be potentially impacted during construction by the changes to water quality that may be long-term. Final alignment decisions must be made prior to accurate information obtained regarding downstream users. Therefore, further information will be required on potential disruption of water supply to these users during the pre-construction phase to completely assess this potential impact (source GHD 2007a). The likely private irrigators within the Transfer Pipeline have not yet been identified, however there are potential issues relating to private irrigators, including water quality and flow. The likely private irrigators within the Transfer Pipeline have not yet been identified. However, there may be users downstream of the Transfer Pipeline south of Cardinia, which will require further investigation and information in future studies. These private diverters will be either customers of Melbourne Water or Southern Rural Water (GHD 2007a).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 48 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 4. Environmental Risk Assessment
4.1 Introduction The primary purpose of this section is to fulfil the requirements outlined within the following objective: 9 Assess risks of erosion, soil degradation and sedimentation associated with construction of the alignment and any proposed control measures.
Project Step: Relevant Report Comments: Section(s):
Risk Assessment Section 4.2: Project This section outlines the overall project risk Risk assessment and details the subsequent risk register for the pipeline component of the project.
Section 4.3: Detailed This section outlines the specific risks waterway risk associated with construction for each waterway assessment crossing for the pipeline component of the project.
4.2 Desalination Project Risk A detailed Environmental Risk and Impact Assessment (risk assessment) has been conducted as part of the EES for the Victorian Desalination Project. The risk assessment process provided a staged, risk based approach for evaluating the potential impacts that the Project could have on a wide range of environmental, social and economic assets and beneficial uses. This study has contributed to this risk assessment process and the results of the risk assessment have been used to form the conclusions of this study. The risk assessment methodology and implementation has been devised by Maunsell, who are engaged as a technical specialist to GHD on behalf of the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The development of the risk assessment process, its implementation and its outcomes are documented in the Victorian Desalination Project - Environmental Risk Assessment.
4.2.1 Overview of the Risk Assessment In summary: 9 The risk assessment was conducted to identify the potential environmental, social and economic impacts on the wider environment and community of implementing the Desalination Project. It should be noted that the risk assessment did not consider the risks posed to DSE or the delivery of the Project. The assessment therefore did not assess reputation, financial delays or organisational effectiveness; 9 The risk assessment was undertaken to heighten confidence and provide rigour for decision making and planning;
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 49 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 The risk assessment was based on the Project Description and the outputs of the risk assessment represent the risk and impacts of implementing the Desalination Project as described in the Project Description; 9 The risk assessment was conducted in close consultation with all of the technical specialists and is based on input provided by those technical specialists. All of the risk assessment inputs including consequence and likelihood ratings were provided by the technical specialists; 9 Incorporates the outputs of the community consultation which occurred as part of the EES, although separate to the risk assessment process. The values and outcomes of the community consultation were incorporated to inform the risk assessment process; and 9 The EES considers a Reference Project as one possible solution. Under the Project Company 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.
4.2.2 Risk Assessment Methodology The risk assessment approach used a multi-disciplinary group of technical specialists to identify and assess risks through a series of risk workshops. To assess risks consistently, a risk matrix was developed, defining the level of risk posed by project activities in terms of their ‘credible worst case’ consequence and the likelihood of that consequence occurring.
Levels of consequence for different assets and beneficial uses were clearly defined, from negligible to extreme, in terms of magnitude, space and time. A level of consequence was determined for each risk, taking into consideration all controls that would be in place to minimise or avoid the risk and having regard to ‘reasonable worst- case scenarios’. Likelihood rankings were defined, from rare to certain, to describe the likelihood of the selected consequence occurring (note: this applies to the likelihood of that consequence occurring and not the likelihood of the activity occurring). The defined level of consequence and likelihood were used to form the risk matrix and assign a level of risk, ranging from low to critical, to each identified environmental effect. The definition for the level of consequence for each asset or beneficial use was developed specifically for the Desalination Project based on consultation and advice from the technical specialists. The likelihood table was developed to incorporate the EES scoping requirements for the Desalination Project. The consequence levels, likelihood levels and risk matrix relevant to this study are shown in Table 16, and Table 17 respectively. A more detailed explanation of the risk assessment methodology is provided in the Victorian Desalination Project - Environmental Risk Assessment. The risk outputs relevant to this report are presented in the following section
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 50 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 16 Consequence rankings
Consequence Level 1 – Negligible 2 – Minor 3 – Moderate 4 – Major 5 – Extreme
Category Sub Category Minimal impact in Low impact in a Medium impact High Impact in a Very High impact a localised area localised or in a localised or localised or in a regional area within natural regional area regional area regional area with functional variability with a functional with a functional with a functional recovery in greater recovery within recovery of 1 to 5 recovery within 5 than 10 years if at less than 1 year years to 10 years all
Environmental Ecosystem Alteration or Alteration or Alteration or Alteration or Alteration or disturbance to disturbance to disturbance to disturbance to disturbance to Function ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem (need to consider interactions in the interactions in the interactions in the interactions in the interactions in the resilience & localised area, if localised area or localised area or localised area or regional area, resistance) any, unlikely to be regional area, may regional area, regional area, substantially detectable & within be detectable but detectable but detectable and beyond expected expected natural within expected within expected beyond expected natural variation / seasonal variation / natural annual natural short-term natural variation / occurrence to occurrence. variation / variation / occurrence. irreversible occurrence. occurrence. Functional recovery within 5 to Functional Functional Functional 10 years. recovery in greater recovery within recovery within 1 to than 10 years if at less than 1 year. 5 years. all.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 51 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Fauna & Flora Loss of individuals Loss of small Loss of individuals Loss of large Long-term impact Communities & not apparent and number of leads to reduction number of on populations in Species without reduction in individuals without in viability of individuals leads to the regional area localised reduction in population in the a high impact on that may not be population viability viability of localised area or populations in the recoverable population in the regional area. localised area or (e.g. mortality likely localised area or regional area. to be no greater regional area. (eg. Functional than population mortality likely to experiences within Functional recovery in greater be no greater than recovery within 1 to Functional than 10 years if at natural annual population variability). 5 years. recovery within 5 to all. experiences within 10 years. natural annual variability). Functional recovery within less than 1 yr.
Social Amenity (Physical Temporary Short term impacts Impacts on amenity Impacts on amenity Amenity of the Factors, eg Noise, localised impacts on amenity to the to the localised to the localised regional area Air and Water etc) on amenity – no localised area or area or regional area or regional permanently lasting effects. regional area. area that area that negatively altered. negatively alter significantly perceptions of the negatively alter Functional area. perceptions of the Functional recovery within area. recovery in greater less than 1 year. Functional than 10 years if at recovery within 1 to all 5 years. Functional recovery within 5 to 10 years
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 52 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 17 Likelihood Rankings
Likelihood Description
A – Rare Highly unlikely to occur but theoretically possible.
B – Unlikely May occur within the life of the project.
C – Likely Likely to occur more than once during the life of the proposed Development.
D – Almost Certain Very likely to occur within a 12 month timeframe. Includes planned activities. Environmental, Social & Economic description includes the period during construction.
E – Certain Will occur as a result of the Desalination project construction &/or operations.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 53 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 18 Risk Assessment Matrix
Likelihood Consequences
1 – Negligible 2 – Minor 3 – Moderate 4 – Major 5 – Extreme
A – Rare L L L M H
B – Unlikely L L M M H
C – Likely L M M H H
D – Almost Certain M M H H C
E – Certain M M H C C
L = Low M = Medium H = High C = Critical
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 54 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Table 19 Construction Phase Impacts
Conseq Likeliho Risk Mitigation and Project Activity Specific Impact Receptor Controls uence od Rank Management
Earthworks - Alteration of flow Social - Refer to specific breach of flood regimes and flood Amenity mitigation requirements levees and extents of all major for each asset location banks waterways within detailed report Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM reducing amenity and in accordance with during wet periods Melbourne Water requirements.
Construction Construction Environment Design option (trench / Catchment across across waterways tunnel / overland) to Management Moderate waterways damaging or ensure minimal impact. 1 Unlikely MEDIUM Authorities disturbing surface requirements water ecosystems
Construction of Alteration of flow Social - Minimise duration of Booster Pump regimes Amenity construction activities, Station within keep spoil heaps and LSIO machinery, site sheds etc outside of the LSIO. Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Undertake any flood mitigation measures prior to construction of the Booster Pump Station.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 55 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Conseq Likeliho Risk Mitigation and Project Activity Specific Impact Receptor Controls uence od Rank Management
Earthworks and Sediment Environment Specific details for each stockpiling discharge to waterway contained waterways resulting within "Impact from soil erosion or Assessment of the spoil from Waterway Crossings for Minor1 Unlikely LOW earthworks, the Transfer Pipeline" impacting on report. surface water ecosystems
Construction of Construction Environment Construction practises in Booster Pump across floodplain accordance with EPA Station across damaging or Guidelines for Major floodplain disturbing surface Construction Sites water ecosystems (1996) and Construction Minor Unlikely LOW Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA 1991). Selecting sites to minimise the need to divert surface flows. 1. Assessed in Fauna and Flora Report
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 56 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
Conseque Likeliho Risk Mitigation and Project Activity Specific Impact Receptor Controls nce od Rank Management water ecosystems transferring and storing materials, stormwater management systems with isolation and temporary storage capabilities, appropriate handling and cleanup procedures. Other requirements with respect to handling and storage of chemicals as defined by the T&E team and relevant legislation. 1. Assessed in Fauna and Flora Report
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 58 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 4.2.3 Risk assessment outcomes It was concluded that during construction phase of the project medium risk activities are likely to include earthworks activities, construction across waterways and construction of a Booster Pump Station within LSIO. Earthworks and stockpiling and construction of the Booster Pump Station across the floodplain are considered to be low risk. During operation phases the Booster Pump Station may pose a medium risk, while Booster Pump Station onsite storage are likely to pose a low risk. These risks have been considered with appropriate controls in place. This section provides a basis for discussing these risks.
Earthworks - Disruption to levee banks Floodplains are the low-lying areas adjacent to rivers, creeks or drainage channels and can be inundated following heavy rainfall in the catchment. Several main waterway crossings will occur within the flat floodplain areas of the Koo-we-rup area. Levee banks are constructed around many of these waterways to protect adjacent public and private property from flooding activities. Disruption of these levee banks during construction may undermine the structural integrity of the levee banks and cause flooding to surrounding land.
The consequences of such an event are considered to be moderate as flooding events may affect the amenity of the local area and could potentially result in emotional and financial burden. It is considered unlikely that the impacts will be moderate as appropriate construction methods and management techniques should be implemented to avoid disruption to the levee. It will be a Melbourne Water requirement that permits for works on waterways be approved prior to construction. If appropriate construction and mitigation measures are undertaken in accordance with Melbourne Water requirements it is unlikely that there would be a significant impact on social amenity.
Construction across waterways The Transfer Pipeline will cross waterways by either trenching or pipe jacking. The impacts of both trenching and pipe jacking are discussed in Section 5. Pipe jacking and Trenching can potentially have either direct or indirect impacts on the waterway (Section 5). Pipe jacking has been recommended for sites where there are high waterway values or where it is deemed that reinstatement would not be adequate if trenching was undertaken (Section 6.7). As a result of a combination of construction technique and appropriate mitigation (Section 6) at each waterway crossing, it is unlikely that construction across waterways will result in detrimental harm to the waterway. Appropriate crossing methods and mitigation plans will need to be developed in conjunction with the appropriate Catchment Management Authority.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 59 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Construction of the Booster Pump Station Construction of the booster pump station within the floodway has the potential to obstruct floodwaters if this activity coincides with a significant flood. Should this occur flood water may be redistributed. There is a likelihood of a significant flood event occurring during construction. Without adequate mitigation works or controls this may result in a moderate impact due to marginally higher flood levels. The higher flood levels could have an impact on houses, agricultural land, and infrastructure upstream and adjacent to the Booster Pump Station. The potential impacts are unlikely to occur if the following controls are implemented during construction:
9 Minimise the duration of construction activities; 9 Undertake any flood mitigation measures such as local reshaping between the edge of the Pump Station and the high ground to provide additional floodway capacity prior to construction of the Booster Pump Station; and 9 Minimise the construction footprint within the LSIO e.g. keep spoil heaps, machinery, site sheds and other obstructions outside of the LSIO. Even with these control measures in place the consequence of flooding occurring during construction is moderate. Additional mitigation measures such as relocating the booster pump station to higher ground outside the LSIO may reduce the risk event further.
Operation of the Booster Pump Station As described above, the operation of the Booster Pump Station has the potential to alter flood flow regimes and increase flooding which may damage houses and other infrastructure. Without adequate mitigation, constructing the Booster Pump Station within the LSIO would alter the flooding characteristics of the area by obstructing flood flows and increasing flood levels. The Booster Pump Station at this location would obstruct the deeper portion of the LSIO (approximately 1 metre deep), which may result in increases to flood levels upstream of the Booster Pump Station site. By obstructing this portion of the LSIO, floodwaters will be redistributed to the southwest. Increases in flows to the southwest would result in marginally higher flood levels. To attain a permit to construct within the LSIO, the relevant authority will require control measures (probably as outlined in Section 6). With these controls in place, the likelihood of flooding impacts resulting from the booster pump station is rare. However the consequence of social and economic impacts would still be significant and has hence been considered as moderate. Hence the overall risk of increasing flood damage to houses is considered low.
Additional mitigation measures such as relocating the booster pump station to higher ground outside the LSIO may reduce the risk event further.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 60 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 4.3 Detailed Waterway Risk Assessment A waterway specific risk assessment was undertaken for each waterway crossed by the Proposed Transfer Pipeline Alignment (Appendix E). During this specific waterways risk assessment for the Desalinisation Project, sediment transport and flooding have been identified as the most important risk factors posing a threat to waterways during both construction and operation phases of the Project. The risk assessment considered the following scenarios: Specific impact 1: Sediment Transport risks associated with trenching; 9 Specific impact 2: Sediment Transport risks associated with pipe jacking; 9 Specific impact 3: Flooding risks associated with trenching; and 9 Specific impact 4: Flooding risks associated with pipe jacking.
Sediment Transport Risk Sediment can enter waterways as the result of erosion and sediment works within the vicinity of waterways. Sediment transport is used here as a general term to describe a range of factors including:
1. Erosion potential (e.g. bed, bank and floodplain erosion) which can provide a source of sediment to waterways; 2. Sediment conveyance (i.e. transport of sediment within water body); and 3. Sedimentation (i.e. deposition of sediments) locally and downstream. Sediment transport risk is the result of a combination of the following factors: 9 Waterway type; 9 Catchment topography (position within the catchment); 9 Longitudinal profile (channel slope); 9 Soil cohesiveness (stability); 9 Catchment area; 9 Land management (fencing and land clearance); and 9 Site management of construction activities.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 61 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Sediment Transport Consequence The factors which may potentially affect sediment transport consequence are as follows: 9 Environmental value of the receiving waterway and presence of environmentally significant areas: The consequence has considered the environmental value of the receiving waterway systems in terms of waterway and water quality conditions (documented in the Regional River Health Strategies). The receiving waterway system has been considered in terms of both the value of the immediate waterway and the overall catchment system and point of discharge from the catchment outlet (eg Westernport Bay). It is noted Westernport Bay coastline is a RAMSAR site (wetlands of international significance) and therefore erosion is considered to have a higher impact when a crossing occurs within a channel that discharges into Westernport Bay. Waterbodies with permanent water have typically been assumed to be of higher environmental value than other waterways. Further assessment of consequence will need to be undertaken when site visits, aquatic ecological investigations and flora/fauna investigations are completed. 9 Catchment topography: If erosion occurs in steep hill areas the consequence of sediment transport is likely to be higher. Disturbance at this point within the landscape may enhance erosion processes by undermining the stability within the catchment and triggering active erosion process upstream. This could result in significant erosion in an upstream direction (headward erosion) and can provide a significant source of sediment resulting in sedimentation downstream. This can generally be avoided by appropriate reinstatement (see Section 5). 9 Location and angle at which the Transfer Pipeline cuts across the channel: If the Transfer Pipeline were to cut through the banks on an active bend (i.e. where natural erosive processes occur) erosion may be increased resulting in additional sediment transport which may cause altered channel planform (channel shape from an aerial perspective).
Sediment Transport Likelihood The factors which act as indicators of sediment transport likelihood ratings are: 9 Channel Slope: Sediment transport capacity is higher in steeper channels compared with flatter channels. 9 Waterway type and condition: The waterway classification type as described in Section 2.3, as well as site specific observations regarding waterway condition and bank stability 9 Soil cohesiveness: Soil cohesiveness will affect the likelihood of erosion occurring. Further investigation is required to confirm soils at each location. This will be undertaken within the scope of other specialist reports
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 62 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Catchment area; Large catchments will have higher flows and a higher potential for sediment transport.
Flooding Risk Flooding risk is broadly determined by a combination of the following factors: 9 Catchment size relative to conveyance and the potential to restrict flow due to construction activity; and 9 Asset and property locations relative to existing waterways, floodplains and LSIO. Flooding risk is a result of a combination of flooding consequence and likelihood as described below.
Flooding Consequence The factors that may affect flooding consequence are:
9 Asset and property locations relative to existing waterways and floodplains This includes the location of roads, private and public property; and 9 Potential to cause hazardous conditions. Where the location of assets and private or public property is within close proximity to waterways the consequence to flooding may be increased. Similarly, the number of assets and/or specific landuse may also determine the flooding consequence for a particular waterway crossing.
Flooding Likelihood Flooding likelihood is affected by the following factors:
9 Duration of construction: The duration of works will vary depending upon the difficulty of construction at each waterway crossing. Possible duration of construction has been considered when determining a flooding likelihood rating. Whilst flood events cannot be predicted at any one time a longer duration of work will have an increased likelihood of being affected by a high flow event. 9 Size of the upstream catchment relative to capacity of temporary diversion works: Larger catchments have a greater potential to produce flow events that may exceed the bank full capacity of the channel in the location of works and affect the ability of temporary diversions to cope with stream flow and maintain safe and practical working conditions. and 9 Topography, including channel and floodplain geometry (shape). Total channel capacity is a function of channel geometry and longitudinal profile. Evidence of an active floodplain may increase the likelihood rating for flooding risk.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 63 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Risk Assessment Methodology A typical risk assessment methodology was undertaken which aligned with the multidisciplinary whole Project risk assessment completed as part of the scope of the EES. (The definitions for consequence aligned with those presented within Section 4.1, however likelihood definitions were modified slightly to reflect potential impacts during construction and operation phases of the Project (Table 21). The outcomes from this process are based upon information available at the time of writing and may evolve over time as further investigation is undertaken. Thus, this risk analysis cannot be deemed as final. Risk assessment was undertaken based upon the assumptions that appropriate controls, i.e. mitigation measures, will be implemented (refer Section 5). Soil degradation is considered for the purposes of this project to include bed, bank and floodplain erosion potential. This risk assessment has taken this factor into account, however further assessment of the risks associated with soil degradation including, acid sulphate soils, compaction, sedimentation, slope failure, subsidence and soil erodability is considered within Rosengren (2008).
Table 21 Likelihood Rankings
Likelihood Description
A – Rare Highly unlikely to occur but theoretically possible.
B – Unlikely May occur within the life of the Project or duration of construction.
C – Likely Likely to occur more than once during the life of the Reference Project or construction period.
D – Almost Very likely to occur within a 12 month timeframe which includes Certain construction and a 12 month defect liability period. Includes planned activities. Environmental, Social & Economic description includes the period during construction.
E – Certain Will occur as a result of the Desalination Project construction &/or operations.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 64 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 4.3.1 Risk Assessment Conclusions A specific Risk Assessment (Environmental Risk and Impact Assessment) has been undertaken for each of the waterway crossings in accordance with the consistent methodology applied throughout the Project. This risk assessment is based upon the current knowledge gained through field investigations (in areas where land access approval has been provided) and/or aerial photo analysis. The key risks for the Transfer Pipeline are associated with the construction of the Transfer Pipeline across the waterways with the main construction methodologies of trenching through the waterway or pipe jacking (a form of tunnelling) under the waterways to be considered. This assessment was initially applied at a broad level and has been included within the overall risk register for the Project. The typical potential impacts associated with these construction methods have been outlined below. In considering the existing conditions of the waterways crossed by the Transfer Pipeline, and impacts from the construction methods, a preliminary assessment has also been applied. This assessment has been applied at a site-specific level for each identified waterway crossing focusing on risks associated with erosion/sedimentation transportation and flooding. The approach has been to determine a consequence assessment for the erosion and flooding impacts, and to then assign a likelihood rating to the occurrence of the impact at the assigned consequence level. For this assessment, the following summarises the general conclusions:
9 Risks are most likely to affect construction phases of the Project, which includes both construction and the defect liability period; 9 Operation phase risks may occur, for example, if a headward erosion migrates upstream or the channel migrates towards the path of the Transfer Pipeline infrastructure; 9 Several Waterway crossings have higher risk of sediment transport due to existing stability issues and waterway conditions; 9 Large, generally named, waterways have higher risk of sediment transport during trenching methods of construction; and 9 Waterways within the Bass Catchment, generally have higher risk of erosion.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 65 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 5. Impacts of Transfer Pipeline
5.1 Introduction The primary purpose of this section is to fulfil the requirements outlined within the following objectives 9 Assess the potential for adverse effects of the proposed alignment on the hydrology, water quality and character of local waterways, floodplains and drainage paths, including in relation to floodway function;
Project Step: Relevant Report Comments: Section(s):
Impact Section 5.2: This section discusses the potential impacts on Assessment Construction Impacts the surface water environment of the Transfer Pipeline alignment
5.2 Available Construction Techniques There are a number of available methods for constructing waterway crossings, depending on environmental and engineering constraints. The two most common methods of waterway crossings are open cut trenching (with or without flow diversion) and pipe jacking (a form of tunnelling). The preferred crossing method is determined following the consideration of a number of site specific factors including safety risk, hydrology, stream substrate and geology, environmental sensitivities and engineering feasibility (APIA 2005).
It is understood that the construction methods being considered for the Transfer Pipeline will be either trenching or pipe jacking. This discussion on risk mitigation and recommendations of risk management measures assumes that one of these methods will be used at each waterway crossing. A summary of these methods is provided below.
5.2.1 Trenching Standard open cut trenching is most often utilised in low flow, shallow or dry conditions. This technique involves setting up a stable work platform on each side of the watercourse and then excavating a trench. The trench is not completed until immediately prior to placement of the pipeline. All welding and coating of the pipeline is conducted in a cleared area away from the waterway embankment before placement. Tie in points are located on high ground away from the banks. Pre-welded pipes are then placed into the trench using slings from the excavators at either side of the waterway. The spoil from the watercourse bed and bank and trench spoil material are kept separate.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 66 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline This crossing method may be applied in sensitive streams where rapid construction is considered the best means of minimising environmental impacts. The primary risk of impact associated with trenching is the potential for release of high sediment loads during excavation and backfilling. If managed inappropriately, it could increase turbidity, impacting upon downstream water quality. Mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact of trenching include, flow diversion, sediment capture devices and strict environmental management controls. Where higher water volumes and flows are present, open trenching using streamflow diversion can be used. This technique will typically involve creating a dry construction area within which to work by pumping around the area. Other diversion techniques include diverting the water flow through a flume pipe installed between the dams. Diverted flow is maintained at a flow rate and water quality, which will allow the downstream reaches of the waterway to continue to function. This construction method is most commonly used at waterway crossings where the natural flow regime is required to maintain environmental, social or engineering objectives.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 67 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Figure 5-1 Standard Trenching Pipeline Construction
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 68 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Figure 5-2 Standard trenching construction with flow diversion in place
5.2.2 Pipe Jacking Pipe jacking is a method of tunnel construction where hydraulic jacks are used to push specially made pipes through the ground behind a tunnel boring machine or shield. This technique is commonly used to create tunnels under existing natural or man-made structures, such as roads or railways or rivers. This option provides added flexibility with the timing of works as pipe jacking under the crossing can occur when flows remain in waterways and it avoids the need to divert or dam flows. However consideration of the ground conditions and clearance requirements below the site specific waterway invert level is important in assessing the suitability of this technique. The decision between open trenching and pipe-jacking may be based on engineering reasons, or on the need to prevent environmental impacts associated with construction. Some key points about pipe jacking are:
9 The sleeve pipe is jacked from a jacking pit on one side of the waterway, to a receival pit on the other side of the waterway; 9 The jacking and receival pits will be substantial structures made of reinforced concrete or sheet piling;
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 69 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 The jacks in the jacking pit are used to push the sleeve pipe into a cavity excavated ahead of the progressing pipe; the excavation would be by a tunnel-boring machine. The work follows a repetitive sequence of excavation ahead of the sleeve pipe, pushing the sleeve pipe into the excavated cavity, and removing the spoil by muck carts running on rails inside the sleeve pipe back to the jacking pit; 9 Ground conditions determine the viability of pipe-jacking. Variable conditions make steering difficult. Squeezing clays and running sands increase soil/pipe friction and jacking loads, and can require stabilisation of the ground ahead of the sleeve pipe by grout or chemical injection from the surface; and 9 Pipe-jacking poses additional technical risks and complexity for the construction
5.3 Potential Impacts The following list of potential impacts of each construction technique is based on previous experience in waterway construction management and a desktop assessment of the likely impacts that may occur on each of the waterways along the Transfer Pipeline alignment. However, this list should not be deemed as definitive, and individual waterway crossings should undergo a site inspection to assess the potential impacts of construction on each site.
5.3.1 Direct Impacts
Trenching Potential impacts that can occur as a direct result of trenching construction methods include:
9 Disturbance to bed and banks; 9 Disturbance to floodplains; 9 Stream bed degradation; 9 Stream bank degradation; 9 Scour potential from poor pipeline orientation: – The impact of erosion from bed and bank disturbance can include water quality impacts on the downstream environment. General construction activities (e.g. stockpiling of material, etc.) may lead to sedimentation issues; 9 Change to natural channel planform; 9 Impacts to natural flow regime; 9 Impacts to riparian and aquatic flora and fauna; and 9 Disturbances or loss of native vegetation (including seedbank, instream and riparian vegetation).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 70 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Pipe-jacking Potential impacts associated with pipe jacking include: 9 Disturbance to floodplains; 9 Disturbances or loss of native vegetation (including seedbank and riparian vegetation); 9 Failure of pipe jacking leading to a collapsed hole and lost tools with possible additional land requirements for subsequent attempts; 9 Seepage of slurry mud into land and the watercourse; and 9 Washout of cavities and collapse of easement. These direct impacts are dependent on the soil conditions and depth requirements imposed at site-specific locations. The suitability of pipe jacking will need to consider the geotechnical conditions at each site.
It is noted that in general, impacts on riparian flora and fauna and disturbance to or loss of native riparian vegetation will be less for pipe jacking than for trenching given the reduced footprint of disturbed riparian areas at ground level and the setback from the riparian zone of the waterway.
5.3.2 Indirect Impacts Indirect impacts to waterways that can occur from either method if inappropriately managed during the construction phase include:
9 Soil erosion caused by ground disturbance; 9 Water quality impacts such as sedimentation and sediment transport associated with inadequate site controls; 9 Impacts to water quality from construction vehicle fuels, oils and greases (although it is noted that given the setback from the top of banks of the waterway, these impacts will generally be less for pipe jacking techniques); 9 Introduction and spread of weed species from construction vehicles and machinery; and 9 Visual impacts of construction equipment.
5.3.3 Booster Pump Station Construction The Booster Pump Station (BPS) is located adjacent to Cardinia Drain, in a designated Land Subject to Inundation Overlay (LSIO) area. The footprint of the Booster Pump Station extends approximately 60 m into a 100 m wide band of LSIO that is bounded by the Levee and high ground to the south.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 71 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Construction of the booster pump station will involve site-levelling, construction of a hardstand area, provision of access tracks and trenching and backfilling for equipment and structure foundations. This work will require the use of earth moving equipment, trucks, mobile cranes and transport vehicles and will likely require approximately 1 hectare of cleared area and the construction of a 6 metre wide gravel access track. Impacts associated with the construction of the booster pump station may affect the surface water environment. In addition, siting of the booster pump station within an LSIO has the potential to alter flow regimes and/or damage or disturb surface water ecosystems. Generally, the potential impacts include alteration of flow regimes, sediment from construction site runoff, construction fuels, oils and other chemicals entering waterways. The impact on these nearby waterways is likely to be similar to impacts associated with other development construction activity. The Construction of the BPS will occur over 12-18 months and during that time activities may obstruct the floodway. Obstruction of the floodway during construction will reduce the floodplain volume currently available. As a result, if a major flood occurs during the construction period, the level of the floodwaters will rise higher than they would normally, and therefore expand the inundation area. During the construction period, runoff from storm events may produce the same water surface elevations in the floodplain as currently experienced in slightly larger events, thus the frequency of flooding events may also increase. Natural surface elevations indicate the expansion of floodwaters is likely to occur in a south-westerly direction. The expanded extent and height of floodwaters may impact on houses, agricultural land, and infrastructure upstream and adjacent to the BPS.
5.3.4 Booster Pump Station Operation During operation the BPS will obstruct the floodway and may cause an increase in flooding events as outlined for construction activity. During operation of the BPS it is likely that onsite storage of fuels, oils or chemicals will occur. A significant rainfall event may produce runoff that mobilises fuels, oils, contaminated sediments and other chemicals into waterways.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 72 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 6. Risk Mitigation
6.1.1 Introduction The primary purpose of this section is to fulfil the requirements outlined within the following objectives: 9 Detail the proposed measures, including the choice of proposed alignment and construction technique as well as the management and timing of works, to minimise adverse effects of construction on the functions and values of waterways, floodplains and drainage paths; and 9 Describe proposed measures to rehabilitate affected sections of waterways, floodplains and drainage paths following the proposed alignment construction works.
Project Step: Relevant Report Comments: Section(s):
Mitigation Section 6.2: Standard This section discusses the range of measures Management commonly used to mitigate potential impacts to Measures surface water
Section 6.3: This section discusses appropriate construction Construction management mitigation measures Management Measures
Section 6.4: This section discusses the measures to be Operational addressed during operation phases Management Measures
Section 6.5: Specific This section discusses measures that may be Mitigation Measures required to further minimise impacts.
Section 6.6: This section discusses the application of Application of mitigation measures based upon waterway type. Mitigation and Management Measures
Section 6.7: This section discusses the basis for determining Implications of Risk an appropriate construction method. Assessment
Section 6.8: Booster This section discusses BPS operation and Pump Station construction phase mitigation measures. Operation and Construction Mitigation
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 73 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 6.2 Standard Management Measures A range of measures is commonly used to mitigate potential impacts on the surface water environment. These are discussed below and incorporate recommendations from the following references: 9 Guidelines for Assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on Waterways, (SKM 2001); 9 Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways - Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments, Victoria, (DSE 1991); 9 Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management, (DSE, 2007a); 9 Water Transfer Pipelines Design Requirements (Draft), (Melbourne Water, 2008b); 9 Australian Pipeline Industry Association Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines (APIA, 2005); 9 EPA Publication 480 Best Practice Environmental Management: Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (EPA, 1996); 9 EPA Publication 275 Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (EPA, 1991); and 9 Urban Stormwater: best practice environmental management guidelines (CSIRO, 1999). It is anticipated that an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) including an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be established prior to the construction of the Transfer Pipeline. The EMF and EMP should address site management and sediment controls in terms of water quality issues in the context of the SEPP (Waters of Victoria) requirements. The SEPP aims to provide a coordinated approach for the protection of the health of Victoria’s water environments. Regarding construction activities the SEPP states, “Construction works need to be managed to minimise land disturbance, soil erosion and the discharge of sediments and other pollutants to surface waters.” Construction managers are therefore required to implement effective management practices consistent with requirements as outlined in the EPA publications listed above. The SEPP also states, where construction activities cross or adjoin surface waters, construction managers are required to monitor affected surface waters to make an assessment as to the protection of the beneficial uses. The consequence on the receiving waterway may vary depending on the waterway value from an ecological perspective. However, with many of waterways discharging to the Westernport Bay, it is possible that the requirements may default to becoming more stringent in recognition the RAMSAR wetland status of the coastal waters of Westernport Bay (irrespective of the status of the waterway being directly affected). In order to demonstrate compliance with SEPP requirements, a pre, during and post construction monitoring program is typically required as part of an EMP.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 74 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Section 6.3 outlines a list of typical construction management measures that are likely to be included as part of the standard conditions set within the Works on Waterways Permit issued by the CMA. These measures are typically undertaken during waterways construction works to minimise the impact on the receiving environment. The risk assessment and associated recommendations have been based on the expectation that construction of the Project will include these standard construction activity and site management measures. Any such EMP should not be limited to the mitigation measures listed herein.
6.3 Construction Management Measures 9 Erosion and sediment control measures in accordance with the EMF should be established prior to construction: – The impact of erosion can include water quality impacts on the downstream environment. General construction activities (eg. stockpiling of material, etc.) may lead to sedimentation issues, and these requirements should be managed or addressed via the EMF; – The EMF should describe requirements or measures for the Project Company to avoid or minimise the adverse impact of construction activities on the environment including demonstrating compliance with SEPP requirements; 9 Erosion and sediment control measures should be regularly inspected, particularly following rainfall events, to ensure their ongoing functionality; 9 Minimising disturbance through appropriate construction methodology; 9 Ensuring that all excavations are properly rehabilitated so that the potential scour is minimised for a range of flow conditions; 9 Vegetation clearance should be avoided where possible. If clearance cannot be avoided, the area of vegetation cleared at any one time should be minimised; 9 Reinstatement of vegetation as quickly as practicable; 9 All stockpiled material should be stored in bunded areas and kept remote from waterways; 9 Top soils should be stockpiled separately to subsoils; 9 Soils should be reinstated in the order in which they were removed; 9 Creation and maintenance of designated construction equipment wash down and refuelling areas outside the riparian zone of the waterway with established bunding and contamination control measures in place; 9 Waterway crossings should be avoided during periods of heavy rainfall and flooding; 9 Contingency plans to address heavy rainfall and flood events during construction should be included in the EMF. The contingency plan should address: – Limiting stormwater entering excavation areas; – Enhancement of controls when heavy rain is forecast;
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 75 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline – Siting of facilities; – Clean up procedures; – A flood warning system; – Procedures for limiting loss of spoil and other hazardous materials; and – Notification of authorities.
6.4 Specific Mitigation Measures In addition to the standard management requirements that would be expected during construction, the following section provides further detail on mitigation measures more specific to the expected activities associated with the construction of the Transfer Pipeline. In part these project specific measures encompass standard best practice waterway management, however this list emphasises the type of requirements that may be imposed to further minimise the impact on the environment, depending on the type of waterway that is at risk.
Minimise Site Disturbance Actions to be taken to avoid site-based disturbance during the construction period should include: 9 Minimising the width and effective footprint of works; 9 Controlling the route used by machinery into and out of the works site; 9 Avoiding the need for access of heavy machinery to the bed of the waterways as works should be undertaken from the top of the banks where possible; and 9 Disturbance by machinery or works of the banks surrounding the site should be avoided. 9 Wash down areas should be placed at key entry and exit points;
Crossing Alignment Preferably, crossing should occur on a straight portion of the waterway to avoid the risk of erosion. Where this is not possible bank stability works should be implemented in accordance with Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways- Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments, (DSE, 1991) and Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management (DSE 2007a) To avoid adverse environmental impacts it is recommended that the Transfer Pipeline should cross the waterway perpendicular to the direction of flows. This is particularly relevant for channels with defined bed and banks and should form part of the EMF.
Placement of clean rock for working platform Where construction is to occur on a waterway with active flow, an area of clean graded rock should be constructed to provide a stable platform for construction vehicles to work from and minimise the transport of sediment into the downstream waterway.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 76 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Streamflow diversion measures Where higher water volumes and flows are present, streamflow diversion should be in place. This technique will typically involve creating a dry construction area within which to work by pumping around the area. Other diversion techniques include diverting the water flow through a flume pipe installed between the dams. Diverted flow should be maintained at a flow rate and water quality, which will allow the downstream reaches of the waterway to continue to function.
Diversion drains and bunds for water management Diversion drains should be established during construction works to manage site runoff and minimise the transport of sediment from the construction site into the waterway.
Weed Management GHD recommends that weed management measures be implemented within the EMF for the construction phase to: (a) prevent the introduction of additional weeds into the site; and (b) control any weeds that establish at the site during the soil disturbance associated with construction. In addition, the WMP is needed for on-going control of weeds at the site during the post construction phase of the project.
Revegetation 9 Revegetation plans should consider the benefits vegetation can provide in promoting bank stability; 9 Any areas of native vegetation disturbed by the construction of the Transfer Pipeline should be revegetated following completion of the works. These revegetation works should be included in the Project in addition to any revegetation works that may be proposed in a Net Gain Offset Plan, where required; 9 Revegetation works should be conducted in accordance with DSE guidelines: Revegetation Planting Standards (DSE 2006). 9 Any revegetation works should adhere to defined DSE standards (DSE 2006). These standards include meeting a number of minimum establishment and on- going management requirements as part of a 10-year management plan. These include guidelines for: – Site protection (e.g. fencing) and site preparation (weed control, mulching); – Planting design (plant densities relative to EVA benchmarks); – Source of planting stock (locally indigenous); – Planting options and schedule; and – Post-planting maintenance (e.g. weed control).
Structural Stabilisation Works Bed control structures, rock riprap (beaching) and armouring can be used as a means of providing bed and bank protection where vegetation will not provide the required stability. Stabilisation works should be conducted in accordance with Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways- Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments, (DSE, 1991).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 77 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline It is noted this document has recently been supplemented by Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management (DSE 2007a).
Rock Rip Rap Rock riprap is used for bank protection works where required for works that may impact on local bank stability. The rock riprap should extend upstream and downstream from the trench to protect the banks and should match with the existing stream profile. If construction of the Transfer Pipeline occurs on a bend, more extensive riprap protection would be required. The rock riprap should cover approximately two-thirds of the bank height. The upper third can be stabilised by using vegetation. For additional bank toe protection, the use of larger rock keyed into the existing bank toe should be undertaken. The larger placed rocks can protrude slightly from the bed and bank surface to promote habitat value.
Bed Control Structures or Armouring Bed protection may be required following trenching through some larger channels or those prone to bed instability. The pipe should be laid below the hard invert and the trench should be backfilled and protected with a layer of graded rock. Any grade control structure would need to be designed to maintain the hydraulic capacity of the waterway.
Waterway Rehabilitation Opportunities For some waterways where the CMA is looking to improve the waterway condition to achieve longer-term strategic objectives within the catchment, there may be opportunities to apply rehabilitation measures over a larger “whole-of-reach” scale. Therefore, there may be some waterways where rehabilitation associated with trenching could be combined with whole-of-reach bed and bank rehabilitation and enhancement. The consideration of the opportunities in consultation with the CMA may influence the outcome on the accepted construction methodology.
6.5 Operational Management Measures Additional requirements may need to be addressed during the operational phase of the Project in order to minimise the impact on the surface water environment: These may include:
9 Monitoring of the downstream bed stability of the waterway; 9 Design recommendations informed by the geotechnical investigation to address the potential for differential settlements in areas containing soft or compressible soil types; 9 The restriction of inspection access in sensitive areas (eg. waterways) to foot as much as possible; and 9 All inspections portals, valves, etc. are not installed in the vicinity of the waterway crossings as they may be inundated during periods of high flow.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 78 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 6.6 Application of Mitigation and Rehabilitation Measures In Section 2 a list of common waterway types has been defined. Based on these waterway classifications, the following section outlines typical mitigation and rehabilitation methods for each of the waterway types. Local issues or processes identified pre-construction may lead to other additional mitigation measures more specific to the individual waterway crossing. Unconfined Sinuous Waterway - Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Standard management measures; 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment; 9 Placement of clean rock for working platform; 9 Streamflow diversion measures; 9 Diversion drains and bunds for water management; 9 Weed management; 9 Reinstate excavated profile; 9 Fencing; 9 Rehabilitation of banks; 9 Revegetation; 9 Bed control structures; and 9 Rock rip rap placement on banks.
Unconfined Channelised Waterway - Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Standard Management Measures; 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment; 9 Placement of clean rock for working platform; 9 Streamflow diversion measures; 9 Avoid levee banks; 9 Possible construction of temporary levee banks; 9 Weed Management; 9 Reinstate excavated profile; 9 Levee Bank reinstatement; and 9 Revegetation.
Partially confined Sinuous Waterway - Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment;
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 79 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Streamflow diversion measures; 9 Weed management; 9 Resinstate excavated profile; and 9 Revegetation.
Confined Headwater Channel – Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Standard management measures; 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment; 9 Weed management; 9 Reinstate excavated profile; 9 Revegetation; and 9 Bed control structures.
Valley Fill – Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Standard management measures; 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Weed management; 9 Reinstate excavated profile; and 9 Revegetation.
Farm/Road Drain – Channelised – Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Standard management measures; 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Weed management; 9 Reinstate excavated profile; and 9 Revegetation.
Farm Dam– Mitigation and Management Measures 9 Standard management measures; 9 Minimise site disturbance; 9 Placement of clean rock for working platform; 9 Streamflow diversion measures; 9 Weed Management; 9 Reinstate excavated profile; and 9 Revegetation.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 80 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 6.7 Implications of Risk Assessment for Construction Methodology at Waterway Crossings The risk assessment process has provided a basis for determining an appropriate construction methodology for each waterway crossing. The risk assessment as outlined in Section 4.2 has been considered for both trenching and pipe jacking. The key risks are associated with the construction of the Transfer Pipeline across the waterways for the construction methodologies of open cut trenching through the waterway or tunnel pipe jacking under the waterways. The appropriate construction methodology draws upon the outcomes of the risk assessment, and should encompass the recommendations outlined within Section 6.4. In working through the risk assessment for all identified waterway crossings, the interpretation of the outcomes is summarised below: 9 The associated risk for pipe jacking is either equivalent to or less than the associated risk for trenching (without any specific information regarding the soil conditions); 9 The risk assessment for sediment transport has informed the construction methodology, and indicated where additional mitigation measures are required to reduce the sediment transport risk; and 9 The risk assessment associated with flooding has indicated where additional mitigation measures are required to reduce the flooding risks and associated impacts. The risk assessment is essentially informing the project on appropriate construction methods and determining where trenching is considered acceptable or where pipe jacking is recommended for consideration. Therefore the interpretation of the risk assessment associated with the trenching methodology in accordance with the following has informed the appropriate construction methodology: 9 Where the associated risk for trenching has been assessed as low, trenching construction methods are deemed to be acceptable. It is noted this is typically on the basis of the consequence being assessed as “insignificant to minor”, and/or the likelihood of occurrence typically “unlikely”; and 9 Where the associated risk for trenching has been assessed as medium, the construction methodology will be in accordance with the following: – Pipe Jacking, if the implementation of additional mitigation measures does not reduce the risk; – Trenching, where implementation of specific mitigation measures can reduce the risk.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 81 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline For the waterway crossings with medium risk where trenching is considered acceptable, the application of the mitigation and rehabilitation measures will be in accordance with the typical measures as summarised according to the waterway types outlined in Section 5.5. It is noted site specific mitigation measures and construction methods recommended for consideration for each of the relevant waterway crossings are outlined where appropriate in the summary proformas (Appendix D). It is expected that local issues or processes identified pre-construction may also lead to other additional mitigation measures more specific to the individual waterway crossing. It is noted the Project Company will need to demonstrate mitigation controls and rehabilitation methods and site management mitigation controls in accordance with methods outlined to reduce the risk.
9 Where the associated risk has been assessed as high to critical, pipe jacking is the preferred and recommended construction method. It is noted there are some locations where if the alignment is moved, the risk could potentially reduce and trenching may become acceptable. Table 22 outlines the number of waterway crossings where pipe jacking construction should be recommended for consideration. For the nominated locations for pipe jacking, there may be some waterways where rehabilitation associated with trenching could be combined with whole-of-reach bed and bank rehabilitation and enhancement. As indicated, there are also some locations where if the alignment is moved, the risk could potentially reduce and trenching may become acceptable. Furthermore, for other locations subject to findings of further assessment or consultation there may be opportunities for trenching activities to be combined with strategic improvement works over a greater length of waterway.
Table 22 Waterway crossings where pipe jacking should be considered#
Waterway Crossing Rationale for Pipe Jacking Waterway Name Number Recommendation
Extent of pipe-jacking operation needs to be considered in the context of ~2 km of pipe length within Powlett River 105 floodplain. Trenching not acceptable. The Powlett River is a complex tidally influenced river.
Pipe jacking across waterway channel required. Further consideration of appropriate Bridge Creek 119 launch/retrieval due to alignment of creek adjacent to construction easement
Gorge Creek 229 MWC identified*
Trib 3305 230 MWC identified*
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 82 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
Waterway Crossing Rationale for Pipe Jacking Waterway Name Number Recommendation MWC identified* -Trenching may provide an opportunity to Tennent Creek 231 improve waterway value with appropriate rehabilitation Bass River 224 Trenching not acceptable Trenching acceptable if Trib 3831 329 alignment moved east approximately 150m. Ecological values to be confirmed, but trenching may Adams Creek 424 provide an opportunity to improve waterway value with appropriate rehabilitation Levees and major channel Lower Lang Lang River 425 conveyances Levees and major channel Yallock Cut and Levee 526 conveyances Potential for trenching if able Yallock Creek/Yallock 508, 509 to avoid refuge pools and Outfall Drain areas of high habitat value MWC Identified* – Relatively Southern Boundary Drain 510 large catchment and drain with levee (to be confirmed) Bunyip river Main Drain, Levees and major channel South East Catchment conveyances 514, 515, 535 Drain, North West Catchment Drain McDonald’s Catchment Levees and major channel 536, 537, 538 Drain conveyances Cardinia Drain, Cardinia Levees and major channel 621, 622 Catchment Drain conveyances Lower Toomuc Creek and Levees and major channel Deep Creek, Lower Deep conveyances 542, 543, 544, 545 Creek Drain, Lower Gum Scrub MWC Identified* – However, further investigation required to clarify flora and fauna values and flow status. Ti Tree Creek 620 Current investigation undertaken when flows were significantly altered by adjacent construction activities.
# The waterway crossings where pipe jacking has been considered will need to be confirmed with the relevant CMA.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 83 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline From the above summary, the number of expected pipe jacking construction operations is 17, and will include crossing of 26 of the identified waterway crossings. There are seven locations where the closely spaced waterway alignments would be expected to be pipe jacked in a single launch and retrieve pipe jack operation. It is noted additional crossings identified by MWC where they consider pipe jacking to be preferred have been indicated (*) in the above table. Further assessment or demonstration of the accepted mitigation and/or rehabilitation methods would be required if trenching is to be considered. In discussions with the MWC and WGCMA it is understood that unless the EES determines that the open cut trenching is acceptable, pipe jacking will generally be the preferred construction methodology. From correspondence with MWC open cut trenching may be considered acceptable on minor creek tributaries with low environmental value and small drains and depressions, and pipe jacking will be the preferred method of construction for major and/or environmentally significant waterways. From a Contractor’s perspective, the preferred method of construction would typically be open cut trenching in terms of both cost and construction period for the works.
The risk assessment as documented has provided an independent basis for determining the waterway crossings where pipe jacking is recommended and where open cut trenching is considered to be acceptable. It is noted ongoing consultation with CMAs will be required in terms of determining in principle agreement on the accepted construction methodology of the waterway crossings, and the specific requirements associated with a Works on Waterway permit for the construction of the crossings.
Other Recommendations It is recommended that the pipeline alignment be moved to the East approximately 150 m within the vicinity of waterway crossing 329. Site assessment at this waterway crossing highlighted that the pipeline asset may be undermined if the alignment is not altered. This site has low environmental values and as such was not given a high risk rating when considering sediment transport risk. However, due to the active nature of the waterway bank erosion is likely to cause migration of the stream channel in the direction of the pipeline. As a result the transfer pipeline could become exposed if the alignment is not modified accordingly.
6.8 Booster Pump Station Operation and Construction Mitigation
Construction The BPS is currently located within the LSIO which may increase the flood extent (section 5.3.3). In order to construct the booster pump station within an LSIO, a permit will need to be obtained from the relevant floodplan management authority. Possible mitigation methods to offset the impacts of obstructing the floodway and meet Melbourne Water requirements may include:
9 Streamlining and minimising the footprint of the booster pump station site, and/or
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 84 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 Local reshaping between the edge of the Pump Station and the high ground to provide additional floodway capacity. Additional to these are the following standard controls that would be implemented during construction: 9 Minimise the duration of construction activities; 9 Undertake any flood mitigation measures such as local reshaping between the edge of the Pump Station and the high ground to provide additional floodway capacity prior to construction of the Booster Pump Station; and 9 Minimise the construction footprint within the LSIO e.g. keep spoil heaps, machinery, site sheds and other obstructions outside of the LSIO. An alternative option to the above is to relocate the booster pump station to higher ground outside of the flood path and therefore, avoiding the LSIO.
Operation To reduce the impact of a flooding event on the BPS and surrounding stakeholders, appropriate flood design measures prior to construction of the BPS should be considered. Measures such as streamlining and minimising the area occupied by the BPS within the LSIO, and reshaping the ground between the BPS and the high ground to provide a path for floodwaters should be implemented to avoid an increase to the flooding extent. If possible the BPS should be relocated to high ground outside the LSIO.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 85 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
6.9 Performance Requirements The Performance Requirements (PR’s) are incorporated into the Environmental Management Framework and embody the recommendations of environmental management arising from the environmental impact and risk assessment process. The specific PR's relevant to this study area are presented below.
Table 23
Timing Subject D&C O&M Objective Performance Criteria Performance Requirements Activities Activities
Waterways Protect Comply with the State Comply with the Performance Criteria. and waterways Environment Protection Develop and implement construction methods and site rehabilitation Wetlands 9 9 and Policy (Waters of Victoria). plans that seek to protect the habitat values of waterways and wetlands wetlands. No significant impact on including: Western Port Ramsar site. • Developing appropriate construction methods to minimise Maintain the environmental environmental impacts for crossing sensitive waterways such as: values of waterways and • Powlett River wetlands. • Bridge Creek Compliance with all relevant • Woolshed Creek Authority requirements for • Bass River waterway crossings. • Lower Lang Lang River • Yallock Cut • Yallock Creek • Bunyip River • McDonalds Catch Drain • Deep Creek • Toomuc Creek • Cardinia Creek • Tennant Creek
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 86 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
Timing Subject D&C O&M Objective Performance Criteria Performance Requirements Activities Activities
Refer to PR Sensitivity Areas – Plant Area, PR Sensitivity Areas – Transfer Pipeline - Sheet 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and PR Sensitivity Areas – Northerly Grid Connection - Sheet 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 in Technical Appendix 5. • Site specific construction methods to minimise environmental impacts including erosion, sedimentation and pollution • Reinstating and revegetating disturbed areas • Limiting impact on ecological processes such as fish movements and breeding Develop and implement monitoring and reporting on the effects of construction on waterways and wetlands. Develop and implement methods and management systems to limit impacts on waterways and wetlands during operation. Re-establishment of wetland (unnamed tributary of the Powlett River) on the Desalination Plant site. Develop maintenance and emergency management plans for the Transfer Pipeline which meet the Performance Criteria. Design and locate scour and other relief valves to meet the Performance Criteria.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 87 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
Timing Subject D&C O&M Objective Performance Criteria Performance Requirements Activities Activities
Surface Protect Minimise impacts on surface Comply with the Performance Criteria. Water and water quality. Develop and implement construction methods and management systems Quality 9 9 maintain Comply with State that seek to maintain surface water quality consistent with State surface Environment Protection Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) and EPA Best Practice water Policy (Waters of Victoria). Environmental Management – Environmental Guidelines for Major quality. Achieve the Urban Construction Sites (1996). Stormwater Best Practice Design and construct Temporary Works to isolate construction runoff Environmental Management from catchment runoff and treat it prior to discharge to receiving Guidelines performance waterways. objectives during Establish a surface water quality monitoring (including reporting) program construction and operation. for the Powlett River, in the vicinity of the Desalination Plant Site in Comply with EPA Best consultation with the EPA. Practice Environmental Manage maintenance to avoid release of water with chemical Management – concentrations above State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Environmental Guidelines for Victoria) objectives. Major Construction Sites (1996). Stormwater treatment system is to be fully integrated into the overall detail design of the Desalinated Water Supply System and include spill management infrastructure to protect surface water quality.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 89 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline
Timing Subject D&C O&M Objective Performance Criteria Performance Requirements Activities Activities
Hazardous Protect Manage, store, handle and Comply with the Performance Criteria. Materials beneficial uses dispose any hazardous Develop and implement methods and management systems (including and of air, land, substances and dangerous contingency plans) that: Dangerous water, human goods in accordance with Limit the on-site and on-vessel storage and/or use of hazardous Goods and relevant policies, regulations substances and dangerous goods environmental and guidelines including the Manage hazardous materials and dangerous goods to avoid health, from the Victorian Workcover environmental damage impacts of Authority and Australian Install bunds (if appropriate) and take precautions to reduce the risk hazardous Standard AS1940 Storage of spills entering the stormwater drainage system materials & and Handling of Flammable Seek to contain any spills captured by the stormwater drainage dangerous and Combustible Liquids, system goods. EPA Best Practice Provide for management of hydrocarbon spills Environmental Management – Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (1996) and EPA Publication 347 – (Bunding Guidelines).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 91 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Timing Subject D&C O&M Objective Performance Criteria Performance Requirements Activities Activities
Site Restore pre- All disturbed land Progressively and prior to its disturbance, conduct pre-construction Rehabilitati construction progressively reinstated: surveys of the land within 50 metres of the Project Area to be disturbed. on land quality and In the case of the Develop a rehabilitation plan with each private landowner. uses. Desalination Plant, to Develop a rehabilitation plan to address as applicable: the standards agreed Site protection and site preparation with the State Planting design including plant densities relative to EVC benchmarks In the case of all other Source of planting stock private land directly Post-planting maintenance affected by the Project Develop a rehabilitation plan with the public land manager to address as Activities, as agreed applicable: with private land owner Site protection and site preparation In the case of public Planting design including plant densities relative to EVC benchmarks land, as agreed with Source of planting stock the public land Post-planting maintenance manager Identify areas where there is a risk of subsidence, and develop construction approaches to mitigate the risk. Where revegetation is to take place, any revegetation works in accordance with Native Vegetation, Revegetation Planting Standards, DSE 2006. Reinstatement works should seek to avoid or minimise settlement of backfill along the Transfer Pipeline and Power Supply corridors.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 92 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 7. Conclusions
The desalination Transfer Pipeline is approximately 85 km in length from the Desalination Plant to the Melbourne water supply system via Cardinia Reservoir. An assessment of the waterway crossing for the Transfer Pipeline alignment (Rev E) has included an assessment of the existing conditions and potential impacts at the waterway crossings, primarily associated with the construction of the Transfer Pipeline. The Transfer Pipeline alignment crosses through seven main catchments and will cross 100 waterways, of which 17 are named waterways and 8 are named drains. Waterways within these catchments have undergone significant alteration as a result of land clearance and reclamation. Agricultural and urban landuses have enhanced sediment and contaminant levels within many of these waterways. The Western Port study (CSIRO Land and Water, 2003) indicated that both the Bunyip and Lang Lang catchments contribute significant amounts of sediment to Western Port each year. In addition Toomuc Creek, Deep Creek, Cardinia Creek and Powlett River exceeded SEPP guidelines for turbidity or suspended solids indicating that these catchments do receive some significant sediment inputs. IRC and ISC scores indicate that generally waterways are within moderate to poor condition. An exception is the Bass River which, while generally in moderate condition, has pockets of good condition.
A specific Risk Assessment (Environmental Risk and Impact Assessment) has been undertaken for the waterway crossings in accordance with the consistent methodology applied throughout the Project. This assessment was initially applied at a broad level that has been included within the overall risk register for the Project. The key risks for the Transfer Pipeline component of the Project are associated with the construction phase activities for the Transfer Pipeline works across the waterways. The construction methodologies considered are trenching through the waterway or tunnel pipe jacking under the waterways. The typical potential impacts associated with these construction methods have been outlined.
In considering the existing conditions assessment and impacts from the construction methods, an assessment has also been applied at a site-specific level for each identified waterway crossing focusing on risks associated with erosion/sedimentation and flooding only. The approach has been to determine a consequence assessment for the erosion and flooding impacts, and to then assign a likelihood rating to the occurrence of the impact at the assigned consequence level. The preliminary consequence level for the erosion (Environmental) and flooding (Social) impacts at each waterway crossing considered the assessment of the existing conditions of the waterway crossing locations and overall systems as follows:
9 The waterway and water quality conditions of the receiving waterway systems (including Western Port Bay) in a broad context as documented in the Regional River Health Strategies for the CMA’s; 9 Geomorphic classification in terms of type of waterway and status of the current stability, and location within catchment and overall catchment area; and
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 93 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 9 The amenity and impact on the community in terms of flooding. The preliminary likelihood ratings assigned to the consequence has been determined by considering the following:
9 Geomorphologic characterisation of the waterways including stream processes and susceptibility to erosion, including interpretation of channel slope and geometric features based on aerial photos and topographic information; 9 Hydrologic interpretation of some of the designated waterways in terms of seasonally varying flows and design peak flows (where stream flow information is available); and 9 Site conditions. Soil degradation is considered for the purposes of this project to include bed, bank and floodplain erosion potential. Further assessment of the risks associated with soil degradation including, acid sulphate soils, compaction, sedimentation, slope failure, subsidence and soil erodability is considered within Rosengren (2008). The proformas prepared for each waterway crossing has provided the basis of the risk assessment and determination of the risk rating. In drawing conclusions from the risk assessment for the Transfer Pipeline at the waterway crossings, this has led to the recommendation of the appropriate construction methodology as outlined below: 9 An assessment of the existing conditions of the waterways and determination of the risk ratings derived from the consequence levels and likelihood ratings and subsequent derived risk rating considering the following: – Findings from field inspections at each crossing location including observations of stream processes and key features; – Findings from and integration with other specialist studies including (but not limited to) Flora and Fauna (Aquatic ecology), Geotechnical and Groundwater; – Subsequent advice and feedback from relevant specialists and responsible authorities; 9 Based on known available information, in considering both construction methodologies the pipe jacking approach typically results in an equivalent or lower risk ratings compared to the trenching methodology for both flooding and erosion impacts. It is noted this general conclusion may be altered by the additional information as it becomes available prior to design documentation and construction (i.e. Geotechnical information at the sites); 9 In considering the practical implications of both construction methods and on the basis of the risks associated with trenching being greater than or equivalent to the pipe jacking methodology. Therefore the interpretation of the risk assessment associated with the trenching methodology in accordance with the following has determined the appropriate construction methodology as summarised below: – Where the associated risk for trenching has been assessed as low, trenching construction methods are deemed to be acceptable;
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 94 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline – Where the associated risk for trenching has been has been assessed as medium, the construction methodology will be in accordance with the following: – Pipe Jacking, if the implementation of additional mitigation measures does not reduce the risk; – Trenching, where implementation of specific mitigation measures can reduce the risk. It is noted the Project Company will need to demonstrate mitigation controls and rehabilitation methods and site management mitigation controls in accordance with methods outlined to reduce the rating; and – Where the associated risk has been assessed as high to critical, pipe jacking is the preferred and recommended construction method. For trenching the application of site specific mitigation measures for the relevant waterway crossings are outlined where appropriate in the summary proformas (Appendix D). It is expected that local issues or processes identified pre-construction may also lead to other additional mitigation measures more specific to the individual waterway crossing. It is noted the Project Company will need to demonstrate mitigation controls and rehabilitation methods and site management mitigation controls in accordance with methods outlined to reduce the risk. For the nominated locations for pipe jacking, there may be some waterways where rehabilitation associated with trenching could be combined with whole-of-reach bed and bank rehabilitation and enhancement. As indicated, there are also some locations where if the alignment is moved, the risk could potentially reduce and trenching may become acceptable. The consideration of the opportunities in consultation with the authority may influence the outcome on the accepted construction methodology.
General Through consultation with Melbourne Water Corporation and West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority it is understood that the Project Company will be required to he undertake a site-specific assessment in coordination with the responsible authority once the alignment and details are finalised. The aim of site specific assessment with representatives from the CMA is to agree on the most practical approach in relation to construction within close proximity to waterways to meet the overall objectives in relation to the management of their waterways and the requirements as part of a Works on Waterways permit. In working through a risk assessment for each waterway appropriate site management controls and mitigation measures have been identified. These will need to continue to be developed prior to construction across waterways. To confirm the recommendation for an acceptable construction method at each crossing location and appropriate constraints for the construction easement width the following will need to be considered: 9 Conclusions from other specialist studies including (but not limited to) Flora and Fauna (Aquatic ecology), Geotechnical, Cultural heritage and Groundwater; and 9 Subsequent advice and consultation with relevant specialists and responsible authorities (in particular the Catchment Management Authorities).
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 95 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline The development of more site-specific controls and mitigation measures in conjunction with the CMAs will be required for preparing works on waterway permits applications prior to construction. Assessments in this report have been developed using design concept based on the current Project description (Version 9.0) and the current alignment (Rev E). The findings and recommendations contained in this report should only be used by suitably qualified and informed professionals.
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 96 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 8. References
APIA (2005) Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines, Australian Pipeline Industry Association Ltd., October 2005 Biosis Research (2008) Desal Pipeline Existing Conditions & Impact Assessment, Wonthaggi to Cranbourne, Victoria, June 2008 Cardinia Shire Council (2007). Toomuc Creek Bushland Reserve Masterplan. Available From: http://www.cardinia.vic.gov.au/ CSIRO Land and Water (2003). The Western Port sediment study, [Online], (25 July 2008), Available From: http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2003/Western_Port_Sediment_ Study-Integration_and_Summary.pdf Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) (2008b), Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse, [Online], (24 Jul. 08), Available from:
DSE (1991), Guidelines for Stabilising Waterways - Standing Committee on Rivers and Catchments, Victoria, August 1991 DSE (2003), Western Port Ramsar Site Strategic Management Plan, Department of Sustainable Environment, July 2003 DSE (2006) Revegetation Planting Standards: A guide to establishing native vegetation for net gain accounting, Department of Sustainability and Environment Melbourne, 2006 DSE (2007a), Technical Guidelines for Waterway Management, 2007 DSE (2008a) Website of Department of Sustainable Environment; www.dse.vic.gov.au. Earth Tech (2008). Geomorphic Overview of Waterways in the Bass River Catchment. Melbourne Water, April 2008. Environment Protection Act 1970 s 16 (Waters of Victoria) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998), The Health of Streams in the Western Port Catchment, EPA Publication 601, [Online], (25 July 2008), Available from:
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 97 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline EPA (2002), Port Phillip Bay Water Quality: Long-Term Trends in Nutrient Status and Clarity, 1984 – 1999, Publication 806, June 2002, [Online], (31 July 2008), Available from: http://epanote2.epa.vic.gov.au/EPA/Publications.nsf/2f1c2625731746aa4a256c e90001cbb5/ee7555a3f6197f2eca256b350011b929/$FILE/806.pdf EPA (1991), Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control, Publication 275, May 1991 EPA (1996), Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites, Publication 480, December 1996 EPA (1998) The Health of Streams in the Western Port Catchment, Publication 601, February 1998 Esso Australia Pty Ltd (2004). Bass Strait Environment Plan, December 2004, [Online], (31 July 2008), Available from: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DPI/nrenmp.nsf/LinkView/DC9A03FBF4D002EDCA25747 A000292168B3DA072DA032386CA2573DF001C56C6/$file/EP_Vic_L10.pdf GHD (2007a) Supplementary Report on Geology, Geomorphology and Waterway Crossings, November 2007 Melbourne Water (2001) The Health of the Lang Lang River (Report prepared by Waterways Group, Melbourne Water), Melbourne
Melbourne Water (2003), Guidelines for Development within the Koo Wee Rup Flood Protection District, Melbourne Water, 2003 Melbourne Water (2006), Melbourne Water Social and Environmental Data 2005/2006 Rivers and creeks water quality monitoring, [Online], (25 Jul. 08), Available from:
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 98 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Melbourne Water (2008a) Waterways Water Quality Strategy: A Melbourne Water strategy to improve water quality in the Port Phillip and Westernport region Melbourne Water Website (2008b), Website of Melbourne Water, www.melbournewater.com.au, 2008 Planning and Environment Act 1987 sect 12 Rosengren, N (1984). Sites of Geological and Geomorphological Significance in Westernport Bay Catchment. Publication number 401, Ministry for conservation, Victoria, Environmental Studies Series. Melbourne, Prepared for the Environmental Studies Division, Ministry for Conservation, Victoria. Department of Geography, University of Melbourne. Rosengren, N. (2008). Desalination Project Transfer Pipeline. Impact and Risk Assessment: Geology, Geomorphology and Acid Sulphate Soils Sandery, P.A. (2005). Towards an understanding of the flushing of Bass Strait, Presented at the Australian Institute of Physics 16th Biennial Congress 2005, [Online], (31 July 2008), Available from: http://aipcongress2005.anu.edu.au/Sandery_PA_AIP_AMOS_CD1.pdf
SKM (2001). Guidelines for assessment of Applications for Permits and Licences for Works on Waterways. SRW Website (2007), Website of Southern Rural Water, www.srw.com.au, 2007 State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP)(Waters of Victoria) Gazetted Wallbrink, P., J., Olley, J.M. & Hancock, G.J. Olley, J.M., Hughes, A., P, P, I., Hunt, D., Rooney, G., Coleman, R. & Stevenson, J. (2003). The Western Port sediment study. Canberra, CSIRO Consultancy report. Water Act 1989 div 4 part 10 Water Act 1989 s 188
West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (2007a) http://www.wgcma.vic.gov.au West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (2007b) West Gippsland Regional Catchment Strategy West Gippsland Regional River Health Strategy (2005) West Gippsland Regional Catchment Strategy
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project 99 Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Appendix A Pipeline Waterway Map Series (30 pages)
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline 371,000 372,000 373,000
T 120 976 978 E 3 km 95 E R 1445 119 979 T MARY STREET S K 96 EE 283 R R E C K STATION STRE STATION STREET L E 687 A ET G I D W B R 974 977 509
357 2 km 313 973 601 5,730,000 5,730,000
K E E 730 R C D E H S 208 L
O 70
O
W
1459 POWLETT RIVER 105 1453
5 993 104
1427
103 337
M O 384 UTH 1 km 312 O F POWLETT ROAD POWLETT RIVER 5,729,000 5,729,000
POWLETT RIVER
210 544
758 761 48 763 30
458
15
528 336 759
LOWER POWLETT RO 405 5,728,000 5,728,000 765 A 474 D 01
371,000 372,000 373,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 01 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 369,000 370,000 371,000 372,000 961 110 521
692 522 467 678 338 454
6 km
RANC E ROAD 5,732,000 5,732,000
331
1452
OOLAMAI ROAD
429
TURNBULL-W 153
1436
279 37 697 DENSLEY ROAD 97
244 5 km
274 972 62 5,731,000 5,731,000 563
584 BASS HIGHWAY K EE CR GE 735 K ID
E R
E B R C D HE 894 LS O
O
W 95 4 km 565 976 30 96
283 M O U 975 T 120 H 978 O F P 3 km O W 119 L E T 15 T R 730 687 O A D 974 973 509
357 2 km 313 601 01 70 5 5,730,000 5,730,000 208 369,000 370,000 371,000 372,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 02 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 368,000 369,000 370,000 371,000 400 1110
1131 DENS
L EY ROAD
245
1108
1116 151 266 5,734,000 5,734,000 EM I 523 LY R O A D 8 km
FRANCIS ROAD 111 122
350
396
950 948
951 375
278 7 km
OAD 733 R 955 306
EWAY 5,733,000 5,733,000
RIDG 960 652 956 952 962 693
467 521
953 W
958 O
61 O
L 961 S 949 H 30 E D
C
R
110 E
E
K 678 338 692 -WOOLAMAI ROAD 15 522
ULL
454 D TURNB A O R
Y
6 km E
L
S
N
949 E
RANCE ROA D D 331 01 429
368,000 369,000 370,000 371,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 03 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 367,000 368,000 369,000 370,000 330 1117 859 582 11 km
243 468
939 935 1122 966 246
DENSLEY ROAD 679 1128 5,736,000 5,736,000 593 970 933 1109
303
1114 10 km
ROAD
KILCUNDA RIDGE 503
POWELL ROAD
WO
O L S H E
D
C 1120 R 624 E 500 E K
178 5,735,000 5,735,000
T
U
R
N
B
U
L
L
-
W
O
9 km O J C L HU A RCHIL L ROA D M
A
I
400 R 30 O
A
D 965 1110 1131
15
245
151 1108 01 266 367,000 368,000 369,000 370,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 04 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 368,000 369,000 370,000 11371136 1132
430 MCGRATH ROAD 121 902 469 50491 184 434 556 68 1 63 680 267 92 105 1135 725 351 59864 376179 3233 106726 67 599332 66 653 526 1123 431 627 432 116 128600 10729 14 km 117 404682 655218 13 km 123 65525 895 115 180269 268 626 862 219 896 5,738,000 5,738,000 728378 558 898 901 308 433 900 35331 30403 899 1130 TREW ROAD 3102 181 182402 625 352 11121124 897 11271118 723 114 559 11131126 1125 380 1119 1111 1115 12 km
113 1129
860 694 WOOLAMAI 1121 ROAD 311 3 628 185 527 183 34379 112 334
330 5,737,000 5,737,000 859
582
D A 1117 O R 468 I A M 30 L A OO -W L L U B N 243 R U 11 km T 1122
246 15 939 966
933 593 679 01
368,000 369,000 370,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 05 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 369,000 370,000 371,000 372,000
MA
P
LESON
RO 101 638 698
A
D 589 228 17 km 221 737 271 220 EDEN ROAD
530
CLEMATIS ROAD
72 736 98 LYN CHE ROAD
38 5,740,000 5,740,000 4
684 419
16 km
MCGRATH ROAD
1133
39
E MO BLU UN TA IN C R EEK 426
219 1134
1132 15 km 30 5,739,000 5,739,000 99 980
BASS ROAD
MACKAY ROAD 15
11371136 68 184
895 1135 1123 121 01 430 469 369,000 370,000 371,000 372,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 06 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 371,000 372,000 373,000 374,000 224 213 201 479 475 55 198 288 788 212 409 222 20 km 287
D
A
O
R
108 S
E
B
360 R
O
F
N
E
L G - 702 211 130 A 230 T 248 R U M L 531 440 A
MCKENZIE ROAD 535534 IVER 210 R 701 S S 209 A 421 B 1355 1347 13591357 1356 1346 237 1351 1352 19 km 1354 207 208 589 13491350 5,742,000 5,742,000
189 590
906
BASS RIVER 863 774
MCGRATH ROAD 713
904
GORG E CREEK
BASS RIVER 18 km 109 229 206 439 903
905 30 101 638 5,741,000 5,741,000
698 15
D 737
EDEN ROA W A T S O 228 D N
17 km AL R YSTO O 221 N-G A LEN F O D R BE S 01 R E O DEN R A 38 OAD 530 D 371,000 372,000 373,000 374,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 07 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 373,000 374,000 375,000 376,000 253 23 km 76
5,745,000 602 603 5,745,000
865 864
668
223 158
STANLEY ROAD 8 320 53 789 567
443 52 121 414 22 km 290 237 D 252 163 231 OA 637 R 162 ES 363 222 RB O EW F I EN NG GL L TA- A R N 201 MU 238 AL 9 E
B A 741 SS R IV E R 5,744,000 5,744,000 199 111
511 T EN 703 NE NT C RE E K SAWMILL RISE
21 km
536 734
94 G RAN TVIL LE-G LEN ALV IE R OAD 475
773
214 773 30 224
213 479 5,743,000 5,743,000 788 55 198 288 212 15 409 222 20 km 287 CANDOWIE RESERVOIR
108 702 360 130 702 01 531 373,000 374,000 375,000 376,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 08 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 375,000 376,000 377,000 1141 604 445 5,747,000 5,747,000
26 km 56
515 1138
1139 197
25 km 226 STEWART ROAD 227 254 197
ROAD UL PA 225
197 510 672 5,746,000 5,746,000 570
224 77 BAS S RIVER
D
A
O
R 24 km E I V L 237 642 A N E L -G E L IL V T N A R G 865
C
A
M
P
253 B E L L R O A D 30 76
603 ROAD
OCH-KERNOT
L
GRANTVILLE-GLEN ALVIE ROAD 15 23 km 5,745,000 5,745,000 602 864 668 158 238 789 SUCK LING ROAD 01 8 320 375,000 376,000 377,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 09 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 375,000 376,000 377,000 378,000 342 112 519 308 WO OD LE 307 IG 327 H 413 131 -S T H E 306 LIE 326 R R OAD 516 GRAFF ROAD
256 5,749,000 5,749,000 DUNBABBI N ROAD
305
304 28 km 141
325
1140
605
EDD EN ROAD 5,748,000 5,748,000 303
302
27 km 301
230 1141 D OA R FF 604 TO UN SH E TH 30
445 237 SCHIER 197
R 15 1138 O A 571 D
S
T
E
W
A
R
T
56 R R 5,747,000 5,747,000
O
E
A V D 515 I R S 01 A S B 165 375,000 376,000 377,000 378,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 10 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 376,000 377,000 378,000 379,000 C RE 322 E K 3831 321
11 320 31 km 291
54 517
319 164
482 5,751,000 5,751,000 1157 341
569 329 318 316 317 546 255
30 km
BERGMEIER RO AD
G
URDIES-ST HELIER ROAD
548
D A O R R IE L E H ST A- OR NY
717 700 5,750,000 5,750,000
328 309 519
12 102
545 29 km 44 30 547 643 704 342
OAD
R
T 112
R W 15 OO 308 DLE 413 IGH 256 -S STEWA T H 325 E 307 516 131 L IE R 327 R 306 O 326 AD FF ROAD GRA
1140 01 141 -ST HELIER ROAD WOODLEIGH
5,749,000 376,000 377,000 378,000 379,000 5,749,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 11 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 374,000 375,000 376,000 377,000 P E A C O 34 km C 667 K R 156 715 O A D 228 D 42 R A IN
PEACO CK ROA D
415 10 5,753,000 5,753,000
669
444
33 km
MOTTON ROAD 742
670
E N A L DY UR G DY R U H 32 km 5,752,000 5,752,000
CREEK 3831 ISLAND VIEW ROAD 54
11
BLAC KNEY ROAD K E N G T U R R O D A D IE S 323 - S 30 T
H E
L
I
E
BASS HIGHWAY R
R
O
A
D 322 164 321 517 15
320 291 31 km 482 341 569 01
374,000 375,000 376,000 377,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 12 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 373,000 374,000 375,000 663 418
401 341 318 317
RAYNER HOFF DRIVE
PEACOCK ROAD DRAIN
37 km
362
B
ASS HIGHWAY 5,755,000 5,755,000
441
361
42
480 36 km
324 340
BASS HIGHWAY
35 km 5,754,000 5,754,000
30 667 156
715
15
34 km 228
PEACOCK ROAD 670 01 PEACOCK 444 10 669 ROAD 373,000 374,000 375,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 13 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 372,000 373,000 374,000 375,000
407
476 157 406
392
40 km
405
421
RISE
IOTT 39 km
MARR BASS HIGHWA 389
Y
BAY ROAD
404 5,757,000 5,757,000
289 383
420 402 419
38 km
04
CREEK 25 663
B ASS 30 HIGH 318 5,756,000 5,756,000
RED BLUFF CREEK WAY
317 15 418 401 325 341
RAYNER HO FF DRIVE PEACOCK ROAD DRAIN 441 362 01
372,000 373,000 374,000 375,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 14 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 372,000 373,000 374,000
688 5,760,000 5,760,000
S O U T H G IP P S L A N D JETTY H LANE DRAIN IG H W AY
226
42 km
512 5,759,000 5,759,000 409 422 JETTY R OAD
420 251
WAY BASS HIGHWAY
BASS HIGH
41 km
30
408 5,758,000 5,758,000 15 476 407 392 157
4 0 406 5
CREEK 2 01 389 372,000 373,000 374,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 15 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 372,000 373,000 374,000 375,000
ADAMS CREEK
45 km 411 193 5,762,000 5,762,000
410
STANL AKE ROA D 103 A Y D A A M W S H
G C I R H E D E N K A SOUTH L BRANC S H P 442
P I
D G
A
H
O
T
R
U
S O
E S
L
T
T
E
K
44 km 716 5,761,000 5,761,000
239 393
T RI B OF ST ANL AKE S R OAD DR 30 AIN
688
43 km
HIGHWAY 15
SS HIGHWAY
BA BASS 5,760,000 5,760,000
226 01
372,000 373,000 374,000 375,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 16 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 372,000 373,000 374,000
861 314 532 223 7 TANKERTON STREET REET
481 666 HO ST 200 JEET 417 227 416 533 JERSEY STREET O 507 X F O TRESIZE COURT T R E D MC STATION S DON T STRE R JAM E 5,764,000 5,764,000 ALDS TR IE E STREET T E NELL S S T AC W R H E K IT S ROSEBERY ST E T T A SA B L 592 E LIS S Y T BUR A R E E Y STR T OLDBURY 770 GHW REET RU E E PERT STR T 6 STREET
PSLAND HI
117 GIP 636 EET 73 47 km 410 SOUTH 514
LANG LANG RIVER 633 634 635 630 631 632 E V I
RT ROAD R
665 D NPO
N
E WESTER L
L
U
C 413 740
394
ES ROAD 5,763,000 5,763,000 K
664 R 769
CLA
319 LOWER LANG LANG RIVER 566
E IPPSLAND HIGHWAY 412 U
G
N
E
V
A 46 km 513 H
SOUTH
G
U
424 O
R
O B S IN A 423 G 30
A N D I A ADAMS C A M R D S
D C REEK A R O E R E
K S 15 E S K O A U 193 L T N H A B 45 km T R S A 411
N
C
H 5,762,000 5,762,000
01 103 372,000 373,000 374,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 17 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 371,000 372,000 373,000 374,000
709 51 km
RAILWA 411
Y ROAD 385 41 660 100 155 478 SOU OAD TH E R
GIPPSLAND HIGHWA ERMEAD CALD
Y
5,766,000 1615 5,766,000 508
110 50 km 428 COLEMANS ROAD
359
190 427
1611
LANG RIV G ER S AN OUTH GIPPSLAN L ER W LO
49 km D HIGHWAY 426
D 477
NT ROA 1614 5,765,000 5,765,000 1612 SETTLEME LANG LANG RIVER 532 LANG LANG RIVER 1609
425 314 223 R 1610 E IV R 30 G 1613 N A L 861 G 48 km N A L LANG LANG RIVER R E W LO 533
117 481 15 MCDON 200 7 ALDS TRAC 666 227 EET
K ET E JEETHO STR R T S 770 LANG LANG RIVER Y 417 416 507 73 JERSE 592 01
371,000 372,000 373,000 374,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 18 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 370,000 371,000 372,000 186 54 km 221699 207 588712 529 40 MONOMEITH DRAIN 275 629 71 RAILWAY ROAD 124407 459586 71 MONOMEITH ROAD
587 686
220 5,768,000 5,768,000 53 km 247
EITH DRAIN
MONOM 738 533 585 504 532
EDENS ROAD 406
MONOMEITH DRAIN 531 503
MONOMEITH DRAIN 530 412 710 711 502
52 km
529 385 501 5,767,000 5,767,000 SOUTH GIPPSLAND HIGHWAY 714
709 30
660
SOU 411 TH GIPPSLAND HIGHWA 15
51 km
DS ROAD Y 41 155 100
MCDONAL
478 01 1615
370,000 371,000 372,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 19 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 369,000 370,000 371,000
776 470
284 IN A R D L 382 AL TF OU K OC LL YA
Y 509 A L EK L O 508 C K C R E YALLOCK CRE E K
56 km
K C C R E 277
O E L K K L E A 5,770,000 5,770,000 E Y R 775 YALLOCK C
187
381
SYBELLA AVENUE
207
55 km 526
SO IN UT H 186 A GI R PP D SL L AN L D A H F IG H UT W A O Y K C O 5,769,000 5,769,000 L L 188 A Y 30 777 YALLOCK CREEK 207 534 506
RAIL 54 km 221699 15 EE WAY 588712 529 ROAD YALLOCK CREEK & LEV 40 UT 27571629 587 K C 124407 686 459586 585406 EITH ROAD YALLOC 71 ONOM M 220 01
369,000 370,000 371,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 20 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 368,000 369,000 370,000 371,000
N 355 512 355 59 km 281 BETHUNE 511 435 S RO BOUNDARY DRAIN ROAD DRAIN ROAD MCDONALDS DRAIN ROAD IN 386 A ORTH WEST CATCH DRAI D N MAIN 695
272 510 564 AIN DR GRAYS DRAIN DE SOUTH EAST CATCHMENTNHA DRA MCDONALDS CATCH DRAIN MS ROAD DRAIN
285 BUNYIP RIVER MAIN
AIN AD 560 RO 5,772,000 5,772,000 154 RUP-LONGWARRY
O WEE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY DR 58 km KO 661
D ENHA
MS RO 125 209 276
AD 778 STREET
MOODY E IV R D H IS F
K
C
A L MAUGHAN STREET
B
HENRY S
SI TR 776 EET M S
LANE
GARDNE R S SUPREME DRAIN TREET LEY ROAD 284 TOWN TFALL STATION S CLOSE 470 TREE T JOHN 57 km YALLOCK OU ET 30 5,771,000 5,771,000 STRE STREET TER ROAD SI MICKLE ROS ICKE ROAD
382
CHARLES STREET 15 SYBELLA AVENUE COURT GE AN GR 277
B 187 K A E L I E U L R YALLOCK CUT & LEVEE K E C E Y K 187 509 C C B O O O L LEVARD L U U A 01 R 381 Y
T 382 508 368,000 369,000 370,000 371,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 21 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 367,000 368,000 369,000 370,000
192 139
TCH DRAIN
N 358 45 561
MCGREGORS CA IMBECKS DRAI 249 H BL 129 BLAD AD ENSE DN ISLAN S D D RD D R R ISLAND ROADRAIN AIN RAIN MCDONALDS CATCH DRAIN OAD 140 339
IN ROAD A 61 km 495
DS DR 516 L ROAD R
HNE 104 D 118 FEC
MCDONA
AIN ROA
MC GREGORS DRAIN 607 HNSONS DRAIN IN JO 5,774,000 5,774,000 ALDS DR DRA 612 AIN MCDON 206 194 VER M P RI
BUNYI COCHRANES DRAIN
324 273 CH DRAIN
CAT
CDONALDS DRAIN 3043335
M 657 SWAINS DRAIN CDONALDS 258 M 515 74
MCKAYS DRAIN 60 km 514 513
662 DALEYS ROAD DALEY'S RD DRAIN 93 354
KOO WEERUP ROAD 535 152 30 IN 355 RA 5,773,000 5,773,000 OUNDARY D B MCKAYS DRAIN RN
SOUTHE 281 512 15 MCKAYS 59 km DRAIN MCKA T CATCHMENT DRAIN YS ROAD S IN DRAIN ROAD 511 BOUNDARY DRAIN ROAD EA MA 435
H WEST CATCHSOUTH DRAIN 386 RT 695 GRAYS DRAIN NO 564 272 01
367,000 368,000 369,000 370,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 22 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 367,000 368,000 369,000 370,000 5,777,000 5,777,000
OAD
R
OAD
AIN R
EE RUP
W
S DR O
KO
AIN ROAD
ONALD
D 196 MC
N 304
211 CDONALDS DR
M
282
GREGORS520 DRAI 691 MC 217 705 119 RAIN 65 km 696 539 43
427 64 km BALLARTO RO AD WEST DRAIN
MCDONALDS517 CATCH D
356 MCDONALDS DRAIN 30 729 36 5,776,000 5,776,000 BALL ARTO ROAD BALLARTO ROAD EAST DRAIN 63 km 538 537
35 RS CATCH DRAIN
REGO
MCG 471
MCDONALDS CATCH DRAIN
658 69 30
62 km NALDS CATCH DRAIN
MCDO
139 192 RAIN 15 5,775,000 5,775,000
HIMBECKS D
D OA R R E 358 N H 561 C 45 E F 01 129 367,000 368,000 369,000 370,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 23 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 364,000 365,000 366,000 367,000 RYTHDALE ROAD SOLDIERS RD WEST DR 5,778,000 5,778,000
FOWLER ROAD SOLDIERS RD WEST DR IN 784 SOLDIERS ROAD
EK DRA
EP CRE
LOWER DE DEEP CREEK CATCH DRAIN 782
78 ROAD
WENN 387
463 5,777,000 5,777,000
639 HAGELTHORNES 601 550 DRAIN 525 524 523 115 25
50 528 83 527 577 541 67 km 540 196 545 543 583 544 542 68 km 211
ROAD 66 km 779 HOBSON 691
781 65 km BALLA RTO ROAD
BALLARTO ROAD WEST DRAIN 785 786
30 780 5,776,000 5,776,000 RNES DRAIN
THO N I
A
R
D LOWER GUM SCRUB CREEK LOWER TOOMUC CREEK HAGEL 15 S D
R A
O O
R G
P E
U R
R G
E
C E
M W
O
O
K
783 01
364,000 365,000 366,000 367,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 24 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 362,000 363,000 364,000
1498
1505 1494 1490
RYTHDALE ROAD 49
DRAIN 5,778,000 5,778,000 CH
AT 1491 1506 EEK C FOWLER RO AD
641 EP CR
DE
K DRAIN ossible 484 ooster Pump 453 CA tation RDI DINIA ROAD 71 km NIA CATCH DRAIN CAR
ENN ROAD
W
LOWER DEEP CREE 591 493
494 LOWE 78
R GUM SC
568 387
RUB CREEK 622
621 EK 70 km
671 240 43 602 229 603 CARDINIA CATCH DRAIN 161 69 km 446 640 483 5,777,000 5,777,000
LOWER TOOMUC CRE
550 601 525 50 524 523
DALMO BALLAR 13 TO R OAD
DIXONS ROAD RE ROAD
OAD 30 545 543 544 542 68 km
CARDINIA CATCH DRAIN
BEAZLEY R CARDINIA DRAIN 779
15 AIN 785
780 786
EST DALMORE RD DR 01
W
362,000 363,000 364,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 25 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 359,000 360,000 361,000 362,000 623 75 1493 5,779,000 5,779,000
C A R D IN I 1501 A
C A 73 km T BOULD ROAD C H
D R A I N 1495 460 AD 562 O
606
LYNCH R
605 1498
604
1494
CARDINIA C 1490
ATCH DRAIN 49
72 km
453 594 1491 5,778,000 5,778,000 685
484 CARDIN 1506 IA DRAIN POUND ROAD 641
492 390 316 Possible Booster Pump 493
398 Station DINIA ROAD 71 km
CAR
391
494 591 229 240 568 43 622
671 30 640 5,777,000 5,777,000 BALLART O ROAD
R
D
H
C
T 15 TION ROAD
A A
C T CATCH DR
T
N RD DRAIN ES S
A
D
E DALMO T W
T
E
E
TOORADIN ST L Y ROA RE ROAD E TOORADI N I
ZL N I
DIXONS ROAD
D
BEA A
R
ORADIN INL 01
O
O
TO
T 359,000 360,000 361,000 362,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 26 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 357,000 358,000 359,000
L O W
E 261 R
C
A
R 428 D I N
I 659 A
C R E E K
326
606 5,780,000 5,780,000
76 km
305
595
90 S ROAD RMACK MCCO
260
75
689
75 km
P ATTERSONS ROAD 349
74 km 624
562 5,779,000 5,779,000 M U D 623 D Y G A T E S D R A IN C 460 E N T R A L B 143 R M UD DY 30 G POUND ROAD A R TE B S D T R S A A 605 IN E
W IN E S A T R D B ES R AT G Y 594 ELLS ROAD D 15 B D U M
C L Y 685 D E C R E E K 01
357,000 358,000 359,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 27 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 355,000 356,000 357,000 358,000 160
THOMPSONS ROAD
491 538 608 321
79 km 292 607 5,782,000 5,782,000
212
SMITHS LANE
367
78 km 123
537 397
262
POUND RO
HARDY S ROAD AD 5,781,000 5,781,000
77 km
ROAD 30
261 TUCKERS 428 326
659 15
01 90
355,000 356,000 357,000 358,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 28 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 354,000 355,000 356,000
749 E T 549 620 D R 436 549 731 457 A 286 U
R
225 O 437 A 82 km 490 C
436 437 P
Y 520 191 I HOLLYROOD DRIVE 364 L E
L N 46 142 518 I B O
A H
TI-TREE CREEK D.S. R
R
I K GRICES ROAD 205
159
213 203 17 5,784,000 5,784,000
619 81 km
D A 610 609 195
TI-TREE CREEK D.S.
BERWICK-CRANBOURNE RO
315
SOLDIERS ROAD 160 690
80 km 5,783,000 5,783,000
THOMPSONS ROAD
30
POUND RO
491 AD 15 321 538 292 608
79 km 01
354,000 355,000 356,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 29 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. 354,000 355,000 356,000
E T
E V I E IT N V D U E I G R BASTON RC T PENDULUM PLACE C I C R K R 756 D U I E T S F N D IN L Y DO O WARD ROAD H E N G L A W C N M W O S I ILLG E R E RO V A T M R Y A H C M B F E N M CLOCKTOWER COURT C E I I M E O R T E L O M R R R E C SY E C D O'SHEA'S RD D.S. DE E N D H DRIVE Y R E M R D E L F I GREAVES ROAD H V L R S I E C S DRIV V A G 757 O TU E R S E C U HEDGELEY DRIVE U A G RIVIERA DRIVEY R U D T A E L COURT R SFIE N EA LD DRIV Y E DR IVE RT GLENMAGGIE CLOSE Y OU WAY A Y C N TR O E RDLE W TAL N T ESSE E V ELL V G I D DA N YA INGA COURT I R A ARISA CRESCENT IT 756 L O D M ST L R M R AHAN CLOSE Y A EN O BREW R L R G H S R HART U SMERE DRIVE H VE O I SHEA ROAD 756 B G R RD CARRICK STER STREET R PLACE W O E E WAY V 84 km N E
HAYM DRIV 5,786,000 5,786,000 AN RO AD L AKE MERODIAN CIRCU WO R BOULEVA OD PL SKYLINE ACE RIVE TE ECCA 755 D CLENDON STR E CR EET L N EST A HAVEN BOULEV JEMB W E AR TO RIVE GANAWAY D N GROVE E REET C D BRIDGEWAHA RIVE LA VERBRACK DRIVE L TI-TREE CREEK D.S. P IN ORTHGATE DRIVE C UCUMB S O S E LN N A E V D ST 766 E O NUE HGATE D IV
M BERWICK SPRINGS T UT K E EMBLING STREE O A E T S O
R LL PLACE NT DR T T MALLAR E N S E E ST VINCE NT C S TYR E OURA C ESC S ATH O 755 U JAMIESON WAY R E M UR L NT P C R T C C LAC D RIDGEMO H U ILLG E O RO V A E V O 767 VE
W
LIFAX DRIVE R HIGH 768 DRI TABAK COURT A CLYDE ROAD VALE CRES HA DEN D CENT AND ISON COU E G C L LIA AMIE PLACE RT ENVIEW WGR COURT RISE VIE D STREET R T ACE LYNCH E I COLLINS W L - N AY E SE T O P 755 LO R C EE D KERF C CE ROAD TREET REE IL K CLOS R D MOONDARRA DR INT PLACE LA 83 km P P
. A ONT
S IVE NVIEW PO ING
W TI MEADOWL SU -TREE CREEK D. ANDS 754 ALEXIA IRV WAY BELM VIE DRIVE MARIJA CRESCEN MYOORA CHASE BOUL T D EVAROCONNELL S R D
OW SKYLINE WAY S. NFL ER PLA SU CE MONTPE
EET LIER DRIVE 618 753 787 PARKVIS TA PL ACE NLY BOULEVA
MONARCH ROAD STREET VE I
DUKE STR BER ANGELIQ R 739 UE STREET COURT AVENUE D
S I H 5,785,000 5,785,000
TT
E
OLD INKERMAN WURUND JERI BO MM UL ATKINSON DRIVE EVARD E 753 NORWIC T IANDRA COURT I E -T PR LL S R A EMIE E N DRIVE R DR E CRE C 286 O IVE EK D L 518 . C 437 S RADE . 549 E 461 457 R IVE S A OLDIE 47 R F 731 D
DANDELIO 436 613 N MARB ASHBY DRIVE 323 A 749 ELIA DRIVE 437 437 RS F E AVENUE OD GLA 286 A COURT SSCOCKS ROAD 57951 O ROA 436 437 620 366 KIRRABILLI PA 549 MISTY CLOSE D FLORID
SAUL AVENUE SUREW 225 82 km STANHOP 30 490 LAKESIDE D LEI RIVE 520 191 HOLLYROOD T 142 364 518 DRIVE 46 I-TREE CREEK D.S. HONEY COURT GRICES ROAD
205
RNE ROAD 15
PO 159 UND ROAD 213 17
ERWICK-CRANBOU B 203
01
354,000 355,000 356,000 Job Number 31-22421-06 1:10,000 Legend Dept of Sustainability & Environment Chainage (km) BassGas Raw Gas Pipeline Watercourses Revision E 050 100 200 300 400 The Desalination Project Date June 2008 Current Transfer Pipeline Alignment (30m) Parcel Waterway Crossing Rev E Meters Transfer Pipeline in Existing Pipe Track Road Sensitive Waterway Crossing Waterway Crossing Proposal Pipeline Alignment Map Projection: Transverse Mercator Current Transfer Pipeline Corridor (400m) Horizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Grid: Map Grid of Australia, Zone 55 Sheet 30 of 30 Appendix A
G:\31\22421\CADD\GIS\Projects\PE13-Hydrology and Hydraulics\MXD files\003b_A3_MB_WWay_Crossing22_PipeE_Aerial_30Sheets.mxd Data source: DSE; GHD; VicMap. Created by: A Lovell 8/180 Lonsdale St Melb VIC 3000 Australia T 61 3 8687 8000 F 61 3 8687 8111 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au © 2008. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD (LEGAL ENTITY) and DATA SUPPLIER(S) make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA SUPPLIER(S) cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason. Appendix B Water Quality Assessment for the Proposed Transfer Pipeline
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Appendix B
Water Quality Analysis, for Waterway Crossings of the Transfer Pipeline Route
Water Quality Indicators The following relevant parameters were compared with SEPP guidelines for the purposes of this assessment:
Turbidity Turbidity is an indication of the cloudiness of water caused by the presence of fine suspended matter such as clay, silt and other microscopic particles (NHMRC and NRMC 2004). Turbidity is a measurement of the light scattering property of water, and the degree of scattering is dependent on the amount, size and composition of the suspended matter (NHMRC and NRMC 2004).
Elevated turbidity is considered an indication of poor water quality as the cloudiness inhibits light penetration through the water and reduces aquatic ecosystem productivity.
Suspended Solids Suspended Solids (SS) is a measurement of the amount of suspended particulate matter present in a water sample. SS measurement is a quantitative analysis of the volume of SS in solution whereas, turbidity is a qualitative measurement of the effect SS has on transmission of light through water.
As with elevated turbidity levels, high SS concentration may be considered an indication of poor water quality as it also correlates with a reduction in ability of light to penetrate the water. Further, SS levels often correlate with nutrient concentrations, as some nutrients, such as phosphorous enter a waterway via adsorption to particulate matter that is transported to the system.
Aesthetic appeal is also reduced by high suspended sediments.
Eschericha coli The main sources of Eschericha coli (E.coli) are usually municipal sewage discharges, overflows from septic tank systems and animal waste from urban and agricultural areas (CCME 2002). These organisms are often found within the gut of warm blooded animals and can make their way to rivers and creeks during storm events as surfaces are washed clean and sewage systems can be put under stress. These organisms do not persist for long outside of a host as a result, their presence is an indicator of a recent spill event.
Nutrients – Nitrogen and Phosphorous Nutrients are important for aquatic ecosystem function, however elevated concentrations can cause poor waterway health.
Excess nitrogen and phosphorus within water bodies can be the result of fertiliser application within the catchment or faecal matter from stock. Victorian streams tend to have a balance of N and P. When one of these nutrients are exceeded algal growth can occur which can alter instream habitats or blue-green algae may form which can be toxic to humans, animals and birds inhabiting the water (EPA 1998).
Lead Lead (Pb) is a heavy metal and is mined widely throughout the world (NHMRC and NRMC 2004). Lead is used in the production of a broad range of goods including lead acid batteries, solder, alloys, cable sheathing, paint pigments, rust inhibitors and lead compounds are used as anti-knock and lubricating compounds in gasoline (NHMRC and NRMC 2004). High concentrations of lead in water can be harmful to organisms. This concern is highlighted by the low limit for exceedance in the SEPP water quality guidelines.
Zinc Zinc (Zn) is a widely distributed mineral that occurs in small amounts in rocks, commonly as zinc sulfide. It is also used as a coating to prevent corrosion of iron and steel products, and for brass manufacture (NHMRC and NRMC 2004). The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC and NRMC 2004) state that in surface and ground waters, the concentration of zinc from natural leaching is usually less than 0.01 mg/L. Notably, this concentration exceeds the SEPP guideline of less than 0.005 mg Zn/L for Western Port waterways.
Water Quality Results and Analysis For each waterway sampled a variety of microbial and physicochemical water quality parameters were analysed. For these parameters guideline trigger values exist that can be used as reference levels to assess the water quality. APPENDIX B outlines the relevant Waters of Western Port Catchment SEPP guidelines.
Only long-term statistics have been analysed using the Melbourne Water long term monitoring data and the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse (VWR) data sets. For a more detailed characterisation of the waterway baseline conditions temporal and spatial variation in water quality may be significant.
Melbourne Water and VWR Water Quality Results The following observations regarding the long term water quality monitoring results have been made for each waterway (with reference to the table below):
Bunyip All four sites exceed SEPP guidelines for TN and Zn; Labertouche and Longwarry North sites exceed SEPP guidelines for Suspended Solids; The Koo-Wee-Rup Rd site exceeds SEPP guidelines for Turbidity and TP; and The Longwarry North and Iona sites exceed SEPP guidelines for E. Coli.
Deep Creek All water quality parameters exceed SEPP guidelines, with the exception of Lead; and The maximum Turbidity and Suspended Solids measurements were reported at Deep Creek.
Lang Lang River Both sites exceed SEPP guidelines for TN, TP, E.Coli and Zinc; The South Gippsland Highway site also exceeds SEPP guidelines for Turbidity and Lead; and The South Gippsland Highway site reported the maximum Lead concentration of all sites monitored.
Eumemmerring Creek With the exception of Lead, all water quality parameters exceed SEPP guidelines for this site.
Toomuc Creek Both sites exceed SEPP guidelines for Turbidity, TN, TP and Zinc.
Cardinia Creek Both sites exceed SEPP guidelines for TN, TP and Zinc; The Upper Beaconsfield site also exceeds SEPP guidelines for Suspended Solids and The Ballarato Road site exceeds SEPP guidelines for Turbidity.
Bass River TN, TP, Lead and Zinc levels exceed SEPP guidelines; and The Bass River site reported the maximum Zinc concentration of all sites monitored.
Powlett River Both sites exceed SEPP guidelines for TN and TP; The downstream Wonthaggi site also exceeds SEPP guidelines for Turbidity; and The downstream Wonthaggi site reported the maximum Turbidity and Suspended Solids measurements of all sites monitored. The following observations have been made about the individual water quality parameters:
All waterways exceed SEPP guidelines for TN; All waterways exceed SEPP guidelines for Zinc; and
With the exception of the Bunyip Main Drain site at Iona, all sites exceed SEPP guidelines for TP. Key Water Quality Monitoring Results for Bunyip River, Deep Creek, Lang-Lang River, Eumemmerring Creek, Toomuc Creek, Cardinia Creek, Bass River and Powlett River sites.
Turbidity SS TN TP E. Coli Lead Zinc (NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (org/ 100ml) (mg/L) (mg/L)
SEPP ! <20^ <0.6^ <0.05^ ! ! ! <15^ <5.0 200^ <0.01^ <0.005^ Guidelines <5.0! <0.2! <0.03!
Water Quality Monitoring Site Median Median Max Max Median Max Max
SEPP Waterway Location Segment
North Labertouche Road, Northern Bunyip River* 9.0 5.0 1.16 0.045 45 0.002 0.014 Labertouche Hills
Downstream of Cannibal Crk, Northern Bunyip River* 13.5 7.5 0.88 0.045 260 0.002 0.008 Longwarry North Hills
South Bunyip Main Little Road, Iona Eastern 11.5 7.5 1.02 0.049 580 0.002 0.008 Drain* Rural
South Healesville Koo-Wee-Rup Road, Bunyip River* Eastern 21.0 9.5 1.28 0.110 170 0.003 0.015 Koo-Wee-Rup Rural
Lowlands Deep Creek* Ballarto Road, Rythdale and Phillip 102.5 67.0 3.97 1.200 290 0.006 0.034 Island Turbidity SS TN TP E. Coli Lead Zinc (NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (org/ 100ml) (mg/L) (mg/L)
South Lang-Lang Drouin-Poowong Road, Athlone Eastern 13.5 5.5 1.97 0.750 240 0.001 0.019 River* Rural
South Lang-Lang South Gippsland highway, Lang Eastern 18.0 9.0 1.72 0.180 220 0.100 0.250 River* Lang Rural
Eumemmerring Northern Worsley Road, Bangholme 20.0 11.0 2.30 0.230 240 0.006 0.160 Creek* Hills
South Toomuc Creek* Princes Highway, Pakenham Eastern 18.5 6.0 1.53 0.084 130 0.002 0.046 Rural
Lowlands Toomuc Creek* Ballarto Road, Rythdale and Phillip 22.5 13.5 1.65 0.082 85 0.003 0.018 Island
Chadwick Road, Upper Northern Cardinia Creek* 8.0 5.0 0.83 0.043 140 0.002 0.055 Beaconsfield Hills
Lowlands Cardinia Creek* Ballarto Road, Cardinia and Phillip 20.0 12.0 2.18 0.099 145 0.003 0.026 Island
South Bass River# Glen Forbes South Eastern 6.5 7.0 7.10 0.240 N/A 0.019 2.300 Rural
Powlett River# Foster Creek Junction South 5.0 4.0 8.60 0.840 N/A N/A N/A Eastern Turbidity SS TN TP E. Coli Lead Zinc (NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (org/ 100ml) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Rural
South Powlett River# Downstream Wonthaggi Eastern 16.0 15.0 12.01 3.000 N/A N/A N/A Rural
NOTES:
Data Source: *Melbourne Water (2006); #Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse; State Environmental Protection Policy Guidelines - Waters of Western Port and catchment - ^Segments: South Eastern Rural and Lowlands/Phillip Island; !Segment: Northern Hills
Indicates SEPP Guideline Exceedance
Bolding denotes Maximum of all data presented Appendix C SEPP Assessment of the Transfer Pipeline Alignment
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Appendix C State Environment Protection Policy Assessment of the Transfer Pipeline Alignment
The State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP)(Waters of Victoria) aims to help achieve sustainable surface waters by:
“Setting out the environmental values and beneficial uses of water that Victorians want, and the environmental quality required to protect them”, and
“Setting, within a 10 year timeframe, goals for protection agencies, businesses and communities and means by which they can be met”. For this document ‘beneficial uses’ are defined as a “…use of the environment which is conductive to public benefit, welfare, safety, health or aesthetic enjoyment and which requires protection from the effects of waste discharges.” In trying to protect these uses the SEPP (Waters of Victoria) notes that the variation of environmental quality of surface waters on a state-wide scale will mean that:
“Some beneficial uses are currently protected and will remain protected”;
“Some beneficial uses may not be fully attained in all segments within the 10-year lifetime of the [SEPP]. In these cases, the regional catchment and coastal management processes will set regional targets to be achieved over the [SEPP’s] life”; “Some beneficial uses in some surface waters may not be fully attained due to extensive environmental modification. This should be taken into account when developing and prioritising actions to improve environmental quality.” The SEPP provides a broad overarching policy framework for the protection of the surface waters of Victoria, but also includes a number of ‘Schedules’ and ‘Policies’ that focus in on specific waters or catchments to provide improved protection and/or rehabilitation of specific beneficial uses to these areas.
Relevant SEPP Components
Based on the transfer pipeline alignment and its associated waterway crossings, the following components of the SEPP are relevant when determining the beneficial uses and water quality objectives:
State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) – general document; ‘Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of Western Port Bay and Catchment‘ – addition to overall SEPP; ‘Insertion Schedule F6 – Waters of Port Phillip Bay’ - addition to overall SEPP; and ‘Policy Area No. W-28A (Waters of the Dandenong Valley)’ – an addition component of Schedule F6.
Segments of Surface Water Environments
In order to focus the environmental objectives on to the beneficial uses of specific area, the broad areas covered under the documents above have been separated in to policy areas or segments with varying beneficial uses. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the policy area or segment and SEPP component classification of all the waterway crossings along the transfer pipeline alignment (please note these classifications are approximate based on the small, black and white figures in the above mentioned SEPP components). Table 1: Classification of Waterway Crossings
Waterway Crossing No. SEPP Component Policy Area or Segment
103, 104, 105, 119, 120 State Environmental Protection Estuaries & Inlets Policy (Waters of Victoria) (Ultimate discharge to Bass Strait)
110, 122 State Environmental Protection Rivers & Streams – Cleared Hills & Policy (Waters of Victoria) Coastal Plains
(Ultimate discharge to Bass Strait)
112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 123, 124, Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of South Eastern Rural 121, 219, 220, 228, 229, 208, 230, Western Port Bay and Catchment (Ultimate discharge to ‘East Arm’ 212, 213, 214, 231, 223, 224, 225, part of Western Port) 226, 227, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 326, 327, 328, 329
319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 340, 341, Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of South Eastern Rural 418, 419, 420, 421, 405, 406, 407, Western Port Bay and Catchment (Ultimate discharge via ‘Lowlands & 408, 422, 410, 411, 423, 424 Phillip Island’ to ‘East Arm’ part of Western Port)
425, 426, 427, 428 Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of Lowlands and Phillip Island Western Port Bay and Catchment (Ultimate discharge to ‘East Arm’ part of Western Port)
529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 526, Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of South Eastern Rural 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 535, 514, Western Port Bay and Catchment (Ultimate discharge via ‘Lowlands & 515, 516, 536, 537, 538, 539 Phillip Island’ to ‘East Arm’ part of Western Port)
540, 541, 542, 543, 544, 545, 621, Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of Lowlands and Phillip Island 622 Western Port Bay and Catchment (Ultimate discharge to ‘East Arm’ of Western Port)
623, 624, 606 Insertion Schedule F8 – Waters of Lowlands and Phillip Island Western Port Bay and Catchment (Ultimate discharge to ‘Entrances and North Arm’ part of Western Port)
607, 608, 609, 619, 620, 618 Policy Area No. W-28A (Waters of Patterson River the Dandenong Valley) – which is a (Ultimate Discharge to ‘Inshore’ and component of Insertion Schedule F6 – ‘General’ part of Port Phillip Bay) Waters of Port Phillip Bay’ Beneficial Uses
Based on the primary classifications, Table 2 details the beneficial uses that need to be protected for each of the identified policy areas or segments. For beneficial uses of ultimate discharge points refer to actual legislative documents.
Table 2: Beneficial Uses
Policy Area or Segment Beneficial Uses Estuaries & Inlets Aquatic ecosystems: o Slightly to moderately modified Water suitable for o Primary contact recreation; o Secondary contact recreation; o Aesthetic enjoyment; o Indigenous cultural and spiritual values; o Non-indigenous cultural and spiritual values; o Aquaculture; o Industrial and commercial use; o Fish, crustacea and molluscs for human consumption. Rivers & Streams – Cleared Aquatic ecosystems: Hills & Coastal Plains o Slightly to moderately modified Water suitable for o Primary contact recreation; o Secondary contact recreation; o Aesthetic enjoyment; o Indigenous cultural and spiritual values; o Non-indigenous cultural and spiritual values; o Agriculture and irrigation; o Aquaculture; o Industrial and commercial use; o Human consumption after appropriate treatment; and o Fish, crustacea and molluscs for human consumption. South Eastern Rural Aquatic ecosystems: o Largely modified aquatic ecosystems o Passage for native fish and other aquatic biota Water suitable for: o Primary contact recreation; o Secondary contact recreation; o Aesthetic enjoyment; o Agriculture; o Industrial and commercial use; o Human consumption after disinfection and removal of suspended solids; o Consumption of fish, crustacea and molluscs for recreational or commercial purposes. Lowlands and Phillip Island Aquatic ecosystems: o Largely modified aquatic ecosystems o Passage for native fish and other aquatic biota Water suitable for: o Primary contact recreation; o Secondary contact recreation; o Aesthetic enjoyment; o Agriculture; o Industrial and commercial use; o Human consumption after disinfection and removal of suspended solids; o Consumption of fish, crustacea and molluscs for recreational or commercial purposes. Patterson River - Attainment Program
There are responsibilities for communities, businesses and protection agencies, to plan and manage Victoria’s surface waters and any activity that impacts on them, in an ecologically sustainable manner. General responsibilities for implementing the Policy are identified in Clause 13 of the SEPP and key responsibilities are identified in Clauses 14 to 23. In addition to these broad responsibilities, there are additional clauses in the more focussed schedules and policies described under the ‘Attainment Program’ sections in their respective documents. Construction Activities
The main SEPP document states, “Construction works need to managed to minimise land disturbance, soil erosion and the discharge of sediments and other pollutants to surface waters.” Construction managers are therefore required to implement effective management practices consistent with guidance from the EPA, including that provided in the current amended version of Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites (1996), and the current amended version of Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control (1991). SEPP also states, where construction activities cross or adjoin surface waters, construction managers are required to monitor affected surface waters to make an assessment as to the protection of the beneficial uses.
Environmental Quality Objectives and Indicators
The main SEPP document states, “surface waters and their aquatic ecosystems need to be free of any substance at any level, or human impact, that would pose a risk to beneficial uses.” Although the environmental quality objectives are required to be attained as much as practicable, the SEPP requires that the variation of environmental quality of surface waters on a State-wide scale will be such that: 1 “the environmental quality of some surface waters will be better than the environmental quality objectives. In these cases, environmental quality should remain as close as practicable to background levels”;
2 “the environmental quality objectives for some surface waters may not be attained due to natural variation. In these cases, the background level becomes the environmental quality objective.” Clauses to the same effect also apply under the additional ‘Schedules’ and ‘Policies’ for the specific areas. Based on this and knowledge of the beneficial uses the environmental quality objectives or targets identified in Appendix A have been developed for these areas. However, given the transfer pipeline is most likely to have a direct influence on suspended solids and its associated problems, Table 3 defines the relevant water quality objectives as specified in the SEPP or associated schedule or policy. In relation to these objectives, all the documents state that if there is no specific value, comment indicating the use of background levels, or justification for the application of the clauses above, the environmental quality objective values become those specified in the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (2000) (The Guidelines).
Table 3: Environmental Quality Objectives Indicator (or pollutant) Policy Area or Segment Objective Estuaries & Inlets 75th Percentile • R75 Turbidity Rivers & Streams – Cleared Hills & Coastal Plains 75th Percentile • 10 NTU South Eastern Rural Median < 15 NTU 75th percentile < 25 NTU Lowlands and Phillip Island Median < 15 NTU 75th percentile < 25 NTU Patterson River Median < 30 FTU 90th percentile < 35 FTU Suspended Solids Estuaries & Inlets • R75 Rivers & Streams – Cleared Hills & Coastal Plains - South Eastern Rural Median < 20 mg/L 75th percentile < 30 mg/L Lowlands and Phillip Island Median < 20 mg/L 75th percentile < 30 mg/L Patterson River Median < 10 mg/L 90th percentile < 20 mg/L Appendix A1: Summary of SEPP Requirements for various Policy Segments or Areas
The following data has been extracted from SEPP (Waters of Victoria) The following data relating to the SEPP objectives has been extracted from the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment’s 2002 report entitled: “Victorian Water Quality Monitoring Annual Report: 2002” (Available at: http://www.vicwaterdata.net/vicwaterdata/publishedDocs/docs/annRept2002.pdf)
Appendix D Waterway Crossing Proformas
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline Crossing Number 103 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 371312 Easting 5729246 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 2 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.2m Top of Bank Width 1.4m Bank Height 0.4m Bank Shape Vertical Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Unstable Features Run Frequency of Flow Ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No potential habitat for significant fauna. Frogs may be present. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Defined banks, stock access. Small clumps of macrophytes heavily grazed by stock. Not actively contributing to bank stability. 0.3m of water present in channel. Controlled upstream by 300mm pipe with blockage reducing capacity. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Diversion drains and bunds for water management, Weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Fencing, Rehabilitation of banks, Revegetation, Bed control structures, Rock rip rap placement on banks. Crossing Number 104 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 371338 Easting 5729463 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 10 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Aeolian: dune deposits: sand, clay, calcareous sand Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 0.4m Bank Shape Convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features levees Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No potential habitat for significant fauna. Frogs may be present. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Levee on right bank only. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 105 Waterway Name Powlett River Waterway Type Connector Northing 371356 Easting 5729617 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 45083 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Aeolian: dune deposits: sand, clay, calcareous sand Instream features Channel Width 23m Top of Bank Width 35 Bank Height 1m Bank Shape Convex upward Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Eroding Features Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Terrace Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Predominantly introduced vegetation. Aquatic Fauna No threated fish species found, Australian Grayling may be present. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Erosion on right bank, left bank stable. Scattered macrophytes. Left bank laid back with Low bank leading to floodplain. At time of investigation, wetted width probably larger than "usual". Water probably backed up by mouth of Powlett being closed. Natural terrace providing flood protection on true right. Active bank immediately upstream shows evidence of previous erosion. Levee set back approximately 60m from left bank of waterway - on immediate right bank of waterway 104. Further investigation to assess depth of hard invert needs to be undertaken. Will require input from geotechnical specialist investigation as well as other disciplines. Stock Access. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching High Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Diversion drains and bunds for water management, Weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Bed control structures. Crossing Number 119 Waterway Name Bridge Creek Waterway Type Watercourse River Northing 370798 Easting 5730294 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 2085 Typical Slope @ POINT 320 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 2m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape Convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Run Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Terrace Floodplain Width 30m Riparian Vegetation Continuous narrow strip of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Phragmites Fenced Yes Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Swamp scrub EVC present. Native trees. Aquatic Fauna No fish recorded, however could support Dwarf Galaxias. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Disused railway bounding channel (downstream). Potential for channel to migrate. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation. Set back pipe jacking operation according to CMA requirements. Crossing Number 120 Waterway Name Woolshed Creek Waterway Type Watercourse River Northing 370459 Easting 5730373 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form meander Catchment Area (ha) 725 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Aeolian: dune deposits: sand, clay, calcareous sand Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 2m Bank Height 0.1m Bank Shape Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Run Frequency of Flow Floodplain Features Floodplain features Paleochannel, swamp Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Fenced Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No Growling Grass Frog found. Potential habitat for Swamp Skink and Glossy grass Skink Aquatic Fauna No threatened fish species recorded. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Immediately downstream of meander. Disused railway bounding channel. Evidence of old (paleochannel) on floodplain downstream. Dam on left floodplain. Banks are not well defined. Swampy area immediately surrounding permanent channel. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trench Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 110 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 369317 Easting 5732460 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form Undefined Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 25 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features none No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Partially Confined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Introduced vegetation Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat None Comments Comments Road immediately downstream. Online dams downstream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 122 Waterway Name Waterway Type Northing 369276 Easting 5733733 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Bass Strait Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 40 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~19m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Confined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Confined by road Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 112 Waterway Name 3905 Trib of 3904 Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 368440 Easting 5737094 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Channelised Waterways Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 86 Typical Slope @ POINT 49 Geological Description Fluvial: gully alluvium, colluvium: gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Partially Confined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Introduced vegetation, no habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments Confined by road on two sides. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation. Crossing Number 113 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 368496 Easting 5737470 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 13 Typical Slope @ POINT 130 Geological Description Fluvial: gully alluvium, colluvium: gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 0.4m Top of Bank Width 1m Bank Height 0.15m Bank Shape Convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Introduced vegetation, no habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments Right bank fenced, but still have cattle access Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 114 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 368534 Easting 5737733 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 43 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 2.5m Bank Height 0.7m Bank Shape Convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Right bank fenced, but still have cattle access. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures. Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance; weed management; reinstate excavated profile; revegetation. An additional constructed drain runs directly within the pipeline alignment. This is not a designated waterway according to MWC GIS data layers. Crossing Number 115 Waterway Name 3906 Trib of 3903 Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 368576 Easting 5738017 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 299 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2.4m Top of Bank Width 7m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape Convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Introduced vegetation, no habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments Channel modified by stock. Levee on one side only. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures. Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation. Crossing Number 116 Waterway Name 3903 Trib of 3901 Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 368600 Easting 5738102 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT FLAT Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2.4m Top of Bank Width 7m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability unstable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments West paddock bounded by small levee. Sparse teatree. Cattle access. Cattle modified bed. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 123 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 369127 Easting 5738031 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 1.2m Bank Height 0.4m Bank Shape Vertical Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced on eastern side Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments Transfer pipeline alignment runs parallel to farm drain for several hundered metres. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching and move alignment 20m south Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 124 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 369474 Easting 5737992 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Classification Unconfined channelised waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 58 Geological Description Fluvial: gully alluvium, colluvium: gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1m Top of Bank Width 2.5m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape Vertical Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Some upstream slumping, small patch of exposed earth at crossing Frequency of Flow Ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Ti-tree Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced on western side Landuse Road reserve - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments Transfer pipeline alignment runs parallel to farm drain for several hundered metres. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching and move alignment 20m south Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 121 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 370071 Easting 5738428 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) 255 Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: gully alluvium, colluvium: gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1m Bank Height Bank Shape unspecified Channel Stability unspecified Bank Stability Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow unspecified Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Introduced vegetation, no habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Erosion evident downstream along Bass Gas alignment. Bound by road downstream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 219 Waterway Name 3907 Trib of 3903 Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 370336 Easting 5739088 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 364 Typical Slope @ POINT 170 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 2.5m Bank Shape Compound stepped depositional Channel Stability Incising Bank Stability Eroding Features Large amounts of slumping and active incision. Areas upstream are undercut. Frequency of Flow Ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Scattered Ti-tree Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced north - side Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna No threatened fish species recorded. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Bridge upstream. Upstream undercutting. Banks very unstable. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching if changed to perpendicular alignment Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Fencing Crossing Number 220 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 371236 Easting 5740463 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Channelised Waterways Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 37 Typical Slope @ POINT 35 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Paleochannel Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Introduced vegetation, no habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Evidence of channelisation to create current channel alignment. Bass Gas alignment visible. Proposed pipe crosses on an angle to the channel. Would prefer to cross perpendicular to flow to avoid erosion. Culvert upstream with road would act as a control. Small catchment. Potential damage to road. Would recommend 1 bend in the pipe, rather than the two currently proposed Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures. Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation. Crossing Number 228 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 371304 Easting 5740594 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Dam Channel Plan Form Catchment Area (ha) 50 Typical Slope @ POINT 90 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~30m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow unspecified No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Online Dam Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, placement of clean rock for working platform, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 229 Waterway Name Gorge Creek Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 371956 Easting 5741230 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 300 Typical Slope @ POINT 100 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 15m Bank Height 7m Bank Shape V-shape Channel Stability incising Bank Stability stable Features in-channel woody debris stabilising channel. Bank vegetation stabilising banks. Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation continuous narrow strip of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced both sides Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Native Shrubs. No habitat Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Very steep v-shaped banks. Bass gas trenching reconciliation approx. 25m upstream. Armouring of banks and stabilisation of channel using basalt rocks. Reconciliation appeared successful. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works, fencing Crossing Number 208 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 372539 Easting 5742004 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Top of watercourse. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 230 Waterway Name 3305 Trib of Bass River Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 372900 Easting 5742433 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 192 Typical Slope @ POINT 43 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 40m Bank Height 5m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Run, well defined Low flow channel with wide High flow channel. Frequency of Flow Ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Flat Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Scattered exotics and natives Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced Yes Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Road limiting capacity for adjustment. Planform controlled by former bank height. Incision along Low flow channel has occurred over more recent times. Local pockets of erosion within high flow channel and banks. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, stream flow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, Reinstate with a stable profile with appropriate transition to existing profile. Crossing Number 212 Waterway Name 3306 Trib of Bass River Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 373224 Easting 5742833 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 175 Typical Slope @ POINT 63 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 0.75m Top of Bank Width 2.2m Bank Height 0.85m Bank Shape Irregular Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Lcoally unstable due to stock access Features Pool run sequence Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Terrace Floodplain Width 15m Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Filamentous algae Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Erosion scars along Bass Gas alignment not evident in field. Some erosion on outside bends and localised slumping due to stock access. Lateral channel migration confined by second terrace. Channel more likely to incise than laterally migrate. Tributary close to Bass River. Tributary close to Bass River. Vicinity of Bass River, increases impact on downstream values. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trench Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, Diversion drains and bunds for water management weed management, revegetation Crossing Number 213 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 373332 Easting 5742966 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Dam Channel Plan Form N/A Catchment Area (ha) 29 Typical Slope @ POINT N/A Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability N/A Bank Stability Stable Features N/A Frequency of Flow N/A Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation grazed Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Crossing through farm dam. Dam fenced. Some native and introduced vegetation around dam <5m tall. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, placement of clean rock for working platform, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 214 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 373422 Easting 5743077 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 38 Typical Slope @ POINT 80 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.6m Top of Bank Width 6m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape Irregular Channel Stability stable Bank Stability unstable Features nil Frequency of Flow Ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Terrace Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Downstream slumping. Previously crossed by Bass Gas - evidence of Bass Gas reinstatement. Appears to be an active channel. Terraces evident. Visibly poor water quality. Cattle access and pugging instream. Culvert controlled downstream. Likely to be remnant pools during summer. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Downstream slumping. Previously crossed by Bass Gas - evidence of Bass Gas reinstatement. Appears to be an active channel. Terraces evident. Visibly poor water quality. Cattle access and pugging instream. Culvert controlled downstream. Likely to be remnant pools during summer. Crossing Number 231 Waterway Name Tennent Creek Waterway Type Watercourse River Northing 374490 Easting 5744280 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 2057 Typical Slope @ POINT 200 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 3m Top of Bank Width 40m Bank Height 7m Bank Shape concave upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width 10-15m Riparian Vegetation exotics Instream Vegetation exotics Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Native Shrubs. No habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna No threatened fish species. Aquatic Habitat Refuge pools. Comments Comments Channel not actively incising, stabilised by willows. Banks stable, localised erosion from cattle access. No evidence of Bass gas reistatement. Culvert controlled upstream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 223 Waterway Name 3311 Trib of Bass River Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 374937 Easting 5744714 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 452 Typical Slope @ POINT 115 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 5m Top of Bank Width 11m Bank Height 2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stock modified Features Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Phragmites and Juncus Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments No sign of Bass gas reinstatement. Some erosion due to stock access. Relatively deeply incised. Limited flow. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 224 Waterway Name Bass River Waterway Type Watercourse River Northing 375831 Easting 5745810 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 17854 Typical Slope @ POINT 390 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 6m Top of Bank Width 20m Bank Height 5m Bank Shape Convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Run Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Remnant perched meander bends/preserved oxbows Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Patches of remnant vegetation and weeds Instream Vegetation Macrophytes Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Australian Grayling Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Channel deeply incised into floodplain. The contemporary channel is set well below the current floodplain level which is likely to be the result of a combination of incision, tectonic processes and sea level changes. Terraces with intact meander bend cutoffs/oxbows sit on perched floodplain. High turbidity in water indicating sediment conveyance. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Critical Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 225 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 375943 Easting 5746145 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 3 Typical Slope @ POINT 480 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Pipe runs adjacent to channel. Same channel as for site 226. Recommend either avoiding channel or crossing perpendicular to channel. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 226 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 375987 Easting 5746314 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 18 Typical Slope @ POINT 50 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Pipe runs adjacent to channel. Same channel as for site 225. Recommend either avoiding channel or crossing perpendicular to channel. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 227 Waterway Name 3315 Trib of Bass River Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376749 Easting 5746291 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Channelised Waterways Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 100 Typical Slope @ POINT 100 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Bound by road and farm crossing. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 301 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376907 Easting 5747718 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form straight Catchment Area (ha) 18 Typical Slope @ POINT 35 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 4m Bank Height 0.2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Access road immediately downstream. Fenced along road, but not restricting stock access to waterway. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 302 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376909 Easting 5747793 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 53 Typical Slope @ POINT 420 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width 3m Top of Bank Width 4m Bank Height 0.8m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features terrace Floodplain Width 80m Riparian Vegetation Patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Confined by dam and culvert upstream. Localised slumping in banks due to stock access. Presently stabilised by terrestrial grasses. Channel confined by terrace on left bank. Large tree at crossing point. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 303 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376928 Easting 5747944 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Partially Confined Sinuous Channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 80 Typical Slope @ POINT 63 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width 1m Top of Bank Width 1m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Eroding Bank Stability Incising Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Terrace Floodplain Width 60m Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Erosion at toe of bank. Immediately upstream channel at a Higher level (incision occuring at pipe crossing location). Further bed erosion in an upstream direction may occur. Cattle induced slumping at crossing location. Terrestrial grassess stabilising previously slumped areas. Immediately downstream channel incised to 1.5m. Downstream evidence of bank failure and slumped toe deposits instream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching with additional bed control works Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works. Reinstatement should address the downstream headward erosion to protect works and satisfy stakeholder requirements Crossing Number 304 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377103 Easting 5748727 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Slightly sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 40 Typical Slope @ POINT 36 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~2m Bank Height Bank Shape unspecified Channel Stability Bank Stability eroding downstream Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow unspecified Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 305 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377167 Easting 5748777 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form straight Catchment Area (ha) 39 Typical Slope @ POINT 38 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape unspecified Channel Stability Bank Stability eroding downstream Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow unspecified Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation continuous narrow strip of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 326 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377174 Easting 5749139 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) 18 Typical Slope @ POINT 40 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width 2 Top of Bank Width 2 Bank Height 0.3 Bank Shape Compund with toe sediment deposition Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Eroding Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk of headward erosion. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works. Reinstatement should address the downstream headward erosion to protect works and satisfy stakeholder requirements Crossing Number 327 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377099 Easting 5749208 Site Visit Completed General Receiving Water Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~1.5m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features No site image available at this time Frequency of Flow Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk of headward erosion. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works. Reinstatement should address the downstream headward erosion to protect works and satisfy stakeholder requirements Crossing Number 328 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377059 Easting 5749843 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form N/A Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Dam immediately upstream. Channel has no defined bed and banks. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, placement of clean rock for working platform, streamflow diversion measures, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 329 Waterway Name Creek 3831 Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377186 Easting 5750796 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form meander Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 90 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 1.2m Bank Height 0.7m Bank Shape vertical Channel Stability incising Bank Stability slumping Features pools, runs, large wood, cobbles Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features paleochannel Floodplain Width 20m Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Erosion downstream, deeply incised to bed in places (with mudstone/sandstone protrusions). Tributary enters immediately downstream. Toe deposits instream from slumped material. Migrating bend immediately upstream. Likely to pose risk to the asset. Move alignment East approximately 150m. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack or trench if move alignment east approximately 150m. Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works, reinstate with a stable profile with appropriate transition to existing profile and control stock access. Crossing Number 319 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 377233 Easting 5751051 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 7 Geological Description Fluvial: lithic sandstone, siltstone, minor conglomerate, coal Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 1.5m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability incising Bank Stability stable Features crossing at upstream extent of headward erosion Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Crosses channel approximately 15m upstream of dam. Headward erosion at proposed crossing site. Two previously unidentified minor waterway crossings lie within 100m on the southern side of the dam. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 320 Waterway Name Trib of 3831 Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376854 Easting 5751324 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) 65 Typical Slope @ POINT 20 Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 1m Bank Height 0.4m Bank Shape vertical Channel Stability incising Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation Patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Patches of juncus Fenced No Landuse Agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Remnant Eucalypts, Swift Parrots possible. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Unlikely to provide instream habitat. Comments Comments Well vegetated. Close to confluence with ephemeral waterway 3831. Headward erosion downstream of crossing. Culvert and farmers track crossing immediately downstream of pipeline crossing. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching and move alignment east away from dam. Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 321 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376798 Easting 5751381 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) 33 Typical Slope @ POINT 20 Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 2.5m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features woody debris across channel Frequency of Flow unspecified Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Patches of juncus Fenced yes - 5m from right bank Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Well vegetated. Headward erosion immediately downstream. Confluence with incised ephemeral waterway 3831 approximately 50m downstream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 322 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376701 Easting 5751447 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form Straight Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 13 Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 0.5m Top of Bank Width 3m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability incising Bank Stability stable Features headward erosion immediately downstream of crossing Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features vehicle access track near crossing Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation juncus immediately upstream Fenced 20m from left bank Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Dam 30m upstream. Risk of headward erosion extending up to dam. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works Crossing Number 323 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 376439 Easting 5751649 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Confined Headwater Channel Channel Plan Form sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 12 Typical Slope @ POINT 10 Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 2.5m Top of Bank Width 6m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features very minor slumping Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features N/A Floodplain Width N/A Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant native vegetation Instream Vegetation scattered juncus Fenced No Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Dam upstream. Risk of dam failure. If alignment is moved away from dam risk will be reduced and cross perpendicular. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching with alignment change away from dam and cross perpendicular. Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, bed control works. In addition, if trenching occurs at alternate site reinstate with a stable profile with appropriate transition to existing profile and control stock access. Crossing Number 340 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 374124 Easting 5754301 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) NA Typical Slope @ POINT 33 Geological Description Fluvial: gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.2m Top of Bank Width 1.7m Bank Height 0.4m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features culvert at crossing Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Bass Hwy Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Ti-tree, acacia and other species Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced yes- Holden proving ground's perimeter cyclone fence 10m from proposed alignment. Landuse roadside Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Alignment runs down centre of Holden proving ground's perimeter security track. Close proximity to RAMSAR Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation. Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co-ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 341 Waterway Name Peackock Drain Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 373986 Easting 5755665 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 170 Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 3.5m Top of Bank Width 3.5m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape vertical Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features transfer pipeline crossing at the confluence of two major drains with complex culvert arrangement Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Bass Hwy Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Ti-trees & acacia Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced yes - Holden proving ground's cyclone perimeter cyclonefence + road safety fence Landuse roadside Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Waterway crosses main Highway and is next to the Holden proving ground. Potential for flooding road. RAMSAR site immediately downstream. Complex culvert arrangement at crossing. Two 900mm culverts. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation. Reinstate culvert systems appropriately. Crossing Number 418 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373989 Easting 5755697 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form N/A Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Bound by road. No defined bed and banks. Telstra telecoms building on alignment. Roadside vegetation to South East of alignment. History of local flooding. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 419 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 374085 Easting 5756438 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form N/A Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 420 Waterway Name Red Bluff Creek Waterway Type Northing 374078 Easting 5756460 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 1803 Typical Slope @ POINT 220 Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 1m Top of Bank Width 8m Bank Height 2.5m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Levee Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Exotic Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced Yes Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No potential habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna No threatened fish species recorded. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Generally exotic instream and riparian species. No cattle access. Levee present downstream from where pipe will cross. Levee not present immediately upstream. Crosses waterway on a corner. RAMSAR site immediately downstream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 421 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 374208 Easting 5757457 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) NA Typical Slope @ POINT 800 Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~4m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow Intermittent No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Nil Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Proposed pipeline runs parallel to channel, within ~10m. Suggest move alignment west to avoid channel. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 405 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373684 Easting 5757539 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) 293 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~4m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow Intermittent No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width 210 Riparian Vegetation Qrm Instream Vegetation Recent Quaternary swamp and lagoonal deposits, mangrove swamps, salt marsh, clay, silt, peat and mud. Fenced Landuse Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 406 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373391 Easting 5757743 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 0.25m Top of Bank Width 1.2m Bank Height 0.25m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments No defined bed and banks. Bounded by farm road. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 407 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373399 Easting 5757868 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 2m Bank Height 0.25m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments 80m downstream of dam. Bounded by farm road. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 408 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373407 Easting 5757992 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 13 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 0.2m Top of Bank Width 1.5m Bank Height 0.2m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 422 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse stream Northing 372956 Easting 5758949 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form undefined Catchment Area (ha) 11 Typical Slope @ POINT 133 Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments No defined bed and banks. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 410 Waterway Name Adam's Creek South Branch Waterway Type Northing 373445 Easting 5761773 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 358 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width 3m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Potential habitat for Dwarf Galaxias. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 411 Waterway Name Adams Creek Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373518 Easting 5762038 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Chanelised Catchment Area (ha) 68 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Nil Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 423 Waterway Name Adam's Creek South Branch Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 373273 Easting 5762402 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 2.5m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced right bank Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Site assessed based on photos taken by another field group Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 424 Waterway Name Adam's Creek Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 372944 Easting 5762498 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: sand, silt, gravel, ferruginous sand Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 4m Bank Height 0.7m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability Stable Features Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Thick Ti-tree scrub on right bank Instream Vegetation emergent and floating macrophytes Fenced Yes - left bank Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Moderate habitat values. Comments Comments Thin strip of continuous riparian vegetation lines the creek. Site assessed on photos taken by another field group. Bound by road. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 425 Waterway Name Lower Lang Lang River Waterway Type Northing 373497 Easting 5764793 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined sinuous channel Channel Plan Form Sinuous Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 4m Top of Bank Width 30m Bank Height 5m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features grassed bench, large wood, run Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Yes Instream Vegetation terrestrial grass at edge Fenced Yes Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Understorey predominantly introduced vegetation Replanting of native tree and shrub species have occurred which provide good habitat values. Aquatic Fauna No threatened fish species found. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Bank has pockets of instability associated with trees, riparian vegetation on both sides (grasses, wattles, tradescantia), water clarity indicates transporting fine sediment, at visit water ~1m deep and flowing, and evidence of recent flooding (covered benches on both sides - WL up ~ 1.5m) Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 426 Waterway Name Lower Lang Lang Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 373399 Easting 5765197 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width ~1m Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow Intermittent No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation No Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Channel appears to be relatively undefined immediately upstream Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Weed management Crossing Number 427 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 372959 Easting 5765594 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width ~1m Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow Intermittent No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation No Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Channel appears to be relatively undefined immediately upstream Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Weed management Crossing Number 428 Waterway Name Waterway Type Northing 372690 Easting 5765840 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form Channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width ~1m Top of Bank Width Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow Intermittent No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation No Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Channel appears to be relatively undefined immediately upstream Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Weed management Crossing Number 529 Waterway Name Monomeith Drain Waterway Type Northing 371426 Easting 5767066 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 374 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 3.5m Bank Height 0.4m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features railway alignment perpendicular and upstream Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Exotics Fenced Right bank and crossing pipe alignment immediately upstream of waterway crossing Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR and waterway has significant sediment transport capacity. High flows controlled by upstream railway crossing culverts. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 530 Waterway Name Monomeith Drain Waterway Type Northing 371217 Easting 5767295 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 186 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.2m Top of Bank Width 3m Bank Height 0.3m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features railway alignment perpendicular and upstream Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced fence crossing waterway immediately upstream of alignment Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR and waterway has significant sediment transport capacity. High flows controlled by upstream railway crossing culverts. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 531 Waterway Name Monomeith Drain Waterway Type Northing 371127 Easting 5767397 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2.5m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability stable Features cattle pugging Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features railway alignment perpendicular and upstream Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced fence crossing waterway immediately upstream of alignment Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR and waterway has significant sediment transport capacity. High flows controlled by upstream railway crossing culverts. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 532 Waterway Name Monomeith Drain Waterway Type Northing 370890 Easting 5767665 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 2173 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 4.5m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 0.35m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features in-channel pugging from cattle Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features railway alignment perpendicular and upstream Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR and waterway has significant sediment transport capacity. High flows controlled by upstream railway crossing culverts. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 533 Waterway Name Monomeith Drain Waterway Type Northing 370857 Easting 5767702 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 2172 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2.5m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 1.2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features railway alignment perpendicular and upstream Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation scattered juncus Fenced along northwestern bank. Additional fence crosses waterway parallel to and approx. 15m to the east of proposed transfer pipe alignment. Landuse agricultural - grazing Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR and waterway has significant sediment transport capacity. High flows controlled by upstream railway crossing culverts. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 534 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 370085 Easting 5768774 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 364 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 0.75m Top of Bank Width 1.25m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Disused railway aligned parallel to pipeline Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 526 Waterway Name YALLOCK CUT & LEVEE Waterway Type Northing 369511 Easting 5769426 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 7m Top of Bank Width 14m Bank Height 3m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features localised slumping, generally stable. Frequency of Flow perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features 1.5m High levee on left bank Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation scattered exotic shrubs Instream Vegetation phragmites, juncus Fenced both sides Landuse reserve - periodically grazed Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Dwarf Galaxias Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Downstream control on flow at constriction under railway bridge. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Diversion Drains and Bunding for water management, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management. Reinstate instream and riparian habitat values, reinstate large wood. Crossing Number 508 Waterway Name Yallock Creek Waterway Type Northing 370104 Easting 5770442 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form meander Catchment Area (ha) 27957 Typical Slope @ POINT Contours insufficient Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 8m Top of Bank Width 10m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Ti-tree scrub Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced Fence crosses waterway parallel with proposed pipe alignment Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Habitat for Growling Grass Frog, however none found. Aquatic Fauna Dwarf Galaxias in refuge pools. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Meander Cutoffs. Extensive riparian and in- channel vegetative cover. Woody debris in channel. Diversion drain only, so does not regularly get flow. Flora/fauna team found refuge pools, however these may be able to be avoided during construction to make trenching acceptable. Site assessed using photographs taken by another field group. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack or trench if able to avoid refuge pools. Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Diversion Drains and Bunding for water management, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Reinstate instream and riparian habitat values, reinstate large wood. Construct during no flow periods. Avoid refuge pools. Crossing Number 509 Waterway Name Yallock Outfall Drain Waterway Type Northing 370078 Easting 5770491 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width 5-14m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation cleared Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Potential Habitat for Dwarf Galaxias, Growling Grass Frog, macrophytes and High habitat values. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Diversion Drains and Bunding for water management, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Reinstate instream and riparian habitat values, reinstate large wood. Crossing Number 510 Waterway Name Southern Boundary Drain Waterway Type Northing 369125 Easting 5772415 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 659 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 10m Bank Height 4m Bank Shape upright Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features levee Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Yes Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Standing water vegetation - true left lining bank, and true right lining levee, bench cleared Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co-ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 511 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 368966 Easting 5772698 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form slightly sinuous Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Indistinct paleochannel evident downstream of crossing. Undefined at crossing. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 512 Waterway Name Gray's Drain Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 368901 Easting 5772812 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT 150 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 2.5m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape V-shape Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation cyprus pines along left bank Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced Double fence on southern side Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Cyprus pines planted by landowner. Prefer if alignment could pass through dead patch (currently appears to do so) Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 535 Waterway Name South East Catchment Drain Waterway Type Northing 368461 Easting 5773059 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 1.5m Bank Shape upright Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features levees Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Recolonised swamp paperbark over introduced understorey. No Growling Grass Frog recorded. Aquatic Fauna Aquatic macrophytes provide potential habitat for Dwarf Galaxias. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Minimal riparian vegetation - small shrubs true left bank. Fine sediment. Levees. Close to RAMSAR. Current alignmet will make pipe jacking dificult. Suggest move alignment to enable pipe jacking with 514 and 515 Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Construct as one crossing location for pipe jacking (combine with 514 and 515). This will require the alignment to be moved. Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Reinstate excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Diversion Drains and bunding for water management. Crossing Number 514 Waterway Name Bunyip River Main Drain Waterway Type Northing 368647 Easting 5773330 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 10m Top of Bank Width 15m Bank Height 3m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features Run Frequency of Flow perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features levees Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Australian Grayling, Dwarf Galaxias Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Bunyip Main Drain. No erosion, aquatic vegetation. Mostly lines creek. Localised aggradation in creek bed. Levees - 10m convex upwards. Pools during Low flow. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Construct as one crossing location for pipe jacking (combine with 535 and 515) Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Reinstate excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Diversion Drains and bunding for water management. Crossing Number 515 Waterway Name North West Catchment Drain Waterway Type Northing 368614 Easting 5773362 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 5m Top of Bank Width 10m Bank Height 3m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features Run Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features levees Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation macrophytes Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Submergent macrophytes with some biofilm, some irregularity in bank with large wood deposition. Some bare patches on bank, but mostly grassed. Levees on true left only. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Construct as one crossing location for pipe jacking (combine with 514 and 535 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Reinstate excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Diversion Drains and bunding for water management. Crossing Number 516 Waterway Name Himbeck's Drain Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 368694 Easting 5774186 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 3m Bank Height 1.2m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features v.minor localised slumping Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features excavation levee on left bank Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation patch of large conifers at crossing Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced On left bank Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co- ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 536 Waterway Name McDonald's Catch Drain Waterway Type Northing 368912 Easting 5775834 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 7m Bank Height 3m Bank Shape upright Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow Intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features levee Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Growling Grass Frog recorded. Potential habitat for Southern Brown Bandicoot Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Aquatic vegetation, dry at time of visit. No refuge pools. Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR, waterway with significant sediment transport capacity. Levee on right bank. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Construct as one crossing location for pipe jacking (combine with 537 and 538) Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Reinstate excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Diversion Drains and bunding for water management. Crossing Number 537 Waterway Name McDonald's Catch Drain Waterway Type Northing 368883 Easting 5775839 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 89543 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 7m Top of Bank Width 15m Bank Height 2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features levee Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Water ribbon, macrophytes, filamentous algae Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR, waterway with significant sediment transport capacity. Levees both sides. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Construct as one crossing location for pipe jacking (536 and 538) Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Reinstate excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Diversion Drains and bunding for water management. Crossing Number 538 Waterway Name McDonald's Drain 3043 Waterway Type Northing 368854 Easting 5775843 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 0.25m Top of Bank Width 0.5m Bank Height 0.25m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR, waterway with significant sediment transport capacity. Long grass and blackberry. Channel does not appear to exist as per Melbourne Water layer - small channel on McDonald's Drain side, which appears to be formed by road runoff. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack Construct as one crossing location for pipe jacking (combine with 536 and 537) Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Reinstate excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management, Diversion Drains and bunding for water management. Crossing Number 539 Waterway Name McGregor's Drain Waterway Type Northing 367324 Easting 5776261 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 630 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 4m Bank Height 1.5m Bank Shape vertical Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Scattered exotics Instream Vegetation Water ribbon Fenced Yes Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments 0.10m water. True left bank Lower, but road raised above. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co-ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure. Crossing Number 540 Waterway Name Hagelthorne's Drain Waterway Type Northing 365287 Easting 5776551 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 7304 Typical Slope @ POINT 2500 Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 8m Bank Height 2.5m Bank Shape concave upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability stable Features Small areas of slumping Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Levee on western side Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Scattered exotics Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced yes - both sides Landuse drainage reserve - grazed Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Potential habitat for Dwarf Galaxias if refuge pools exist. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Excavation levee on western side - unconsolidated material, fill left over from excavation. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation. Prioritise construction during no flow periods and co-ordinate construction and reinstatement to minimise duration of exposure, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures Crossing Number 541 Waterway Name Unnamed Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 365080 Easting 5776581 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 7304 Typical Slope @ POINT 400 Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width Top of Bank Width ~4m Bank Height Bank Shape Channel Stability Bank Stability Features Frequency of Flow No site image available at this time Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures Crossing Number 542 Waterway Name Deep Creek Catchment Drain Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 364134 Easting 5776525 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 12267 Typical Slope @ POINT Contours insufficient Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 5m Bank Height 2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability eroding Features Nil Frequency of Flow unspecified Floodplain Features Floodplain features levee on western side Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced on eastern side Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Predominantly introduced vegetation with some native species. Aquatic Fauna Growling Grass Frog recorded. Aquatic Habitat Potential habitat for Dwarf Galaxias. No threatened fish species were recorded. No instream habitat. Comments Comments Stock access. Upstream of culvert crossing at Ballarto Road (~300m). Minor fragmented riparian vegetation. Emergent macrophytes - Phragmites spp. and Juncus spp. Close to RAMSAR, waterway with significant sediment transport capacity. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack combine with 543, 544 and 545 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 543 Waterway Name Lower Deep Creek Drain Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 364089 Easting 5776530 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Contours insufficient Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 5m Top of Bank Width 8m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape Convex upward Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability stable Features Small areas of slumping Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Levee Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation crop Instream Vegetation Juncus and phragmites Fenced No Landuse grazed drainage reserve Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Close to RAMSAR, waterway with significant sediment transport capacity. Small areas of slumping instream. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack combine with 542, 544 and 545 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 544 Waterway Name Lower Toomuc Creek Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 364022 Easting 5776539 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 12251 Typical Slope @ POINT Contours insufficient Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 6m Top of Bank Width 10m Bank Height 1.5m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features levees on both sides Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Scattered Ti-tree Instream Vegetation Phragmites Fenced No Landuse grazed drainage reserve Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Recolonised swamp paperbark. Growling Grass Frog found. Potential habitat for Swamp Skink, Glossy Grass Skink and Southern Brown Bandicoot Aquatic Fauna No threatened fish recorded. Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Swamp Skink, Glossy Grass Skink, Southern Brown Bandicoot, Growling Grass Frog and Dwarf Galaxias. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack combine with 542, 543 and 545 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Avoid levee banks, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 545 Waterway Name Lower Gum Scrub Creek Waterway Type MW Channel Northing 363985 Easting 5776544 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 12248 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 4m Top of Bank Width 9m Bank Height 2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features levees Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Ti-tree Instream Vegetation Phragmites Fenced No Landuse road reserve Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Growling Grass Frog recorded. Potential habitat for Southern Brown Bandicoot Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack combine with 542, 543 and 544 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, Streamflow diversion measures, Construction of temporary levee banks, Weed management Crossing Number 621 Waterway Name Cardinia Drain Waterway Type Northing 362251 Easting 5777200 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 11204 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 5m Top of Bank Width 10m Bank Height 2m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability stable Features Scattered in-channel cattle pugging. Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features levees on both sides Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Scattered macrophytes, mainly limited to water edge. Fenced No Landuse drainage reserve Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No potential habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Australian Grayling, Dwarf Galaxias Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Cattle access. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack combine with 622 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, , Reinstatement of excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Weed management. Crossing Number 622 Waterway Name Cardinia Catchment Drain Waterway Type Northing 362204 Easting 5777206 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised waterway Catchment Area (ha) 11204 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 6m Bank Height 1.5m Bank Shape concave upwards Channel Stability stable Bank Stability stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Levee on eastern side Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation exotics Fenced Yes - on western side Landuse drainage reserve Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial No potential habitat for significant fauna. Aquatic Fauna Australian Grayling, Dwarf Galaxias Aquatic Habitat No instream habitat Comments Comments agricultural with some reveg same as 602. Agricultural with some revegetation. Consistent with same as 603. May support habitat and migratory passage for Dwarf Galaxias and Australian Grayling. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Medium Risk of flooding for trenching Medium Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe jack combine with 621 Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, Placement of clean rock for working platform, , Reinstatement of excavated profile, Avoid levee banks, Weed management. Crossing Number 623 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 359762 Easting 5778953 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 758 Typical Slope @ POINT 700 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1.5m Top of Bank Width 3m Bank Height 0.5m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments No defined bed and banks. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 624 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 359409 Easting 5779024 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 599 Typical Slope @ POINT 233 Geological Description Fluvial: alluvium, gravel, sand, silt Instream features Channel Width 1m Top of Bank Width 2m Bank Height 0.3m Bank Shape Concave Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Dam Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Channelised valley fill. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 606 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 357615 Easting 5779953 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Western Port Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 93 Typical Slope @ POINT 450 Geological Description Fluvial: sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, ironstone Instream features Channel Width 1m Top of Bank Width 3m Bank Height 0.25m Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments No culvert, probably drains to road drain. Landowner said that floods occur regularly during regular rainfall. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 607 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 355958 Easting 5782113 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Port Phillip Bay Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Only slightly defined bed and banks. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 608 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 355843 Easting 5782263 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Port Phillip Bay Classification Valley Fill Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 0.2m Top of Bank Width 2m Bank Height 0.2m Bank Shape V-shape Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Slightly defined bed and banks. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 609 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Channel Drain Northing 354847 Easting 5783553 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Port Phillip Bay Classification Farm/road drain channelised Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 267 Typical Slope @ POINT Flat Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 2m Top of Bank Width 2m Bank Height 2m Bank Shape Vertical Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow unspecified Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Patches of remnant vegetation Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Straight (bushes along drain indicate alignment) - Ti-tree along channel. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, weed management, Reinstate excavated profile, Revegetation Crossing Number 619 Waterway Name Ti-Tree Creek D.S. Waterway Type Northing 354664 Easting 5783790 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Port Phillip Bay Classification Unconfined Channelised Waterway Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 1321 Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Fluvial: sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, ironstone Instream features Channel Width 6m Top of Bank Width 8m Bank Height 1m Bank Shape convex upward Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Nil Frequency of Flow ephemeral Floodplain Features Floodplain features Nil Floodplain Width unconfined Riparian Vegetation Scattered Instream Vegetation Bull rush and exotics Fenced No Landuse agricultural Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Low Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 620 Waterway Name Ti-Tree Creek D.S. Waterway Type Northing 354313 Easting 5784619 Site Visit Completed Yes General Receiving Water Port Phillip Bay Classification Unconfined Sinuous Waterway Channel Plan Form sinuous Catchment Area (ha) 372 Typical Slope @ POINT Geological Description Paludal: lagoon and swamp deposits: silt, clay Instream features Channel Width 8m Top of Bank Width 7m Bank Height 1.5m Bank Shape convex upwards Channel Stability Stable Bank Stability Stable Features Pools, runs Frequency of Flow Perennial Floodplain Features Floodplain features Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Macrophytes Fenced No Landuse Urban Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Dwarf Galaxias Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Creating wetlands adjacent to urban area which will flow to waterway immediately downstream from crossing point. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Pipe Jack Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation Crossing Number 618 Waterway Name Waterway Type Watercourse Stream Northing 354743 Easting 5785071 Site Visit Completed No General Receiving Water Port Phillip Bay Classification Partially Confined Channelised Waterways Channel Plan Form channelised Catchment Area (ha) 112 Typical Slope @ POINT 100 Geological Description Marine: mudstone, sandstone Instream features Channel Width N/A Top of Bank Width N/A Bank Height N/A Bank Shape N/A Channel Stability N/A Bank Stability N/A Features N/A Frequency of Flow intermittent Floodplain Features Floodplain features Housing development on both sides Floodplain Width Unconfined Riparian Vegetation Cleared Instream Vegetation Absent Fenced No Landuse Urban housing development Flora and Fauna Values Terrestrial Aquatic Fauna Aquatic Habitat Comments Comments Urban housing development on both sides. Channel filled in at crossing point. Stormwater flows being conveyed by underground pipe. Construction should avoid underground pipe and culvert system. Risk Risk of sediment transport for trenching Medium Risk of sediment transport for pipe jacking Low Risk of flooding for trenching Low Risk of flooding for pipe jacking Low Construction Method Trenching Mitigation Standard Management Measures Construction management measures and Operation management measures Specific Mitigation Minimise site disturbance, Crossing waterway perpendicular to alignment, weed management, reinstate excavated profile, revegetation, Minimise constriction to floodplain, and duration of works for construction period. Avoid disturbance to underground drainage pipe at crossing. Created from G:\31\2244613\Tech\Waterway_Crossing_Info_Proformas\Pipeline\Pipeline_ Current_Current_16_July_2008.xls on 25 Jul 2008 at 1:10:12 PM Appendix E Waterway Crossing Risk Assessment
31/224461/ 3/147572 Desalination Project Final Impact Assessment for Surface Water, Hydrology and Waterway Crossings for the Transfer Pipeline www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact One: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Two: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 103 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
104 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
105 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Almost Certain HIGH Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM
119 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
120 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
110 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
122 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
112 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
113 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
114 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
115 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
116 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
123 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM
124 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM
121 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
219 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
220 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
228 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
229 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
208 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
230 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
212 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
213 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Rare LOW
214 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
231 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
223 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
224 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Major Certain CRITICAL Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 1 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact One: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Two: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 225 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
226 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
227 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
301 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
302 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
303 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
304 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
305 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
326 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
327 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
328 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
329 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Certain MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Almost Certain MEDIUM
319 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
320 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
321 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
322 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
323 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
340 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
341 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
418 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
419 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
420 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
421 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
405 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
406 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
407 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
408 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 2 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact One: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Two: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 422 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
410 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
411 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
423 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
424 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM
425 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
426 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
427 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
428 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Rare LOW
529 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
530 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
531 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
532 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
533 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
534 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
526 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
508 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
509 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
510 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
511 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
512 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
535 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
514 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
515 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Rare LOW
516 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
536 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
537 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 3 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact One: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Two: Sediment Transport Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 538 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
539 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
540 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
541 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
542 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
543 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
544 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
545 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
621 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
622 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM
623 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
624 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
606 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
607 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
608 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
609 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Insignificant Unlikely LOW
619 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
620 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
618 Construction Trenching Sediment transport Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Sediment transport Minor Unlikely LOW
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 4 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact Three: Flooding Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Four: Flooding Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 103 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
104 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
105 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
119 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
120 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
110 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
122 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
112 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
113 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
114 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
115 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
116 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
123 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
124 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
121 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
219 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
220 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
228 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
229 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
208 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
230 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
212 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
213 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
214 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
231 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
223 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
224 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 5 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact Three: Flooding Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Four: Flooding Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 225 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
226 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
227 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
301 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
302 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
303 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
304 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
305 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
326 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
327 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
328 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
329 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
319 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
320 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
321 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
322 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
323 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Rare LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
340 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Moderate Rare LOW
341 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Moderate Rare LOW
418 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Moderate Rare LOW
419 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
420 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
421 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
405 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
406 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
407 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
408 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 6 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact Three: Flooding Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Four: Flooding Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 422 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW
410 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
411 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
423 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
424 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
425 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Unlikely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Moderate Rare LOW
426 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
427 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
428 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
529 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
530 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
531 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
532 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
533 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
534 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
526 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
508 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
509 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
510 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
511 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
512 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
535 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
514 Construction Trenching Flooding Moderate Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
515 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Rare LOW
516 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
536 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
537 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 7 of 8 www.ghd.com.au GHD Tel. (03) 8687 8000 Fax. (03) 8687 8111 180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Vic 3000
Specific Impact Three: Flooding Risk Associated with Trenching Specific Impact Four: Flooding Risk Associated with Pipe Jacking Waterway Crossing Number Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank Project Phase Construction Method Impact Consequence Likelihood Risk Rank 538 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
539 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
540 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
541 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
542 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
543 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
544 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
545 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
621 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
622 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Likely MEDIUM Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
623 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
624 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
606 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
607 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
608 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Insignificant Rare LOW
609 Construction Trenching Flooding Insignificant Likely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
619 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
620 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
618 Construction Trenching Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW Construction Pipe Jacking Flooding Minor Unlikely LOW
Sheet1 28/07/2008 5:53 PM G:\31\2244613\Tech\Risk Assessment\Pipeline_Final Risk Assessment_Keep most current version here ONLY\Waterways Risk Table Rev_E.xls Page 8 of 8
Bianca McCormack
From: Meg Lee Sent: Monday, 14 September 2020 1:52 PM To: Meg Lee; Bianca McCormack Cc: [email protected] Subject: FW: Crib Point IAC - Instructions regarding response to submissions [ASH- AUS.FID30132288] Attachments: Environment Victoria submission form - for experts.docx
Dear Expert Witnesses
The IAC has received 3,829 public submissions in relation to the Crib Point LNG Import Facility.
Approximately 2,401 of those submissions appear to be generated by a common website.
The following link contains all 3,829 submissions, grouped into three categories:
• submissions that have been generated with the assistance of the common website (category A);
• submissions which have not been generated with the assistance of the common website (category B); and
• submissions which are a mix of category A and B (category C).
Link to all submissions: https://ashurst.sharefile.com/d-s21633649b0a4b8f8
These have also been placed on the Collaborate portal in the Submissions Folder We are reviewing the submissions in parallel and will identify those submissions we consider are particularly relevant to your witness statement. However, we would like you to independently consider all submissions which are potentially relevant to your evidence. General responses to submissions For the efficient preparation of your statement and to assist the IAC, you may choose to respond to submissions by addressing the "key themes" raised in the submissions as relevant to your area of expertise. You do not need to identify how many people raised that theme or which specific submitters referred to the key themes (subject to the agencies/groups identified below). If there is a particular individual submission that raises a unique issue you should still respond. We attach a document which extracts the common wording produced by that website. If you read the attached document you will have read and canvassed the propositions in each of those Category A submissions. If you need our guidance as to how to express or articulate the "key themes", please let us know. Agency / Group / pipeline landowner submissions You should provide separate responses to each of the agencies/groups/landowners listed at the bottom of this email, to the extent relevant to your witness statement. If the agency/group submitter: • raises concerns that are adequately addressed by your response to the key themes raised by other submitters, you may wish to respond by referring to your responses to the key themes; or • raises concerns not addressed by a key theme, please address this with a specific response to the key submitter's submission. List of agencies / groups / landowners along the pipeline 1 # Organisation Submission no. Agency / group submissions Australian Industry Group submission 365 Bass Coast Shire Council 2665 Bunurong Land Council Aboriginal Corporation 2870 Cardinia Shire Council 2805 Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water & 2871 the Environment Department of Transport 1357 EPA Victoria 2671 Environment Victoria 3088 Major Road Projects Victoria 1461 Mornington Peninsula Shire 2276 Port of Hastings Development Authority (PoHDA) 2700 Sea Shepherd 2617 Trust for Nature 2558 Victorian Chamber of Commerce 2546 Victorian National Parks Association 3004 Victorian Planning Authority 234 Landowners along the pipeline 1. 978 2. 1069 3. 1303 4. 1305 5. 1309 6. 1685 7. 2307 8. 3777 Kind regards Meg Lee | Partner T +61 3 9603 3312 | F +61 3 9670 9632 | M +61 404 070 549 [email protected] | professional profile www.hallandwilcox.com.au 2 Environment Victoria submission form 1. What is your connection to Westernport Bay? * • I live in the Westernport Bay area. My name is XX and I live in the Westernport Bay area. • I visit Westernport Bay often. My name is XXX and I visit Westernport Bay often. • I care about the environment in Westernport Bay. My name is XXX and I care about the environment in Westernport Bay. • I have family who live in Westernport Bay. My name is XXX and I have family who live in Westernport Bay. 2. Can you describe why Westernport Bay is important to you? (You can use up to 250 characters) 3. What concerns you the most about the gas import terminal? * • The impact on the local community. I thank the Crib Point Inquiry and Advisory Committee and the Minister for Planning for the opportunity to make a submission to the environment assessment of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. There are a variety of issues which should deem this proposal unacceptable under its current form and that I will point to in my submission but the issue that concerns me most is the impact on the local community. • The impact on our internationally recognised wetlands and wildlife. I thank the Crib Point Inquiry and Advisory Committee and the Minister for Planning for the opportunity to make a submission to the environment assessment of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. There are a variety of issues which should deem this proposal unacceptable under its current form and that I will point to in my submission but the issue that concerns me most is the impact on our internationally recognised wetlands and wildlife. • The negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions in Victoria. I thank the Crib Point Inquiry and Advisory Committee and the Minister for Planning for the opportunity to make a submission to the environment assessment of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. There are a variety of issues which should deem this proposal unacceptable under its current form and that I will point to in my submission but the issue that concerns me most is the negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions in Victoria. 4. How do you think the industrialisation of Westernport Bay will impact people? (If more than one applies, pick the one that most concerns you) • Recreational impacts: such as impacts to fishing, boating, walking, or other opportunities to enjoy the Bay with family and friends. The beach and reserve area around Crib Point jetty is a popular spot for residents and visitors alike. Access to the reserve and surrounding areas is likely to be affected by the loss of bush or by disruptions because of maintenance or high noise. The EES notes that there is not a comparable reserve area nearby. The increased number of ships coming into Westernport Bay and the strict exclusion zones will mean boaters or sailors will have more disruptive ship traffic to contend with. Error! Unknown document property name. Revision Error! Unknown document property name. Error! Unknown document property name. c:\users\bcm\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\inetcache\content.outlook\pfidaby3\environment victoria submission form - for experts.docx 1 of 5 Fishers will enjoy less catch as a result of the impact of increased shipping and toxic chlorination of the important nursery seagrass surrounding the Crib Point jetty. • Mental health impacts: due to loss of nature, or continual exposure to noise, light and visual pollution. Natural environments play a crucial role in both the mental and physical health of the communities who access them. The potential loss of nature and access to green spaces can contribute to mental distress and environmental grief experienced by communities who place significance on these areas. This can detrimentally impact on the long-term mental health of a community. Excessive exposure to noise and light pollution in areas of recreation or among households can result in loss of sleep and irritability. As well as increased prevalence of anxiety and a lack of ability to focus. The impacts of noise and light pollution can result in increased prevalence of mental health conditions in a community. • There is an unacceptable risk of fire, explosion and exposure to toxic hydrocarbons. A new fossil fuel project like the gas import terminal which AGL is proposing would introduce new risks to the local community and visitors to the area. These risks include exposing people to toxic hydrocarbons which may leak from the facility and increased risk of accidental fire and explosion as noted in EES Technical Report K. The nearest homes to the import facility are about 1.5 kms away and Wooleys Beach is also close to the site. AGL have completed only preliminary quantitative risk assessments on these risks and have deemed the risk acceptable on that basis. It is not acceptable to present preliminary studies and the EES should not continue until we have an independent expert to provide final risk assessments. 5. Do you think this will also impact the local economy through its impact on tourism and recreation activities? • Yes Phillip Island is the second most tourism-dependent region in all of Australia. People come to see the little penguins and the migrating Humpback and Southern Right whales as well as other incredible marine and wetland wildlife. The industrialisation of Westernport Bay in the form of huge gas tankers and a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit will undermine the beauty of the area and be inconsistent with the perception that it is a pristine and protected wetland. This could impact Phillip Island as a popular tourist destination. • No While I do not think this will impact tourism and recreation significantly it will still undermine decades- long efforts to regenerate Westernport Bay. Westernport Bay has been considered an industrial area in the past but that perception has been steadily shifting. More and more people now regard the Bay as a site of high ecological and recreational importance. The gas import terminal proposal would be a step backwards for this perception and may derail efforts to protect the further enhance the area for the environment and for recreational users. 6. What do you think is the most important reason to protect our wetlands and coastal ecosystems? • Wetlands are among the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth. Wetlands are among the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth. They combine land and water which allows them to be home to at least 1350 species including migratory birds like the critically endangered Orange-Bellied Parrot. Half of the Westernport Bay wetland is made up of seagrass beds which are a nursery site for prawns and fish. Westernport Bay is also the most significant site for mangroves in Victoria. Mangroves stabilise sediment and protect the shoreline from erosion. The shoreline directly around the Crib Point jetty is an extensive mangrove stand. Wetlands should be protected as a key habitat for an incredible array of plants and animals rather than being subject to potentially damaging projects like this gas import terminal proposed by AGL. Error! Unknown document property name. Revision Error! Unknown document property name. Error! Unknown document property name. c:\users\bcm\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\inetcache\content.outlook\pfidaby3\environment victoria submission form - for experts.docx 2 of 5 If the project is approved AGL could dump up to 468 million litres of chlorinated water into the Bay each day which could have a disastrous impact on marine wildlife. There is so much we do not know about how this cold chlorinated wastewater will affect marine life in Westernport. The impact modelling completed by AGL is not comprehensive and in some cases totally inappropriate. Furthermore, current Victorian laws prohibit the discharge of wastewater in high conservation value areas like Westernport Bay - clause 22 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters). AGL has so far been unsuccessful in their attempts to weaken these laws. Combining the poor impact assessments and the fact that the plan currently does not meet the legal requirements this proposal should not continue. • Wetlands are crucial to our defence against the climate crisis. Recent research has shown that wetlands have the potential to capture and store large amounts of carbon for hundreds of years. Wetlands should be protected and enhanced for their role in the fight against climate change rather than being subject to potentially damaging projects like this gas import terminal proposed by AGL. In Victoria we have already bulldozed or drained most of our freshwater wetlands which has contributed to the loss of approximately 35 per cent of wetlands worldwide between 1970-2015. We cannot afford to lose any more as we face the climate crisis. If the project is approved AGL could dump up to 468 million litres of chlorinated water into the Bay each day which could have a disastrous impact on marine wildlife. There is so much we do not know about how this cold chlorinated wastewater will affect marine life in Westernport. The impact modelling completed by AGL is not comprehensive and in some cases totally inappropriate. Furthermore, current Victorian laws prohibit the discharge of wastewater in high conservation value areas like Westernport Bay - clause 22 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters). AGL has so far been unsuccessful in their attempts to weaken these laws. Combining the poor impact assessments and the fact that the plan currently does not meet the legal requirements this proposal should not continue. • Australia has committed to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands as a signatory of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. Australia has committed to promote the conservation and wise use of wetlands as a signatory of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance. This is understood as the maintenance of their ecological character and preventing their degradation. It is inappropriate to build and operate a gas import terminal in the middle of one of the most precious environments in Victoria and an internationally significant wetland. If the project is approved AGL could dump up to 468 million litres of chlorinated water into the Bay each day which could have a disastrous impact on marine wildlife. There is so much we do not know about how this cold chlorinated wastewater will affect marine life in Westernport. The impact modelling completed by AGL is not comprehensive and in some cases totally inappropriate. Furthermore, current Victorian laws prohibit the discharge of wastewater in high conservation value areas like Westernport Bay - clause 22 of the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters). AGL has so far been unsuccessful in their attempts to weaken these laws. Combining the poor impact assessments and the fact that the plan currently does not meet the legal requirements this proposal should not continue. 7. We are facing a climate crisis. Which of these arguments do you think is the most powerful against AGL’s proposed gas import terminal? • To avert the worst impacts of climate change we cannot afford any new fossil fuel projects in Victoria. Millions of Australians consider climate change not to be a threat in the distant future but a dangerous reality we face right now. We are on track for several degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century if we do not curb our emissions from fossil fuels. The plummeting costs of renewables and energy storage has rendered fossil fuel projects not only a threat to our environment but also bad business. Corporations like AGL should be investing more in renewables and supporting consumers to move away from gas instead of investing in soon-to-be stranded assets. This proposal to build a gas import terminal is not consistent with what we need to do to create a safe climate. • Imported gas can be as bad as coal for the planet. Error! Unknown document property name. Revision Error! Unknown document property name. Error! Unknown document property name. c:\users\bcm\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\inetcache\content.outlook\pfidaby3\environment victoria submission form - for experts.docx 3 of 5 Gas is more carbon polluting than coal if methane leakage throughout the whole gas supply chain is above 3.2 per cent. Recent studies have shown that we have previously underestimated how much methane is released to the atmosphere during gas production. It has been found that onshore gas fields in the United States have levels of leakage of 2-17 per cent. Despite these findings the Australian gas industry and federal government report far lower emission intensities for unconventional gas emissions based on default emissions factors rather than on reliable measurements. Gas is not a climate solution. • Renewable energy sources and electrification will soon displace our need for gas. The electricity generation sector will play a key role in the transition away from fossil fuels. Renewable energy has become the cheapest alternative for new power production. This holds true even when renewables are backed with 6 hours of storage to guarantee that renewable energy can be delivered when required according to the Australian Energy Market Operator and CSIRO. The fact that firmed renewables will displace gas is becoming increasingly accepted in the energy markets. This year AEMO adjusted its Victorian GPG annual consumption forecast for the 2014 to 2039 period. They now assume that gas consumption will be dramatically below what was previously thought due to a higher penetration of renewables than previously forecast. • Wetlands lock in carbon and are one of our best defences against the impacts of climate change. Wetlands contain a disproportionate amount of the soil carbon on our planet. Wetlands are responsible for storing between 20 and 30 per cent of global soil carbon despite occupying only around 5 and 8 per cent of the surface of the Earth. Protecting wetlands such as Westernport Bay Ramsar site should be a priority to prevent the release of vast quantities of carbon pollution to the atmosphere. This is particularly important as a defense against the impacts of climate change. • Reducing gas demand across Victoria is a better alternative to AGL’s proposed gas import terminal in Westernport Bay. The EES submitted by AGL grossly underestimates the potential for reducing our demand for gas in Victoria. Victoria could reduce its gas consumption by between 98 and 113 petajoules by 2030 through using existing technology and targeted economic support according to a recent report written by energy consultants Northmore Gordon. With the right government policies Victoria could meet its energy needs without new gas including new gas fields or gas import terminals like that proposed by AGL for Westernport Bay. These measures will lower energy costs for consumers and reduce emissions under most scenarios. This is the case even when a lot of our electricity is generated by fossil fuels but will become even cheaper and less polluting as more of our electricity is generated through renewables. 8. What do you think is the biggest risk AGL’s proposed project poses to marine wildlife? • The 1-in-16 risk of vessels striking marine animals over the lifetime of the project. Large ships like LNG tankers have been recorded as having hit whales and other marine mammals. The EES has grossly underreported the chance of whale strike at 1-in-2500 per year. Using their own figures the actual calculated risk is 1-in-326. This means a 1-in-16 chance over the proposed 20-year lifespan. It is likely that these numbers are conservative because the number of whales observed with injuries consistent with ship strike is higher than the number of strikes reported by shipping operators. The conclusion that a ship strike would have a low consequence to the visiting Southern Right whale population is inconsistent with the Conservation Management Plan for Southern Right whales. • The impact of noise pollution on marine wildlife including dolphins, whales and seals. It is concerning to see the lack of credible assessments on how noise would affect marine wildlife. AGL acknowledge in their EES that there have been no baseline studies of the noise in Westernport Bay. They have also not tested the impact of noise in Westernport Bay itself nor the noise produced by a berthed FSRU. Even with these inadequate studies the EES states that underwater sound would elicit behavioural changes in dolphins and mask the communication of whales in the area. The noise Error! Unknown document property name. Revision Error! Unknown document property name. Error! Unknown document property name. c:\users\bcm\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\inetcache\content.outlook\pfidaby3\environment victoria submission form - for experts.docx 4 of 5 would also deter fish and other marine animals from foraging nearby which would affect the important ecosystem around Crib Point. • Chlorine impacting marine wildlife. Small marine organisms which make up the foundations of the ecosystem - like plankton and fish eggs - would be the most impacted by this proposal. Locally they would be unable to escape being pulled into the ship intake and being subjected to chlorine levels far above safe levels. The impact is likely to be significant with nearly half a billion litres of water being drawn into the intakes each day. This enormous quantity of colder chlorinated water would be dumped back into the Bay and disperse with the current thereby further affecting marine wildlife. Thank you once again for the opportunity to contribute to the environment assessment of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. As outlined above, the impact on the local community would be unacceptable. There are many other viable, and more suitable, options Victoria can pursue to ensure that we meet our energy needs without exposing the precious wetlands of Westernport Bay, the unique wildlife which depend on this ecosystem, or the local community to any harm. Sincerely, XXX Thank you once again for the opportunity to contribute to the environment assessment of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. As outlined above, the impact on our internationally recognised wetlands and wildlife would be unacceptable. There are many other viable, and more suitable, options Victoria can pursue to ensure that we meet our energy needs without exposing the precious wetlands of Westernport Bay, the unique wildlife which depend on this ecosystem, or the local community to any harm. Sincerely, XXX Thank you once again for the opportunity to contribute to the environment assessment of the Crib Point gas import jetty and gas pipeline project. As outlined above, the negative impact on greenhouse gas emissions in Victoria would be unacceptable. There are many other viable, and more suitable, options Victoria can pursue to ensure that we meet our energy needs without exposing the precious wetlands of Westernport Bay, the unique wildlife which depend on this ecosystem, or the local community to any harm. Sincerely, XXX Error! Unknown document property name. Revision Error! Unknown document property name. Error! Unknown document property name. c:\users\bcm\appdata\local\microsoft\windows\inetcache\content.outlook\pfidaby3\environment victoria submission form - for experts.docx 5 of 5