orange to molong creek dam pipeline review of environmental factors€¦ · orange to molong creek...

Orange to Molong Creek Dam Pipeline Review of Environmental Factors

Prepared for

Cabonne Council

24 August 2016

Or an g e t o M ol o n g Cr e e k D a m P i pe l i n e RE F

© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D ii

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name Molong Creek Dam Pipeline and Molong to Cumnock & Yeoval Pipeline Environmental Assessment

Project Number 16ARM3812

Project Manager Robert Cawley Phone: (02) 8081 2689 Office address: 92 Taylor St, Armidale, NSW 2350

Prepared by Linden Burch; Lyndon Paterson, David Allworth

Reviewed by Daniel Magdi, Robert Cawley

Approved by Daniel Magdi

Status FINAL

Version Number 1a

Last saved on 24 August 2016

Cover photo Left: Thompson Road, Right: the Mitchell Highway road reserve Photos: David Allworth

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2016. Orange to Molong Creek Dam Pipeline

Review of Environmental Factors. Prepared for Cabonne Council.’’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support Cabonne Council. TTM

Consulting Pty Ltd and TTM Consulting Pty Ltd Soundmatters division.

Disclaimer

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Cabonne Council. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Cabonne Council,

by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area.

Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date

information.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this

report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific

assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 24/07/2015


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D iii

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. x

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11

1.1 Project overview ......................................................................................................................... 11

1.2 Strategic alignment ..................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.1 Centroc Regional Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan ................................................... 11

1.2.2 Centroc Water Security Study .................................................................................................... 11

1.2.3 Centroc Regional Demand Management Plan ........................................................................... 12

1.2.4 Centroc Regional Drought Management Plan ............................................................................ 12

1.2.5 Project scope .............................................................................................................................. 12

2 The Proponent .......................................................................................................................... 13

3 The Proposal ............................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 General ....................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Machinery and equipment .......................................................................................................... 16

3.3 Access and ancillary works ........................................................................................................ 16

3.4 Duration and working hours ........................................................................................................ 16

4 The Statutory Context .............................................................................................................. 17

4.1 Commonwealth legislation .......................................................................................................... 17

4.1.1 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 .......................................... 17

4.2 State legislation and policies ...................................................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 ................................................................. 17

4.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure), 2007 ....................................................... 18

4.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 ........................ 18

4.2.4 Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997 ........................................................... 19

4.2.5 Water Management Act 2000 and Water Management (General) Regulation 2011 ................. 19

4.2.6 Roads Act 1993 .......................................................................................................................... 20

4.2.7 Heritage Act 1977 ....................................................................................................................... 20

4.2.8 Fisheries Management Act 1994 ................................................................................................ 20

4.2.9 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 .............................................................................. 21

4.2.10 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 ......................................................................................... 21

4.2.11 Native Vegetation Act 2003 ........................................................................................................ 22

4.2.12 Noxious Weeds Act 1993 ........................................................................................................... 22

4.2.13 Local Environment Plans ............................................................................................................ 22

4.2.14 Land Use and Ownership ........................................................................................................... 23

4.3 Statutory position ........................................................................................................................ 24


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D iv

5 Consultation .............................................................................................................................. 25

5.1 Infrastructure SEPP requirements .............................................................................................. 25

5.1.1 Orange City Council ................................................................................................................... 25

5.1.2 Roads and Maritime Services ..................................................................................................... 25

6 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................................. 26

6.1 Socio-economic .......................................................................................................................... 26

6.1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 26

6.1.2 Existing environment .................................................................................................................. 26

6.1.3 Potential impacts ........................................................................................................................ 26

6.1.4 Mitigation measures ................................................................................................................... 26

6.2 Terrestrial flora and fauna .......................................................................................................... 26

6.2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 26




6.3 Aquatic ecology watercourse ...................................................................................................... 34

6.3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 34



6.4 Noise and vibration ..................................................................................................................... 39

6.4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 39




6.5 Traffic .......................................................................................................................................... 54

6.5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 54




6.6 Heritage ...................................................................................................................................... 56

6.6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 56




6.7 Contamination and soils ............................................................................................................. 64

6.7.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 64





© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D v

6.8 Visual amenity ............................................................................................................................ 68

6.8.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 68




6.9 Infrastructure............................................................................................................................... 69

6.9.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 69




6.10 Spoil and waste management .................................................................................................... 69

6.10.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 69



7 Consideration of state and commonwealth environmental factors .................................... 71

7.1 Clause 228(2) factors (NSW legislation) .................................................................................... 71

7.2 Section 111 (2, 3 and 4) factors (NSW legislation) .................................................................... 73

8 Environmental Management .................................................................................................... 74

9 Project Justification ................................................................................................................. 80

9.1 Justification/need for the proposal .............................................................................................. 80

9.1.1 Socio-economic .......................................................................................................................... 80

9.1.2 Demand ...................................................................................................................................... 80

9.2 Project Justification and Alternatives .......................................................................................... 81

10 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 82

References ............................................................................................................................................. 83

Appendix A Likelihood of Occurrence Tables ................................................................................... 85

Appendix B EP&A Act Assessment of Significance (Seven Part Test) ......................................... 100

B.1 Ecological Communities ........................................................................................................... 101

B.2 Flora .......................................................................................................................................... 103

B.3 Nectivorous birds ...................................................................................................................... 112

B.4 Woodland Birds ........................................................................................................................ 116

B.5 Raptors ..................................................................................................................................... 119

B.6 Waterbirds and Waders ............................................................................................................ 121

B.7 Mammalia (non-bats) ................................................................................................................ 123

B.8 Mammalia (bats – Microchiropteran) ........................................................................................ 126


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D vi

References ........................................................................................................................................... 130

Appendix C EPBC Act Assessments ................................................................................................ 132

C.1 Critically Endangered ...................................................................................................................... 134

C.2 Endangered .................................................................................................................................... 139

C.3 Vulnerable ....................................................................................................................................... 141

References ........................................................................................................................................... 149

Appendix D Aboriginal Due Diligence and Historical Heritage Desktop ....................................... 150

Appendix E Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment .......................................................... 151

List of figures

Figure 3-1: Location of the proposed pipeline alignment from Orange to Molong Creek Dam................ 15

Figure 6-1: Plant Community Types within the road reserve (Section 1)................................................. 29

Figure 6-2: Plant Community Types within the road reserve (Section 2)................................................. 30

Figure 6-3: Watercourse crossings along the pipeline route .................................................................... 37

Figure 6-4: Location of attended and unattended noise measurements.................................................. 41

Figure 6-5: Location of Area 1 and Area 2 for the evaluation of construction noise goals ...................... 43

Figure 6-6: Pipeline route sectioning ........................................................................................................ 48

Figure 6-7: Example of a mobile enclosure and barrier ........................................................................... 51

Figure 6-8: Example of easily demountable noise barrier ........................................................................ 51

Figure 6-9: Fatal crash locations along the Mitchell Highway .................................................................. 55

Figure 6-10: AHIMS sites located in the vicinity of the road reserve ....................................................... 58

Figure 6-11: Listed historic heritage sites in the vicinity of the road reserve ........................................... 60

Figure 6-12: Soil landscapes in the road reserve and surrounds. ........................................................... 66

List of tables

Table 4-1: Noxious weed species declared within the road reserves ...................................................... 22

Table 4-2: Land use zoning objectives ..................................................................................................... 23

Table 6-1: Description of mapped remnant and planted trees ................................................................. 28


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D vii

Table 6-2: Waterways, Aquatic Habitat Sensitivity and Key Fish Habitats .............................................. 35

Table 6-3: Unattended and attended 15 minute duration noise measurements ...................................... 42

Table 6-4: Recommended standard working hours ................................................................................. 42

Table 6-5: Site Specific (category) Construction Noise Goals ................................................................. 42

Table 6-6: Recommended building damage vibration criterion ................................................................ 44

Table 6-7: Human comfort vibration levels equivalent to curve 4 of AS2670.2 ....................................... 44

Table 6-8: Plant and equipment noise source levels for construction activities ....................................... 45

Table 6-9: Sound power levels of construction plant and equipment for each construction phase ......... 46

Table 6-10: Number of residential properties in each section and applicable construction noise goals . 49

Table 6-11: Approximate maximum distance from pipeline to achieve construction noise goals ............ 49

Table 6-12: Approximate number of noise impacted residential properties ............................................. 50

Table 6-13: Recommended safe working distances for hydraulic hammer rock breaking attachments .. 53

Table 6-14: Road classifications .............................................................................................................. 54

Table 6-15: Traffic flow data for the Mitchell Highway ............................................................................. 54

Table 6-16: Summary of crash data (2009 - 2014) .................................................................................. 55

Table 6-17: Breakdown of crash data by year for various roads within the study area ........................... 55

Table 6-18: AHIMS site types within 1.5 km of the proposed pipeline ..................................................... 57

Table 6-19: Historic heritage sites identified in the surrounding area of the pipeline corridor ................. 59

Table 6-20: Disturbance levels within the road reserve ........................................................................... 62

Table 6-21: Soil disturbance and archaeological sensitivity for the study area ....................................... 63

Table 6-22: Attributes of soil landscapes identified within the road reserve. ......................................... 65

Table 6-23: Proposed waste management measures ............................................................................. 70

Table 7-1: Compliance with Clause 228(2) of the EP&A Regulation 2000 .............................................. 71

Table 7-2: Compliance with Clauses 111(2. 3 and 4) of the EP&A Act 1979 .......................................... 73

Table 8-1: Risk assessment matrix .......................................................................................................... 74

Table 7-4: Summary of environmental controls and residual risk ............................................................ 76

Table A-9-1: Threatened flora likelihood table ......................................................................................... 86

Table 9-2: Threatened Ecological Communities likelihood table ............................................................. 88

Table 9-3: Threatened fauna likelihood tables ......................................................................................... 90


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D viii

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

7-part test Assessment of Significance

AHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit

CEEC Critically Endangered Ecological Communities

CoP NSW Office of Environment and Heritage’s Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of

Aboriginal Objects

DGR Director General's Requirements

DNG Derived native grassland

DotE Department of the Environment

DPE NSW Department of Planning and Environment

DPI NSW Department of Primary Industries

EARs Environmental Assessment Requirements

EEC Endangered Ecological Communities

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)

EP&A Reg Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

EPL Environmental Protection Licence

ESCP Erosion and Sediment Control Plan

FM Act Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW)

KTP Key Threatening Process

LEP Local Environmental Plan

LGA Local Government Area

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

NOW NSW Office of Water

NP&W Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)

NSR Noise Sensitive Receiver

NSW INP NSW Industrial Noise Policy

NV Act Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NSW)


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D ix

Abbreviation Description

OCC Orange City Council

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

PCT Plant Community Type

POEO Act Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997 (NSW)

RE1 Public Recreation zoning

REF Review of Environmental Factors

RU1 Primary Production zoning

SEARs Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policies

SIS Species Impact Statement

SP2 Infrastructure zoning

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)

TMM TTM Consulting Pty Ltd

TTM

Soundmatters TTM Consulting Pty Ltd Soundmatters division

WM Act Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)

WONS Weeds of National Significance


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D x

Executive summary

Cabonne Council proposes to install a pipeline to carry potable water for domestic uses from Orange to

Molong Creek Dam, NSW. The strategic objective of the proposed Orange to Molong Creek Dam

pipeline is to improve urban water security within the central west region of NSW. This project does not

involve any changes to existing water access licences, rather it involves increased sharing of treated

potable water at a district level. As such, this Review of Environmental Factors (REF) does not account

for any changes to current capped licenced entitlements for any future operations.

Cabonne Council is the nominated determining authority for the proposed pipeline, however approvals

will need to be secured from the NSW DPI and John Holland Country Network before construction

activities.

The potential for adverse environmental impacts are restricted to the construction phase of the pipeline.

The pipeline will:

Cross Key Fish Habitat at 10 locations

Be undertaken in heritage conservation areas

Be undertaken in Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC)

Dependent on the construction method used, Cabonne Council may or may not be required to apply for

a permit to conduct works within Key Fish Habitat.

Heritage assessments found the impact on historic heritage would be deemed minimal. However, due

to the sensitivity of Aboriginal heritage within the road reserve, consultation with the local Aboriginal

Land Council is recommended.

Assessments of significance for threatened species and EEC were applied under section 5A of the

EP&A Act, as well as significance assessments under the EPBC Act guidelines to determine the

potential impacts to species, populations and communities in the study area. Based on these

assessments, the proposed pipeline is considered unlikely to result in significant impacts to individual

communities and threatened species. However, based upon the likely cumulative impacts on

communities listed under the EPBC Act, a referral will not be required.

Construction works would not result in the pollution of land and water as long as erosion and sediment

control measures are in place during construction, and progressive remediation is implemented.

Prior to construction, Cabonne Council will be required to obtain a Water Supply Works Approval from

DPI Water prior to any works commencing in land that is defined as waterfront land.

This REF concludes that the potential for adverse environmental impacts are primarily restricted to the

construction phase, subject to the adoption of appropriate mitigation measures.


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 11

1 Introduction

1.1 Project overview

Cabonne Council, in conjunction with its Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Projects partners,

Orange City Council and Central Tablelands Water, has recently received NSW Government funding

under the Restart NSW Water Security for Regions programme to improve water access and security.

Cabonne Council will deliver the construction of a 9.8 km raw water pipeline from Ammerdown

Crescent, north of Orange to Molong Creek Dam. Currently, the Molong Creek Dam yield is

inadequate, resulting in insufficient water supply during drought, and comparisons to demand

projections indicate that the secure yield will not meet the demand (Section 1.2). The project would

make use of the Orange City Council system, by accessing potable water as an emergency water

supply.

The final alignment for these proposed works will be selected via detailed engineering survey following

Environmental Assessment.

1.2 Strategic al ignment

The project is driven by several regional and local strategies which are summarised in the following

sections.

1.2.1 Centroc Regional Integrated Water Cycle Management Plan

The Regional Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) Plan documents the collective water cycle

management plan for the local water utilities of the Central NSW Councils and supports the following

key plans:

Centroc Water Security Study

Centroc Regional Demand Management Plan

Centroc Regional Drought Management Plan

Individual Local Water Utility (LWU) Demand Management, Drought Management and IWCM

plans

The IWCM Plan seeks to define the opportunities for regional collaboration to facilitate each member

LWU to manage regional urban water services in an efficient and effective manner. Following

consultation with the Project Steering Committee for Centroc, one of the eight regional objectives that is

consistent to the proposed pipeline is “to demonstrate water supply security.”

1.2.2 Centroc Water Security Study

In their Water Security Study, Centroc conducted an audit of existing bulk water supply infrastructure

and assessed options to improve water security across 17 LGAs, including Cabonne Council.

The assessment identified 29 towns, including Molong, and Cumnock and Yeoval as towns that will

require improved water security over the next 50 year planning horizon (until 2059). The forecasts

accounted for population growth, surface water and groundwater resources, climate sequence and

climate change. The baseline average annual water demand forecast for Cumnock and Yeoval is

anticipated to be 201 ML, without accounting for the impact of demand management and climate

change. Centroc recommended as part of a region wide strategy that Cabonne Council commence

preliminary planning for the potential need to connect to the Central Tablelands Water (CTW) system by



installing a pipeline from Orange to the existing Molong Creek Dam. The Molong Creek Dam is

Molong’s main source of water supply operating all year round for the full range of water restrictions.

When the Molong Creek Dam supply is exhausted or its use is prohibited by water quality issues, the

Borenore Creek Dam is used as a secondary source and is used under Level 5 restrictions. Molong

has not been identified as a town requiring improved water security, however, there is some uncertainty

regarding the hydrology of Molong (MHW Global 2009).

1.2.3 Centroc Regional Demand Management Plan

The Regional Demand Management Plan defines opportunities for regional collaboration to facilitate

each member LWU’s efficient use of water resources. The objectives of this plan are:

To develop a consistent regional approach, balanced against local priorities, towards cost

effective water demand management, ensuring the efficient use of regional water resources.

Demonstration that each participating LWU has a Best-Practice demand management plan to

meet NSW Best-Practice requirements.

Demonstration of leadership and self-management in regional water management approaches.

1.2.4 Centroc Regional Drought Management Plan

The Regional Drought Management Plan examines how the Centroc member councils can collaborate

in voluntary arrangements to better manage the region in drought. The objectives of the plan are:

To provide a voluntary consistent regional approach to managing water supply during drought

periods

To enable implementation of consistent water restrictions definitions across Centroc which can

be applied locally using individual Council’s triggers

To specify a regional drought management framework.

The Regional Drought management Plan identified Molong Creek Dam as the primary water source for

Molong, and that Borenore Creek Dam is a secondary water resource to be used under Level 5

conditions, which is triggered when capacity at Molong Creek Dam drops to 30%. Tertiary water

sources include existing wells on Thistle Street and the Mitchell Highway adjacent to the Molong

Recreation Ground. An alternative tertiary groundwater source has been identified within the area

bounded by the Mitchell Highway, Thistle Street, the Railway and Molong Creek.

1.2.5 Project scope

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) was commissioned by the proponent, Cabonne Council, to prepare

an environmental assessment for the proposed Orange to Molong Creek Dam pipeline and associated

infrastructure. Details of the proposed pipeline alignment and construction method are provided in

Section 3.

This REF was prepared in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(NSW) (EP&A Act), and other relevant legislation, to assess the significance of potential environmental

impacts associated with installing a potable water pipeline between Orange and Molong Creek Dam.

Specifically, this REF will assist Cabonne Council to take into account to the fullest extent possible

relevant factors specified in:

Section 111 of the EP&A Act; and

Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Reg).



2 The Proponent

The proponent is:

Cabonne Council

101 Bank Street, Molong NSW 2866

Cabonne Council is a rural shire covering 6017 square km in central west NSW, incorporating the towns

of Canowindra, Cargo, Cudal, Cumnock, Eugowra, Manildra, Molong and Yeoval. The Cabonne

Council Local Government Area (LGA) is known as “Australia’s Food Basket” providing a variety of high

quality products.

Council’s role is to provide the functions and services that are listed in the Local Government Act 1993

to the communities within its jurisdictions, including the provision of water supply services to country

towns. Cabonne Council owns and operates town water supplies at Molong, Cumnock, Yeoval and

Mullion Creek. Water supplies at the towns of Canowindra, Cargo, Cudal, Manildra and Eugowra are

operated by Central Tablelands Water based in Blayney.



3 The Proposal

3.1 General

The proposal is to deliver the construction and operation of a 9.8 km raw water pipeline from Orange to

Molong Creek Dam (Figure 3-1). The proposed pipeline alignment will connect into the existing 225

mm main at the junction of Ivanhoe Way and the Mitchell Highway at Ammerdown, northwest of

Orange. The pipeline will follow the Mitchell Highway and divert along Thompson Road before re-

joining the Mitchell Highway again. The pipeline will then follow Bruce Road to the Molong Creek Dam

(Figure 3-1).

The proposed works will involve a 200 mm water PVC pipeline trenched to a maximum depth of 1.5 m

with the trench up to 1 m wide. The disturbance zone will be approximately 6 m wide in open areas,

and will be reduced to 3 m wide in constrained areas. This will enable all construction activities to be

carried out within the disturbance zone, including trench excavation, equipment storage, vehicle

movements and storage of topsoil. During trenching, topsoil and subsoil will be placed on opposite

sides of the trench. The proposed pipeline will follow the edge of the road reserve where possible to

avoid the Mitchell Highway road seal. This will reduce the likelihood of creating a traffic hazard if air

valve pits are constructed adjacent to the bitumen seal. Furthermore, this alignment offers the least

resistance to laying the pipeline when machinery can operate away from the road. The alignment will

be brought closer to the road edge along Thompson Road to avoid trees.

The alignment has been designed to avoid obstacles where possible and designed to avoid root

disturbance for both native and exotic trees. The alignment will be outside the dripline of trees, and in

some areas underboring will be used for the length required to avoid any impacts.

At watercourse crossings, the pipeline will be laid in the watercourse bed. Depending upon

circumstances, either underboring or flow diversion will be used during construction. Flow diversion

involves using a flume pipe or pump to convey water through or around the construction area.

Regardless of whether a flume pipe or pump is used, two minor dams are constructed to create a dry

work area. In watercourses with a sediment bed, the pipeline will be trenched and soil replaced. In

hard rock areas the trench will be constructed through the rock and backfilled with concrete with rocks

set into the concrete to recreate riffle where required.

This pipeline alignment is indicative and is still subject to geotechnical investigations and further

refinements.



Figure 3-1: Location of the proposed pipeline alignment from Orange to Molong Creek Dam



3.2 Machinery and equipment

Works will be undertaken predominantly using heavy machinery such as:

Excavators

Trucks

Additional machinery may be used, providing that it has a similar low impact on vegetation and soil.

3.3 Access and anci l lary works

Access to the proposed works area will be via the existing road infrastructure. No new access roads

are required or proposed.

The proposed works will occur entirely within the road reserve and no property acquisition is required.

Other ancillary tools and machinery may be required to undertake the work including pumps,

generators, utility vehicles, hand tools, etc.

3.4 Durat ion and working hours

The construction of the proposed pipeline will be relatively short term.

Recommended work hours are in accordance with the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECCW,

2009):

Monday to Friday 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m.

Saturday 8.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.

No work on Sunday or public holidays



4 The Statutory Context

4.1 Commonwealth legislation

4.1.1 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999

Under the environmental assessment provisions of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the following matters of national environmental significance

(MNES) and impacts on Commonwealth land are required to be considered to assist in determining

whether the Proposal should be referred to the Department of the Environment (DotE).

Factor Likely impact

a. Any impact on a World Heritage property?

The proposal would not impact any World Heritage property Nil

b. Any impact on a National Heritage place?

The proposal would not impact any National Heritage place Nil

c. Any impact on a wetland of international importance?

The proposal would not impact any wetland of international importance Nil

d. Any impact on a listed threatened species or communities?

Flora and Fauna assessments undertaken to support this REF indicate that the

proposal may impact on the following EPBC listed threatened species and

communities:

Unlikely

e. Any impacts on listed migratory species?

The proposal would not impact any Commonwealth-listed migratory species Unlikely

f. Any impact on a Commonwealth marine area?

The proposal would not impact any Commonwealth marine area Nil

g. Does the proposal involve a nuclear action (including uranium mining)?

The proposal does not involve a nuclear action Nil

h. Additionally, any impact (direct or indirect) on Commonwealth land?

No Commonwealth land would be impacted by the proposal Nil

The proposed pipeline is not anticipated to have a significant impact on any MNES. No referral to the

Commonwealth DotE is required.

4.2 State legislation and pol icies

4.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

All development in NSW is assessed in accordance with the provisions of the EP&A Act and the EP&A

Regulation. The EP&A Act provides a system for environmental planning and assessment, including

approvals and environmental impact assessment requirements for proposed developments.

Implementation of the EP&A Act is the responsibility of the Minister for Planning, statutory authorities

and local councils.



As the proponent, Cabonne Council, is a public authority, the pipeline development is permitted without

consent under clause 125 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP).

Notwithstanding this, Cabonne Council is obligated to consider the environmental impacts of the works

in accordance with Part 5 of the EP&A Act as the proposal is defined as an ‘activity’ which requires

‘approval’.

Through Ministerial Directive under Section 110A of the EP&A Act, Cabonne Council is both the

proponent and the nominated determining authority. Accordingly, under Section 111 of the EP&A Act

Cabonne Council is required to “examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters

affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity”.

Consent will also be required to inform Orange City Council of any pipeline activities undertaken within

the Orange City Council LGA.

4.2.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure), 2007

The aim of the Infrastructure SEPP (ISEPP) are:

(a) improving regulatory certainty and efficiency through a consistent planning regime for

infrastructure and the provision of services, and

(b) providing greater flexibility in the location of infrastructure and service facilities, and

(c) allowing for the efficient development, redevelopment or disposal of surplus government

owned land, and

(d) identifying the environmental assessment category into which different types of infrastructure

and services development fall (including identifying certain development of minimal

environmental impact as exempt development), and

(e) identifying matters to be considered in the assessment of development adjacent to particular

types of infrastructure development, and

(f) providing for consultation with relevant public authorities about certain development during the

assessment process or prior to development commencing.

As the proponent, Cabonne Council, is a public authority, the pipeline development is permitted without

consent under clause 125 of the ISEPP. Notwithstanding this, Cabonne Council is obligated to consider

the environmental impacts of the works in accordance with Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) as the proposal is defined as an ‘activity’ which requires ‘approval’.

The ISEPP does not switch off the requirement for approvals under the Fisheries Management Act for

works affecting Key Fish Habitat. As such Cabonne Council will be required to obtain approval under

Section 200 of Part 7 of the FM Act to undertake dredging and reclamation works if open trenching is

used in waterways classified as Key Fish Habitat (Sections 4.2.8 and 6.3).

4.2.3 State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011

The State and Regional Planning SEPP aims to identify development that is State significant

development or State significant infrastructure.

Pursuant to Clause 21 of Schedule 1 and Clause 5 of Schedule 3 water treatment or water storage

facilities to be identified as a State significant development where the capital investment value is more



than $30 million. The proposal is not considered to constitute a water treatment or water storage facility

and as such the proposal is not state significant development.

Clause 5 of Schedule 3 identifies that pipelines that require a licence pursuant to the Pipelines Act 1967

represent state significant infrastructure. However, a public authority is not required to hold a licence for

a pipeline for which it constructs or has constructed. Therefore the proposal is not considered to meet

the criteria of state significant infrastructure.

4.2.4 Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997

The objectives of the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) are to

protect, restore and enhance the quality of the environment, in recognition of the need to maintain

ecological sustainable development.

Neither the construction nor operation of the proposed pipeline requires an Environmental Protection

Licence (EPL) issued under the POEO Act. The construction works are not scheduled development

work, the operation of the pipeline is not a scheduled activity, and there is no requirement to regulate

water pollution.

4.2.5 Water Management Act 2000 and Water Management (General) Regulation 2011

Controlled Activity Approval

The Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) regulates controlled activities on waterfront land in NSW.

Waterfront land is defined as the bed of any river, together with any land lying between the bed of the

river and a line parallel to, and the prescribed distance (being 40 m) inland of, the highest bank of the

river. The proposed pipeline will cross six waterways that are classified as 3rd order streams and

above.

A controlled activity, within the meaning of the WM Act, includes the removal of material (whether or not

by extractive material) or vegetation from land, whether by way of excavation or otherwise.

Therefore, installation of the pipeline at these waterways will constitute a controlled activity undertaken

on waterfront land.

Section 91E(1) of the WM Act identifies that it is an offence to carry out a controlled activity in, on or

under waterfront land without gaining a controlled activity approval. However, under Clause 38 of the

Water Management (General) Regulation 2011 (WM Reg) public authorities are exempt from Section

91E(1) of the WM act, and therefore do not require any approvals for controlled activities on waterfront

land.

Water Supply Work Approval

Pursuant to Section 90(2) of the WM Act, a water supply work approval authorises its holder to

construct and use a specified water supply work at a specified location. In relation to this project, a

water supply work includes a work such as water pipe that is constructed or used for the purpose of

conveying water to the point at which it is used. Under Section 91B of the WM Act it is an offence to

construct or use a water supply without gaining a water supply work approval. However, Clause 34(1)

of the WM Reg states a person is exempt in relation to the construction of a water pipe for the sole use

of conveying water from one place to another. However, this exemption does not apply to the entire

length of the proposed pipeline alignment. As outlined in Clause 34(2) of the WM Reg the exemption is

not applied to the following land specific to this project:



Waterfront land (other than waterfront land relating to a minor stream). A minor stream

constitutes a 1st and 2nd order stream under the Strahler stream classification system. The

pipeline will cross:

o 2 x third order streams

o 3 x fourth order streams

o 1 x fifth order streams.

Therefore, the proposed pipeline will require a water supply works approval for particular sections of the

pipeline.

4.2.6 Roads Act 1993

Significant portions of the proposed pipeline route are located within road reserves for a range of local

and classified roads. The proposed pipeline is within the road reserve of the Mitchell Highway for which

the NSW Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) is the road authority. Prior to any works commencing

within the road reserve, Cabonne Council will require consent from RMS for the proposed activities,

pursuant to Section 138. Orange City Council is the road authority for Thompson Road, thus consent is

required from Orange City Council prior to any works commencing within this road reserve, however, it

is understood that Orange City Council has delegated its authority to Cabonne Council for the purposes

of this project (S. Sapkota pers. comm.). Cabonne Council is the road authority for all other roads that

pipeline alignment will follow.

4.2.7 Heritage Act 1977

Under Section 140 of the Heritage Act 1977 a person must not disturb or excavate any land knowing or

having reasonable cause to suspect that the disturbance or excavation will or is likely to result in a relic

being discovered, exposed, moved, damage or destroyed unless the disturbance or excavation is

carried out in accordance with an excavation permit. A relic is any deposit, artefact, object or material

that relates to the settlement of the area that comprises NSW, not being Aboriginal settlement, and is of

State or local heritage significance. Section 140 does not apply to a relic that is subject to an interim

heritage order made by the Minister or a listing on the State Heritage Order.

Heritage investigations have determined that a Section 140 permit is not required for the construction of

the pipeline (Section 6.6).

4.2.8 Fisheries Management Act 1994

The NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) and its regulation outlines requirements to protect

aquatic habitats, fauna species and ecological communities. Threatened aquatic species, populations

and EECs are listed under Schedules 4, 4A and 5 of the FM act, while key threatening processes are

listed under Schedule 6.

Division 3 of Part 4 of the FM Act outlines the provisions for the management of dredging and

reclamation work, consistent with the objectives of ecologically sustainable development. For the

purposes of this proposal, water land is defined as land submerged by water, whether permanently or

intermittently. Depending upon circumstances, either underboring or flow diversion will be used for all

waterway crossings during construction. The flow diversion method involves open cut trenches, and will

involve dredging and reclamation, and as such does involve dredging or reclamation works as defined

under Division 3 of the FM Act at these waterway crossings. Pursuant to Section 200 of the FM Act, a

local government authority must not carryout dredging or reclamation work except under the authority of

a permit issued by the Minister.



The construction activities for the proposed pipeline do not harm marine vegetation or obstruct the free

passage of fish. As such, the approvals or consultation are not required under Section 205 and 219 of

the FM Act.

4.2.9 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) lists threatened species, populations and

ecological communities to be considered in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant impact on

threatened biota, or their habitats. If a species of flora or fauna listed in Schedule 1 or 2 of the TSC Act

is identified, a review must be undertaken of the factors set out to establish if there is likely to be a

significant effect on that species, population, ecological community or habitat. If any of these could be

impacted by the proposal, an assessment of significance that addresses the requirements of Section 5A

of the EP&A Act must be completed to determine the significance of the impact.

Potential impacts upon threatened species have been assessed and are contained in Sections 6.2 of

this report and include one community, seven flora species and 9 fauna species. Assessments of

significance for these listed communities and species concluded that there would not be a significant

impact and therefore a Species Impact Statement is not required.

4.2.10 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides for the protection of Aboriginal objects

(sites, objects and cultural material) and Aboriginal places. The proposed alignment is not located on

any land reserved under the NPW Act and as such, no authorisation by or under this Act is required

pursuant to clause 125(4) of the Infrastructure SEPP.

Under the NPW Act all fauna is protected, threatened or otherwise. Protected plants are listed in

Schedule 13 of the NP&W act, which shall not be harmed or picked on any land either on or off National

Park estate without prior approval. No flora species listed under Schedule 13 were identified during the

field survey.

The NPW Act also affords protection for Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW. Part 6 of the NPW Act

provides specific protection for Aboriginal objects and places by making it an offence to destroy, deface,

damage, or move them from the land, irrespective of their level of significance or issues of land tenure.

Pursuant to Sections 89 and 90 it is an offence to disturb an Aboriginal object or knowingly destroy or

damage, or cause the destruction or damage to, an Aboriginal object or Aboriginal place, except in

accordance with a permit or consent under section 87 and 90 of the NPW Act. The OEH must be

notified on the discovery of Aboriginal objects under section 89A of the NPW Act.

The Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales

(DECCW 2010c) as adopted by the National Parks and Wildlife Regulation 2009 (NPW Regulation)

made under the NPW Act, provides guidance to individuals and organisations to exercise due diligence

when carrying out activities that may harm Aboriginal objects. This Code also determines whether

proponents should apply for consent in the form of an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) under

section 90 of the Act. The NPW Act provides that a person who exercises due diligence in determining

that their actions will not harm Aboriginal objects has a defence against prosecution for the strict liability

offence if they later unknowingly harm an object without an AHIP. However, if an Aboriginal object is

encountered in the course of an activity work must cease and an application should be made for an

AHIP.



4.2.11 Native Vegetation Act 2003

The Native Vegetation Act 2003 (NV Act) and Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 guide the way native

vegetation is managed in NSW by preventing broad scale clearing, unless it improves or maintains

environmental outcomes.

Under Section 25(g) of the NV Act any clearing is permitted that is, or is part of, an activity carried out

by a determining authority within the meaning of Part 5 of the EPA Act if the determining authority has

complied with that Part. Therefore, consent to remove native vegetation under the NV Act is not

required.

4.2.12 Noxious Weeds Act 1993

The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) provides the regulatory framework for controlling weeds in

NSW. The NW Act aims to reduce the negative impacts of weeds on the economy, community and

environment by establishing control mechanisms to:

prevent the establishment of significant new weeds

prevent, eliminate or restrict the spread of particular significant weeds

manage widespread significant weeds in NSW.

There are five classes of noxious weeds. A weed that is a Class 1, 2 or 5 noxious weed is a notifiable

weed, for which the relevant officer of the Local Control Authority must be notified of their presence

within here days of their detection. The plants must be controlled in order to prevent the introduction of

those plants into NSW, the spread of those plants within NSW, or from NSW to another jurisdiction.

Four species declared as noxious in either or both the Cabonne Council and Orange City Council LGAs

were observed during field surveys (Table 4-1 and Section 6.2). All four species are declared Class 4

noxious weeds meaning the growth of these plants must be managed in a manner that continuously

inhibits the ability of the plant to spread. As such, the growth of these species must be managed in a

manner that continuously limits the ability of these plants to spread.

Table 4-1: Noxious weed species declared within the road reserves

Scientific Name Common Name Cabonne Council

LGA

Orange City

Council LGA

Eragrostis curvula African lovegrass - Class 4

Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry Class 4 Class 4

Hypericum perforatum St John’s wort Class 4 Class 4

Rosa rubiginosa Sweet briar Class 4 Class 4

4.2.13 Local Environment Plans

Local Environmental Plans (LEPs) are prepared by Councils to guide planning decisions in their LGA

and establish the requirements for the use and development of land. Clause 8 of the Infrastructure

SEPP provides that, in the event of an inconsistency between it and any other environmental planning

instrument, including an LEP, the Infrastructure SEPP will prevail. The permissibility of the Cabonne

LEP 2012 and the Orange LEP 2011 are therefore moot.



4.2.14 Land Use and Ownership

The proposed pipeline and associated infrastructure is located within in the Cabonne Council and

Orange City Council LGAs.

The proposed pipeline alignment is along roads that are owned and managed by Cabonne Council,

Orange City Council and RMS. All of the proposed works will occur within the boundaries of the road

reserves. Land use zones and their objectives that are traversed by the pipeline are outlined in (Table

4-2).

Table 4-2: Land use zoning objectives

Zoning Objective

Cabonne LEP

SP2 Infrastructure

To provide for infrastructure and related uses; and

To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may

detract from the provision of infrastructure.

RU1 Primary Production

To encourage sustainable primary industry production by

maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and

systems appropriate for the area.

To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.

To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and

land uses within adjoining zones.

To enable function centres, restaurants or cafes and

appropriate forms of tourist and visitor accommodation to be

developed in conjunction with agricultural uses.

Orange LEP

SP2 Infrastructure

To provide for infrastructure and related uses; and

To prevent development that is not compatible with or that may

detract from the provision of infrastructure.

RE1 Public Recreation

To enable land to be used for public open space or recreational

purposes.

To provide a range of recreational settings and activities and

compatible land uses.

To protect and enhance the natural environment for

recreational purposes.

To ensure development is ordered in such a way as to

maximise public transport patronage and encourage walking

and cycling in close proximity to settlement.

To ensure development along the Southern Link Road has

alternative access.

RU1 Primary Production

To encourage sustainable primary industry production by

maintaining and enhancing the natural resource base.

To encourage diversity in primary industry enterprises and

systems appropriate for the area.

To minimise the fragmentation and alienation of resource lands.



To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and

land uses within adjoining zones.

To promote the unique agricultural character of Orange and

facilitate a variety of tourist and visitor accommodation land

uses that are compatible with agriculture.

To ensure that development along the Southern Link Road has

an alternative access.

Pursuant to clause 125(1) of the Infrastructure SEPP, development for the purpose of water reticulation

systems may be carried out by a public authority on any land. Neither the construction nor operation of

the proposed pipeline would be antipathetic to the objectives of any of the land use zones traverse by

the pipeline.

During the final design, land ownership of the road reserves should be confirmed. In the event that

sections of the road reserve do occur on privately owned land, access agreements will need to be

negotiated with land holders.

4.3 Statutory posit ion

The proposal is identified as development that does not require consent under Part 5 of the EP&A Act,

1979. However, under Section 112(1) of the EP& Act Cabonne Council cannot carry out a prescribed

activity, an activity of a prescribed kind or an activity that is likely to significantly impact the environment

or threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats unless as the

determining authority Cabonne Council has obtained, examined and considered an environmental

impact statement in respect of the activity. The EP&A Act and the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Regulations 2000 does not identify the proposal as a prescribed activity. Water projects,

pipelines or channels disturbing environmentally sensitive land are identified as requiring an EIS under

the EIS guidelines. Initial desktop assessments and field surveys concluded that no environmentally

sensitive land was affected by the proposal and an REF is deemed an adequate level of environmental

assessment for the proposed pipeline.



5 Consultation

5.1 Infrastructure SEPP requirements

Consultation requirements are outlined under Division 1 of Part 2 of the Infrastructure SEPP for

development carried out by or on behalf of a public authority. Pursuant to the Infrastructure SEPP

Clause 17 states that consultation with a local council is not required where that Council is also the

proponent. Since Cabonne Council is the proponent consultation is not required,

5.1.1 Orange City Council

Part of the pipeline is within Orange City Council, along Thompson Road for which Orange City Council

is the road authority. Pursuant to Clause 17 consultation is exempt since Orange City Council is aware

of the intention to build the proposed pipeline and has been actively involved in the strategic planning

and design process.

5.1.2 Roads and Maritime Services

Whilst the proposed pipeline is not specified development under Clause 16 of the Infrastructure SEPP,

consultation is still required pursuant to Section 138 of the Roads Act 1993. Consultation with public

authorities other than local government is required in specific situations identified under Clause 16,

however, the proposal is not specified development and as such consultation with other public

authorities is not required. RMS is the road authority for the Mitchell Highway. Prior to any works

commencing within the road reserve, Cabonne Council will require consent from RMS for the proposed

activities.

To date, Cabonne Council has consulted with RMS regarding the pipeline alignment within the Mitchell

Highway road reserve, and will incorporate any further recommendations from RMS into the final

pipeline alignment.



6 Impact Assessment

6.1 Socio-economic

6.1.1 Introduction

Social and economic impacts associated with the proposed pipeline are considered at the local

(Molong, Cumnock and Yeoval) and the LGA (Cabonne Council) scales.

6.1.2 Existing environment

Central NSW, including Cabonne Council has experienced extended and severe droughts and a large

number of towns are dependent on the security of water allocation for their economic and social

viability, including flow on benefits for industries such as agriculture and mining.

The existing water supply source for Molong is the existing Molong Creek Dam. Borenore Creek Dam

is used as a secondary water source, while two bores in Molong have the potential to be tertiary

supplies, however quality and capacity of these bores is uncertain.

The current population of Cabonne Council is 12, 821 (2011 Census) with an average annual growth

rate of 0.14%. The population of Molong is 1,629 while Cumnock and Yeoval have a population of 275

and 292 respectively (2011 Census). A population demographic projection report commissioned by

Centroc for a 25 year period (2006 – 2031) indicates that the projected population for Cabonne Council

ranges from a low of 13,550 to high of 16,361 in 2013 (WRI 2008).

6.1.3 Potential impacts

It is anticipated that there will not be any adverse long-term impacts that would significantly impact on

the way of life, culture, community or economic activity.

As an economic enabler, improved water security for these towns would enable sustained long term

growth and development in the region. Following completion of the Molong to Cumnock and Yeoval

pipeline (ELA 2016), these townships will also access the Molong Creek Dam supply and benefit from

improved water quality and increase water security.

6.1.4 Mitigation measures

Mitigation measures for any short-term impacts on the communities of Molong, Cumnock and Yeoval

are outlined in the Sections 6.4 to 6.10.

6.2 Terrestrial f lora and fauna

6.2.1 Introduction

A search was undertaken of both Commonwealth and NSW databases to assemble a list of possible

flora and fauna species that may be present in the impact zone currently delineated for the installation

of the water pipeline from Orange to Molong Creek Dam, along the Mitchell Highway and Thompson

Road. Additional species were added to this list based on consideration of broader regional searches,

use of the Commonwealth Australian Virtual Herbarium and local familiarity with listed species.

On 29 and 30 June, ELA ecologist David Allworth assessed tree condition within the disturbance zone,

and undertook targeted searches for listed threatened species and vegetation communities along the

entire length of the proposed pipeline alignment.




The road reserve for virtually the entire length of the proposed pipeline route is dominated by exotics,

including Phalaris spp. This dominance of exotic plants is due to the historical and continual

disturbance within the table drain through slashing and grading, with topsoil being removed.

Threatened flora

Searches of the EPBC Act Protected Matters database (DotE 2016) and the Atlas of Wildlife (OEH

2016) have revealed nine threatened flora species that could potentially occur within 10 km of the

proposed pipeline route. Of these, seven are listed under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act and two

species are listed under the EPBC Act only.

Dichanthium setosum EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Eucalyptus aggregata (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Eucalyptus canobolensis (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Eucalyptus robertsonii subsp. hemisphaerica (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Euphrasia arguta (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor (EPBC Act)

Prasophyllum petilum (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Prasophyllum sp. Wybong (EPBC Act)

Thesium austral (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Of the above, only E. aggregate (Black Gum) has a vouchered record from the area. Five species:

Euphrasia argute, Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor, Prasophyllum petilum, Prasophyllum sp.

Wybong and Thesium austral are considered to potentially occur within the area, but could not be

detected during field surveys due to out of season conditions (Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix

C). The remaining three are currently not considered likely to occur in the area based on distribution

records, habitat factors and/or absence during the field survey.

Additional species were added to this list based on consideration of broader regional searches, use of

the Commonwealth Australian Virtual Herbarium and local familiarity with listed species, including:

Ammobium craspedioides (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Lepidium hyssopifolium (EPBC Act and TSC Act)

Swainsona sericea (TSC Act)

A search for species likely to be within the road reserve was undertaken for the entire length of the

proposed pipeline alignment. No evidence of these species was located, but the out-of-season-search

would not warrant confidence that the plant did not occur in the area.

Vegetation Communities

The proposed pipeline intersects a mosaic of open grazed farmland, rural subdivisions and woodland

remnants, as well as roadside plantings. The road reserve and adjacent landscape has been impacted

by past clearing, exotic pasture species, livestock grazing, roadside vegetation management,

earthworks and weed invasion. This has influenced the vegetation within the road reserve and has

removed a substantial amount of the native plant composition and floristic structure from within the

landscape.

There are a number of remnant vegetation blocks that the road intersects. Two Plant Community Types

(PCTs) are intersected by the proposed pipeline (Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2), including:



PCT 312: Yellow Box grassy tall woodland on valley flats in the upper slopes of the NSW South

Western Bioregion and South Eastern Highlands Bioregion

PCT 1330: Yellow Bow - Blakely’s Red Gum grassy woodland on the tablelands, South Eastern

Highlands Bioregion. Note: In the Orange region, PCT 1330 includes Eucalyptus viminalis and

E. bridgesiana along creeklines.

The remnant blocks are generally less than a hectare in size and vary in condition (Table 6-1).

Table 6-1: Description of mapped remnant and planted trees

Remnant ID PCT Description

1 312 Remnant trees Eucalyptus bridgesiana along creekline and E. melliodora

upslope. Herb layer is dominated by Phalaris.

2 312 Very mature E. melliodora remnant trees with an exotic understorey. Herb

layer is dominated by Phalaris.

3 1330 Narrow corridor of E. melliodora and E. blakelyi. Herb layer dominated by

Phalaris.

4 1330

Gum-Box grassy woodland of E. melliodora and E. blakelyi. At the time of

field survey, Phalaris was dominant in the herb layer, but Bothriochloa

macra was also present. There remains the possibility that in warmer

months, native species could be more dominant. Approximately 0.9 ha

meets EPBC Gum-Box grassy woodland criteria (an area with

predominantly native understorey, greater than 0.1 ha with 21 or more non

grassy native species).

5 1330 Formerly E. viminalis and E. bridgesiana open forest. Exotic tree species

are present.

6 1330 Formerly PCT1330. Plantings of native trees in this patch are not thriving.

7 1330 Formerly PCT1330. Plantings of native trees that are in healthy condition.

Of the vegetation patches identified in the field survey, two (Remnant 3 and 4) contain remnant PCT

1330. Conservatively, approximately 0.9 ha in Remnant 4 meets the EPBC Act White Box - Yellow Box

- Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands criteria, and are potentially part

of the Commonwealth list ecological community.

Noxious weeds and WONS

No comprehensive mapping of weeds was undertaken as part of this environmental assessment,

however, on an opportunistic basis the following noxious weeds were identified by field observations:

Eragrostis curvula (African Lovegrass)

Rubus fruticosus aggregate (Blackberry)

Hypericum perforatum (St. John’s Wort)

Rosa rubiginosa (Sweet Briar)

It is strongly expected that there is a significant soil weed seed store which will be activated with ground

disturbance



Figure 6-1: Plant Community Types within the road reserve (Section 1)



Figure 6-2: Plant Community Types within the road reserve (Section 2)



Threatened fauna

Searches of the EPBC Act Protected Matters data base (DotE 2016) and the Atlas of Wildlife (OEH

2016) revealed 22 threatened fauna species records within 10 km of the road reserve. Of these nine

are known or have the potential to occur within the road reserve (Appendix A, Appendix B and Appendix

C). Six are listed under both the EPBC Act and the TSC Act and three species are listed under the TSC

Act only.

Fauna habitat

The proposed pipeline runs through landscapes that have been highly modified by agricultural activities

and semi-rural development. The majority of the landscape is of a pastoral nature and fauna habitats

are subsequently highly disturbed along much of the pipeline alignment.

Features of the road reserve and surrounds provide fauna with opportunities for foraging. Nesting and

shelter were represented by:

PCTs that generally provide good fauna habitat

Native grassland

Watercourses

Whilst the road reserve dissects a significantly modified landscape, there still remains intact patches of

native vegetation and patches of trees with a modified understorey. These patches could potentially

support local populations of native birds, mammals and reptiles.


Construction

The proposed pipeline alignment has been designed to avoid any obstacles, such as mature trees

where possible. As such, construction activities that will have a direct impact on flora and fauna would

include site preparation and trenching for the pipeline. Impacts associated with these activities is

restricted to the temporary loss or removal of native groundcover and associated habitat since mature

trees will not be removed and construction areas will be progressively rehabilitated. All activities will be

carried out within the 20 m wide construction corridor, including trenching, equipment storage, vehicle

movements, topsoil storage and backfill spoil. These areas will be revegetated and does not represent

a permanent removal of vegetation.

Indirect impacts to flora and fauna potentially include light and noise, erosion and sedimentation,

weeds, pathogens, and fauna injury and mortality.

Key Threatening Processes

The proposed pipeline has the potential to contribute to the following Key Threatening Processes:

Clearing of native vegetation: Clearing will be restricted to the temporary removal of

groundcover within the 6 m wide clearing zone along the proposed pipeline alignment. The

groundcover will be progressively reinstated during construction activities. Permanent

vegetation clearance has been avoided through the pipeline alignment design.

Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses: The road reserve

dissects a predominately agricultural landscape, and Phalaris and other exotic grasses already

present within the road reserve. Ground disturbance associated with the construction activities



may increase the incident of these weed, however, it is unlikely new species will be introduced.

The movement of weed species will be limited by washing-down construction vehicles.

Infection of native plants by Phytopphthora cinnomoniI: This root fungus may be

introduced to the road reserve by construction vehicles, leading to vegetation dieback. Given

the location of the site on the western side of the Great Divide, it is unlikely, however all

vehicles should be cleaned before working on site.

Vegetation communities

The proposed pipeline alignment intersects 1.07 km of PCT 1330 in Remnant 3 and 300 m in Remnant

4 (Figure 6-1). The proposed pipeline alignment has been designed to avoid mature trees within the

road reserve and no tree removal is proposed.

Impacts are considered to be low due to:

The narrow width of disturbance width (6 m), and,

Works being confined to areas that have been previously disturbed, which have some history of

re-establishment by exotic and native species.

To further reduce the impact of works it is recommended that following works a seed mix of local native

grass species be spread on disturbed areas.

Habitat loss

The proposed pipeline alignment has been designed to avoid removing any native and exotic trees. In

particular, it is important that hollow-bearing trees are retained. Hollow-bearing trees are used by

wildlife for shelter, roosting and nesting. Hollows are particularly important for ‘hollow dependent’

species that specifically require hollows has a key component of their habitat. As such the availability of

hollow-bearing trees across the landscape are key limiting factor to the on-going survival of these

species. A decrease in the availability and diversity of hollows can result in a significant reduction in the

diversity and abundance of hollow-dependent species. The loss of hollow-bearing trees has been listed

as a Key Threatening Process under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act.

Connectivity and habitat fragmentation

Road corridors are important for fauna movement (Parker et al. 2008). In particular it will be important

not to lose isolated trees that provide stepping stones for wildlife. Emphasis should remain on not

losing any trees given the very narrow nature of the vegetation corridor along Thompson Road.

Threatened and migratory species

NSW TSC Act Assessments

Potential habitat for a number of threatened flora, fauna and TECs is provided within the road reserve.

However, seven-part tests of significance determined that the project is unlikely to have a significant

impact on any of these species or their habitat. This is based on the small area of disturbance,

reinstatement of the groundcover, occurrence of similar habitats adjacent to the road reserve, no

isolation of habitat and the temporary nature of the construction activities.

Since the proposed pipeline construction activities are unlikely to have a significantly adverse impact on

any of the threatened species and TEC, a species impact statement is not required.



Commonwealth EPBC Act Assessments

Based on the assessments of significance prepared within this REF, the proposed pipeline is unlikely to

impose a significant effect on any Matter of National Environmental Significance. Subsequently, the

proposed pipeline is unlikely to constitute a controlled activity under the EPBC Act.

Noxious weeds and WONS

Ground disturbance will likely cause weed growth, as there will be an already existing weed seedbank

in the soil. The challenge will be to monitor the disturbance site in at least the first germination season

after works have been completed.

Operation

Operational activities that have the potential to adversely affect threatened flora and fauna, and their

habitats is restricted to maintenance activities whereby the pipeline would be traversed by staff to

undertake routine maintenance. It is anticipated that only minimal additional disturbance is likely to

occur on the natural environment, given the disturbed nature of the road reserve (i.e. slashing, invasion

by Phalaris sp.).


Pre-construction

Threatened species and EEC

To accurately ascertain the impact of the proposed pipeline on the threatened flora species, searches in

spring-early summer are recommended. These plants if in the path of impact should be able to be

translocated or consideration given to varying the path.

A pre-clearance survey of potential EEC should be undertaken to determine whether these vegetation

communities meet EEC criteria and to determine the extent of these areas. Where EEC is determined

and mapped these ecological constraints would allow Cabonne Council to determine the best pipeline

alignment to reduce adverse environmental outcomes.

Construction

Vegetation

Where possible, native vegetation should be retained to minimise the impact of the proposed pipeline.

Recommendations to reduce any impacts include:

Clearly marking the construction zone to ensure clearing and other disturbances do not occur

outside the construction zone.

Ecologically sensitive features adjacent to the construction zone would be clearly marked with

flagging or tape for avoidance during construction activities.

Lopping of native trees overhanging the construction zone is preferable to removal, where

feasible.

Minimise disturbing roots or compacting soil in the drip zone of trees and shrubs.

Any trees to be removed would be retained as woody debris within the road reserve.

Appropriate weed biosecurity measures shall be applied as necessary, including:

All machinery and vehicles brought on site would be free of any soil, seed or plant material.



Restrict vehicle and personal access from areas of known noxious weed infestation.

Declared noxious weeds should be managed according to the requirements stipulated by the

Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

Evidence of compliance with biosecurity requirements should be documented, e.g. a Vehicle

wash down register.

Terrestrial fauna

To avoid hollow-bearing trees, the pipeline can be moved to the road shoulder, or in particular

circumstances underneath the existing bitumen seal. Any hollow-bearing trees that require removal,

should be clearly marked to ensure that no unmarked trees are accidentally removed, with a view to re-

using habitat trees as fauna habitat as part of reinstatement. A suitably qualified ecologist would be

present at the felling to advise on tree clearing techniques that minimise harm to fauna, remove trapped

fauna as required and treat or transport any wildlife inadvertently harmed.

To prevent fauna entrapment within the pipeline trench, the period of time a trench is open would be

minimised, particularly in fauna habitat areas. Materials such as branches, ropes and hessian sacks or

similar would be placed in the trench to create ‘ladders’ for fauna to escape. Temporary end caps

would be placed on joined pipe sections when the site is not attended to prevent ingress of fauna.

All fauna interactions should be recorded, including the species, the nature of interaction and GPS

coordinates.

Reinstatement

The proposed pipeline should be constructed in stages to allow for progressive rehabilitation, which

should commence as soon as possible following completion of construction. Rehabilitation to a

condition similar to that before construction or better should be aimed for. The area to be disturbed lies

within the table drain or road shoulder which is regularly bared by maintenance grading, as very

recently undertaken in the along Banjo Paterson Way. The key task will be to ensure that trenching

does not create a zone of erosion, particularly where it runs downhill. Cut off drains will need to be

installed and soil surface levelled to minimize water flow concentration. Reinstatement of stripped grass

should be progressively undertaken. Disturbed areas would be monitored for rehabilitation success and

additional maintenance be undertaken where required.

Desirably the area should be seeded with native grass and herb species, but the normal grading

maintenance program which bares the soil works against this aspiration.

Excess rock and fill material would be removed from site for re-use or disposal in a suitably licenced

waste facility.

6.3 Aquatic ecology watercourse

6.3.1 Introduction

The aquatic assessment focused on key watercourses intersected by the pipeline to confirm aquatic

habitat features and determine potential impacts and legislative requirements.


The proposed pipeline is wholly located within the Macquarie-Bogan Catchment and will include 18

watercourse crossings, all of which are considered to be ephemeral streams or drainage lines (Table

6-2 and Figure 6-3). There are three named watercourses crossed by the proposed pipeline – Bell



River, Ploughman’s Creek, and Molong Creek. Based on the Strahler stream order classification

watercourses crossed by the pipeline include:

7 x first order streams

5 x second order streams

2 x third order streams

3 x fourth order streams

1 x fifth order streams.

Six of the watercourses crossed at six locations by the pipeline alignment are mapped as Key Fish

Habitat (NSW DPI 2007) (Table 6-2 and Figure 6-3).

The geomorphology of the watercourses intersected by the pipeline were confined systems including

headwaters and bedrock controlled sand and gravel systems.

Table 6-2: Waterways, Aquatic Habitat Sensitivity and Key Fish Habitats

Map

ID Waterway

Stream

Order

Mapped

as KTH

Aquatic habitat sensitivity Waterway

classification

Type Reason Class

1 Molong Creek 4 2

Ephemeral freshwater

habitat, likely to

contain aquatic plants

2

2 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;

native plants unlikely 4

3 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


4 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


5 Unnamed drainage

depression 4 2


habitat, likely to


2

6 Unnamed drainage

depression 2 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


7 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


8 Unnamed drainage

depression 2 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


9 Unnamed drainage

depression 2 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


10 Unnamed drainage

depression 2 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


11 Unnamed drainage

depression 2 - 3

Highly ephemeral;




Map

ID Waterway

Stream

Order

Mapped

as KTH

Aquatic habitat sensitivity Waterway

classification

Type Reason Class

12 Bell River 5 1

Freshwater habitat

containing native

plants and rocks

1

13 Unnamed drainage

depression 3 2


habitat, likely to


4

14 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


15 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


16 Ploughman's Creek 4 1

Freshwater habitat

containing native

plants and rocks

1

17 Unnamed drainage

depression 3 2


habitat, likely to


3

18 Unnamed drainage

depression 1 - 3

Highly ephemeral;


Threatened species

Searches of the EPBC Act Protected Matters database (DoE 2016), NSW Wildlife Atlas (OEH 2016),

and the NSW DPI Record Viewer (DPI 2016) identified that three threatened fish species have been

previously recorded in the Cabonne LGA. These included Maccullochella peelii (Murray Cod) and

Macquaria australasica (Macquarie Perch). Macquarie perch is listed as endangered under the EPBC

Act, while Murray Cod is listed as vulnerable.

Fish were not surveyed as part of the assessment, however habitat potential for threatened species

within the study area was assessed.



Figure 6-3: Watercourse crossings along the pipeline route




The pipeline will follow existing roads and be either underbored or laid within creek beds at watercourse

crossings. There is potential impacts to aquatic ecological values from works within or adjacent to the

waterways identified, particularly those classified as Class 1 and 2 Key Fish Habitat. The likely causes

of any potential impacts arise from:

Vegetation clearance and earthworks within and adjacent to the waterways

Barriers to flow and aquatic fauna passage

Spills from contaminants and fuels

Stormwater runoff with a sediment load.

The level of impact is influenced by the construction methods used. Provided appropriate design and

operation is adhered to, underboring is not considered to impact on creek beds. Open cut trenches

involve temporary impacts to waterways. At ephemeral waterway crossings during dry periods, open

cut trenches will be constructed in the shortest time practicable. Temporary stream flow diversion

measures will be used at permanent waterways and where water remains present at ephemeral

waterways. Temporary stream flow diversion measures should be implemented in accordance with

Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction (Landcom 2004). At Class 3 and 4 waterways,

the impacts zone from instream works would be 6 m, however this will increase up to 20 m at crossings

where stream flow diversion measures are required.

These instream structures may directly impact aquatic habitat through dredging and reclamation,

including the removal of course woody debris. Direct impacts from dredging and reclamation are

anticipated to be minimal due to the small disturbance footprint and the availability of similar habitat

upstream and downstream of the crossing locations.

Surface water quality may be impacted through increased erosion resulting exposed stream banks

following vegetation clearing. However, given the degraded state of the riparian zones it is anticipated

this will be minimal. An increased suspended sediment load in the waterways may occur if suitable

controls are not implemented. The impacts to fauna and flora from increased sediment loads include

reduced light penetration and visibility, impeded fish movement, limited plant growth and smothering of

benthic communities. Further impacts include changes in water chemistry, reduced waterway depths

and changes to drainage patterns.

Flow may be partially obstructed and fish passage impeded for the duration of the construction works.

Dewatering of dams has the potential to increase turbidity and the dams have the potential to capture

fish which will need to be relocated during dewatering.

Regardless of whether construction activities occur in an extended dry period, a permit for dredging and

reclamation works will be required from the NSW DPI prior to any open cut trenches and installation of

instream structures prior to any works commencing.



Mitigation

Cabonne Council will be required to obtain a permit for dredging or reclamation from the NSW DPI

Fisheries for the works involving dredging and reclamation within Key Fish Habitat, in accordance with

Section 200 of the FM Act, prior to the commencement of any construction activities.

To ensure downstream aquatic habitats are not impacted by sediment loads, at all times and at all

locations, installation of erosion and sediment control measures to accord with the Managing Urban

Stormwater – Soil and Construction, 4th edition (Landcom 2004) and Volume 2A: Installation of Services

(DECC 2008) are recommended. These measures should only be removed once the area has been

progressively restabilised. In addition, the construction activities should be consistent with the DPI

Water Guidelines for Controlled Activities on Waterfront Land for any works within 40 m of the banks of

a watercourse.

Any fuels, oils or other liquids stored on site would be stored at least 50 m away from any watercourses,

areas subject to localised flooding or slopes >10%. Activities that have the potential for spills such as

refuelling would be undertaken at least 50 m away from watercourse and emergency spill and

containment kits would be kept on site and all staff made aware of the location and be suitable trained

in its use.

Rehabilitation

The waterway profile will be reinstated as near as practicable to their original profile by reinstatement of

the river bed using the excavated sediment and rock, and replacement of instream features (e.g. coarse

woody debris) and removal of any temporary dams, pumps and diversion waterways. For waterways

with a hard rock bed, the trench will be backfilled with concrete and rocks placed in the concrete where

riffles are required.

Streambanks should also be reinstated to their original prolife where practicable. Where soil and

sediment need to be stabilised during reinstatement, geofabric should be used since it remains

permeable to water and promotes plant growth. Additionally, vegetation should be reinstated to provide

further bank stabilisation, and stock access should be temporarily restricted.

6.4 Noise and vibration

6.4.1 Introduction

TTM was engaged by ELA on behalf of Cabonne Council to carry out a construction noise and vibration

assessment inclusive of an associated management plan for the construction of the potable water

pipeline from Orange to the Molong Creek Dam.

The objective of the study was to identify and assess the potential construction noise and vibration

impacts on residential noise sensitive receivers in proximity to the proposed pipeline route. To

appropriately assess likely adverse impacts associated with the construction activities, the study

considered the following:

The existing ambient noise and vibration environment;

Identification of noise sensitive receivers near the site;

Identification of noise and vibration sources;

Establish relevant noise and vibration criteria; and

Practical and appropriate in-principle noise and vibration mitigation/management where

required.



A copy of the full report is provided in Appendix E.


Noise sensitive receivers

Residential Noise Sensitive Receivers (NSR) have been identified along the pipeline route. The

residential properties are generally approximately 15 m and 250 m from the route. Although residential

properties have been identified to be more than 250 m away from the pipeline alignment, 250 m is

considered a reasonable set back distance for the purpose of the construction noise impact

assessment.

Residential properties located closest to the pipeline route are expected to be the most impacted. It is

anticipated that the management of noise and vibration for these properties will be adequate for other

NSR located further away.

The construction noise assessment will be based on the area where potentially impacted residential

properties are located as opposed to individual ones.

Existing Acoustic Environment

As detailed in the previous assessment, the ambient environment is rural and relatively quiet with low

traffic noise from nearby state and local roads. Other audible typical rural noise sources identified on

site include tractors, ride-on mowers, rustling of vegetation in the wind, birds and insects.

The attended and unattended noise measurements conducted at applicable locations have been

extracted from the previous assessment and are summarised below.

Attended and unattended noise measurements were carried out at 1.5 m above the ground and at least

3.5 m away from any reflecting structure other than the ground in accordance with the

recommendations of the Australian Standard AS1055.1:1997.

Unattended noise measurements were recorded for a period of nine consecutive days between 14th

and 23rd March 2016 using a NATA calibrated noise logger installed at 45 Bruce Road (Molong Creek

Dam), Windera, NSW 2800 (ARL EL-316 Serial no.16-707-045). The equipment and installation

locations are shown in Figure 6-4. The noise logger was installed at that location to capture the

representative local ambient noise environment at the potentially most affected noise sensitive areas.

Average, maximum and statistical noise parameters were recorded at 15-minute intervals.



Figure 6-4: Location of attended and unattended noise measurements

Weather data for the unattended noise monitoring period was obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology

(BOM) website from the nearby weather station located at Orange. It was observed that significant

rainfall occurred on the 20th March 2016. The associated noise data were discarded for that day in

accordance with guidelines contained in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (INP). The noise logger was

checked for calibration using a B&K Type 4231 sound calibrator (Serial no. 3009809) before and after

the measurement period and was found to be within acceptable limits.

Attended noise measurements were also undertaken at various affected noise sensitive areas (Figure

6-4) during the previous assessment along the original pipeline route. The measurement was

conducted using a NATA calibrated B&K 2250 Type 1 sound level meter in accordance with

recommendations contained in the Australian Standard AS1055.1:1997. The sound level meter was



checked for calibration before and after the measurement and no significant drift were observed.

Attended noise measurements are summarised in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3: Unattended and attended 15 minute duration noise measurements

Measurement Location

(See Figure 6-4) Date/Time

Noise Level (dB(A))

Lmin LA90 LAeq LA10 Lmax

Attended 15/03/2016 11:10 – 11:25 32 40 57 61 72

Unattended 14/03/2016 15:30 to 23/03/2016 09:45 38 38 53 57 65

During the attended measurement, road traffic noise from Mitchell Highway was the dominant noise

source in the area. Other typical rural noise sources such as tractors, ride-on mowers, birds and

insects were also observed at times.

The measurement results show a typical background LA90 noise level for a rural area where traffic on

local roads is the dominant noise source (Table 6-3). There is a 2dB difference in the LA90 parameter

between the attended and unattended measurements which confirms the validity of the unattended

noise monitoring results. The results also confirm the relatively low background noise levels consistent

with rural areas during the day-time period.

Construction and Operational Noise Targets

For noise generated on the construction site, the relevant noise criteria is provided within the NSW

Interim Construction Noise Guideline. The transient nature of the construction stage means that the

concept of ‘best practice’ should prevail when managing noise impact. The guideline provides noise

goals which should, where possible be achieved. The Interim Construction Guideline also sets the

normal working hours (Table 6-4)

Table 6-4: Recommended standard working hours

Work Type Recommended standard working hours

Normal construction

Mondays to Fridays 7 a.m. – 6 p.m.

Saturdays 8 a.m. – 1 p.m.

Sundays and Public Holidays No work

Construction noise goals have been evaluated based on the measured noise levels at the two locations

given in Table 6-5. The noise affected areas have therefore been divided into two areas, Area 1 and

Area 2 (Figure 6-5).

Table 6-5: Site Specific (category) Construction Noise Goals

Area (Refer

to Figure

6-5)s

Description RBL

(dBA)

Management Levels

(dBA)

Maximum levels

(dBA)

1 From Molong Dam Creek, along Bruce

Road to intersection with Mitchell Highway 38 48 75

2 Along Mitchell Highway 40 50 75



Figure 6-5: Location of Area 1 and Area 2 for the evaluation of construction noise goals

Vibration Criteria

Building Damage

The likelihood of structural or even cosmetic damage to buildings is considered highly unlikely given the

type of plant that will be used during the construction activities and the distance of buildings from the

proposed pipeline works. However, for the sake of completeness, building damage vibration criteria

has been provided below.

Vibration will be felt by the occupants of a dwelling at levels far lower than those at which damage is

likely to occur. Therefore, for the purposes of this project we recommend that is better to set a building

damage vibration criterion that is conservative, so that in the unlikely event that the criterion is

exceeded, the works can be stopped and the vibration damage established and if no damage is

observed and the neighbour’s fears have been allayed, the work can continue.

We recommend the following conservative vibration criterion (Table 6-6) to be measured on or close to

the foundations of the closest building to where the vibration causing work is taking place.



Table 6-6: Recommended building damage vibration criterion

Criteria Vibration Limit, Peak Particle

Velocity, mm/s Comments

Structural/cosmetic

Damage 5

Set as an initial limit, to be monitored during

construction.

Human Comfort

Vibration criteria for human comfort is given by the OEH “Assessing Vibration” guideline. These criteria

are for guidance and represent non-mandatory goals for new developments.

The human comfort vibration criterion is significantly below the building damage vibration criterion, and

therefore achieving the human comfort condition generally results in the building damage condition

being met.

For intermittent vibration sources, such as from the hydraulic hammer and other construction plant, the

concept of a “vibration dose value” (VDV) has been adopted. For residences, the acceptable VDV

range is as follows:

Preferred value: 0.2 m/s1.75

Maximum value: 0.4 m/s1.75

The OEH’s vibration guidance is generally based on British Standard BS6472. BS6472 and its

Australian equivalent, Australian Standard AS2670.2, give a series of rating curves to assess human

exposure to vibration and provide further guidance on acceptable vibration levels. Table 2 of AS2670.2

recommends that daytime continuous or intermittent vibration levels in residential receivers should not

exceed the vibration values given in Table 6-7.

Table 6-7: Human comfort vibration levels equivalent to curve 4 of AS2670.2

Criteria

Vibration Limit, rms, mm/s

Comments Continuous or

intermittent

Transient vibration with several

occurrences per day

Human comfort in

residences 0.2 – 0.4 3 – 9*

To be monitored and reported should a

complaint be received.

*AS2670 suggest that for transient vibration people may not provide an adverse reaction to vibration levels 30 to 90 times the threshold of perception (0.1 mm/s)


Noise

Table 6-8 gives the plant and machinery information that has been used to predict noise levels at the

NSR’s along the pipeline alignment. The plant selected and percentage on-times during the working

day have been estimated based on Council advice and previous experience. Due to the transient and

changing nature of construction noise depending on site-conditions, timelines, delays and unexpected

occurrences, these assumptions are only approximate.



Table 6-8: Plant and equipment noise source levels for construction activities

Construction schedule Noise impact Equipment % use per day

Project Approvals Not expected - -

Possession of Site Not expected - -

Design & Procurement Not expected - -

Mobilisation to site Not expected - -

Preparation works To be investigated

2 x Chainsaw

1x Chipper

1 x Stump grinder

1 x 30T excavator

2 x D6 Loader

1 x 10T Truck

1 x Water truck

1 x Diesel generator

20

20

20

80

70

50

50

100

Pre-cleaning survey Not expected - -

Excavation & Trenching To be investigated

2 x 30 T Excavator

1 x D6 loader

1 x 10 T Truck

1 x Material delivery truck

1 x Water truck

2 x Petrol water pump

1 x Concrete boom pump

2 x Hydraulic hammer

1 x Tandem tipper


80

70

50

20

50

100

30

50

30

100

Associated Telemetry works Not expected - -

Installation of pipes and hydrostatic testing To be investigated 1 x Frenna crane


70

100

Creek crossing construction To be investigated

2 x 30 T Excavator

2 x D6 loader

2 x 10 T Truck

2 x Material delivery truck

1 x Petrol water pump

1 x Concrete boom pump

2 x Hydraulic hammer

1 x Tandem tipper

1 x Thrust underbore

2 x Frenna cranes

60

50

60

30

100

40

40

40

70

70



Construction schedule Noise impact Equipment % use per day

1 x Diesel generator 100

Landscape & Restoration To be investigated

1 x 30 T Excavator

1 x D6 loader

1 x Grader

1 x 10T Truck

2 x Material delivery trucks

1 x 10T foot roller


90

70

70

40

40

70

100

Testing, Commissioning & Handover Not expected - -

Demobilisation from Site Not expected - -

The source sound levels for each of the items of plant and equipment are provided in Table 6-9.

Table 6-9: Sound power levels of construction plant and equipment for each construction phase

Plant and equipment Sound power

levels dB(A) Reference

Preparation works

Total LW for activity

including % on-times 117

Chainsaw 107 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/growth-

portal/noise/reports/EN/EN_EQUIPMENT28.PDF

Chipper 115 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/growth-


Stump grinder 107 http://www.barretomfg.com/documents/operating_instructions/30S

G-CP_OperatorsManual-20140404.pdf

30T Excavator 107 AS2436

D6 Loader 113 AS2436

10T Truck 107 AS2436

Water truck 107 AS2436

Diesel generator 99 AS2436

Excavation & Trenching



30 T Excavator 107 AS2436







Material delivery truck 106.0 AS2436

Water truck 107 AS2436

Petrol water pump 85.0 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/growth-


Concrete boom pump 108.0 AS2436

Hydraulic hammer 113.0 AS2436

Tandem tipper 117.0 AS2436


Installation of pipes & hydrostatic testing



Frenna crane 104 AS2436


Creek crossing construction





10 T Truck 107 AS2436

Material delivery truck 106 AS2436

Petrol water pump 85 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/growth-


Concrete boom pump 108 AS2436

Hydraulic hammer 113 AS2436

Tandem tipper 117 AS2436

Thrust underbore 106 AS2436

Frenna cranes 104 AS2436


Landscape & Restoration









Grader 110 AS2436


Material delivery trucks 106 AS2436

10T Foot roller 108 AS2436


The pipeline construction route has been divided into four sections to enable visualisation of the

construction noise impact onto nearby residential areas, as follows (Figure 6-6):

Section 1 – Route starting from Molong Creek Dam to intersection of Bruce Road and

Mitchell Highway;

Section 2 – Route from intersection of Bruce Road and Mitchell Highway, then running

south to 1043 Mitchell Highway;

Section 3 – Route from 1043 Mitchell Highway, then running south to 833 Mitchell Highway

which is the intersection between Mitchell Highway and Thompson Road (north of Griffin

Road); and

Section 4 – Route from 833 Mitchell Highway, running south along Thompson Road, then

running to end of route at 450 Mitchell Highway.

Figure 6-6: Pipeline route sectioning



The approximate number of residential properties, located at most 250m away from the pipeline

route, in each section has been identified from aerial photographs and are summarised in Table 6-10,

along with the applicable construction noise goals.

Table 6-10: Number of residential properties in each section and applicable construction noise goals

Section Approximate number of residential properties – At

most 250m away from pipeline route

Construction noise goals

Management

levels, dB(A)

‘Highly Noise

Affected’

Maximum

levels, dB(A)

1 5 48 75

2 12 50 75

3 11 50 75

4 20 50 75

TOTAL 48 - -

The pipelines construction noise was predicted at each residential NSR using the plant and equipment

source sound level information in Table 6-9 and Table 6-10 above. In addition, the noise predictions

included:

Plant and equipment source sound level information given in Table 7 and Table 8

Distance loss

Air absorption

Ground effects (CONCAWE).

The predicted noise levels were then compared to the construction noise goals for each section and the

approximate distance at which they are achieved have been determined and are presented in Table

6-11.

Table 6-11: Approximate maximum distance from pipeline to achieve construction noise goals

Construction phase

Approximate maximum distance

to be above management level

(metres)

Approximate maximum

distance to be below

‘Highly Noise Affected’

maximum level (metres)

Section 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Preparation works >250* >250* 50

Excavation & Trenching >250* >250* 58

Installation of pipes and hydrostatic testing 200 175 12

Creek crossing construction >250* >250* 60

Landscape & Restoration >250* >250* 45

Note: * The construction noise assessment has considered noise sensitive areas located to up to 250m



The approximate number of noise impacted residential properties by each construction phase has been

determined. The results are summarised in Table 6-12. Noise contours representing areas affected by

the maximum levels for each construction activity are attached in Appendix E.

The results of the construction noise assessment as shown in Table 6-12 demonstrate that most of the

identified residential premises are above the management levels and a few are considered to be highly

noise affected (Above maximum levels).

The highly noise affected residential premises are located in sections 3 and 4 only of the pipeline route

sectioning. This is due to their proximity to the pipeline route and insufficient noise reduction from

distance loss.

Table 6-12: Approximate number of noise impacted residential properties

Construction phase

Approximate number of

residential properties

below management

levels*

Approximate number of

residential properties

where management

levels are exceeded*

Approximate

number of

residential

properties where

‘Highly Noise

Affected’ maximum

levels are

exceeded*

Section 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Preparation works 0 0 0 0 5 12 9 17 0 0 2 3

Excavation & Trenching 0 0 0 0 5 12 8 17 0 0 3 3

Installation of pipes and

hydrostatic testing 0 4 1 6 5 8 10 14 0 0 0 0

Creek crossing construction 0 0 0 0 5 12 8 17 0 0 3 3

Landscape & Restoration 0 0 0 0 5 12 10 17 0 0 1 3

Note: * At most 250m away from pipeline route

The identified highly noise affected residential premises will be impacted by the noisiest constructions

activities including preparation works, excavation and trenching, creek crossing construction, and

landscape and restoration. The installation of pipes and hydrostatic testing is the quietest construction

activity and no highly noise affected residential premises have been identified in any of the four

sections.

The noise predictions presented in the assessment represent a worst case scenario, where all the plant

and equipment in each construction phase have been assumed to be operating at the same time,

although the source noise levels being adjusted for percentage use per day.

Vibration

The risk of vibration caused by the works to buildings is considered highly unlikely due to the type of

activities taking place and the high levels of vibration required to cause damage. However, vibration will

be felt by the occupants of a dwelling at levels far lower than those at which damage is likely to occur.



Vibration criteria for human comfort are given by the OEH “Assessing Vibration” guideline. These

criteria are for guidance and represent non-mandatory goals for new developments.

The human comfort vibration criteria is significantly below the building damage vibration criteria, and

therefore achieving the human comfort condition generally results in the building damage condition

being met.


Noise Control

The opportunities for practical physical noise control, such as mobile noise barriers and enclosures are

few given the transient and constantly moving nature of the works, but may be of use in some

circumstances, such as around stationary work activities and plant. Mobile barriers and enclosures may

be of use to reduce noise levels for work sites that are contained and for stationary plant such as shown

in Figure 6-7 and Figure 6-8. However, management measures should be employed to minimise the

noise impact on residents (See Construction Noise and vibration Management Plan in Appendix E).

Figure 6-7: Example of a mobile enclosure and barrier

Figure 6-8: Example of easily demountable noise barrier



Other noise control is recommended to be through the management of noise including:

Informing and consulting residents and interested parties, as far as practicable, regarding

impending or current events that may cause high levels of noise and how long they are

expected to take. This may take the form of letter drops, or community notices.

Provide a complaints telephone number prominently displayed where the works are taking

place and on any letter drops or community notices.

Respite hours agreed with residents when noisy works will not take place if necessary.

Investigate complaints when received to establish the cause and where possible implement a

corrective action such as, provide a respite period or other practical measure.

Minimising the operating noise of machinery brought on to the site.

Where appropriate, obtaining acoustic test certificates for machinery brought on to the site.

Undertake noise monitoring at the start of a new noisy activity so noise levels can be

investigated should a complaint be received.

If there is excessive noise from any process, that process will be stopped and if possible that

noise attenuated to acceptable levels. Where there is no alternative the process will be

rescheduled to non-sensitive hours.

Ensuring that plant is not left idling when not in use.

Ensuring that plant is well maintained and in good working order and not causing unnecessary

noise, such as damaged mufflers on plant.

All access hatches for plant to be kept closed.

Vibration Control

Building Damage

The likelihood of structural or even cosmetic damage to buildings is considered highly unlikely given the

type of plant used in the construction activities and the distance of buildings from the proposed pipeline

works. Therefore, for the purposes of this project, we recommend that is better to set a building

damage vibration criterion that is conservative, so that in the unlikely event that the criterion is

exceeded the works can be stopped and the vibration damage established and if no damage is

observed and the resident’s fears have been allayed the work can continue. This is why we have set

the vibration criterion for building damage at 5mm/s ppv.

An exceedance of the human comfort criteria, as given in Table 6-7, is most likely to be caused during

the final landscape and restoration phase of the construction program when the 10t foot roller is

expected to be used to compact the ground. The safe working distances for various sizes of vibratory

rollers, as shown in Table 6-13, are expected to be similar for a foot roller. For a proposed 10t

vibratory/foot roller, the human comfort criterion may potentially be exceeded when in use at up to

100m away from a residential building. Therefore, where residential dwellings are located less than

100 m from construction works and a 10t vibratory/foot roller is expected to be used, it is

recommended to use a smaller vibratory/foot roller to suit the required buffer distance as given in Table

6-13.

Exceedances of the human comfort criterion from other plant and activities are unexpected. The next

largest vibration generating activities are excavation and trenching, and creek crossing construction

activities when hydraulic hammers are expected to be used.



Referring to the safe working distances given in Table 6-13, by selecting smaller plant when conducting

construction work, the risk of cosmetic building damage or human comfort vibration impact, and

complaints of vibration from the residents are expected to be low.

As a guide, the safe working distances for vibration causing plant used for this project, being

vibratory/foot rollers and hydraulic hammer rock breaking attachments to excavators are given in Table

6-13. These have been taken from the Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Construction

Noise Strategy (Rail Projects) 2007.

Table 6-13: Recommended safe working distances for hydraulic hammer rock breaking attachments

Plant Item Rating/Description

Safe Working Distance

Cosmetic Damage

(BS 7385)*

Human Response

(AS 2670)

Vibratory Roller <50kN (1-2t) 5 m 15 m to 20 m

Vibratory Roller <100kN (2-4t) 6 m 20 m



Small Hydraulic Hammer 300kg – 5 to 12t excavator 2 m 7 m

Medium Hydraulic Hammer 900 kg – 12 to 18t excavator 7 m 23 m

*BS 7385 -2: 1993 Guide to damage levels from groundborne vibration

Table 6-13 shows the safe working distances for various sizes of vibratory rollers which, will be similar

to a foot roller. As per the table, the proposed 10t foot roller may potentially exceed the human comfort

criterion at up to 100m away from a residential building. Therefore, it is recommended that where

residential dwellings are closer than 100m to the pipeline, a smaller foot roller is used to suit the buffer

distance required in Table 6-13.

By observing the safe working distances provided in Table 6-13, and selecting smaller plant when

working inside these safe working distances, the risk of a building damage or human comfort vibration

impact and complaints of vibration from the residents is expected to be low.

In addition, when working close inside or close to these buffer distances, it is recommended that

vibration monitoring takes place to be able to provide information to residents should a complaint be

received.



6.5 Traff ic

6.5.1 Introduction

TTM Consulting was engaged by ELA to undertake a traffic study for the proposed haul road routes

between Orange and Molong Creek Dam for a proposed pipeline.


The Road Network

The classification details of the Mitchell Highway, Thompson Road and Bruce Road are shown in Table

6-14.

Table 6-14: Road classifications

Road Speed Limit Lanes Management

Mitchell Highway 100 km/h 2 (undivided, sealed) RMS

Thomson Road Not classified Rural Road Orange City Council

Bruce Road Not classified Rural Road Cabonne Council

The haul route of the Mitchell Highway and Thompson Road is proposed to cater for heavy truck (Dog &

Trailer) movements during the construction period of the pipeline. The haul route is proposed to have

the following:

Traffic Control Management Plan during the construction period, if near the road carriageway

Traffic Flows

The most recent historical and forecast estimates of traffic volumes on the Mitchell Highway were

provided by Cabonne Council (Table 6-15).

Table 6-15: Traffic flow data for the Mitchell Highway

Road Location Average daily

traffic counts

Heavy vehicle

percentage

Mitchell

Highway

RMS Permanent Classifier 1.33 km north of

Shreeves Road, Molong 2521 22%

There are low trip volumes along Thompson Road. The work area for workers and deliveries will utilise

the public road network on these roads. The haul routes along the sections of road will cater for heavy

truck (Dog & Trailer) movements of 5 to 10 trips per day.

Crash History

Crash data from 2009 to 2014 has been provide by Cabonne Council. A detailed breakdown of the

crash data for the Mitchell Highway was assessed with Councils LGA. A summary of the crash data is

noted in Table 6-16 and provides the data relating to the number of crashes associated with the study

area. Table 6-17 provides a breakdown of crashes along various road sections.



Table 6-16: Summary of crash data (2009 - 2014)

Road Fatal Injury Non-casualty Total

Mitchell Highway 2 46 51 99

Table 6-17: Breakdown of crash data by year for various roads within the study area

Year Mitchell Highway

2009 9

2010 21

2011 29

2012 16

2013 17

2014 7

There were two fatal crashes along the Mitchell Highway which involved a head on collision and a

pedestrian crash. The location of the fatal crashes was not in the vicinity of the haul roads (Figure 6-9).

Figure 6-9: Fatal crash locations along the Mitchell Highway




The majority of impacts are limited to the construction phase and will mainly affect traffic operating

conditions in the area. Generated traffic would be created from the delivery of equipment and

construction materials, including pipe supply, construction plant and equipment and the movement of

personnel.

It is anticipated that underboring will be used at the crossing location of the Mitchell Highway near the

Ammerdown Crescent and Bruce Road intersections. This activity would create some disturbance to

traffic due to lane closures and a likely reduction in speed limits.


Cabonne Council will be required to continue consultation with RMS to obtain approval from RMS

before commencing any works within the Mitchell Highway road reserve. It is also recommended that

Cabonne Council has a road safety audit conducted for Thompson Road prior to commencing

construction.

Prior to any works commencing, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) would be developed in consultation

with RMS and Orange City Council. The TMP would provide details for the construction hours and the

road safety measures that need to be in place.

6.6 Heritage

6.6.1 Introduction

The purpose of this assessment is to determine if there are any Aboriginal and historic heritage

constraints within the study area and any subsequent management or mitigation measures required.

This assessment follows the due diligence Code of Practice as set out in the OEH Due Diligence Code

of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (hereafter referred to as ‘CoP’)

(DECCW 2010).

No detailed historic heritage assessment was undertaken other than a search of heritage registers and

any historic items or features identified during the field survey were photographed and noted in this

report.


Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) register

An initial basic search was conducted on the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System

(AHIMS) database by ELA on 28 June 2016 for the following area at Lat, Long From : -33.26, 149.0072

- Lat, Long To :-33.1859, 149.0747, with a buffer of 50 meters, which included all of the pipeline

corridor. The search returned 3 AHIMS sites.

An advanced search was then undertaken of AHIMS by ELA on 28 June 2016 for the same area, with a

buffer or 50 metres. A copy of the AHIMS searches is provided in Appendix D. The search revealed

the three sites comprised two artefact sites and one quarry and artefact site. All three sites are located

near Molong Creek Dam and are not near the pipeline route, with the closest site being approximately

500 m from the pipeline corridor (Figure 6-10). The details of these sites and distance to the study area

is provided in Table 6-18. These three sites were recorded in 1984 during a field survey for Aboriginal

sites in the area of the Molong water supply augmentation by Laila Haglund.



Table 6-18: AHIMS site types within 1.5 km of the proposed pipeline

AHIMS SITE ID Site Type Site Features Approximate Distance from Study Area

44-2-0088 Open camp

site Artefact

West of Molong Dam. Approx. 1.5 km south of northern

end of pipeline alignment.

44-2-0089 Open camp

site Artefact

Southern edge of Molong Dam, approx. 1km south of

northern end of pipeline alignment

44-2-0090 Quarry Artefact / stone

quarry

On Molong Creek, south of Molong Dam. Approx

1.5km south of northern end of pipeline alignment



Figure 6-10: AHIMS sites located in the vicinity of the road reserve



Historic heritage search

A search of the following heritage databases was undertaken on 25 July 2016 using the search

parameters of the localities within the study area of Ammerdown, Windera and Orange, as well as the

Cabonne Shire, Molong Creek and Molong Creek Dam:

Australian Heritage Database;

State Heritage Register (SHR);

Section 170 Heritage Registers;

State Heritage Inventory (SHI);

Cabonne LEP 2012;

Orange LEP 2011.

A search of these heritage registers did not identify any heritage sites within the pipeline corridor.

The closest of the listed heritage sites in relation to the study area is Ammerdown carriageway which

traverses from the Mitchell Hwy to the Ammerdown Homestead. The southern end of the Ammerdown

carriageway, is on the Mitchell Hwy, approximately 500 metres south of the southern end of the pipeline

corridor. Searches of heritage data bases have been compiled into Table 6-19 and mapped in Figure

6-11.

No historical archaeological sites or items were identified during the course of the detailed site

inspection undertaken by ELA senior archaeologist Lyndon Patterson on 30 June 2016.

Table 6-19: Historic heritage sites identified in the surrounding area of the pipeline corridor

Heritage

item Site Type Site Address Level of significance

Heritage

list

Distance from pipeline

corridor

Ammerdown

carriageway

Drive way /

road

450 Mitchell

Hwy / Lot

121 DP

700039

Local Orange

LEP 2011

- item 331

Driveway entrance on Mitchell

Hwy is located approximately

500 m south of the southern

end of the pipeline corridor

Ammerdown

Homestead

Homestead 450 Mitchell

Hwy / Lot

121 DP

700039

Local

Not listed on SHR.

Orange LEP 2012 lists

as ‘state’ (possible

error)

Register of the

National Estate (Place

ID 847) this is a non-

statutory archive

listing.

Orange

LEP 2011

- item 2

The homestead is located

approximately 400 m east of

the southern end of the

pipeline corridor

Kangaroobie

Homestead

Homestead 1346 Mitchell

Hwy, March

Lot 3 DP

738071

Local Cabonne

LEP 2012

– items

157 and

200

The homestead is located

approximately 1.2 km north

east of the northern end of the

pipeline corridor at the corner

of Mitchell Hwy and Bruce

Road.



Figure 6-11: Listed historic heritage sites in the vicinity of the road reserve



Site survey

A site inspection was undertaken by ELA senior archaeologist Lyndon Patterson on 30 June 2016. The

study area was divided into six survey units. From north to south the survey units were:

Survey unit 1 – Molong Creek to west end of Bruce Road;

Survey unit 2 – Bruce Road roadside corridor;

Survey unit 3 – Mitchell Highway from Bruce Road intersection south to Windera Road

intersection;

Survey unit 4 – Mitchell Highway from Windera Road intersection south to Thompson Road

intersection;

Survey unit 5 – Thompson Road roadside corridor;

Survey unit 6 – Mitchell Highway from Thompson Road inspection to the southern end of the

study area;

Survey units 1 to 5 covering almost all (about 85%) of the pipeline corridor was investigated and walked

on foot. These sections are from Molong Creek, along Bruce Road, along the Mitchell Highway and

along Thompsons Road, a distance of 8.5 km. The southernmost section of the pipeline corridor from

Thompson Road south was the most disturbed running adjacent to the Mitchell Highway for 1.4 km and

close to the urban area of Orange and was not surveyed on foot.

No Aboriginal objects or sites or historic heritage sites or relics were identified during the site inspection.

During the site inspection, the corridor marked for the pipeline adjacent to the Mitchell Highway was

found to have high soil disturbance. The disturbance was from highway building and upgrades

including full native vegetation clearance and the creation of either embankments or ditches along the

entire length of the pipeline corridor on the highway. Streams identified through desktop mapping were

closely investigated, however were found to be already heavily modified and contained within concrete

drains. Based on high level of disturbance along the Mitchell Highway road corridor, Aboriginal sites

are considered unlikely to exist in this area. A section describing soil disturbance in the study area is

presented below.


The trenching for the pipeline will not impact any AHIMS sites. However, there are a number of water

ways in the vicinity ranging from first and second order ephemeral creeks to the forth order Molong

Creek in the north of the study area and fifth order Bell River near the mid and southern sections of the

pipeline corridor. The pipeline will cross both of these large waterways.

Mapping of the pipeline alignment with Strahler stream order was undertaken by ELA prior to the site

inspection. Areas of focus during the investigation were second order streams and above, and

particularly third order streams which were more likely to be permanent as opposed to an ephemeral

water source. Based on the number of creek crossings a site inspection was deemed necessary to

consider levels of part disturbance, particularly with most of the alignment following the Mitchell

Highway which had been subject to several upgrades over past decades.

Soil disturbance

Soil disturbance levels will directly influence the likelihood of locating intact archaeological deposits.

Table 6-20 provides an explanation of how disturbances can be categorised across the study area.

Almost all of the study area can be described as high soil disturbance, with the remainder being

moderate soil disturbance.



Table 6-20: Disturbance levels within the road reserve

Disturbance Level Types of Past Activities Examples in Study Area

HIGH

Severe soil disturbance with

little potential for survival of

intact archaeological deposits.

Objects could still occur in

isolation or a disturbed

context.

Highways and roads, ditches and

embankments beside highways and

roads.

Construction of dwellings, graded

roads (depending on depth of soils),

service trenches for sewers etc.,

dams, high erosion, intensive

landscaping or cultivation.

Pipeline corridor adjacent to Mitchell

Highway is in embankments or ditches

(the length of this section is approx. 8 km

or 80% of the study area).

At Thompsons Road the pipeline will be

placed inside the existing road for some

of the length. (the length of this section is

approx. 1 km or 10% of study area).

At Bruce Road the pipeline will be placed

adjacent to the road within the narrow

road corridor which has been cleared

and levelled (approx. 8% of study area).

MODERATE

Some disturbance to soils with

average potential for intact

archaeological deposits.

Vegetation clearing or partial clearing,

stock activity, light cultivation or

ploughing, low erosion.

Area of vegetation clearance from the

end of Bruce Road to Molong Creek

(approx. 200 m in length, 2% of the study

area).

LOW

Partially cleared or even

grazed, but not subject to

intensive soil disturbance or

erosion therefore retaining

good potential for intact

deposit.

Non-mechanical vegetation clearing,

stock grazing, either a depositional

soil environment or minimal erosion.

None of the proposed pipeline corridor /

study area has low levels of disturbance.

All areas are previously disturbed by

road construction.

Given the high level of disturbance along the Mitchell Highway, greater emphasis for the site inspection

was then placed on the larger watercourses associated with Thompson Road, including Bell River and

tributaries. During the site inspection, the Bell River was found to be modified from the bridge crossing

of Thompsons Road from north west to south east. In addition, a levelled dirt driveway was noted going

into the property off Thompsons Road within the proposed pipe route. Further disturbances at this

location included fence lines and the clearance of native vegetation from the creek banks of Bell River

crossing. These are examples of moderate levels of disturbance and Aboriginal sites have low potential

to exist in these areas. The tributaries of Bell River along Thompsons Road have been highly modified

and disturbed due to bridge construction and therefore have low potential for Aboriginal sites to exist in

area of the proposed corridor.

Bruce Road has a narrow road corridor with some areas of vegetation. Native trees were inspected for

possible Aboriginal scarring and none were located. No creeks cross Bruce Road and this area is not

considered sensitive for Aboriginal sites due to distance from water sources and past levels of soil

disturbance from road and fence construction and land clearance.

The location of the proposed trench crossing of Molong Creek appears to have had less disturbance

than other places within the study area. The site inspection showed this area had been subject to

disturbance from vegetation clearance with only three large trees identified along the creek. An area of

rock outcropping approximately 100 m to the north of Molong Creek was investigated for possibly



quarrying, but none was identified. A power line and dirt access road to Molong Creek Dam were other

disturbances identified. Due to past disturbances and the general narrow corridor of the proposed

trenching of 1 m width, there is low sensitivity for Aboriginal sites to exist within this proposed route from

the north of Bruce Road to Molong Creek.

A summary of the findings of the field assessment including what was identified, soil disturbance and

archaeological sensitivity is presented in Table 6-21 below.

Table 6-21: Soil disturbance and archaeological sensitivity for the study area

Survey

unit

number

Survey unit name

Aboriginal

sites

identified

Soil

disturbance

Aboriginal

archaeological

sensitivity

1 Molong Creek to west end of Bruce Road - Moderate Low

2 Bruce Road roadside corridor - High Low to nil

3 Mitchell Highway from Bruce Road intersection

south to Windera Road intersection - High Low to nil

4 Mitchell Highway from Windera Road intersection

south to Thompson Road intersection; - High Low to nil

5 Thompson Road roadside corridor - High Low to nil

6 Mitchell Highway from Thompson Road

inspection to the southern end of the study area - High Low to nil


Based upon the desktop and site inspection due diligence, the following conclusions can be made:

A search of the AHIMS and other heritage registers did not identify any Aboriginal objects or

sites or historic items within the pipeline corridor or within 200 m of the proposed alignment

route.

The evidence collected during the desktop and visual assessment demonstrates that the study

area can be classified as disturbed under the definition established in the due diligence CoP

(OEH 2010).

The area of proposed pipeline along the roadside of the Mitchell Highway has been subject to

high disturbance from the creation and embankments and ditches and has low to nil potential

for Aboriginal sites to exist.

The section of the proposed pipeline along Thompsons Road will traverse next to the roadside

and in places within the road. These areas have been subject to high disturbance and have low

potential for Aboriginal sites to exist.

The section of the pipeline along Bruce Road has been disturbed from vegetation clearance

and road building and there are no creek crossings that might suggest sites. This area has high

disturbance low potential for sites to exist.

The section of the pipeline crossing Molong Creek has been subject to historic vegetation

clearance and there is some disturbance from a dirt access track to Molong Creek Dam and a

power line. This section of the pipeline corridor has moderate disturbance and low potential for

Aboriginal sites to exist.

No Aboriginal sites or historic sites were identified during the site inspection.



No historic items or places were identified in the desktop review. No historical archaeological

sites or features were identified during the site inspection.

Recommendations – Aboriginal heritage

Based on the findings of this due diligence assessment the following is recommended:

Due to the high level of disturbance of the proposed pipeline corridor and the absence of any

Aboriginal objects or sites, no further investigation is necessary.

A stop works procedure should be put in place for any unexpected finds of Aboriginal objects. If

site contractors find or uncover suspected Aboriginal objects during works, such as stone

artefacts, works should cease in the affected area and a qualified archaeologist contacted for

an inspection to assess the finds. If the finds are found to be Aboriginal objects, the OEH must

be notified under section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Appropriate

management and avoidance or approvals under a section 90 AHIP should then be sought if

Aboriginal objects are to be moved or harmed.

In the extremely unlikely event that human remains are found, works should immediately cease

and the NSW Police should be contacted. If the remains are suspected to be Aboriginal, the

OEH may also be contacted at this time to assist in determining appropriate management.

Recommendations – historic heritage

No further assessment is required for historic heritage.

A stop works procedure should be put in place for any unexpected finds of historical

archaeological ‘relics’ which are afforded protection under the Heritage Act 1977. If suspected

relics are found or uncovered during works, works should cease in the affected area and a

qualified archaeologist contacted for an inspection to assess the finds. If the finds are found to

be relics, the Heritage Council must be notified under section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977.

Appropriate management and avoidance or an excavation permit under section 140 or an

exception under section 139 would be required if the relics are to be excavated or disturbed.

6.7 Contamination and soils

6.7.1 Introduction

This section provides information regarding the landform, soils, contamination, land capability and land

uses associated with the proposed study area. Predicted impacts are identified and mitigation

measures to minimise or avoid the impacts are described.


Soil Landscapes

The Soil Landscapes of the Bathurst 1:250 000 Sheet identifies soil landscapes. The proposed pipeline

is located entirely within the North Orange (no) soil landscape (Table 6-22). The soil type is kandosols.

Kandosols are characterised by a weak texture contrast and have poorly structured massive B horizons.



Table 6-22: Attributes of soil landscapes identified within the road reserve. Adapted from Kovac, Lawrie and Murphy (1990).

Soil

Landscape Parent Rock Parent Material Dominant/Common Soil Type(s) Topography

North

Orange

Andesite, tuff,

conglomerate,

greywacke

and limestone

In situ and

colluvial-alluvial

materials

derived from

parent rock.

Red Earths (Dominant)

Soil is well drained and highly permeable

with a moderate erosion hazard and a high

structural degradation hazard.

Yellow Earths (Common)

Soil is moderate – imperfectly drained and

moderately permeable with a moderate

erosion hazard and a high structural

degradation hazard.

Undulating low

hills , in parts

steep and rocky

with slope 6 –

10%,

occasionally to

30%, local relief

averages 40 m.

Land capability

Land capability classes aim to classify land according to its inherent ability and protection from erosion

and other forms of land degradation. The classification of any land is based on biophysical features

which determine the limitations and hazards of that land. The main hazards and limitations include:

water erosion, wind erosion, soil structure decline, soil acidification, salinity, waterlogging, shallow soils

and rockiness, and mass movement. The eight class system recognises four types of land uses with

land capability decreasing from Class 1 to Class 8 (OEH, 2012):

Class 1 – 3: land suitable for cultivation

Class 4 – 5: land suitable for grazing and restricted cultivation

Class 6: land suitable for grazing

Class 7 – 8: land not suitable for agricultural production

The proposed pipeline intersects landscapes with moderate to severe limitations (Class 4) (Figure

6-12). Class 4 land is generally not capable of sustaining high impact land uses unless using

specialised management practices with a high level of knowledge, expertise, inputs, investment and

technology (OEH, 2012).



Figure 6-12: Soil landscapes in the road reserve and surrounds. Data sourced from Soil Landscapes of Bathurst 1:250 000 Sheet (Kovac, Murphy and Lawrie, 1989)




Construction

The proposed works would involve site disturbance through excavation, vegetation removal, vehicle

access and other construction activities. The extent of the impact is likely to be dependent upon:

Size and weight of machinery;

Extent of vegetation removal; and

Sensitivity of land.

The above activities have the potential to increase erosion potential and impact soil stability, particularly

in areas where large amounts of soil would be displaced and in areas that are undulating to hilly.

Potential for land degradation

Water and wind erosion could result in the loss of soil from the landscape and a subsequent movement

of soils and associated nutrients and chemicals into watercourses leading to reductions in water quality.

A decline in soil structure may result in water erosion from low infiltration and subsequent increased

runoff. This would create conditions that are less optimal for plant growth, through poor germination

and emergence, and overall plant growth.

In areas with moderate to steep slopes construction activities, under certain conditions such as rainfall

that saturates soils and reduces soil strength, may cause erosion, slope instability and mass movement.

Contaminated Land

A review of the EPA Contaminated Land Record under Section 58 of the Contaminated Land

Management Act 1997 (CLM Act) and the List of NSW contaminated sites notified to the NSW EPA

under Section 60 of CLM Act did not reveal any registered contaminated land sites within or adjacent to

the proposed pipeline alignment.

A review of premises currently regulated by an Environmental Protection Licence (EPL) under the

POEO Act and premises that are no longer required to be licensed under the POEO Act did not reveal

any premises adjacent to or intersected the proposed pipeline alignment.

Pursuant to Clause 7 of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 55 – Remediation of Land there is

no apparent reason to consider that land to be impacted by the proposed pipeline would be

contaminated.

Despite no recorded contaminated sites, the potential remains for unidentified contamination impacts to

be encountered during excavation. This could be in the form of buried waste or contaminating material

uncovered during trenching or by a potential contaminant event such as a fuel spill or hydraulic hose

burst.

Acid Sulfate Soils

The Australian Soil Resource Information System (ASRIS) online database indicates there is an

extremely low’ probability of occurrence of acid sulfate soils. These are provisional classifications

inferred from surrogate data with no on ground verification. However, based on the soil landscapes,

iron sulphide materials are not considered abundant within the soil profile, combined with a relatively

low water table and high elevation it is unlikely acid sulfate soils are within the road reserve.



Naturally occurring asbestos

Andesite may contain naturally occurring asbestos in the form of chrysotile, which may occur within

sections of the pipeline corridor. Geotechnical investigations will help establish asbestos associated

with andesite is a potential contaminant of concern.

Operation

Impacts on soil resources are expected to be negligible during operation as operation and maintenance

would be non-intrusive.


Erosion and sediment control measures and appropriate remediation measures should be undertaken

during construction activities to reduce the risk of land degradation. An erosion and sediment control

plan should be developed and implemented in accordance with the Managing Urban Stormwater – Soil

and Construction, 4th edition (Landcom 2004) and Volume 2A: Installation of Services (DECC 2008).

These measures should only be removed once the area has been progressively restabilised. The plan

should also identify areas requiring management control, include inspection and checklist and be

reviewed by Cabonne Council prior to any works commencing. These controls must be suitably

maintained and monitored to ensure the measures and controls in place are effective.

The area of disturbance should be limited to the smallest practicable footprint possible. Progressive

rehabilitation of disturbed areas should be undertaken, including restoration to their natural shape at the

completion of works.

If suspected soil contamination is encountered the suspected materials would be segregated and

placed in a designated bunded stockpile covered in plastic sheeting to prevent rainfall infiltration and/or

soil migration during windy conditions. Pending disposal at a licenced waste facility suspected

contaminated would be tested to determine waste classification. Records of waste analysis,

classification and disposal dockets would be recorded and maintained.

6.8 Visual amenity

6.8.1 Introduction

A visual amenity assessment was undertaken to investigate potential visual impacts on the proposed

pipeline on the surrounding landscape in the short term and the long term.


The dominant landscape character of the surrounding area is rural and semi-rural. There is generally

low vegetation cover except around the Thompson Road area, while the undulating hills provide

opportunities for pleasant and sweeping rural views as one moves through this landscape. Extensive

grazing activities are undertaken throughout much of the area that the pipeline passes through. There

are numerous farm house and rural residential type properties scattered throughout the landscape. The

density of house increases at Windera and closer to Orange.


During construction, visibility of the activity will be high. However, construction is a temporary activity

disturbed areas will be progressively stabilised to facilitate revegetation. The extent of the impact would

likely be minimised as the pipeline will be in the current road reserve and associated vegetation has

been cleared. Furthermore, the majority of the final design would be underground. Therefore,



anticipated that the visual amenity impacts associated with the pipeline will be not be significant and

long term.


Construction is a temporary activity and progressive stabilisation of the disturbed areas to facilitate

revegetation would reduce the visual impact in the short term.

The majority of the proposed pipeline is underground in an existing road reserve. Above ground

sections of pipelines will be limited to waterway crossings and at these sections of the alignment the

pipeline will be suspended from existing bridges. Therefore it is unlikely the final design would degrade

visual amenity within the surrounding landscape.

6.9 Infrastructure

6.9.1 Introduction

Access to utilities and services provide consumers with increase health, prosperity and quality of life.

Relevant examples include electricity, water supply, sewerage treatment, telecommunications and

transport infrastructure.

Any new development should access utilities and services, where available, yet should not degrade,

deplete or compromise the access of others to these benefits.


Cabonne Council has referred to Dial Before You Dig (DBYD) plans. However the location of existing

services has not yet been verified on site and it should be noted that DBYD plans are not to scale. The

DBYD plans indicate that telecommunication cables are located throughout the road corridor, but

appear to be outside the area proposed for the pipeline alignment.

The pipeline follows and crosses the Mitchell Highway at one location. The Mitchell Highway is a State

classified road for which RMS is the roads authority.


The pipeline alignment is within an existing road reserve and as such may impact on any built roads or

other possible infrastructure such as telecommunication cables. Telecommunication cables may be

damaged by excavation activities within the road reserve.


To avoid impacting any telecommunication cables, a detailed onsite survey must be undertaken to

verify all services to finalise the pipeline alignment.

Prior to any works commencing within the road reserve Cabonne Council will require consent from RMS

for the proposed activities. Orange City Council is the road authority for Thompson Road, thus consent

is required from Orange City Council prior to any works commencing within this road reserve

6.10 Spoil and waste management

6.10.1 Introduction

The proposal has the potential to generate waste from excavation and domestic sources. This section

describes the likely type and classification of waste that would be handled, stored, or disposed of at the

site. The potential impacts of the proposal in regard to waste generation during establishment,

operation and decommissioning are also assessed.



A description of the measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimise, mitigate, offset, manage

and/ or monitor the potential impacts associated with the waste generated, as a result of the proposal,

are provided.


The proposed pipeline construction will generate spoil from excavation, construction waste and general

waste from workers (Table 6-23). Spoil is the material generated from ground excavation, including

trenching and under boring. Construction wastes that may be generated during construction include

vegetation, rock and construction material such as off cuts in addition to putrescible wastes.

Table 6-23: Proposed waste management measures

Waste type Waste management measures

Vegetation and landscape materials

Clearance of vegetation would be minimised where possible.

Would any cleared vegetation material be mulched on site and

used onsite for rehabilitation works.

Construction material PVC off cuts would be disposed of at an appropriate licenced

landfill in accordance with NSW legislative requirements.

General waste from site personnel

All material will be recycled or disposed of at an appropriate

licenced landfill in accordance with NSW legislative

requirements.

Spent oils and liquids from

construction plant and equipment

Waste oils and liquids would be appropriate disposed of a

licenced facility.

Wastewater and sewage All sewage would be pumped out and disposed of at an

appropriately licenced facility.


The construction of the pipeline would be undertaken in sections and each disturbed section would be

progressively reinstated upon completion. Spoil will be used for backfilling and any putrescible waste

generated would be reused or disposed of at a legally operating waste facility.

The management of waste would be in accordance with relevant NSW legislation and the principles of

the waste hierarchy outlined in the NSW Waste voidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2014-21.



7 Consideration of state and commonwealth environmental factors

7.1 Clause 228(2) factors (NSW legislat ion)

There are no specific guidelines in force under Clause 228(1) of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Regulation 2000 for the proposed pipeline. The factors that need to be taken into account

when considering the environmental impact of an activity are identified under Clause 228(2) of the

EP&A Reg and are addressed in Table 7-1.

Table 7-1: Compliance with Clause 228(2) of the EP&A Regulation 2000

Clause 228(2) Factors Impact Section of REF

Any environmental impact on a community?

The proposed pipeline would improve water security to Molong, Cumnock and

Yeoval.

Adverse impacts to visual amenity, noise, air quality and traffic would be limited to

the construction stage and would be managed through the preparation and

implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and

environmental safeguards. These impacts would be temporary for the duration of

construction works.

Low

Section 6.4

Section 6.5

Section 6.8 and

Section 6.9

Any transformation of a locality?

The proposed pipeline would not transform the locality. Nil Section 6

Any environmental impact on the ecosystem of the locality?

The proposed pipeline will not have any adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the

locality in the long-term. Any short-term impacts will be minimised by appropriate

mitigation measures.

Section 6.2

Section 6.3 and

Appendix B

Any reduction of the aesthetic, recreational, scientific or other environmental quality or value of a locality?

The proposed pipeline would not have any long-term impacts that reduce an

aesthetic, recreational, scientific or other environmental quality or value of the

locality.

Low Section 6

Any effect in a locality, place or building having aesthetic, anthropological, archaeological, architectural, cultural,

historical, scientific or social significance or other special value for present generations?

Adoption and implementation of the mitigation measures would allow for any

impacts to Aboriginal heritage items to be managed.

No impacts from the proposed pipeline to non-indigenous heritage are anticipated.

Low Section 6

Any impact on habitat of any protected fauna (within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974)?

The impact of the proposed pipeline on habitat for protected fauna is not significant

and can be readily managed through the implementation of the mitigation

measures.

Section 6.2 and

Section 6.3



Clause 228(2) Factors Impact Section of REF

Any endangering of any species of animals, plants or other form of life, whether living on land, in water or in the air?

The proposed pipeline would not result in the endangering of any species of animal,

plant or other form of life.

Section 6.2 and

Section 6.3

Any long-term effects on the environment?

All works associated with the proposed pipeline would have short-term impacts on

the environment and would be progressively rehabilitated throughout the duration of

the construction.

Section 6

Any degradation on the quality of the environment?

There would be minor aesthetic impacts during construction. These impacts would

be temporary for the duration of the works. Section 6.8

Any risk to the safety of the environment?

Risks would be limited to the construction stage and can be managed through the

preparation and implementation of a CEMP. Section 6

Any reduction in the range of beneficial uses of the environment?

The proposed pipeline would not result in the range of beneficial uses of the

environment. Some disruptions for road users would occur, however these are to

ensure public safety and will be localised restrictions and short-term.

Low Section 6 and

Section 6.5

Any pollution of the environment?

Risks of pollution to the environmental would be minimal. The potential for water

pollution, erosion and contamination to land, and noise do exist but would be

minimal and avoided with the safeguards and mitigation measures in the REF.

Section 6.3

Section 6.4

Section 6.7 and

Section 0

Any environmental problems associated with the disposal of waste?

Any waste generated during construction will be disposed of a licenced waste

facility. Where possible waste generated would be reused and recycled. Section 6.10

Any increased demands on resources, natural or otherwise which are, or are likely to become, in short supply?

The proposed pipeline will provide infrastructure enabling two towns to connect to a

more secure water supply. All materials required for the proposed pipeline are

available and are not currently or unlikely to be in short supply.

Section 6

Any cumulative environmental effect with other existing or likely future activities?

Cumulative impacts are anticipated to be minor. The impacts associated with the

proposed pipeline would be short term during the construction phase. Low Section 6



7.2 Sect ion 111 (2, 3 and 4) factors (NSW legislation)

The factors that need to be taken into account when considering the environmental impact of an activity

are identified under Section 111(2, 3 and 4) of the EP&A Act and are addressed in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2: Compliance with Clauses 111(2. 3 and 4) of the EP&A Act 1979

Section 111 (2, 3 and 4) Impact Section in REF

Any conservation agreement entered into under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 and applying to the whole

or part of the land to which the activity relates?

The proposed pipeline would not have any effect on any conservation

agreements. Nil Section 4

Any plan of management adopted under that Act for the conservation area to which the agreement relates?

The proposed pipeline would not have any effect on any plan of management. Nil Section 4

Any joint management agreement entered into under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The proposed pipeline is not known to intersect any areas of joint management

agreements. Nil Section 4

Any biobanking agreement entered into under Part 7A of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 that

applies to the whole or part of the land to which the activity relates.

No biobanking agreements are in place for the land intersected by the proposed

pipeline. Nil Section 4

Any wilderness area (within the meaning of the Wilderness Act 1987) in the locality in which the activity is intended

to be carried on?

The proposed pipeline would not have any effect on any wilderness areas. Nil Section 4

Any effect on critical habitat?

The proposed pipeline does not contain any critical habitat. Nil Section 6.2 and

Section 6.3

Is there likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or those

habitats?

The proposed pipeline would not have any significant impacts on any threatened

species. Populations or habitats given mitigation measures are implemented

and adhered to.

Low

Section 6.2

Section 6.3 and

Appendix B

Any other protected fauna or protected native plants within the meaning of the National Parks and Wildlife Act

1974?

No protected flora species were identified during field surveys. Appropriate

mitigation measures will be in place to reduce the incidence of injury or death of

native fauna during the construction of the proposed pipeline.

Nil

Section 6.2

Section 6.3 and

Appendix B

http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/xref/inforce/?xref=Type%3Dact%20AND%20Year%3D1974%20AND%20no%3D80&nohits=y








8 Environmental Management

8.1 Residual environmental risk and impacts

Following consideration of the proposed construction and operational safeguards, controls and

mitigation measures to be implemented by Cabonne Council as part of the project design, Table 8-1 is

used to reassess the risks associated with each of the potential impacts identified in Section 6.

Table 8-1: Risk assessment matrix

Risk Assessment Matrix Consequence

Likelihood Minor Major Severe Critical Catastrophic

A B C D E

Very Unlikely 1 Low Low Medium Medium Medium

Unlikely 2 Low Low Medium Medium High

Possible 3 Low Medium High High High

Likely 4 Medium Medium High High Extreme

Almost Certain 5 Medium High High Extreme Extreme

8.2 Introduct ion

There are a number of environmental risks related to the project identified through this REF process.

Mitigation measures have been outlined for each area of the risks identified. The following section

brings these mitigation measures together, augments them where it is considered additional actions are

required and outlines a framework for their management during construction.

Residual risk levels are then assessed.

8.2.1 Key Risks

Construction of the pipeline within the table drain and road shoulder reduces the risk of impacts on

vegetation. It does however increase the risk of erosion and sedimentation of waterways and spills

reaching waterways. These risks become the key environmental risks for the project.

To manage these risks, the following documents and supporting processes, need to be in place:

A CEMP needs to be developed for the project. The CEMP must include the following sub

plans:

o Erosion and sediment management – this sub plan must outline erosion and sediment

risks and reference the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) which will outline the

process to be put in place to manage these risks.

o Pollution and incident response management – this sub plan must outline the

processes for managing a pollution event or other environmental incident. This would

include spill response requirements (spill kits etc), incident notification process and roles

and responsibilities for managing and reporting any incidents.



o Heritage management – this sub plan needs to identify areas of heritage significance,

heritage items in the vicinity of the works and how these areas will be managed. It

should also outline how any unexpected finds (both Aboriginal or Non-Aboriginal) will be

managed. This must include requirements around stopping work and notifying

appropriate people in the event of an unexpected find. The works are being undertaken

in an area that has eight AHIMS sites recorded (road reserve area) so it is possible there

will be unexpected finds.

o Waste management and storage of hazardous materials – this sub plan needs to

outline how waste will be managed and minimised, how hazardous materials will be

stored, refuelling procedures etc. Working in and around a drain increases the risks

associated with hazardous materials and refuelling.

o Flora and fauna management – this sub plan needs to outline measures to prevent or

manage any impacts on areas of sensitive vegetation. These areas will become clearer

once more detailed mapping has been completed.

o Noise and vibration – this sub plan needs to clearly outline any noise management

measures that will be in place on the project as well as the working hours (standard).

Although all work is being undertaken inside standard working hours noise levels are

likely to exceed the “management levels” and so mitigation should be put in place where

reasonable. These could include physical barriers on machinery, resident notification, a

complaints phone number, respite agreed with residents etc.

o Induction and pre-start – this sub plan needs to outline the induction process for

workers coming onto the project as well as any toolbox talks required and the process for

undertaking pre-start checks of machinery for damage and wear and tear (in particular

hydraulic hoses, fuel tanks etc) before the start of work each day.

ESCP - this plan needs to be developed by a suitably qualified person. The erosion and

sediment management section needs to outline how erosion and sediment controls will be

managed on a day to day basis as the pipeline is being installed. Because the work is being

undertaken in a drain there is a risk a rainfall event would carry a load of sediment and deposit

it in the nearest waterway. Controls need to be in place to manage this risk during construction.

This section must also outline erosion and sediment controls around any compound areas as

well as the post construction measures to be applied to the areas that have been excavated

and backfilled. These areas will be more at risk of scour and ongoing erosion than the other

areas of the drain.

Environmental Control Maps (ECMs) need to be developed for the full length of the project.

These are maps that have all areas of environmental significance clearly identified along the

route. Hard copies of these should be on-site at all times and displayed where they can be

seen by the project team. They should be discussed as part of the morning briefing before

each day’s work.

.



8.3 Environmental Controls and Residual Risk

A summary of the environmental controls and residual risks of the proposed pipeline are outlined in Table 8-2.

Table 8-2: Summary of environmental controls and residual risk

Risk Mitigation measures Additional mitigation measures Documentation Residual

risk

Flora and

Fauna

impacts

Pre-construction

Searches in spring/early summer for threatened flora species

Pre-clearance survey of EEC to determine if communities meet EEC criteria and extent

of area

Map areas of EEC

For trenching activities Cabonne Council will be required to obtain a permit for dredging

or reclamation from NSW DPI

Construction

Maintain native vegetation where possible and reduce impact by the following actions:

Clearly marking construction zone

Clearly marking ecologically sensitive features adjacent to the construction zone

with flagging or tape

Where feasible lopping of native trees overhanding construction zone rather than

removal

Minimize root disturbance or compacting in the drip zone of trees and shrubs

Any trees to be removed be retained in road reserve as woody debris

Reinstatement of stripped grass should be progressively undertaken. The area should

be seeded with native grass and herb species, but the normal grading maintenance

program works against this aspiration.

Develop a CEMP including a

section outlining flora

mitigation measures

Mapped vegetation should be

clearly marked on the ECMs

with colour coding used to

identify sensitive vegetation

and areas for approved

removal of vegetation.

Develop a process for review

and approval if additional

vegetation not assessed in

this REF needs to be

removed.

Mitigation measures should

be briefed to all project staff in

a site induction and at toolbox

talks

ECM

CEMP

Induction

LOW




risk

Weeds Where necessary the following biosecurity measures should be applied:

All machinery and vehicles brought on site would be free of any soil, seed or plant

material.

Restrict vehicle and personal access from areas of known noxious weed

infestation.

Declared noxious weeds should be managed according to the requirements

stipulated by the Noxious Weeds Act 1993.

Evidence of compliance with biosecurity requirements should be documented, e.g.

a Vehicle wash down register.


section outlining flora and

fauna mitigation measures

Where weeds are an issue

mitigation measures should

be briefed to the project team

as part of the pre-start briefing

each day.

CEMP

Vehicle wash

down register

if required

LOW

Noise and

vibration

Where practicable physical noise controls should be put in place. (see

Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP), Appendix E)

Informing and consulting residents and interested parties, as far as practicable,

regarding impending or current events that may cause high levels of noise and

how long they are expected to take. This may take the form of letter drops, or

community notices.

Provide a complaints telephone number prominently displayed where the works

are taking place and on any letter drops or community notices.

Respite hours agreed with residents when noisy works will not take place if

necessary.

Investigate complaints when received to establish the cause and where possible

implement a corrective action such as, provide a respite period or other practical

measure.

Minimising the operating noise of machinery brought on to the site.

Where appropriate, obtaining acoustic test certificates for machinery brought on to

the site.

Undertake noise monitoring at the start of a new noisy activity so noise levels can

be investigated should a complaint be received.

If there is excessive noise from any process, that process will be stopped and if

possible that noise attenuated to acceptable levels. Where there is no alternative


section outlining sensitive

receivers and noise mitigation

measures (may be in the

CNVMP)

Mark on ECM sensitive noise

receivers

Point out sensitive receivers

in pre-start briefing each day

and review noise mitigation

measures to ensure impacts

on receivers are minimized

Make project team aware of

noise issues and mitigation

measures through induction

CEMP

CNVMP

ECM

Induction

MEDIUM




risk

the process will be rescheduled to non-sensitive hours.

Ensuring that plant is not left idling when not in use.

Ensuring that plant is well maintained and in good working order and not causing

unnecessary noise, such as damaged mufflers on plant.

All access hatches for plant to be kept closed.

Aboriginal

and historic

heritage

Aboriginal heritage

Due to the high level of disturbance of the proposed pipeline corridor and the

absence of any Aboriginal objects or sites, no further investigation is necessary.

A stop works procedure should be put in place for any unexpected finds of

Aboriginal objects. If site contractors find or uncover suspected Aboriginal objects

during works, such as stone artefacts, works should cease in the affected area

and a qualified archaeologist contacted for an inspection to assess the finds. If

the finds are found to be Aboriginal objects, the OEH must be notified under

section 89A of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974. Appropriate

management and avoidance or approvals under a section 90 AHIP should then be

sought if Aboriginal objects are to be moved or harmed.

In the extremely unlikely event that human remains are found, works should

immediately cease and the NSW Police should be contacted. If the remains are

suspected to be Aboriginal, the OEH may also be contacted at this time to assist

in determining appropriate management.

Recommendations – historic heritage

A stop works procedure should be put in place for any unexpected finds of

historical archaeological ‘relics’ which are afforded protection under the Heritage

Act 1977. If suspected relics are found or uncovered during works, works should

cease in the affected area and a qualified archaeologist contacted for an

inspection to assess the finds. If the finds are found to be relics, the Heritage

Council must be notified under section 146 of the Heritage Act 1977. Appropriate

management and avoidance or an excavation permit under section 140 or an

exception under section 139 would be required if the relics are to be excavated or


section outlining

archeologically sensitive

areas and any heritage areas

Make project team aware

archeology and heritage

issues and mitigation

measures through project

induction

Brief project team on

unexpected finds process at

induction and regular toolbox

talks

CEMP

ECM

LOW




risk

disturbed.

Visual

amenity and

infrastructure

Construction is a temporary activity and progressive stabilisation of the disturbed

areas to facilitate revegetation would reduce the visual impact in the short term.

To avoid impacting any telecommunication cables, a detailed onsite survey must

be undertaken to verify all services to finalise the pipeline alignment.

Prior to any works commencing within the road reserve Cabonne Council will

require consent from RMS for the proposed activities. Orange City Council is the

road authority for Thompson Road, thus consent is required from Orange City

Council prior to any works commencing within this road reserve

LOW

Soils and

contamination

Erosion and sediment control measures and appropriate remediation measures

should be undertaken during construction activities to reduce the risk of land

degradation. An erosion and sediment control plan should be developed and

implemented in accordance with the Managing Urban Stormwater – Soil and

Construction, 4th edition (Landcom 2004) and Volume 2A: Installation of Services

(DECC 2008). These measures should only be removed once the area has been

progressively restabilised. The plan should also identify areas requiring

management control, include inspection and checklist and be reviewed by

Cabonne Council prior to any works commencing. These controls must be

suitably maintained and monitored to ensure the measures and controls in place

are effective.

The area of disturbance should be limited to the smallest practicable footprint

possible. Progressive rehabilitation of disturbed areas should be undertaken,

including restoration to their natural shape at the completion of works.

If suspected soil contamination is encountered the suspected materials would be

segregated and placed in a designated bunded stockpile covered in plastic

sheeting to prevent rainfall infiltration and/or soil migration during windy

conditions. Pending disposal at a licenced waste facility suspected contaminated

would be tested to determine waste classification. Records of waste analysis,

classification and disposal dockets would be recorded and maintained.


section outlining soil and

contamination risks on project

and linking to the ESCP.

Detail ERSED controls on

ECMs for each area

Brief on the ERSED controls

in the work area for that day in

pre-start briefing each day

Make project team aware of

ERSED and contamination

issues and mitigation

measures through project

induction

CEMP

ESCP

ECM

Induction

MEDIUM



9 Project Justification

9.1 Justif icat ion/need for the proposal

9.1.1 Socio-economic

Central NSW, including Cabonne Council has experienced extended and severe droughts and a large

number of towns are dependent on the security through water allocation for their economic and social

viability, including flow on benefits for industries such as agriculture and mining. Molong, Cumnock and

Yeoval are developing a tourism identity as food boutique towns, and industry sensitive to water quality

and supply. Subsequently, an unsecure water supply is likely to discourage new businesses and retain

existing businesses. A safe and secure water supply will promote the establishment of one new

business every two years in Molong, while one new business every five years in Cumnock and Yeoval

is expected following the completion of the Molong to Cumnock and Yeoval pipeline. As an economic

enabler improved water security for these towns would enable sustained long term growth and

development in the region.

Water restrictions are common in Molong, Cumnock and Yeoval. The likely costs incurred by residents

during water restrictions include loss of amenity, reduced real estate values, soil damage and

diminished urban stormwater management. The estimated probability of Level 1 restrictions for Molong

is 0.5%, but the probability increases for Cumnock and Yeoval (18% and 32% respectively).

Furthermore, HydroScience Consulting report that it is reasonable to expect that the cost of water

restrictions per person in Molong, Cumnock and Yeoval is at least twice the national average.

Therefore, the severity of water restrictions in these towns and costs associated with these restrictions

can be reduced by providing a secure water supply.

Regional benefits are provided by water sharing between the Lachlan and Macquarie River catchments.

In addition to the pipeline between the Orange City Council and Central Tablelands Water utilities to

share water in droughts and emergencies, extending the link to Molong will contribute additional water

resources and water infrastructure to the regional water supply system. Furthermore, the proposed

pipeline would enhance access to potential future water distribution networks including the proposed

dams on the Belubula River and changes to Carcoar Dam operations. Expansions to the regional water

supply system will improve the overall secure yield of the region, and strengthen the drought resilience

of the region by providing a robust system of water treatment plants and raw and potable water sources.

9.1.2 Demand

The current population of the Cabonne Council LGA is 12 821 (2011 Census) with an average annual

growth rate of 0.14%. The population of Molong is 1,629, while Cumnock and Yeoval have a population

of 275 and 292 respectively (2011 Census). A population demographic projection report commissioned

by Centroc for a 25 year period (2006 - 2031) indicates that the projected population for the Cabonne

Council LGA ranges from a low of 13,550 to high of 16,361 in 2013 (WRI 2008).

The secure yield for Molong Creek Dam is currently 230 ML/year and is 170 ML/year short of the

forecasted demand in 2059. Under climate change conditions the secure yield falls to 197 ML/year.

The secondary and tertiary water sources have been considered as an option to improve water security

for Molong, Cumnock and Yeoval. A secure yield analysis of the Borenore Dam in 1998 estimated the

secure yield as 30 ML/year, and climate change modelling would reduce the yield further, and is

therefore not sufficient to meet forecast water demand. The Molong bore is likely to supply in excess of



70 ML/year. Whilst the bore may be a potential supplementation source, it is limited by water quality

issues and the ability to access 70 ML/year during drought periods is unknown.

9.2 Project Just if ication and Alternat ives

Cabonne Council, in conjunction with its Central Tablelands Regional Water Security Projects partners,

Orange City Council and Central Tablelands Water, has received NSW Government funding under the

NSW Water Security for Regions programmes to improve water access and security.

The proposed works will improve water security for Molong, and following completion of the Molong to

Cumnock and Yeoval pipeline, the proposal will also provide increased water security to these

townships.

The ‘do nothing’ option will result in ongoing water security concerns. The design and proposed

pipeline alignment is the least costly and avoids major environmental impacts.



10 Conclusion

The proposed pipeline from Orange to Molong Creek Dam is subject to consideration by Cabonne

Council under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. This REF addresses the statutory requirements relating to, and

the potential environmental impacts from the proposed pipeline.

There is a need to ensure water security in Central NSW. The proposed pipeline will improve the water

security for Molong, and by extension Cumnock and Yeoval.

Mitigation measures as detailed in this REF would ameliorate or minimise any expected impacts to

generally acceptable levels.

This REF concludes that construction and operation of the proposed pipeline is unlikely to result in a

significantly adverse environmental impact. The proposed pipeline is unlikely to significantly impact

threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats, within the meaning of the

TSC Act or FM Act and therefore a Species Impact Statement is not required. Furthermore, the

proposed pipeline is unlikely to affect Commonwealth land or have a significant impact on matters of

national environmental significance and does not need to be referred to the Federal Minister for the

Environment.



References

Cabonne Council. n.d. About the Council. [online]. Available at:

http://www.cabonne.nsw.gov.au/council/about-council (April 20, 2016).

Davies, S.J., 1993. An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed Telecom Optic Fibre Cable Route

Between Orange and Narromine, Central Region NSW. Report to Telecom Australia.

Department of the Environment (DotE) 2016a. Protected Matters Search Tool. [online]. Available at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool (April 13, 2016).

Eco Logical Australia (ELA). 2016. Molong to Cumnock & Yeoval Pipeline Review of Environmental

Factors. Prepared for Cabonne Council.

Emery, K. A. 1986. Rural Land Capability Mapping. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Kovac, M., Lawrie, J.A. & Murphy, B.W. 1989. Soil Landscapes of the Bathurst 1:250 000 Sheet Map.

Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Landcom 2004. Managing Urban Stormwater: Soils and Construction. New South Wales Government.

Murphy, B.W. & Lawrie, J.W. 1998b. Soil Landscapes of Dubbo 1:250 000 Sheet Report. Department of

Land and Water Conservation, Sydney.

MWH Global 2009. Centroc Water Security Study Component 2: Options Paper. Prepared for Centroc

by WH Global.

NSW Department of Environmental and Climate Change (DECC) 2008. Soils and Construction: Volume

2A Installation of services. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) 2016. Threatened and protected species – records

viewer. [online]. Available from: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/records/viewer

(April 13, 2016)

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2012. The land and soil capability assessment scheme

– second approximation. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2016a. BioNet: Atlas of NSW Wildlife [online].

Available at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/atlaspublicapp/UI_Modules/ATLAS_/AtlasSearch.aspx

(April 13, 2016)

Pardoe, C. 2010. Young to Wellington Gas Pipeline Cultural Heritage Assessment and Consultation.

Unpublished Report to ERM Power Pty Ltd.

Parker, K.., Head, L., Chrisholm, L. A. & Feneley, N. 2008. A conceptual model of ecological

connectivity in the Shellharbour Local Government Area, New South Wales, Australia. Landscape and

Urban Planning, 86: 47-59.

Pearson, M. 1981. Through Different Eyes: Changing land Use and Settlement in the Upper Macquarie

River Region of NSW. Unpublished PhD Thesis, ANU. Canberra.

http://www.cabonne.nsw.gov.au/council/about-council

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/records/viewer

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/atlaspublicapp/UI_Modules/ATLAS_/AtlasSearch.aspx



The Western Research Institute (WRI) 2008. Centroc Population Projections. Prepared for Centroc by

Western Research Institute Charles Sturt University: Bathurst.

White, I. 1986. Dimensions of Wiradjuri. Unpublished Thesis. Department of Prehistory and

Anthropology, ANU, Canberra.



Appendix A Likelihood of Occurrence Tables

As s e ss m e n t o f S i g n i f i c a n c e


Table A-10-1: Threatened flora likelihood table

Scientific Name Common Name

Status

Habitat Associations Likelihood

of Occurrence

TSC Act

EPBC Act

Flora

Ammobium craspedioides Yass Daisy V V

Ammobium craspedioides is found from near Crookwell on the Southern Tablelands to near Wagga Wagga on the South Western Slopes, where it is apparently unaffected by light grazing, as populations persist in some grazed sites (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Eucalyptus aggregata Black Gum V V Eucalyptus aggregata is found in the NSW Central and Southern Tablelands. It grows on alluvial soils on cold, poorly-drained flats and hollows adjacent to creeks and small rivers. Can occur as isolated paddock trees (OEH 2016b).

Unlikely

Euphrasia arguta CE CE

Euphrasia arguta was believed to be extinct until it was rediscovered in 2008 near Nundle on the Northern Tablelands. Three of the five currently known populations occur in Nundle State Forest. It grows in eucalypt forest with a mixed grass and shrub understorey (OEH 2016a).

Unlikely

Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata

Square Raspwort V V

Haloragis exalata has been recorded in 4 widely scattered localities in eastern NSW; the Central Coast, South Coast and North Western Slopes botanical subdivisions of NSW; where it appears to require protected and shaded damp situations in riparian habitats (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Lepidium hyssopifolium Aromatic Peppercress

E E Lepidium hyssopifolium occurs near Bathurst, near Bungendore, near Crookwell and near Armidale, occurring in a variety of habitats including woodland with a grassy understorey and grassland (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor

Hoary Sunray - E

Leucochrysum albicans var. tricolor occurs in a wide range of habitats from peaty

uplands to stony plains, and has been associated with the Western (Basalt) Plains Natural Temperate Grasslands (OEH 2016b). Generally on relatively heavy soils, and will occur in semi-modified habitats such as roadsides and semi-urban areas. It is dependent on bare ground for germination, and in some areas disturbance is identified for successful recruitment (OEH 2016b).

Likely

Prasophyllum petilum Tarengo Leek Orchid E E

Known with certainty from two populations in central and southern NSW (near Boorowa and Delegate) plus a third population in the ACT (at Hall). Plants previously referred to by this name at Ilford and Captains Flat are likely to be different, undescribed species. The populations at Boorowa and Delegate occur in open grassy areas on fertile soils. Natural populations are also known from a newly recognised population c.10 k SE of Muswellbrook (OEH 2016b). This species has also been recorded at Bowning Cemetery where it was experimentally introduced, though it is not known whether this population has persisted. Susceptible to

Potential




Status


of Occurrence

TSC Act

EPBC Act

Flora

grazing. Favours box-gum grassy woodland and black gum grassy woodland and temperate grassland (OEH 2016b).

Prasophyllum sp. Wybong a leek-orchid - CE

Prasophyllum sp. Wybong is endemic to NSW. It is known from approximately 10

populations on the Central and North Western Slopes of NSW from near Ilford north to the Tenterfield district. Plants grow in grassland and grassy woodlands on a range of soil types (DotE 2016).

Potential

Swainsona sericea Silky Swainson-pea V - Swainsona sericea is widespread on the tablelands, western slopes and western plains of NSW. It grows in a wide variety of habitats from Snow Gum woodland to box/gum woodlands and Callitris communities (OEH 2016b).

Likely

Thesium australe Austral Toadflax V V

Widespread throughout the eastern third of NSW but most common on the North Western Slopes, Northern Tablelands and North Coast. Occurs in grassland or grassy woodland. Often found in damp sites in association with Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass) (OEH 2016b). The preferred soil type is a fertile loam derived from basalt or argillaceous sediment (e.g. shale) although it occasionally occurs on metasediments and granite.

Unlikely

Dichanthium setosum Bluegrass V V

Dichanthium setosum occurs on the New England Tablelands, North West Slopes and Plains and the Central Western Slopes of NSW, is associated with heavy basaltic black soils and is often found in moderately disturbed areas such as cleared woodland, grassy roadside remnants and highly disturbed pasture (OEH 2016b).

Unlikely

Eucalyptus canobolensis Silver-leaf Candlebark

V E Eucalyptus canobolensis is only known from Mt Canobolas near Orange on the NSW Central Tablelands. It grows in sub-alpine woodland on shallow to skeletal sandy loam soils (OEH 2016b).

Unlikely

Eucalyptus robertsonii subsp. hemisphaerica

Robertson’s Peppermint

V V

Known only from the Central Tablelands of NSW, from sites to the east and south east of Bathurst and Orange. Locally frequent in grassy or dry sclerophyll woodland or forest, on lighter soils and often on granite. Usually found in closed grassy woodlands in locally sheltered sites. Habitats include quartzite ridges, upper slopes and a slight rise of shallow clay over volcanic (OEH 2016b).

Unlikely



Table 10-2: Threatened Ecological Communities likelihood table

Community Name

Status


of Occurrence

TSC Act

EPBC Act

Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia

- E

Temperate Eucalypt woodland with a grassy understorey, predominantly occurring on the drier edge of the temperate grassy eucalypt woodland belt, ranging from central NSW through to central and northern Victoria into South Australia. Generally occur on low-relief landscapes, on fertile soils derived from alluvial or colluvial materials. The typical structure is a woodland to open forest with a canopy dominated by eucalypts with a sparse to dense shrublayer. The ground layer predominantly consist of perennial and annual native forbs and graminoids. Associated canopy species vary from region to region, the most widespread associated tree species include: Allocasuarina luehmannii (Buloke), Brachychiton populneus (Kurrajong), Callitris glaucophylla (White Cypress Pine), Eucalyptus albens (White Box), E. camaldulensis (River Red Gum), E. conica (Fuzzy Box), E. leucoxylon (Yellow Gum, SA Blue Gum), E. melliodora (Yellow Box) and E. populnea (Bimble Box, Poplar Box) (DotE 2016a).

No

Natural Temperate Grassland of the South Eastern Highlands

- CE

Occurs at altitudes up to approximately 1200 m in and around the South Eastern Highlands, scattered widely across the Monaro region, with smaller patches occurring from Crookwell to the upper Shoalhaven River and the Boorowa, Yass, Tumut, Tumbarumba and Khancoban regions. Small areas of remnants have been found on basalt terrain in the Orange area. Found on a wide range of topographic positions and soils derived from a variety of substrates including granites, sediments, basalts, colluvium and alluvium (DotE 2016a).

This community is naturally treeless or sparsely treed characterised by a dominance of native perennial tussock grasses, the tallest stratum typically up to 1 m high when present. A second lower stratum usually occurs and consists of perennial and annual grasses and forbs, growing between the taller tussocks. A third, smaller stratum of forbs, grasses and cryptogams may also be present. Variation in the composition and structure may occur as a result of intrinsic site characteristics and agricultural activities. Dominant and co-dominant grass species include Themeda triandraI syn. T. australis (Kangaroo grass), Poa sieberiana (Snow grass), Poa labillardierei (river tussock grass), Austrostipa bigeniculata (Kneed speargrass), A. scabra (Slender speargrass), Bothriochloa macra (Red grass), various Rytidosperma species syn. Austrodanthonia spp. (Wallaby grasses) and Lachmagrostis spp. (Blowngrasses) (DotE 2016a).

No



Community Name

Status


of Occurrence

TSC Act

EPBC Act

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland

E CE

Characterised by the presence or prior occurrence of White Box, Yellow Box and/or Blakely's Red Gum. The trees may occur as pure stands, mixtures of the three species or in mixtures with other trees, including wattles.

The understorey in intact sites is characterised by native grasses and a high diversity of herbs; the most commonly encountered include Themeda australis, Poa sieberiana, Austrodanthonia spp., Austrostipa spp., Chrysocephalum apiculatum, Goodenia pinnatifida, Hypericum gramineum, Vittadinia muelleri and Wahlenbergia spp. Shrubs are generally sparse or absent, though they may be locally common. Remnants generally occur on fertile lower parts of the landscape where resources such as water and nutrients are abundant (DotE 2016b).

Known



Table 10-3: Threatened fauna likelihood tables


Status

Habitat Associations Likelihood of Occurrence TSC

Act EPBC

Act

Amphibians

Litoria booroolongensis Booroolong Frog - E Typically inhabits rocky western-flowing creeks and their headwaters, although a small number of animals have also been recorded in eastern-flowing streams (OEH 2016b).

No

Reptiles

Aprasia parapulchella Pink-tailed Worm-lizard, Pink-tailed Legless Lizard

V V

This lizard is known from four sites in eastern Australia: near Canberra in the ACT, Tarcutta and Bathurst in NSW, and near Bendigo in Vic. Inhabits sloping, open woodland areas with predominantly native grassy undercover, particularly those dominated by Kangaroo Grass. Some populations have been known to persist under rocks in grasslands derived from woodland clearing (OEH 2016b).

No

Birds




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater CE CE

Nomadic, nectivorous birds, Regent Honeyeaters mostly occur in dry box-ironbark eucalypt woodland and dry sclerophyll forest associations, wherein they prefer the most fertile sites available, e.g. along creek flats, or in broad river valleys and foothills. In NSW, riparian forests containing Casuarina cunninghamiana (River Oak), and with Amyema cambagei (Needle-leaf Mistletoe), are also important for feeding and breeding. At times of food shortage (e.g. when flowering fails in preferred habitats), Honeyeaters also use other woodland types and wet lowland coastal forest dominated by Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) or E. maculata (Spotted Gum) (Franklin et al. 1989; Geering & French 1998; Ley & Williams 1992; Oliver et al. 1999; Webster & Menkhorst 1992). Regent Honeyeaters sometimes occur in coastal forest, especially in stands dominated by Swamp Mahogany and Spotted Gum, but also in those with Southern Mahogany E. botryoides, and in those on sandstone ranges with banksias Banksia in the understorey (Franklin et al. 1989; Higgins et al. 2001; Menkhorst 1997). They have been recorded in open forest including forest edges, wooded farmland and urban areas with mature eucalypts (Garnett 1993). The Regent Honeyeater primarily feeds on nectar from box and ironbark eucalypts and occasionally from banksias and mistletoes (NPWS 1995). As such it is reliant on locally abundant nectar sources with different flowering times to provide reliable supply of nectar (Environment Australia 2000). In NSW, most records are scattered on and around the Great Dividing Range, mainly on the North-West Plains, North-West Slopes and adjacent Northern Tablelands, to west of Armidale; the Central Tablelands and Southern Tablelands regions; and the Central Coast and Hunter Valley regions. The species is concentrated around two main locations, the Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba area, but Honeyeaters are also recorded along the coast in the Northern Rivers and Mid-North Coast Regions, and in the Illawarra and South Coast Regions, from Nowra south to Moruya, where small numbers are recorded in most years (D. Geering 1997, unpublished data; Higgins et al. 2001; Webster & Menkhorst 1992).

Potential

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift - Ma, Mi

A strictly aerial bird which forages over a wide range of habitats, but mostly inland plains or dry, open habitats in northern Australia during the austral summer (DotE 2016a). In the south this species is sometimes found in association with larger flocks of White-throated Needle-tail (DotE 2016a). This species sleeps on the wing and is not known to willingly descend to land (including trees) while foraging in southern Australia (DotE 2016a).

Potential (aerial)




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift - Ma, Mi

The Fork-tailed Swift is a non-breeding visitor to all states and territories in Australia. In NSW, it has been recorded in all regions, with most records east of the Great Divide, but there are scattered populations west of the Great Divide, mostly west of the line joining Bourke and Dareton (DotE 2016). Sometimes travels with Needletails. Varied habitat with a possible tendency to more arid areas but also over coasts and urban areas (Simpson & Day 1999).

Unlikely

Ardea alba Great Egret - Ma

The Great Egret is common and widespread in Australia (McKilligan, 2005). It forages in a wide range of wet and dry habitats including permanent and ephemeral freshwaters, wet pasture and estuarine mangroves and mudflats (McKilligan 2005). Nests in large trees near water.

Unlikely

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret - Ma

Cattle Egrets forage on pasture, marsh, grassy road verges, rain puddles and croplands, but not usually in the open water of streams or lakes and they avoid marine environments (McKilligan 2005). Some individuals stay close to the natal heronry from one nesting season to the next, but the majority leave the district in autumn and return the next spring. Cattle Egrets are likely to spend the winter dispersed along the coastal plain and only a small number have been recovered west of the Great Dividing Range (McKilligan 2005).

Potential

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern E E

Terrestrial wetlands with tall dense vegetation, occasionally estuarine habitats (Marchant & Higgins 1990). Found along the east coast and in the Murray-Darling Basin, notably in floodplain wetlands of the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir Rivers (Marchant & Higgins 1990; NPWS 1999). Reedbeds, swamps, streams, estuaries (Simpson & Day 1999). Favours permanent shallow waters, edges of pools and waterways, with tall, dense vegetation such as sedges, rushes and reeds on muddy or peaty substrate. Also occurs in Muehlenbeckia florulenta (Lignum) and Eragrostis australasica

(Canegrass) on inland wetlands (OEH 2016a).

Unlikely

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s Snipe - Ma, Mi

A non-breeding migrant to southern Australia during the austral summer. Occurs in a variety of permanent and ephemeral wetlands, preferring open fresh water wetlands with nearby cover. Occupies a variety of vegetation around wetlands including wetland grasses and open wooded swamps (OEH 2016b).

Unlikely

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater V V

A nomadic species that typically inhabits box-ironbark-gum woodlands with abundant mistletoe. It is a specialist feeder on the fruits of mistletoes growing on woodland eucalypts and acacias, preferring Amyema sp. (Mistletoe) (OEH

2016b).

Potential




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle - Ma

Forages over large open fresh or saline waterbodies, coastal seas and open terrestrial areas (Marchant & Higgins 1993, Simpson & Day 1999). Breeding habitat consists of tall trees, mangroves, cliffs, rocky outcrops, silts, caves and crevices and is located along the coast or major rivers. Breeding habitat is usually in or close to water, but may occur up to a kilometre away (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

Unlikely

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail - Ma, Mi

A strictly aerial bird which forages over a wide range of habitats, but mostly inland plains or dry, open habitats. Is commonly seen foraging in southern Australia during the austral summer (DotE 2016a). Rarely, if ever descends to land.

Potential (aerial)

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot CE CE, Ma

A nomadic, nectivorous bird that occurs in open woodlands and forests, particularly Eucalyptus sideroxylon, E. blakelyi, E. tereticornis, and E. albens

associations on fertile flats and alluvial areas (DotE 2016a; OEH 2016b). Foraging can occur anywhere there is sufficient flowering of potential feed trees and elsewhere (DotE 2016a; OEH 2016b). Breeds in Tasmania during spring and summer, migrating to south-eastern Australia in the autumn and winter months (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Leipoa ocellata Malleefowl E V

Dry inland scrub, shrublands and low woodlands of mallee. It occurs in other habitat types including eucalypt or native pine Callitris woodlands, acacia shrublands, Broombush Melaleuca uncinata vegetation or coastal heathlands (Benshemesh 2005b; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). Vegetation communities inhabited by Malleefowl are dominated by multi-stemmed species of eucalypts (such as Eucalyptus socialis, E. dumosa or E. incrassata) and occur on sandy

or loamy soils that receive 200 to 450 mm of rainfall each year (Frith 1962a; Priddel & Wheeler 1995). They have a dense but discontinuous canopy, a dense understorey of shrubs (including species of Acacia, Cassia, Bossiaea and Beyeria) or grass (especially species of Triodia) and herbs, and abundant

leaf litter (Benshemesh 2005b; Frith 1962a). Males tend large sand and leaf litter nest-mounds.

Unlikely

Climacteris picumnus victoriae

Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies)

V -

Forages and breeds in drier woodlands that contain rough-barked eucalypts abundant fallen woody debris and lack a dense shrubby understorey (OEH 2016b). Requires small tree hollows for nesting, and regularly nests in dead stags (OEH 2016b). Individuals observed foraging on Angophora floribunda on creek lines and nesting was observed in a sandstone outcrop in A. floribunda woodland.

Potential




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Daphoenositta chrysoptera

Varied Sittella V -

Distribution includes most of mainland Australia except deserts and open grasslands. Prefers eucalypt forests and woodlands with rough-barked species, or mature smooth-barked gums with dead branches, mallee and Acacia spp. woodland. Feeds on arthropods from bark, dead branches, or small branches and twigs (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Melanodryas cucullata cucullata

Hooded Robin (south-eastern form)

V -

Occurs in most of continental Australia except in humid south-eastern forests, as a single population (OEH 2016a). Inhabits dry sclerophyll and acacia woodlands and shrublands with an open understorey and a complex groundlayer. Forages on invertebrates, small vertebrates and occasionally seeds, and is adversely affected by 'tidying up' in farmland and by firewood collection that reduces fallen logs and coarse woody debris cover (OEH 2016a). One recording within 5 km of the proposed pipeline.

Unlikely

Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle V — Occupies open eucalypt forest, woodland or open woodland, nests in tall living trees within a remnant patch. Preys mostly on rabbits and medium-sized birds (OEH 2016b).

Likely

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater - Ma

Resident in coastal and subcoastal northern Australia; regular breeding migrant in southern Australia, arriving September to October, departing February to March, some occasionally present April to May (Pizzey and Doyle 1988). Occurs in open country, chiefly at suitable breeding places in areas of sandy or loamy soil: sand-ridges, riverbanks, road-cuttings, sand-pits, occasionally coastal cliffs (ibid). Nest is a chamber at the end of a burrow, up to 1.6 m long, tunnelled in flat or sloping ground, sandy back or cutting (ibid)

Unlikely

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail - Ma, Mi

Well-watered open grasslands and the fringes of wetlands. Roosts in mangroves and other dense vegetation (DotE 2016a).

No

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher - Ma, Mi

Heavily vegetated gullies in forests, and taller woodlands of coastal south-east Australia. May very occasionally occur in unusual or atypical habitat during migration including open cleared areas and dry woodland fragments (Morcombe 2004).

Unlikely




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Petroica boodang Scarlet Robin V -

The Scarlet Robin is found in south-eastern and south-western Australia, as well as on Norfolk Island. In Australia, it is found south of latitude 25°S, from south-eastern Queensland along the coast of New South Wales (and inland to western slopes of Great Dividing Range) to Victoria and Tasmania, and west to Eyre Peninsula, South Australia; it is also found in south-west Western Australia. The Scarlet Robin lives in open forests and woodlands in Australia, while it prefers rainforest habitats on Norfolk Island. During winter, it will visit more open habitats such as grasslands and will be seen in farmland and urban parks and gardens at this time (OEH, 2016b).

Potential

Polytelis swainsonii Superb Parrot V V

Found throughout eastern inland NSW. Their core breeding area is roughly bounded by Cowra and Yass in the east, and Grenfell, Cootamundra and Coolac in the west. Birds breeding in this region are mainly absent during winter, when they migrate north to the region of the upper Namoi and Gwydir Rivers (OEH 2016b). The other main breeding sites are in the Riverina along the corridors of the Murray, Edward and Murrumbidgee Rivers where birds are present all year round. Mainly inhabits forests and woodlands dominated by eucalypts, especially River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and box eucalypts such as Yellow Box (Eucalyptus melliodora) or Grey Box (E. microcarpa). The species also seasonally occurs in box-pine (Callitris) and Boree (Acacia pendula) woodlands (Webster 1988, 1998). They forage at or

near the ground. Nest in hollows.

Potential

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail - Ma, Mi

Found in rainforest, dense wet eucalypt and monsoon forests, paperbark and mangrove swamps and riverside vegetation. Drier, open country may be used by the Rufous Fantail during migration (Morcombe 2004).

Unlikely

Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis

Grey-crowned Babbler (eastern subspecies)

V - Open woodlands dominated by mature eucalypts with regenerating trees, tall shrubs, and an intact ground cover of grass and forbs. This species avoids very wet areas (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe E E, Ma

Inhabits shallow inland wetlands which are fresh or brackish, temporarily or permanently inundated. Preferred habitats are fringes of swamps, dams and nearby marshy areas where there is a cover of grass, lignum, low scrub or open timber (OEH 2016b).

Unlikely




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail V -

Typically found in grassy eucalypt woodlands, but also occurs in open forest, temperate grassland, and in secondary grassland derived from other communities. It is often found in riparian areas and sometimes in cleared paddocks. Appears to be sedentary, though some populations move locally, especially those in the south (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Mammals

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V

Has been recorded in a variety of habitats, including dry sclerophyll forests, woodland, sub-alpine woodland, edges of rainforests and wet sclerophyll forests. This species roosts in caves, rock overhangs (particularly sandstone) as well as disused mine shafts (OEH 2016b).

Potential

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population)

Spotted-tail Quoll V E

The Spotted-tailed Quoll inhabits a range of forest communities including wet and dry sclerophyll forests, coastal heathlands and rainforests (Mansergh 1984; OEH 2016b), more frequently recorded near the ecotones of closed and open forest and in NSW within 200km of the coast. Preferred habitat is mature wet forest (Belcher 2000; Green & Scarborough 1990; Watt 1993), especially in areas with rainfall 600 mm/year (Edgar & Belcher 2008; Mansergh 1984). Unlogged forest or forest that has been less disturbed by timber harvesting is also preferable (Catling et al. 1998, 2000). This species requires habitat features such as maternal den sites, an abundance of food (birds and small mammals) and large areas of relatively intact vegetation to forage in (OEH 2016b). Maternal den sites are logs with cryptic entrances; rock outcrops; windrows; burrows (Environment Australia 2000).

Unlikely

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis

Eastern Bent-wing Bat V -

Associated with a range of habitats such as rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, monsoon forest, open woodland, paperbark forests and open grassland (OEH 2016b). It forages above and below the tree canopy on small insects. Will utilise caves, old mines, and stormwater channels, under bridges and occasionally buildings for shelter (OEH 2016b).

Likely

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben's Long-eared Bat V V

The distribution of the south eastern form coincides approximately with the Murray Darling Basin with the Pilliga Scrub region being the distinct stronghold for this species. Inhabits a variety of vegetation types, including mallee, Allocasuarina leuhmanni and box eucalypt dominated communities, but it is

distinctly more common in box/ironbark/cypress-pine vegetation that occurs in a north-south belt along the western slopes and plains of NSW and southern Queensland. Roosts in tree hollows, crevices, and under loose bark (OEH 2016b).

Potential




Status


Act EPBC

Act

Petauroides volans Greater Glider - V

The Greater Glider is an arboreal nocturnal marsupial, typically restricted to eucalypt forests and woodlands. It is generally found in highest abundance in taller, montane, moist eucalypts forests with relatively old trees and an abundance of hollows. Within eucalypt forest, its distribution is patchy and it favours forests with a diversity of eucalypt species due to seasonal variations in its preferred tree species (DotE 2016a). Has a small home range and is particularly sensitive to forest clearance and intensive logging.

Unlikely

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V V

Associated with both wet and dry eucalypt forest and woodland that contains a canopy cover of approximately 10 to 70%, with preferred eucalypt food trees. Locally preferred eucalypt species include Eucalyptus punctata, E. melliodora, E. albens and E. blakelyi (OEH 2016b).

Likely

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox V V

Roosts in large camps generally located within 20 km of a regular food source and are commonly found in gullies, close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy (OEH 2016b). The closest potential colony is in Mudgee township ~85km away.

Unlikely

Fish

Macquarie australasica Macquarie Perch - E1

Habitat for the Macquarie perch is on the bottom or mid-water in slow-flowing rivers with deep holes, typically in the upper reaches of forested catchments with intact riparian vegetation. Macquarie perch also do well in some upper catchment lakes. In some parts of its range, the species is reduced to taking refuge in small pools which persist in midland–upland areas through the drier summer periods (DotE 2016a).

No

Maccullochella peelii Murray Cod - V

Widespread throughout the Murray-Darling system originally being found in virtually all waterways of that system. Habitat varies greatly, from quite small clear, rocky, upland streams with riffle and pool structure on the upper western slopes of the Great Dividing Range to large, meandering, slow-flowing, often silty rivers in the alluvial lowland reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin. Prefer deep holes with cover in the form of large rocks, fallen trees, stumps, clay banks and overhanging vegetation (DotE 2016a).

No



References

Belcher, C. A. 2000. The Ecology of the Tiger Quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, in south-eastern Australia.

Ph.D. Thesis. Melbourne, Victoria: Deakin University.

Catling, P. C., R. J. Burt & Forrester, R. I. 1998. Models of the distribution and abundance of ground-

dwelling mammals in the eucalypt forests of south-eastern New South Wales. Wildlife Research.

25(5):449-466.

Catling, P. C., R. J. Burt & R.I. Forrester, R. I. 2000. Models of the distribution and abundance of

ground-dwelling mammals in the eucalypt forests of north-eastern New South Wales in relation to

habitat variables. Wildlife Research. 27:639-654.

Department of the Environment (DotE) 2016a. Species Profiles and Threats Database. [online].

Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl (13 April 2016).

Department of the Environment (DotE) 2016b. White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy

Woodland and Derived Native Grassland. [online] Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=43 (4 April 2016).

Edgar, R. & Belcher, C. 2008. Spotted-tailed Quoll, Dasyurus maculatus (Kerr, 1792). In: Strahan, R.,

ed. The Mammals of Australia. Page(s) 61-62. Carlton, Victoria: Reed New Holland.

Environment Australia 2000. Comprehensive and Regional Assessments for North-East NSW. Report

to NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Franklin, D., Menkhorst, P. & J. Robinson, J. 1989. Ecology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza

Phrygia. Emu, 89:140--154.

Frith, H. J. 1962. The Mallee Fowl Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Garnett, S. (Ed) 1993. Threatened and

extinct birds of Australia. Royal Australian Ornithologists Union and Australian NPWS, Royal Australian

Ornithologists Union Report, No. 82.

Geering, D. & French, K. 1998 Breeding biology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia in the

Capertee Valley, New South Wales. Emu. 98:104-116.

Green, R.H. & Scarborough, T. J. 1990. The spotted-tailed quoll Dasyurus maculatus (Dasyuridae,

Marsupialia) in Tasmania. The Tasmanian Naturalist. 100:1-15.

Ley, A. & M.B. Williams 1992. The conservation status of the Regent Honeyeater near Armidale, New

South Wales. Australian Bird Watcher, 14:277-281.

Mansergh, I. M. 1984. The status, distribution and abundance of Dasyurus maculatus (Tiger Quoll) in

Australia with particular reference to Victoria. Australian Zoologist. 21:109-122.

Marchant, S. & Higgins, P. J. 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Oxford

University Press: Melbourne, Victoria.

McKilligan, N. 2005. Herons, Egrets and Bitterns: Their biology and conservation in Australia, CSIRO

Publishing: Collingwood, Victoria.

Menkhorst, P.W. 1997. Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan 1994-1998. Department of Natural

Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=43

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=43

M ol o n g t o C um n o ck & Y e o va l P i p e l i ne R E F


Morcombe, M. 2004. Field Guide to Australian Birds, Steve Parish Publishing: Oxley, Queensland.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI). 2007. Primefact 173: Endangered ecological

communities in NSW Lowland Darling River aquatic ecological community. Prepared by the Threatened

Species Unit for the NSW DPI.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service 1995 Endangered Fauna of Western New South Wales, NSW

National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Services (NPWS) 1999. Atlas of New South Wales Wildlife, NPWS:

Hurstville, NSW.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2016a. Scientific Committee Determinations. [online].

Available at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/index.htm

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2016b. Threatened Species Profile. [online]. Available:

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/ (2 July 2016).

Oliver, D., A. Ley, H. Ford & Williams, B. 1999. Habitat of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia

and the value of the Bundarra-Barraba region for the conservation of avifauna. Pacific Conservation

Biology. 5:224--239.

Pizzey, G. & Doyle, R. B. 1988. A field guide to the birds of Australia. Collins Publishers: Sydney.

Priddell, D., & Wheeler, R. 1994. Mortality of captive-raised malleefowl, Leipoa ocellata, released into a

mallee remnant within the wheat-belt of New South Wales. Wildlife Research 21, 543–552.

Simpson, K. & Day, N. 1999. Field guide to the birds of Australia, 6th edn, Penguin Books Australia Ltd:

Ringwood, Victoria.

Simpson, K. & Day, N. 2004. Field guide to the birds of Australia, 7th edn. Penguin Books Australia Ltd:

Ringwood, Victoria.

Watt, A. 1993. Conservation status and draft management plan for Dasyurus maculatus and D.

hallucatus in southern Queensland. Department of Environment and Heritage, Queensland.

Webster, R. & Menkhorst, P. 1992. The Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia: population status and

ecology in Victoria and New South Wales. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research Technical

Report Series Number 126. Department of Conservation and Environment: East Melbourne, Victoria.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/index.htm

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/



Appendix B EP&A Act Assessment of Significance (Seven Part Test)

The Assessment of Significance (7-part test) is applied to species, populations and ecological

communities listed on Schedules 1, 1A and 2 of the TSC Act and Schedules 4, 4A and 5 of the

Fisheries Management Act. The assessment sets out 7 factors, which when considered, allow

proponents to undertake a qualitative analysis of the likely impacts of an action and to determine

whether further assessment is required via a Species Impact Statement (SIS). All factors must be

considered and an overall conclusion made based on all factors in combination. An SIS is required if,

through application of the 7-part test, an action is considered likely to have a significant impact on a

threatened species, population or ecological community.



B.1 Ecological Communit ies

White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC

The White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland is an open woodland community

(sometimes occurring as a forest formation), in which the most obvious species are one or more of the

following: White Box, Yellow Box and Blakely's Red Gum. Intact sites contain a high diversity of plant

species, including the main tree species, additional tree species, some shrub species, several climbing

plant species, many grasses and a very high diversity of herbs (OEH 2016b).

The White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC often exists in a modified

condition and may occur as an intact tree layer and predominately native ground layer or an intact

native ground layer with a high diversity of native plant species but no remaining tree layer (OEH

2016b).

The trenching works within the White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC

patch will be located in areas already impacted by roadworks and subject to a grading maintenance

program.

a. in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an

adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the

species is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction.

The White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC is an endangered ecological

community and therefore this questions is not applicable.

b. in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an

adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population

such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

The White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC is an endangered ecological

community and therefore this questions is not applicable.

c. in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological

community, whether the action proposed:

i. is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such

that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

ii. is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological

community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

Trenching will be located in areas already impacted by roadworks and will potnetialy impact a small

area of White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC in various condition

classes. Imapcts associated with the proposed pipeline will only impact groundcover vegetation, with

the proposed piepline route aligned to avoid mature trees. Given this and the relatively short term

impact of the propsed pipeline, it is considered that trenching will not place the local occurrence of this

community at risk of extinction.

d. in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the

action proposed, and



ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other

areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the

long term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

The proposed pipeline will involve trenching within White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy

Woodland ECC. However, clearing is not anticipated to impact mature canopy trees, only groundcover

vegetation. Any impacts will be temporary in nature and are not anticipated to create long-term removal

or modification of the White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC. The

proposed pipeline will not fragment or isolate the White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy

Woodland EEC given the current degraded state of the roadside corridor and current ongoing impacts

from land use.

e. whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either

directly or indirectly),

No critical habitat has been declared for the White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy

Woodland EEC.

f. whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery

plan or threat abatement plan,

There is no threat abatement plan at the state level, however, OEH has listed several threats to the

White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC; those particularly relevant to the

proposed actions are as follows:

Clearing, degradation and fragmentation of remnants for agricultural, forestry, infrastructure and

residential development;

Disturbance and clearance of remnants during road, rail and infrastructure maintenance and

upgrades;

Invasion of remnants by non-native plant species, including noxious weeds, pasture species

and environmental weeds, including garden escapes, olives and pines;

The action of trenching could increase weed abundance in White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum

Grassy Woodland EEC areas.

g. whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely

to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

The trenching will cause vegetation clearance. However, in areas with a native grass component, these

have been previously cleared for road construction, while other areas within the understorey is now

dominated by Phalaris species. Furthermore, the road reserve has been reguarly disturbed by road

maintenance, and as such it is not expected that there will be an impact from trenching.

Conclusion

Trenching and associated ground disturbance will result in very low to no clearing of White Box - Yellow

Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland EEC, in the form of the herb layer. Given this, the

propesed works are considered not place the White Box - Yellow Box - Blakely's Red Gum Grassy

Woodland EEC at risk of extinction or effect its long term survival as it is locally common. Therefore, a

SIS is not required for the proposal with respect to this endangered ecological community.



B.2 Flora

Ammobium craspedioides (Yass Daisy)

This species is distributed from Crookwell in the southern tablelands to Wagga Wagga on the south

western slopes of NSW.

Ammobium craspedioides flowers in October and November before the leaves shrivel in summer

following fruiting. The plants survives on below ground storgae material before re-sprouting with

autumn rains. This species can be found in dry forest, box gum woodland and secondary grassland

derived from clearing of these communities. Associated species include Blakely’s Red Gum

(Eucalyptus blakelyi), Apple Box (E. bridgesiana), Broad-leaved Peppermint (E. dives), Long-leaved

Box (E. goniocalyx), Red Stringybark (E. macrorhyncha), Brittle Gum (E. mannifera), Yellow Box (E.

melliodora), Red Box (E. polyanthemos) and Candlebark (E. rubida). This species can tolerate light

grazing and some known sites occur in cemeteries that are mowed or slashed (OEH 2016b).




Ammobium craspioides was not recorded during the survey, and is well outside its known range,

however suitable habitat does exist within the road reserve. The proposed pipeline will involve the

temporary removal of the groundcover, and this will be progressively reinstated throughout the

construction period. Given the temporary nature of the construction activities associated with the

proposed pipeline and the disturbed nature of the potential habitat, it is unlikely the proposed pipeline

will place local populations at risk of extinction.




Not applicable.







Not applicable.




The proposed pipeline will temporarily remove potential habitat within the road reserve and will be

progessively reinstated throughout the duration of the project. The extent of potential habitat proposed

to be cleared is up to 5.93 ha and the area of any stockpiles and machinery storage areas (less than a

hectare).





Given past disturbances within the road reserve and the tempoary nature of the disturbance and the

progressive rehabilitation of the disturbance created by excavation, it is unlikely that an area of potential

habitat is likely to be fragmented or isolated.



Potential habitat for Ammobium craspedioides within the broader region extends well beyond the

proposed project area. As no individuals or populations were recorded during the survey period,

insufficent data exists to determine whether the project area forms a part of an important habitat for this

species. Given past disturbances and the relatively short term impacts asscoiated with the proposed

pipeline, it is considered that the impacts will not impact important habitat required for the long term

survival of this species.



No critical habitat has been declared for these species.



No Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plans are relevant to Ammobium craspedioides.



The proposed project could potentially be part of the Key Threatening Process (KTP) “Clearing of

Native Vegetation”, in the case the the herb layer by machinery movement and trenching. Because it is

possible for this species to be present within the road reserve, trenching and machinery movement

could have an impact.

Conclusion

The proposed trenching could impact upon potential habitat of the Ammobium craspedioides if it is

present in the herb layer within road reserve. However, this disturbance is unlikely to be significant

given that the area is outside of the region of known occurrence and the works constitute a minor,

temporary disturbances to a small amount of potential habitat. Furthermore, potential habitat will not be

isolated due to the small footprint of the proposed pipeline. Therefore, a SIS is not required for the

proposal with respect to this species.

Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata (Square Raspwort)

Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata occurs in NSW and Victoria from Narrabri south to the Glenelg River in

south western Victoria.

This species can be found in a range of vegetation types including protected and shady situations in

riparian habitats It is a post disturbance coloniser and has been observed in large numberson



disturbaed roadsides (DotE 2016 determination). In NSW, flowering specimens have been recorded

from November to January (OEH 2016b)




Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata was not recorded during the survey, however suitable habitat does

exist within the road reserve. The proposed pipeline will involve the temporary removal of the

groundcover, and this will be progressively reinstated throughout the construction period. Given the

lack of records in the district and the temporary nature of the construction activities associated with the

proposed pipeline and that Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata is a post disturbance coloniser it is unlikely

the proposed pipeline will place local populations at risk of extinction.




Not applicable.







Not applicable.






to be cleared is likely to be up to 5.93 ha and the area of any stockpiles and machinery storage areas

(less than a hectare).



Given past disturbances within the road reserve and the temporary nature of the disturbance and the

progressive rehabilitation of the disturbance created by excavation, it is unlikely that an area of potential

habitat is likely to be fragmented or isolated.



Potential habitat for Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata was not recorded during the survey, however

suitable habitat does exist within the road reserve. within the broader region extends well beyond the

proposed project area. As no individuals or populations were able to be recorded during the survey



period, nor has it been recorded in the district, insufficent data exists to determine whether the project

area forms a part of an important habitat for this species. Given past disturbances and the relatively

short term impacts asscoiated with the proposed pipeline, it is considered that the impacts will not

impact important habitat required for the long term survival of this species.






No Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plans are relevant to Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata.





possible for the species within the road reserve, trenching and machinery movement could have an

impact.

Conclusion

The proposed trenching could impact upon potential habitat of the Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata if it

is present in the herb layer within road reserve. However this disturbance is unlikely to be significant

given that the works constitute a minor, temporary disturbances to a small amount of potential habitat.

Furthermore, potential habitat will not be isolated due to the small footprint of the proposed pipeline.

Therefore, a SIS is not required for the proposal with respect to this species.

Lepidium hyssopifolium (Aromatic Peppercress)

Lepidium hyssopifolium has an extensive, but patchy distributionfrom south eastern NSW through

Victoria and to the eastern parts of Tasmania. In NSW, current populations are found near Bathurst and

Bungendore. Historical records were near Armidale in the Northen Tablelands and from the Bathurst

area and an atypical specimen from Cooma in the Southern Tablelands (DotE 2016).

Lepidium hyssopifolium occurs in a variety of habitats including woodland with a grassy understorey

and grassland (OEH 2016b). It establishes on open, bareground with limited competition from other

species. Thus this species appears to be disturbance driven, and the soil seedbank may require

disturbance in combination with open ground and moisture for seed germination (DotE 2016). Lepidium

hyssopifolium usually flowers from December through to February.




Lepidium hyssopifolium was not recorded during the survey, however suitable habitat does exist within

the road reserve. The proposed pipeline will involve the temporary removal of the groundcover, and

this will be progressively reinstated throughout the constrcution period. Given that the species has not

been located in the district and the temporary nature of the construction activities associated with the



proposed pipeline and that Lepidium hyssopifolium requires disturbance for seed germination it is

unlikely the proposed pipeline will place local populations at risk of extinction.




Not applicable.







Not applicable.






to be cleared is up to 5.93 ha and the area of any stockpiles and machinery storage areas (less than a

hectare).




progressive rehabilitation of the disturbanced created by excavation, it is unlikely that an area of

potential habitat is likely to be fragmented or isolated.



Lepidium hyssopifolium was not recorded during the survey and has not been recorded within the

statutory serach area (10 km), however suitable habitat does exist within the road reserve. within the

broader region extends well beyond the proposed project area. As no individuals or populations were

able to be recorded during the survey period, insufficent data exists to determine whether the project

area forms a part of an important habitat for this species. Given past disturbances and the relatively


impact important habitat required for the long term survival of this species.








A national recovery plan has been prepared for Lepidium hyssopifolium (Tumino 2010). The overall

objectives of the recovery plan is to minimise the probability of extinction of Lepidium hyssopifolium in

the wild and to increase the probability of populations becoming self-sustaining in the long term.

Specific objectives for the recovery of Lepidium hyssopifolium are to:

Determine the distribution, abundance and population structure

Determine habitat requirements

Determine and manage threats to populations

Protect habitst on private and public land

Idenitfy key biological and ecological functions

Determine growth rates and viability of populations

Establish a population in cultivation

Establish new populations in the wild

Build community support of conservation.

The proposal is unlikely to conflict with any of the objectives.






impact.

Conclusion

The proposed trenching could impact upon potential habitat of the Lepidium hyssopifolium if it is present

in the herb layer within road reserve. However this disturbance is unlikely to be significant given that

the works constitute a minor, temporary disturbances to a small amount of potential habitat.



Prasophyllum petilum (Tarengo Leek Orchid) and Prasophyllum sp. Wybong (a leek orchid)

Prasophyllum sp. Wybong is now included with Prasophyllum petilum. Prasophyllum sp. Wybong was

previsously considered to occur in the Hunter Valley, the Central Tabllands anf the New England

Tablelands (DotE 2016). This species is found at five sites in the ACT and NSW: the Hall Cemetery,

Captains Flat Cemetery, Ilford Cemetery, Steve Travelling Stock Route (TSR) at Delegate and the

Tarengo TSR.

Prasophyllum petilum occurs in Grassy woodland and natural grassland on relatively fertile soils.

This species is distributed from Crookwell in the southern tablelands to Wagga Wagga on the south

western slopes of NSW. The Cemetery at Ilford is the closest known population (approximately 80 km)

and was originally a grassy woodland containing E. blakelyi (Blakely's Red Gum) and E. melliodora

(Yellow Box), but other associated species include Eucalyptus pauciflora (Snow Gum) and E. aggrgata

(Black Gum) (DotE 2016).



At Ilford, flowering occurs in late October and the seeds are dust like and wind dispersed. Whilst a large

number of seeds probably fall within metres of the parents, it is possible dispersal over large distances

does occur (DotE 2016).




Prasophyllum petilum was not recorded during the survey, however suitable habitat does exist within

the road reserve. The proposed pipeline will involve the temporary removal of the groundcover, and

this will be progressively reinstated throughout the construction period. Given the temporary nature of

the construction activities associated with the proposed pipeline and the disturbed nature of the

potential habitat, it is unlikely the proposed pipeline will place local populations at risk of extinction.




Not applicable.







Not applicable.





progessively reinsteted throughout the duration of the project. The extent of potential habitat proposed

to be cleared is likely to be up to 5.93 ha and the area of any stockpiles and machinery storage areas

(less than a hectare).








Potential habitat for Prasophyllum petilum within the broader region extends well beyond the proposed

project area. As no individuals or populations were able to be recorded during the survey period,

insufficent data exists to determine whether the project area forms a part of an important habitat for this











A national recovery plan has been prepared for Prasophyllum petilum (DECCW 2010). The overall

objectives of the recovery plan is to ensure that all natural populations of P. petilum are stable or

increasing in size.







impact.

Conclusion

The proposed trenching could impact upon potential habitat of the Prasophyllum petillum if it is present

in the herb layer within road reserve. However this disturbance is unlikely to be significant given that

the works constitute a minor, temporary disturbances to a small amount of potential habitat.



Swainsona sericea (Silky Swainson-pea)

This species is distributed from the Northern Tablelands to the Southern Tablelands and inland on the

slopes and plains. There is an isolated reocrd in the far north-west of NSW, while its stronghold is on

the Monaro. Swainsona sericea is also found in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland (OEH 2016b).

This species grows in grassland and eucalypt woodland communities on riverine plains, sandhills and

rocky outcrops. On the Monaro this species is found in Natural Temperate Grassland and Snow Gum

Eucalyptus pauciflora Woodland, while in the Southern Tablelands and South West Slopes it is found in

Box-Gum Woodland (OEH 2016b). Swainsona sericea flowers from September to November, and

makes most of its growth in the cooler months. It is a renascent perennial, resprouting from a persistent

rootstock, however copious flowers and abundant quantities of seeds are also produced and believe to

generate after fire (OEH 2016b).






Swainsona sericea was not recorded during the survey, however suitable habitat does exist within the

road reserve and has been found 25km west at Molong. The proposed pipeline will involve the

temporary removal of the groundcover, and this will be progressively reinstated throughout the

constrcution period. Given the temporary nature of the construction activities associated with the

proposed pipeline and the disturbed nature of the potential habitat, it is unlikey the proposed pipeline

will place local populations at risk of extinction.




Not applicable.







Not applicable.





progessively reinsteted throughout the duration of the project. The extent of potential habitat proposed

to be cleared is likely to be 5.93 ha and the area of any stockpiles and machinery storage areas (less

than a hectare).








Potential habitat for Swainsona sericea within the broader region extends well beyond the proposed

project area. As no individuals or populations were able to be recorded during the survey period,

insufficent data exis ts to determine whether the project area forms a part of an important habitat for this











No Recovery Plan or Threat Abatement Plans are relevant to Swainsona sericea.






impact.

Conclusion

The proposed trenching could impact upon potential habitat of the Swainsona sericea if it is present in

the herb layer within road reserve. However this disturbance is unlikely to be significant given that the

works constitute a minor, temporary disturbances to a small amount of potential habitat. Furthermore,

potential habitat will not be isolated due to the small footprint of the proposed pipeline. Therefore, a SIS

is not required for the proposal with respect to this species.

B.3 Nectivorous birds

Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot)

Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) are winter migrants to the south-eastern Australia mainland March –

October) from Tasmania, where they feed on winter-flowering eucalypts, such as Eucalyptus

tereticornis (OEH 2016b). The Swift Parrot is a highly mobile species able to utilise a variety of nectar

sources over large areas (OEH 2016b).

On the mainland they occur in areas where eucalypts are flowering profusely or where there are

abundant lerp (from sap-sucking bugs) infestations. Favoured feed trees include winter flowering

species such as Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany), Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum), C.

gummifera (Red Bloodwood), E. sideroxylon (Mugga Ironbark), and E. albens (White Box). Commonly

used lerp infested trees include Inland E. microcarpa (Grey Box), E. moluccana (Grey Box) and E.

pilularis (Blackbutt). This species breeds from September to January, nesting in old trees with hollows

and feeding in forests dominated by Tasmanian Blue Gum Eucalyptus globules (OEH 2016b).

Polytelis swainsonii (Superb Parrot)

The Superb Parrot is found throughout eastern inland NSW. The species inhabits Box-Gum, Box-

Cypress-pine and Boree Woodlands and River Red Gum Forests and nest in the hollows of large trees

(dead or alive), mainly in tall riparian River Red Gum Forest or Woodland. The species breeds between

September and January, nesting in small colonies, often with more than one nest in a single tree. They

may forage up to 10 km from nesting sites, primarily in grassy box woodland feeding in trees and



understorey shrubs and on the ground. Their diet consists mainly of grass seeds and herbaceous

plants. Also eaten are fruits, berries, nectar, buds, flowers, insects and grain (OEH 2016b).

There are 12 records within 10 km of the proposed pipeline, with closest being 2.5 km away.

Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater)

This species is nomadic and typically inhabits box-ironbark-gum woodlands with abundant mistletoe. It

is a specialist feeder on the fruits of mistletoes growing on woodland eucalypts and acacias, preferring

Amyema sp. mistletoe (OEH 2016b).

Anthochaera phrygia (formerly Xanthomyza Phrygia) (Regent Honeyeater)

Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) is listed as an endangered species under Schedule 1 of the

TSC Act. The Regent Honeyeater mainly inhabits temperate woodlands and open forests of the inland

slopes of south-east Australia. Birds are also found in drier coastal woodlands and forests in some

years. Once recorded between Adelaide and the central coast of Queensland, its range has contracted

dramatically in the last 30 years to between north-eastern Victoria and south-eastern Queensland.

There are only three known key breeding regions remaining: north-east Victoria (Chiltern-Albury), and in

NSW at Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba region. In NSW the distribution is very patchy and

mainly confined to the two main breeding areas and surrounding fragmented woodlands. In some years

non-breeding flocks converge on flowering coastal woodlands and forests (OEH 2016b).

The Regent Honeyeater mostly occurs in dry-ironbark eucalypt woodland and dry sclerophyll forest

associations, where they prefer the most fertile site available, e.g. along creek flats, or in broad river

valleys and foothills. In NSW, riparian forests containing Casuarina cunninghamiana (River Oak), and

with Amyema cambagei (Needle-leaf Mistletoe), are also important for feeding and breeding. They may

also use other woodland types and wet lowland coastal forest dominated by Eucalyptus robusta

(Swamp Mahogany) or E. maculata (Spotted Gum).

Regent Honeyeaters inhabit woodlands that support a significantly high abundance and species

richness of bird species. These woodlands have significantly large numbers of mature trees, high

canopy cover and abundance of mistletoes. The species breeds between July and January in Box-

Ironbark and other temperate woodlands and riparian gallery forest dominated by River Sheoak.

The Regent Honeyeater is a generalist forager, which mainly feeds on the nectar from a wide range of

eucalypts and mistletoes. Key eucalypt species include E.sideroxylon (Mugga Ironbark), E. melliodora

(Yellow Box), E.blakelyi (Blakely's Red Gum), E. albens (White Box) and E. robusta. Also utilises : E.

microcarpa, E. punctata, E. polyanthemos, E. mollucana, Corymbia robusta, E. crebra, E. caleyi,

Corymbia maculata, E.mckieana, E. macrorhyncha, E. laevopinea, and Angophora floribunda. Nectar

and fruit from the mistletoes A. miquelii, A. pendula, A. cambagei are also eaten during the breeding

season. When nectar is scarce lerp and honeydew comprise a large proportion of the diet (OEH

20016b).

Regent Honeyeater has not been recorded within the road reserve.

a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an


species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

Whilst these species have not been recorded within the impact footprint of the study area, there is

potential for them to utilise the area for foraging purposes, in the form of E. albens and E. blakelyi



patches of grassy woodland that bear flower, as well as other Eucalyptus sp. or Angophora sp. which

may also provide secondary food resources for the Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot in the form of

lerp or flowering mistletoe.

Very few suitable feed trees are expected to be disturbed as a result of the proposed works and these

few trees represent only a small proportion of the available habitat on the property, and surrounding

region.

Given, the small modification of potential habitat to be removed, that potential habitat will remain on site

and in adjacent areas, the proposed works are not considered likely to adversely affect the life cycle of

a viable local population of these species to put them at risk of extinction.

b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an



Not applicable.

c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological





community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

Not applicable.

d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:



The proposal may result in the modification of foraging habitat in the form of Box – Gum Woodland.

The pipeline alignment selection has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing and avoids

habitat trees where possible within the road reserve. Given the amount of potential foraging habitat

available within and adjacent the study area in the form of large, mature trees and patches of Box –

Gum Woodland, this proposal is unlikely to place a viable local population of these species at risk of

extinction.



Habitat may be temporarily fragmented along the road reserve. However, these areas will be

progressively rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is considered both

temporary and minor.


long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality

The vegetation that may be removed is not unique in a local no regional context. Considering the

limited vegetation removal required, impacts are considered to be minor.



e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat.


f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan

or threat abatement plan.

A recovery plan has been prepared for the Swift Parrot (Saunders and Tzaros 2011). The objectives of

the plan are:

To prevent further decline of the swift parrot population

To achieve a demonstrable sustained improvement in the quality and quantity of swift parrot

habitat to increase carrying capacity.


A recovery plan has been prepared for the Superb Parrot (Baker-Gabb 2011). The long-term objectives

of recovery is to minimize the probability of extinction of the Superb Parrot in the wild, and to increase

the probability of important populations becoming self-sustaining in the long-term, ideally to meet he

IUCN Red List criteria for assessment as Least Concern. The specific objectives of the plan are to:

Determine population trends in the Superb Parrot

Increase the level of knowledge of the Superb Parrot’s ecological requirements

Develop and implement threat abatement strategies

Increase community involvement in and awareness of the Superb Parrot recovery program.


A recovery plan has been prepared for the Regent Honeyeater. The Regent Honeyeater Recovery Plan

1999-2003 (Menkhorst, Schedvin and Geering 1999) is currently being revised.

The specific objectives of the 1999-2003 plan included the following:

Maintain and enhance the value of Regent Honeyeater habitat at the key sites and throughout

the former range.

Monitor trends in the Regent Honeyeater population size and dispersion across its range.

Facilitate research on strategic questions which will enhance the capacity to achieve the long-

term objectives.

Maintain and increase community awareness, understanding and involvement in the recovery

effort.

Maintain the captive population of Regent Honeyeaters at an adequate stock size.

The proposed works do not conflict with any of these objectives. In addition forty-one priority actions

have been identified for this species. The proposal does not conflict with any of the priority actions.

No recovery or threat abatement plans have been prepared for the Painted Honeyeater.

g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely


One Key Threatening Process (KTP) is relevant to this proposal with respect to these species:

Clearing of native vegetation



Construction of the pipeline will require earthworks and possible vegetation lopping, resulting in the

temporary loss of foraging vegetation along the road reserve. However, the area impacted is small, and

is not unique in a local nor regional context. Beyond the disturbance area, suitable habitat resources

occur as remnant patches and contiguous woodland. In the broader region, less impacted remnant

patches of vegetation occur which are also likely to be better suited for these species.

An additional two KTPs are relevant to this proposal with respect to the Swift Parrot:

Loss of hollow-bearing trees

Removal of dead wood and dead trees

There are a number of living and dead trees containing a range of hollows within the road reserve that

may be need to be lopped or removed. Whilst Swift Parrots require hollows for nesting, they do not

breed in NSW.

Direct impacts on these species can be reduced by pre-clearance surveys undertaken by a suitably

qualified ecologist to identify and mitigate against direct impacts.

Conclusion

The proposal is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on these species given that:

The proposed disturbance would constitute a minor impact given the amount of existing mature

habitat which will remain within and adjacent the study area

Larger areas of suitable habitat are present within the surrounding landscape

The proposal would not isolate or fragment any currently connecting areas of habitat in terms of

use by these mobile species.

B.4 Woodland Birds

Climacteris picumnus victoriae (Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies))

This species inhabits woodlands dominated by stringybarks or other rough-barked eucalypts, usually

with an open grassy understorey within coastal areas. They nest in hollows in standing dead or live

trees and tree stumps (OEH 2016). It is considered a sedentary species, with territories ranging

between approximately 1ha to 11ha, though some birds may disperse locally after breeding (OEH

2016). Populations consist of pairs to groups of three to six.

Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis (Grey-crowned Babbler (eastern subspecies))

The Grey-crowned Babbler is found in open woodlands dominated by mature eucalypts with

regenerating trees, tall shrubs, and an intact ground cover of grass and forbs. Grey-crowned Babblers

are insectivorous and forage in leaf litter and on bark of trees (OEH 2016). This species avoids very

wet areas. It nests in a large stick nest in canopy of a medium sized Allocasuarina sp., Acacia sp. or

Callitris sp. communally raise chicks and roosts in old nests (OEH 2016).

Daphoenositta chrysoptera (Varied Sittella)

Daphoenositta chrysoptera (Varied Sittella) is a small, short-tailed bird (10-11 cm long), listed as

vulnerable species under the TSC Act. It has a widespread range across mainland Australia, excluding

some areas of the arid interior (Nullabor, Pilbara and Simpson Desert). The species inhabits eucalypt

forests and woodlands, especially rough-barked species and mature smooth-barked gums with dead

branches, mallee and Acacia woodland. The Varied Sittella feeds on arthropods gleaned from crevices



in rough bark, dead branches, standing dead trees, and from small branches and twigs in the tree

canopy (NSW Scientific Committee 2009).

Stagonopleura guttata (Diamond Firetail)

Stagonopleura guttata (Diamond Firetail) can be found in grassy eucalypt woodlands, including Box-

Gum Woodlands and Snow Gum Woodlands. This species can also be found in open forest, mallee,

riparian vegetation, and grasslands. This species is usually seen in flocks of between five to forty birds.

This species is a ground feeder, feeding on ripe and partly-ripe grass, herb seeds, green leaves, and on

insects (OEH 2016).

Petroica boodang (Scarlet Robin)

Petroica boodang (Scarlet Robin) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act. Scarlet Robin is

distributed widely across the coastal and Great Divide regions of eastern Australia from Brisbane to

South Australia, with a disjunct population in Western Australia. NSW provides a large portion of the

species' core habitat, with Scarlet Robin found westward as far as Dubbo and Albury. They mainly

inhabit dry eucalypt woodland and forest with a grassy understorey, but also occur in mallee and wet

forest. Woody debris is an important habitat component of its habitat, and it uses this habitat to forage

and scout prey item. It feeds mostly on invertebrates (OEH 2016b).




Potential foraging and habitat trees are present within the road reserve. Clearance of the proposed

pipeline alignment will be restricted where possible to vegetation lopping, rather than removal of habitat

trees. The removal of native vegetation (shrubs and trees) within the proposed works area is unlikely to

significantly affect foraging habitat for these species, as similar habitat is available within the

surrounding landscape. Disturbance is likely to be greatest during construction and will lessen following

construction.

The likelihood of breeding by any of these species will be assessed in the field via a pre-clearing survey

prior to commencement of the proposed works. If any threatened woodland birds are observed nesting

in the area where proposed clearing is to take place, the clearing activity will be placed on hold until

breeding concludes.


and in adjacent areas, this species does not breed in NSW and that the listed threatened woodland bird

species all occur over a wide range and the extent of short term disturbance and selected tree removal

is not considered likely to impact state-wide populations to an extent that could contribute to their

extinction. The proposed works are not likely to affect the life cycle of these species such that local

viable populations would be placed at risk of extinction.

b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an



Not applicable.





i. is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that

its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or



Not applicable.


i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action

proposed, and

The proposal may result in the modification of forage and nesting trees. The pipeline alignment

selection has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing and avoids habitat trees where possible

within the road reserve. Vegetation lopping and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of

varying habitat types along the pipeline alignment. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural

pastures and native pasture, but includes patches of remnant vegetation.

i. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of

habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Even the most sedentary of these species is mobile, and all are able to utilise the extensive areas of

woodland that will remain surrounding the disturbance areas. The small loss of potential foraging and

limited breeding habitat will not increase the fragmentation or isolation of habitat for these species. In

addition, similar habitat will continue to remain adjacent and within proximity to the road reserve. These

areas will be progressively rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity is

considered both temporary and minor.

ii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the





No critical habitat has been declared for these species



No recovery plan or threat abatement plan has been prepared for these species.







Construction of the pipeline will require earthworks and possible vegetation lopping, resulting in the

temporary loss of foraging vegetation along the road reserve. However, the area impacted is small, and

is not unique in a local nor regional context. Beyond the disturbance area, suitable habitat resources

occur as remnant patches and contiguous woodland. In the broader region, less impacted remnant

patches of vegetation occur which are also likely to be better suited for these species.

Conclusion

The proposal is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on these species given that:

The proposed works would constitute a minor disturbance to an area of foraging habitat within

the study area;

Areas of suitable foraging habitat are present within the surrounding landscape; and


use by even the most sedentary of these species.

B.5 Raptors

Hieraaetus morphnoides (Little Eagle)

Hieraaetus morphnoides (Little Eagle) is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the TSC Act. The

species is distributed widely around Australia, with the exception of Tasmania and some drier areas of

WA, SA and NT. It occupies many habitats including open forest, woodland and scrub communities, as

well as open agricultural land (Simpson & Day 2004). Little Eagles are known to nest in canopy trees

during spring and early summer, in open woodland or riparian zones, where open areas are available to

forage for birds, reptiles and mammals (Morcombe 2004; Marchant & Higgins 1993).

While there is potential for the species to occur on the site, the species would likely use the site as

foraging habitat, rather than roosting or breeding habitat.



species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

The Little Eagle is a widespread species, highly mobile with a large home range. This species preys on

birds, reptiles and small mammals, with the European Rabbit providing an important prey resource for

this species, due to the decline of small native mammals.

Factors likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the Little Eagle would include a substantial

loss and/or fragmentation of foraging habitat and loss of suitable nesting and roosting habitat. The

proposed pipeline will result in earthworks and may result in vegetation lopping and tree removal.

Given the amount of foraging habitat available in the local area, this proposal is unlikely to place a

viable local population of this species at risk of extinction.

b) In the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an


such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

Not applicable. The Little Eagle is not an endangered population.








community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Not applicable. The Little Eagle is not an endangered ecological community.


i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be remove or modified as a result of the action

proposed, and

The proposed disturbance of potential habitat is minimal when considering the nature and length of time

of the disturbance and that large areas of potential foraging habitat are present on surrounding lands

and accessible to this highly mobile species. Therefore, the amount of potential foraging and nesting

habitat disturbed due to the proposal is not likely to represent a significant loss to the species.



The proposal may result in the removal of habitat trees. However the pipeline alignment has been

selected to avoid tree removal where possible and it is anticipated that the scale of the tree removal

would be very minor. Given the highly mobile nature of the species and that this species will forage

among open areas, it is considered unlikely that the proposal would result in fragmentation of habitat for

this species.



The habitat of the Little Eagle that is to be removed does not pose a risk to the long-term survival of the

species given no potential nesting habitat will be impacted and given the availability of large areas of

potential foraging habitat available in the locality.

In addition, the loss of potential foraging habitat is small relative to the species’ foraging range and the

availability of habitat in areas nearby the study area. Therefore, the removal of the small amount of

potential foraging habitat is not likely to affect the long-term survival of Little Eagle in the locality.


No critical habitat has been declared for the Little Eagle.



No recovery plan or threat abatement plan has been developed for the Little Eagle.



One key threatening process is relevant to this proposal with respect to the Little Eagle:




The proposed pipeline may involve the removal of small amounts of vegetation throughout the study

area. However, progressive rehabilitation will be implemented post construction. Furthermore, the

amount of clearance proposed comparative to the amount of the vegetation types present within the

LGA is considered minimal and therefore is unlikely to be considered a significant impact. The proposal

is unlikely to exacerbate this key threatening process.

Conclusion

The proposal is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on Little Eagle given that:

The proposed works would constitute a minor disturbance given the amount of foraging and

nesting habitat within the road reserve

The proposed works is unlikely to disturb any canopy trees.

Areas of suitable foraging habitat are present within the surrounding landscape.


use by this highly mobile species.

On the basis of the above considerations, it is unlikely that the proposal will constitute a significant

impact on the Little Eagle.

B.6 Waterbirds and Waders

Rostratula australis (Australian Painted Snipe)

The Australian Painted Snipe is listed as an endangered species under the EPBC Act and TSC Act, and

as a marine species under the EPBC Act.

In Australia, this species is mostly recorded at wetlands in all states, but is most common in eastern

Australia. The Australian Painted Snipe generally inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater wetlands,

including temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans, inundated grassland, dams, rice

crops and sewage farms. Typical sites include those with rank emergent tussocks of grass, sedges,

rushes or reeds, or samphire; often with scattered clumps of lignum Muehlenbeckia or canegrass or

sometimes tea-tree (Melaleuca). The Australian Painted Snipe sometimes utilises areas that are lined

with trees, or that have some scattered fallen or washed-up timber (Marchant & Higgins 1993).

Breeding habitat requirements can be specific: shallow wetlands with areas of bare wet mud and both

upper and canopy cover nearby, and nearly all nests have been recorded on or near small islands in

freshwater wetlands (DotE 2016).

The Australian Painted Snipe forages on vegetation, seed, insects, worms and molluscs, crustaceans

and other invertebrates (Marchant and Higgins 1993). This species is mainly active at dusk and dawn

and during the night, sheltering during the day under grass, reeds or other dense cover (DotE 2016).

The migratory patterns of the Australian Painted Snipe are poorly known, and are possible dispersive or

migratory. Dispersive movements include irregular and infrequent occurrences and breeding, while

migration evidence include reports of regular seasonal influxes e.g. spring-summer or summer visitor to

Cunnamulla and Minden in Queensland, Mossgiel in south-western NSW, and Victoria (Marchant &

Higgins 1993).






Works are unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle of the Australian Painted Snipe since suitable

breeding habitat is unlikely to occur within the road reserve. Foraging habitat may be temporarily

disturbed by construction activities associated with the proposed pipeline. However, suitable foraging

habitat can be found in the surrounding landscape which is dominated by improved pastures and

cropland, with scattered dams.




Not applicable. The Australian Painted Snipe is not an endangered population.







Not applicable. The Australian Painted Snipe is not an endangered ecological community.




There are a number of waterways classified as Key Fish Habitat. However, no remnant riparian

vegetation is likely to be found within the proposed pipeline alignment, the impacts will be temporary

and it is anticipated that the disruption to the stream bed will be minimal.



Habitat may be temporarily fragmented at some waterways classified as Key Fish Habitat. However,

these areas will be progressively rehabilitated post-construction and the impact on habitat connectivity

is considered both temporary and minor.



Impacts to waterways will be temporary, and other suitable foraging habitat is available in the

surrounding landscape. It is anticipated that riparian vegetation removal will be minimal and contiguous

habitat can be found upstream and downstream, and the fact that Australian Painted Snipe are aerial

feeders. Furthermore, breeding habitat and colonies are not expected to be located within the proposed

pipeline alignment. As such it is not anticipated that the proposed pipeline will have an impact on the

long –term survival of the Australian Painted Snipe.



e. whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat.

No critical habitat has been declared for the Australian Painted Snipe.

f. whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a Recovery

Plan or Threat Abatement Plan.

No recovery plan or threat abatement plan is relevant for the Australian Painted Snipe.

The Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats is relevant to this species. The objectives of this

plan are to:

Effectively control feral cats in different landscapes

Improve effectiveness of existing control operations for feral cats

Develop and maintain alternative strategies for threatened species recovery

Increase public support for feral cat management and promote responsible cat ownership.

The proposed pipeline is unlikely to conflict with any of these objectives.


to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, key threatening process.

One Key Threatening Process (KTP) is relevant to this proposal with respect to the Australian Painted

Snipe:

Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their floodplains and wetlands

It is anticipated that construction activities at waterway crossings will occur during dry periods, negating

the need for temporary minor dams to create a dry area for construction. As such is it expected that

there will not be any alteration to flow regimes during construction of the proposed pipeline.

Conclusion

The proposed pipeline will not impact on the breeding habitat of the Australian Painted Snipe. It is

anticipated that there will be minor, temporary impacts on foraging habitat, however the impact would

be minor and foraging habitat can be found in the surrounding landscape and the Fork-tailed Swift is

dispersive.

Therefore, the proposed works should not constitute a significant impact on the Australian Painted

Snipe.

B.7 Mammalia (non-bats)

Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala)

Koalas are solitary and territorial (particularly males) yet live in established sedentary polygynous

breeding aggregates arranged in a matrix of overlapping home ranges whose size varies according to

sex (males tend to be larger so that they overlap the ranges of several females) and carrying capacity of

the habitat (usually measured in terms of density of primary browse species) (Phillips and Callaghan

1995).

Nationally, koalas have been observed feeding or resting in about 120 eucalypt species (66 in NSW)

and 30 non-eucalypt (seven in NSW) species. Usage may also be determined by site-dependent



edaphic factors e.g. soil type (Sharp and Phillips 1999), which affects the nutrient quality of forage.

Forest consisting of primary browse species associations located on deep, fertile soils on floodplains, in

gullies and along watercourses are generally considered preferred koala habitat. This may possibly be

a reflection of the nutritional value of the foliage.

Adult koalas appear to generally avoid each other except during mating season (generally warmer

months from spring but as early as July-August) when the males actively seek females with most births

occurring late November-March (Martin and Lee 1984). Social cohesion is maintained in a koala

population by interactions through scent marking, vocalisations and antagonistic behaviour patterns

(Phillips 1997).

An established koala home range is usually occupied for several years or throughout its life (Phillips

1997, Sharp and Phillip 1999). Size of a Koala home range may vary from a hectare to hundreds of

hectares (e.g. Jurskis and Potter 1997 report home ranges of 38 ha to 520 ha with an average size of

169 ha, near Eden); varying with habitat quality (e.g. if primary browse species dominate the tree

component, home range size is expected to be small and carrying capacity high), sex (males have

larger territories and may make forays into other areas), age of the animals (e.g. sub-adults versus

adults), and location (Jurskis and Potter 1997, Phillips 1997, Sharp and Phillip 1999).

Research on koala home ranges in similar habitats in the region has found that breeding female koalas

had home ranges in the order of 10 – 60 ha, and male koalas in the order of 50 – 150 ha.

Presence of Koalas were not recorded during the field survey but is known from 24 records within a 10

km radius of the study area.




The proposed pipeline may involve the removal of habitat trees. However, the pipeline alignment

selection has reduced the number of trees that would require removal and lopping is preferable.

Disturbance is likely to be greatest during construction and will lessen following construction.


and in adjacent areas, this species does not breed in NSW and that this species is highly mobile being

a winter migrant, it is unlikely that the proposal would place the local population of this species at risk of

extinction.




Not applicable. The Koala is not an endangered population.









Not applicable. The Koala is not an endangered ecological community.




The proposal may result in the modification of feed trees. The pipeline alignment selection has

minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing and avoids habitat trees where possible within the

road reserve. Vegetation lopping and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of varying habitat

types along the pipeline alignment. This vegetation is dominated by agricultural pastures and native

pasture, but includes patches of remnant vegetation. In addition, the proposed area is unlikely to

represent significant habitat for koalas in the area and is not considered Core Koala habitat.



The proposed pipeline is unlikely to fragment or isolate potential Koala habitat from other habitat in the

surrounding area as the proposed works will only result in the removal of trees that cannot otherwise be

avoided. Therefore, the proposal is unlikely to result in the fragmentation or isolation of areas of

potential koala habitat.



The road reserve contains Koala feed trees and this species has the potential to utilise this area for its

foraging resources. However, the vegetation that may be removed is not unique in a local no regional

context. Considering the limited vegetation removal required, impacts are considered to be minor. The

proposed works is unlikely to impact on habitat for the Koala that would lead to the long term survival of

the species or local population.



No critical habitat has been declared for the Koala.



The Approved Recovery plan for the koala (DECC 2008) provides a framework for localised recovery

efforts throughout NSW through a number of recovery actions. The actions include:

Conserving Koalas in their existing habitat, rehabilitate and restore Koala habitat and

populations.

Develop a better understanding of the conservation biology of Koalas.

Ensure that the community has access to factual information about the distribution,

conservation and management of koalas at a national, state and local level.

Manage captive, sick or injured Koalas and orphaned wild Koalas to ensure consistent and high

standards of care.

Manage overbrowsing to prevent both koala starvation and ecosystem damage in discrete

patches of habitat.



Coordinate, promote the implementation, and monitor the effectiveness of the NSW Koala

Recovery Plan across New South Wales.

The proposed pipeline is unlikely to conflict with the objectives of the recovery plan.



Three key threatening processes are relevant to the proposal, being:


Predation by Vulpes vuples (European red fox)

Predation by Felis catus (Feral cat)

The proposed pipeline may result in the removal of potential habitat and feed trees. Vegetation lopping

is preferable and tree removal will only occur where the pipeline alignment cannot be readily moved to

avoid trees. While the proposal may cumulatively contribute to this key threatening process, the extent

of this vegetation removal is not considered a significant contribution to this cumulative impact.

Key threatening process: ‘Predation by the Vulpes vulpes (European red fox) and the ‘Predation by the

Felis catus (Feral cat). These are likely to exist in the road reserve and surrounding landscape.

Introduced predators (ie foxes and cats) have exhibited learned behaviour by using trails for hunting

and movement, thus the proposed vegetation removal could advantage these predators (Finegan,

1997); however, the proposal is not considered to significantly contribute to this effect given the existing

nature of the development.

Conclusion

The proposal is unlikely to impose a significant effect on the Koala given that:

Clearance will be minimal

The proposal would not isolate habitat for this species.

Potential habitat for this species would remain within the road reserve, directly adjacent to the

site and is present throughout the locality.

On the basis of the above considerations, it is not likely that the proposal would result in a significant

impact on this species. Consequently, a SIS is not required for the proposal with respect to this

species.

B.8 Mammalia (bats – Microchiropteran)

Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat)

Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) is listed as vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the TSC Act. It

is a small to medium-sized bat with long, prominent ears and glossy black fur. The lower body has

broad white fringes running under the wings and tail-membrane, meeting in a V-shape in the pubic area.

The species is found mainly in areas with extensive cliffs and caves, from Rockhampton in Queensland

south to Bungonia in the NSW Southern Highlands. It is generally rare with a very patchy distribution in

NSW. There are scattered records from the New England Tablelands and North West Slopes.

The Large-eared Pied Bat is a cave-roosting species, roosting communally during the day near the

entrances of caves, crevices in cliffs, mines, tunnels, culverts, and the disused bottle-shaped mud nest

of the Hirundo ariel (Fairy Martin) (OEH 2016b). Its flight pattern is relatively slow, and only moderately



maneuverable. They forage predominantly below the canopy level and also low along creekbeds (Hoye

& Dwyer 1995).

The threats to this species include clearing and isolation of forest and woodland habitats near cliffs,

caves and old mine workings for agriculture or development; loss of foraging habitat close to cliffs,

caves and old mine workings from forestry activities; too-frequent burning, usually associated with

grazing; damage to roosting and maternity sites from mining operations, and recreational caving

activities; and use of pesticides

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Eastern Bent-wing Bat)

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Eastern Bent-wing Bat) is listed as a vulnerable species under

Schedule 2 of the TSC Act. This species occupies a range of forested environments (including wet and

dry sclerophyll forests), along the coastal portion of eastern Australia, and through the Northern

Territory and Kimberley area (subject to subdivision of this species).

This species has a fast, level flight exhibiting swift shallow dives. It forages from just above the tree

canopy, to many times the canopy height in forested areas, and will utilise open areas where it is known

to forage at lower levels. Moths appear to be the main dietary component. This highly mobile species is

capable of large regional movements in relation to seasonal differences in reproductive behaviour and

winter hibernation. Though individuals often use numerous roosts, it congregates in large numbers at a

small number of nursery caves to breed and hibernate. Although roosting primarily occurs in caves, it

has also been recorded in mines, culverts, stormwater channels, buildings, and occasionally tree-

hollows. This species occupies a number of roosts within specific territorial ranges usually within 300

km of the maternity cave, and may travel large distances between roost sites (OEH 2016b).

The Eastern Bent-wing Bat is threatened by a number of processes including loss of foraging habitat,

damage to or disturbance of roosting caves (particularly during winter or breeding), application of

pesticides in or adjacent to foraging areas, and predation by feral cats and foxes.

The Eastern Bent-wing Bat was not detected during the current or previous survey, however there is

one record less than 1 km from the site. The study area most likely provides the species with foraging

habitat. No appropriate roosting habitat was present on the site.

Nyctophilus corbeni (Corben’s Long-eared Bat)

The Corben’s Long-eared Bat distribution coincides approximately with the Murray Darling Basin with

the Pilliga Scrub region being the distinct stronghold for this species. It inhabits a variety of vegetation

types, including mallee, Buloke and box eucalypt dominated communities, but it is distinctly more

common in box/ironbark/cypress-pine vegetation that occurs in a north-south belt along the western

slopes and plains of NSW and southern Queensland. This bat roosts in tree hollows, crevices, and

under loose bark. It is a slow flying agile bat, utilising the understorey to hunt non-flying prey (especially

caterpillars and beetles) and will even hunt on the ground (OEH 2016b).




Foraging habitat that supports insect species is available within the road reserve. Clearance of

vegetation for the proposed pipeline alignment will be restricted where possible to vegetation lopping,

rather than removal of habitat trees. Disturbance is likely to be greatest during construction and will

lessen following construction.



The impact upon the Large-eared Pied Bat and Eastern Bent-winged Bat as a result of the disturbance

is to potential foraging habitat for these species. These species are cave-dwelling bats and there are

no known caves within the road reserve for roosting purposes. No roosting habitat will be affected as

this species is a cave-dwelling bat and there are no caves within the road reserve. The disturbance of

potential foraging habitat is expected to be minimal when considering that removal of trees will be

avoided where possible. Furthermore, large undisturbed areas of potential foraging habitat are present

on surrounding lands which are accessible to these highly mobile species. Thus, it is unlikely that the

loss of vegetation/potential foraging habitat will significantly disrupt the life cycle of these species such

that a viable local population is placed at risk.

The site provides potential foraging and roosting habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared. The Bat

Corben’s Long-eared Bat is highly mobile and forages widely and as such, no isolation of habitat in

terms of bat use would result from the proposal, it is unlikely that the proposal would affect the lifecycle

of this species such that it would place a local viable population at risk of extinction.

Given, the small modification of potential foraging and roosting habitat to be removed, that potential

habitat will remain on site and in adjacent areas, it is unlikely that the proposal would place the local

population of this species at risk of extinction.




Not applicable.







Not applicable.




The proposal may result in the modification and removal of forage trees. The pipeline alignment

selection has minimised the requirement for vegetation clearing and avoids habitat trees where possible

within the road reserve. Vegetation lopping and earthworks would result in the temporary loss of

varying habitat types along the pipeline alignment. Stripped grass will be progressively reinstated post

construction.

The proposed disturbance to this potential habitat is minimal and the area to be impacted is also

minimal when compared to the large areas of habitat in the surrounding landscape. Therefore, the

amount of foraging habitat lost due to the proposal is not likely to represent a significant loss to the

species.





The proposed pipeline would not fragment or isolate these areas of potential foraging habitat. The

connectivity of these areas with adjacent areas of bushland would be unaffected by the proposal.





e. whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat.



plan or threat abatement plan.

A national recovery plan (DERM 2011) has been prepared for the Large-eared Pied Bat. The overall

objective of the plan is:

To ensure the persistence of viable populations of the large-eared pied bat throughout its

geographic range.

The specific objectives of the plan are to:

Identify priority roost and maternity sites for protection

Implement conservation and management strategies for priority sites

Educate the community and industry to understand and participate in the conservation of the

large-eared pied bat

Research the large-eared pied bat to augment biological and ecological data to enable

conservation management

Determine the meta-population dynamics throughout the distribution of the large-eared pied bat

The proposed pipeline does not conflict with the objectives of the recovery plan.

No recovery plan or threat abatement plan has been prepared for the Eastern Bent-wing Bat or

Corben’s Long-eared Bat.

g. the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result

in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.



This would result in disturbance to a small area of foraging habitat for all of these species and roosting

habitat for Corben’s Long-eared Bat. The scale of this impact within the road reserve is not considered

to be significant in relation to any local populations of these species, particularly when considering the

nature of the disturbance and the large amount of foraging habitat available to this highly mobile

species within the surrounding landscape.



Conclusion

The proposal is unlikely to impose a significant effect on these species given that:

The proposed pipeline would only remove a small area of foraging and roosting habitat within

the study area.

Larger areas of more suitable foraging and roosting habitat are present within surrounding

landscape.

The proposed works would not disturb any caves.

Larger areas of more suitable foraging habitat are present within surrounding landscape.

On the basis of the above considerations, it is not likely that the proposal will result in a significant effect

on the survival of Large-eared Pied Bat, Eastern Bent-wing Bat and Corben’s Long-eared Bat.

Consequently, a SIS is not required for the proposal with respect to these species.

References

Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM). 2011. National recovery plan for the

large-eared pied bat Chalinolobus dwyeri. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment,

Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Department of Environment, Climate Change (DECC). 2008. National recovery plan for the koala

(Phascolarctos cinereus). Prepared by Department of Environment, Climate Change NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW). 2010. National Recovery Plan for

Prasophyllum petilum. Prepared by Department of Environment and Climate Change and Water (NSW).

Department of the Environment (DotE). 2016. Species Profiles and Threats Database. [online].


Hoye, G.A. and Dwyer, P.D. 1995. Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri. pp. 510-511 in Strahan,

R. (Ed.), The Mammals of Australia, Reed Books, Sydney.

Jurskis, V. & Potter, M. 1997. Koala surveys, ecology and conservation at Eden. Forest Research and

Development Division, State Forests of New South Wales.

Marchant, S. & Higgins, P. J. 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Oxford

University Press: Melbourne, Victoria.

Martin, R.W. & Lee, A.K., 1984. The koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, the largest marsupial folivore.

Possums and gliders, pp.463-467.

Morcombe, M. 2004. Field Guide to Australian Birds, Steve Parish Publishing: Oxley, Queensland.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). 2016. Threatened Species Profile. [online]. Available:

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/ (16 April 2016).

Phillips, S. & Callaghan, J., 1995. The spot assessment technique for determining the significance of

habitat utilisation by koalas. In Proceedings of a Conference on the Status of the Koala in 1995.

Australian Koala Foundation: Brisbane.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl%20(20

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/



Phillips, S., 1997. Some issues associated with the relocation of koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus), in

Challenging the boundaries: proceedings of the 1997 annual conference of the Australian Association of

Veterinary Conservation Biologists (pp. 187-193), A. Tribe (Ed.), Australian Veterinary Association,

Brisbane, Queensland.

Sharp, A., and Phillips, S. 1997. Koalas, Science and Conservation. In: Saving Our Natural Heritage –

The Role of Science in Managing Australia’s Ecosystems, (Eds C. Copeland and D. Lewis) pp 290-301.

Halstead Press: Sydney.

Simpson, K. & Day, N. 2004. Field guide to the birds of Australia, 7th edn. Penguin Books Australia Ltd:

Ringwood, Victoria.

Tumino, M. 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Basalt Peppercress Lepidium hyssopifolium.

Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.



Appendix C EPBC Act Assessments

This assessment has been prepared in accordance with the EPBC Act Matters of National

Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 as well the Actions on, or impacting upon,

Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2.

These guidelines have been established to assist proponents to determine whether a proposed action is

likely to result in a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance or, in the case of

Commonwealth agencies, the broader environment (DEWHA 2009; 2010).

The nature and significance of potential risk and threats associated with matters of NES were assessed.

An understanding of these risks and threats will assist with the development of appropriate measures of

avoid, mitigate, manage and implementation of offsets to compensate for any potential adverse or

significant impacts resulting from the increased noise levels and fauna strikes resulting from activities

associated with the proposed tree removal and/or lopping works. The Commonwealth Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) establishes a process for assessing the

environmental impact of activities and developments where matters of ‘national environmental

significance’ (NES) and areas of Commonwealth land or agencies that may be affected. Matters of

NES matters relevant to this subject include threatened species, ecological communities and migratory

species (JAMBA/CAMBA/ ROKAMBA) that are listed under the EPBC Act.

As a Commonwealth agency, AA must also consider the nature and significance of potential risk and

threats associated with the proposed works in accordance with the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2

(DEWHA 2010).

Under the EPBC Act, any action which “has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a

matter of national environmental significance” is defined as a “controlled action” or impact which is

important, notable or of consequence, in regards to its context or intensity and consequently may

require approval from the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population

and Communities (DSEWPaC) which is responsible for administering the EPBC Act.

Actions that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of NES need to be referred to the

Department under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act referrals process can produce one of three outcomes:

Non-controlled action (NCA): Assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is not required. The

project may proceed without further approval under the EPBC Act.

Non-controlled action – particular manner (NCA-PM): Assessment and approval under the EPBC Act is

not required provided the action is undertaken in a specific way (similar to conditions).

Controlled Action (CA): The project will, or is likely, to have a significant impact on one or more matters

of national environmental significance. The project will require full assessment and approval before it

can proceed.

This report highlights any EPBC Act matters of NES and advises if a referral in accordance with the

Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. and 1.2 (DEWHA 2009; 2010) to the Department of the Environment

(DotE) is required.

This report, does not address issues associated with the construction and operation of infrastructure

and support facilities.



The EPBC Act Administrative Guidelines (DEWHA 2009) on Significance set out ‘Significant Impact

Criteria’ that are to be used to assist in determining whether a proposed action is likely to have a

significant impact on matters of NES. Matters listed under the EPBC Act as being of national

environmental significance include:

Listed threatened species and ecological communities

Listed Migratory species

Wetlands of International Importance

The Commonwealth marine environment

World Heritage properties

National Heritage places

Nuclear actions

Specific ‘Significant Impact Criteria’ are provided for each matter of NES, except for threatened species

and ecological communities, in which case separate criteria are provided for species listed as

endangered and vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or

possibility that it will meet any of the following criteria:

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Disrupting the breeding cycle of an important population

Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the

extent that the species is likely to decline

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in

the vulnerable species’ habitat

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or

Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.



C.1 Crit ical ly Endangered

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland and Derived Native Grasslands

Box-Gum Woodland is the name given to the ecological community characterised by the assemblage of

species listed in paragraph 3. White Box Yellow Box Blakely's Red Gum Woodland is found on relatively

fertile soils on the tablelands and western slopes of NSW and generally occurs between the 400 and

800 mm isohyets extending from the western slopes, at an altitude of c. 170m to c. 1200 m, on the

northern tablelands. Box Gum Woodland is a Threatened Ecological Community (TEC), listed as

‘endangered’ under the TSC Act.

Characteristic tree species include one or more of the following species in varying proportions and

combinations, Eucalyptus albens (White Box), E. melliodora (Yellow Box) or E. blakelyi (Blakely's Red

Gum). Grass and herbaceous species generally characterise the ground layer. In some locations, the

tree overstorey may be absent as a result of past clearing or thinning and at these locations only an

understorey may be present. Shrubs are generally sparse or absent, though they may be locally

common.

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered ecological

community if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Criteria a: will the action reduce the extent of an ecological community

The White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland and Derived Native Grasslands ecological

community is found in one patch. The nature of the disturbance will be temporary and it is anticipated

that trees will not be removed for the purpose of the pipeline. Progressive rehabilitation by reinstating

stripped grass will be employed. It is unlikely the proposed pipeline will reduce the extent of this

ecological community.

Criterion b: will the action fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community

As the proposed pipeline construction is only a temporary land use, this disturbance would be

progressive rehabilitation. It is not anticipated that any trees will be removed for the purpose of

constructing the pipeline, however the surface layer will be stripped and reinstated as part of the

progressive rehabilitation of the construction disturbance. As such, any impacts resulting from the

proposed pipeline will not be adverse and will be short-term in nature. Therefore, it will not fragment or

increase fragmentation of the White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland and Derived Native

Grasslands ecological community.

Criterion c: will the action adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological

community

Critical habitat has not been declared for this endangered ecological community.

Criterion d: will the action modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water,

nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of

groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns

Construction of the proposed pipeline involves stripping the ground surface and trenching to 0.8 m

deep. Spoilt and the surface layer will be backfilled and reinstated following construction. The nature

and duration of the proposed activity is unlikely to modify or destroy abiotic factors, reducing

groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns.



Criterion e: will the action cause a substantial change in the species composition of an

occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally

important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting

Construction involves stripping the ground surface, to a depth that will preserve the living species and

their seedbank. Weed control measures will be employed prior and following the construction works to

reduce the likelihood of weed invasion that could potentially reduce the native biodiversity found in this

ecological community. Tree removal is not planned, hence their function in the landscape will not be

removed.

Criteria f: will the action cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence

of an ecological community, including, but not limited to:

i. assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to

become established

ii. causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or

pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species

in the ecological community

Construction of the proposed pipeline involves stripping the ground surface layer. This layer will be

reinstated during the progressive rehabilitation and appropriately weed control measures will be utilised.

Selective herbicides will be spot-spray to reduce the mobilisation of these herbicides into the ecological

community.

Criteria g: will the action interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.

The objective of this recovery plan (DECCW 2010) is to promote the recovery and minimise the risk of

extinction of the ecological community through:

achieving no net loss in extent and condition of the ecological community throughout its

geographic distribution;

increasing protection of sites in good condition;

increasing landscape function of the ecological community through management and

restoration of degraded sites;

increasing transitional areas around remnants and linkages between remnants; and

bringing about enduring changes in participating land manager attitudes and behaviours

towards environmental protection and sustainable land management practices to increase

extent, integrity and function of Box-Gum Grassy Woodland.

The proposed pipeline is a short-term activity with impacts that can be mitigated through preservation of

the ground surface, retaining the tree canopy and implementing weed control. As such, it is unlikely to

interfere with any of the actions of the national recovery plan.

Conclusions

The incremental nature of the disturbance coupled with progressive rehabilitation providing an

intermediary habitat resource for fauna movement and dispersal of floral genetic resources, means the

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Woodland and Derived Native Grasslands ecological

community within the road reserve is unlikely to be adversely impacted by the construction proposed

pipeline.



Prasophyllum petilum (Tarengo Leek Orchid) and Prasophyllum sp. Wybong

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered species if there is a real chance

or possibility that it will meet any of the following criteria:

Criterion a: lead to a long-term decrease in size of an important population of a species

There is 45,000 flowering individuals across the five known populations, with the majority occuring in

the population at Tarengo TSR (DotE 2016). Prasophyllum petilum was not recorded during the field

survey and it was therefoer not poissbile to determine the size of any potential population. Given the

temporary nature of the disturbance and progressive rehabilitation, it is unlikely the proposed pipeline

wll lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population.

Criterion b: reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

The current area of occupancy of P. petilum is 4.5 ha and there is no data to indicate that the area of

occupancy at known sites is declining. Prasophyllum petilum could not be detected during the field

survey, it was not possible to determine the area of occupancy. A small are of suitable habitat may be

removed, however, this disturbance will be temporary in nature and will be progressively throughout the

project, and is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy by any important populations in the long term.

Criterion c: Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

The presence of P. petilum could not be determined during field surveys. However, given the

temporary nature of the disturbance created by the construction of the pipeline, and the progressive

reinstatement of the groundcover, it is unlikely any populations will be fragmented.

Criterion d: adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Despite no recordings made during the field survey, suitable habitat for this species is present within the

road reserve. It flowers during summer. Given past disturbances and the relatively short term impacts

asscoiated with the proposed pipeline, it is considered that the impacts will not impact important critical

habitat required for the survival of this species.

Criterion e: disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

The proposed works will not result in the fragmentation of this threatened flora species from potential

pollinators or seed dispersers. Therefore the works will not disrupt the breeding cycle.

Criterion f: modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to

the extent that the species is likely to decline

The proposed works will involve progressive rehabilitation and any modifications, isolation or declines in

habitat availability or quality will be temporary. Therefore, it is not likely that the extent of the species

shall decline.

Criterion g: result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered

species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species' habitat

The proposed works involve vegetation clearance. Ground disturbance creates opportunistic invasion

by some weed species. However, the stripping and reinstating of the groundcover and progressive

rehabilitation will reduce the availability of disturb sites to be invaded by weeds. Weed control

measures will be used following works.



Anthochaera phrygia (formerly Xanthomyza phrygia) (Regent Honeyeater)

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or


Criterion a: lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population

Xanthomyza Phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) mainly inhabits inland areas of south eastern Australia with

seasonally nomadic, non-breeding flocks occasionally visiting coastal areas. The proposal may result in

the loss of some foraging and roosting habitat but is unlikely to affect breeding habitat for the species.

Given the availability of similar habitat in the within the road reserve and surrounding landscape, and

high mobility of the species the proposal is unlikely to lead to the long-term decline of a population of

the Regent Honeyeater,

Criterion b: reduce the area of occupancy of a population

The proposal is unlikely to measurably reduce the area of occupancy of such a highly mobile species.

Criterion c: fragment an existing population into two or more populations

The Regent Honeyeater is a highly mobile species and is part of one super-population, hence the small

amount of vegetation for removal is highly unlikely to result in the fragmentation of habitats such that the

sub-communities would be split into two or more populations.


The road reserve contains foraging and roosting habitat for the Regent Honeyeater, however given the

availability of similar habitat within the road reserve and surrounding landscape, and mobility of the

species, this habitat is unlikely to be critical to the survival of the species.


The Regent Honeyeater is not known to breed within the study area and as such, the proposal is

unlikely to impact directly on the breeding cycle of the species. Impacts to potential foraging and

roosting habitat for the species will be small and as such not likely to affect the breeding population.



The proposal may result in the loss of a small amount of foraging and roosting habitat relative to the

available habitat within the study area and across the species range. The proposal is, therefore,

unlikely to result in the decline of the species.



The proposed works are unlikely to result in the establishment of an invasive species that is harmful to

the Regent Honeyeater. The works involved clearance of vegetation and incorporation of strict controls

to prevent spread of weeds.

Criterion h: Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

The project will not result in the introduction of a disease that is harmful to the Regent Honeyeater.

Criterion i: interfere with the recovery of the species.

The proposal is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of the species.



Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot)



Criterion a: lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population

The proposal may result in the loss of some foraging and roosting habitat but is unlikely to affect

breeding habitat for the species. An extensive stand of potential habitat for this highly mobile species is

also contiguous with the study area and throughout the locality. Therefore, the proposed works are

unlikely to lead to a decline in the Swift Parrot population.

Criterion b: reduce the area of occupancy of a species


Criterion c: fragment an existing population into two or more populations

The Swift parrot is a highly mobile species, hence the small amount of foraging habitat that may be

potentially removed, and the availability of suitable foraging habitat in the surrounding landscape it is

unlikely that the population will be split into two or more populations.


The road reserve contains foraging habitat for the Swift Parrot, however given the availability of similar

habitat within the road reserve and surrounding landscape, and mobility of the species, this habitat is

unlikely to be critical to the survival of the species.


The Swift Parrot does not breed on the mainland.



The proposal may result in the loss of some foraging habitat but is unlikely to affect breeding habitat for

the species. Furthermore, the Swift Parrot is highly mobile and extensive areas of potential foraging

habitat will remain within the locality. Therefore the proposal is unlikely to significantly modify, remove

or decrease the availability of habitat or adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the Swift Parrot

to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

Criterion g: Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered

species becoming established in the critically endangered or endangered species’ habitat

The development is unlikely to result in the establishment of an invasive species that is harmful to the

Swift Parrot.

Criterion h: Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

The development is unlikely to result in the introduction of diseases causing the Swift Parrot to decline.

Criterion i: Interfere with the recovery of the species.

Given that the Swift Parrot does not breed on the mainland, forages widely and that extensive potential

habitat for Swift Parrot is present within the study area and will remain, the proposed works will not

interfere with the recovery of this species. Based on these criteria, it is unlikely that the proposed

pipeline will lead to a significant impact on the Swift Parrot.



C.2 Endangered

Lepidium hyssopifolium (Aromatic Peppercress)




There are 35 known populations, mainly in Tasmania, and recent estimates indicate a total population

of 1700 individuals (DotE 2016). Lepidium hyssopifolium was not recorded during the field survey and it

was therefoer not poissbile to determine the size of any potential population. Given the temporary

nature of the disturbance and progressive rehabilitation, it is unlikely the proposed pipeline wll lead to a

long term decrease in the size of an important population.


Lepidium hyssopifolium could not be detected during the field survey, it was not possible to determine

the area of occupancy. A small are of suitable habitat may be removed, however, this disturbance will

be temporary in nature and will be progressively throughout the project, and is unlikely to reduce the

area of occupancy by any important populations in the long term.


The presence of Lepidium hyssopifolium could not be determined during field surveys. However, given

the temporary nature of the disturbance created by the construction of the pipeline, and the progressive

reinstatement of the groundcover, it is unlikely any populations will be fragmented.



road reserve. It flowers during summer. Given past disturbances and the relatively short term impacts

asscoiated with the proposed pipeline, it is considered that the impacts will not impact important critical

habitat required for the survival of this species.








shall decline.









Leucochrysum albicans var tricolor (Hoary Sunray)




Leucochrysum albicans var tricolor occurs in a wide variety of grasslands and open woodlands on

heavy soils, in natural or semi-natural vegetation, and is often associated with Box Gum species (DotE

2016). The number of populations is unkown, but estimated to be 400,000 to 1,000,000 plants (DotE

2016). The proposed pipeline is unlikely to lead to a long-term increase in an important population.


Leucochrysum albicans var tricolor occurs in patches, however since this species could not be

detected during field surveys it was not possible to determine the area of occupancy.


The presence of Leucochrysum albicans var tricolor could not be determined during field surveys.

However, given the temporary nature of the disturbance created by the construction of the pipeline, and

the progressive reinstatement of the groundcover, it is unlikely any populations will be fragmented.



road reserve. It flowers during spring and summer relies on wind dispersal rather than seed banks for

germination. Given past disturbances and the relatively short term impacts asscoiated with the

proposed pipeline, it is considered that the impacts will not impact important critical habitat required for

the survival of this species.



pollinators or seed dispersers. Therefore, the works will not disrupt the reproductive cycle.





shall decline.









C.3 Vulnerable

Ammobium craspedioides (Yass Daisy)




Most populations occur in the Yass District, and a sizable population of a few hundred individuals was

found on private property near McCullums Creek (DotE 2016). As such it is unlikely the proposed

piepline will lead to a long-term decrease in an important population.


Ammobium craspedioides was not recorded during the survey and it was not possible to determine the

area of occupancy. The disturbance created by construction activities are temporary and progressive

rehabilitation will be used throughout the project and it is not anticipated that a reduction in the area of

occupancy will occur.


The presence of Ammobium craspedioides could not be determined during field surveys. However,

given the temporary nature of the disturbance created by the construction of the pipeline, and the

progressive reinstatement of the groundcover, it is unlikely any populations will be fragmented.



road reserve. It flowers during late spring and resprouts during autumn following rain. Given past

disturbances and the relatively short term impacts asscoiated with the proposed pipeline, it is

considered that the impacts will not impact important critical habitat required for the survival of this

species.








Criterion g: result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming

established in the vulnerable species’ habitat




measures will be used following works

Criterion h: introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

The development is unlikely to result in the introduction of diseases causing Ammobium craspedioides

to decline.



Criterion i: interfere with the recovery of the species.

Given that there is that extensive potential habitat for Ammobium craspedioides is present within the

study area and will remain, the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of this species.

Based on these criteria, it is unlikely that the proposed pipeline will lead to a significant impact on

Ammobium craspedioides.

Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata (Square Raspwort)




Haloragis exalata sp. exalata was not recorded in the field surveys, thus it was not possible to

determine if there was an important population within the road reserve. Despite this, the proposed

pipeline is unlikely to lead to a long-term increase in an important population since the disturbance is

temporary in nature and will be progressively rehabilitated.


Since the Haloragis exalata sp. exalata could not be detected during the field survey, it was not possible

to determine the area of occupancy. A small are of suitable habitat may be removed, however, this

disturbance will be temporary in nature and will be progressively throughout the project, and is unlikely

to reduce the area of occupancy by any important populations in the long term.

Criterion c: fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

The presence of Haloragis exalata sp. exalata could not be determined during field surveys. However,

given the temporary nature of the disturbance created by the construction of the pipeline, and the

progressive reinstatement of the groundcover, it is unlikely any populations will be fragmented.



road reserve. It flowers during late spring and summer. Given past disturbances and the relatively


impact important critical habitat required for the survival of this species.








shall decline.








measures will be used following works


The development is unlikely to result in the introduction of diseases causing Haloragis exalata sp.

exalata to decline.


Given that there is that extensive potential habitat for Haloragis exalata sp. exalata is present within the

study area and will remain, the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of this species.

Based on these criteria, it is unlikely that the proposed pipeline will lead to a significant impact on

Haloragis exalata sp. exalata.

Polytelis swainsonii (Superb Parrot)



Criterion a: lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

The Superb Parrot exists as a single population and mainly inhabits forest and woodlands dominated by

Eucalypts, especially by Box Eucalypts. The proposal may result in the loss of some foraging and

roosting habitat but is unlikely to affect breeding habitat for the species.




The Superb Parrot is a highly mobile species and is part of a single population, hence the small amount

of vegetation for removal is highly unlikely to result in the fragmentation of habitats such that the sub-

communities would be split into two or more populations.


When making local foraging movements, Superb Parrots use wooded corridors and rarely cross

extensive open areas. The road reserve contains foraging habitat for the Superb Parrot, however given

the availability of similar habitat within the road reserve and surrounding landscape, and mobility of the

species, this habitat is unlikely to be critical to the survival of the species.

Criterion e: disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

The Superb Parrot breeds between September and January, in hollows of Eucalypts, especially River

Red Gums and Blakely’s Red Gum, but also Yellow Box, Grey Box and White Box. Due to the species

being highly mobile and the availability of suitable hollow bearing trees throughout the road reserve and

the locality, it is unlikely that disturbance to foraging habitat will disrupt the breeding cycle of an

important population of Superb Parrot.



The proposal may result in the loss of some foraging and breeding habitat but is unlikely to affect

breeding habitat for the species. Furthermore, the Superb Parrot is highly mobile and extensive areas

of potential foraging habitat will remain within the locality. Therefore the proposal is unlikely to



significantly modify, remove or decrease the availability of habitat or adversely affect habitat critical to

the survival of the Superb Parrot to the extent that the species is likely to decline.




Superb Parrot.


The development is unlikely to result in the introduction of diseases causing the Swift Parrot to decline.


Given that there is that extensive potential foraging and breeding habitat for the Superb Parrot is

present within the study area and will remain, the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of

this species. Based on these criteria, it is unlikely that the proposed pipeline will lead to a significant

impact on the Superb Parrot.

Grantiella picta (Painted Honeyeater)




The Painted Honeyeater is nomadic and sparsely distributed, and mainly inhabits mistletoe in eucalypt

forest and woodlands, and trees in farmland. The proposal may result in the loss of some foraging but

is unlikely to affect breeding habitat for the species.




The Painted Honeyeater is a highly mobile species, hence the small amount of vegetation for removal is

highly unlikely to result in the fragmentation of habitats such that the population would be split into two

or more populations.


The Painted Honeyeater prefers woodlands which contain a higher number of mature trees, as these

host more mistletoe, and is more common in wider blocks of remnant woodland than narrow strips.

However, if ample mistletoe fruit is available in road corridors, then Painted Honeyeaters may breed in

narrower strips of remnant vegetation. The road reserve contains foraging habitat for the Painted

Honeyeater, however given the availability of similar habitat within the road reserve and surrounding

landscape, and mobility of the species, this habitat is unlikely to be critical to the survival of the species.


The Painted Honeyeater breeds between October and March when mistletoe fruit is most abundant,

building small delicate nests in the outer foliage of trees. Almost all breeding occurs on the inland

slopes of the Great Dividing Range in NSW, Victoria and southern Queensland. Where pre-clearance

surveys identify an occupied nest or is suspected to be used by a threatened species, removal of these

trees should be avoided. Due to the species being highly mobile and the availability of suitable habitat



trees throughout the road reserve and the locality, it is unlikely that disturbance to foraging habitat will

disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population of the Painted Honeyeater.



The proposal may result in the loss of some foraging and breeding habitat but is unlikely to affect

breeding habitat for the species. Furthermore, the Painted Honeyeater is highly mobile and extensive

areas of potential foraging habitat will remain within the locality. Therefore the proposal is unlikely to

significantly modify, remove or decrease the availability of habitat or adversely affect habitat critical to

the survival of the Painted Honeyeater to the extent that the species is likely to decline.




Painted Honeyeater.


The development is unlikely to result in the introduction of diseases causing the Painted Honeyeater to

decline.


Given that potential foraging and breeding habitat for the Painted Honeyeater is present within the study

area and will remain, the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of this species. Based on

these criteria, it is unlikely that the proposed pipeline will lead to a significant impact on the Painted

Honeyeater.

Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala)




The proposed works may disturb a small area of woodland which has foraging habitat potential, through

vegetation lopping, clearing and earthworks. This is only a very small portion of the suitable foraging

habitat within the road reserve and locality and as such it is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in

the size of an important population of the species.


The proposed pipeline will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important population.


The proposed development will not fragment an existing important population into two or more

populations.


The proposed pipeline will only disturb potential foraging habitat for the Koala. Due to the species being

mobile and the availability of suitable habitat surrounding the proposed impact area, it is unlikely that

the proposed pipeline will affect habitat critical to the survival of a species.




No important populations are known from the study area. Due to the species being mobile it is unlikely

to that disturbance to foraging habitat will disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population of Koala.



The proposed development may impact upon a small area of potential foraging habitat for the Koala.

Due to the species being mobile it is unlikely the development will modify, destroy, remove or isolate or

decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline.

Criterion 7: result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming


The proposed development will not result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species

becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat.

Criterion g: introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially

with the recovery of the species

The proposed development will not introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere

substantially with the recovery of the species.

Criterion h: interfere with the recovery of an endangered species

The overall objective of the NSW Koala recovery plan is to "…reverse the decline of the koala in New

South Wales, to ensure adequate protection, management and restoration of koala habitat, and to

maintain healthy breeding populations of koalas throughout their current range".

While some potential koala habitat will be removed, effort will be made to minimise impact on the

potential koala feed trees present within the proposed disturbance area by conducting pre-clearance

surveys. The action proposed is consistent with the objectives of the recovery plan.


Given that potential foraging habitat for the Koala is present within the study area and will remain, the

proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of this species. Based on these criteria, it is unlikely

that the proposed pipeline will lead to a significant impact on the Koala.

Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat)




The proposed works may disturb an area of woodland which would serve as potential foraging habitat.

Given that the proposed disturbance would not impact on any potential roosting or breeding habitat for

the species, it is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of the

Large-eared Pied Bat.


The proposed works will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important population.




The proposed works will not fragment an existing important population into two or more populations.


The proposed works will only disturb potential foraging habitat for the Large-eared Pied Bat. Due to the

species being highly mobile and the availability of a large expanse of more suitable habitat surrounding

the proposed works area, it is unlikely that the proposed works will affect habitat critical to the survival of

a species.


No important populations are known in the study area. Due to the species being highly mobile it is

unlikely that disturbance to foraging habitat will disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population of

Large-eared Pied Bat.



The proposed works will impact upon only a small area of potential foraging habitat for the Large-eared

Pied Bat. Due to the species being highly mobile it is unlikely the development will modify, destroy,

remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely

to decline.



The proposed works will not result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species


Criterion h: introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially

with the recovery of the species.

The proposed works will not introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere


Criterion i: interfere with the recovery of a vulnerable species.

A national recovery plan has been prepared for the Large-eared Pied Bat. The objective of the recovery

plan is “to ensure the persistence of viable populations of the large-eared pied bat throughout its

geographic range”.

As no key populations have been identified in the area surrounding the proposed works area, the

proposed action does not apply to this project. However, taking the precautionary principal and

assuming the species is present and forms a key population, the area of woodland habitat that may be

impacted by the proposed works area would be insignificant. This is because of the large area of

suitable habitat surrounding the proposed works area. It is also possible that the proposed works,

particularly the construction of the access tracks may lead to increased foraging habitat in the form of

fly-ways.

Nyctophilus corbeni (Corben's Long-eared Bat)






The proposed pipeline may disturb a small area of woodland which would serve as potential foraging

habitat. Given this, it is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of

a species.


The proposed works will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important population.


The proposed works will not fragment an existing important population into two or more populations.


The proposed works may disturb potential foraging, roosting and breeding habitat. Due to the species

being highly mobile and the availability of suitable habitat surrounding the proposed works area, it is

unlikely that the proposed works will affect habitat critical to the survival of a species. It is also possible

that the proposed works, particularly the construction of access tracks may lead to increased foraging

habitat in the form of fly-ways.


No important populations are known in the study area. Due to the species being highly mobile it is

unlikely that disturbance to foraging habitat will disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population of

Corben’s Long-eared Bat.



The proposed works will impact upon a moderate area of potential foraging, roosting and breeding

habitat for the Corben’s Long-eared Bat. Due to the species being highly mobile it is unlikely the

proposed works will modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to

the extent that the species is likely to decline.



The proposed works will not result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species


Criterion h: introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere substantially

with the recovery of the species

The proposed works will not introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or interfere


Criterion i: interfere with the recovery of a vulnerable species.

A national recovery plan is being prepared for the Corben’s Long-eared Bat. The only relevant recovery

action is “Identify key populations and protect these from habitat loss and fragmentation”. As no key

populations have been identified in the area surrounding the proposed works area, the proposed action

does not apply to this project.



References

Department of the Environment (DotE). 2013. Matters of National Environmental Significance –

Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Department of the Environment, Canberra.

Department of the Environment (DotE). 2016. Species Profiles and Threats Database. [online].


Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW). 2010. National Recovery Plan

for White Bow – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC). 2013.

Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies. –

Significant impact guidelines 1.2. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities, Canberra.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl%20(20



Appendix D Aboriginal Due Diligence and Historical Heritage Desktop



Appendix E Construction Noise and Vibration Assessment



HEAD OFFICE

Suite 2, Level 3

668-672 Old Princes Highway

Sutherland NSW 2232

T 02 8536 8600

F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Level 6

299 Sussex Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T 02 8536 8650

F 02 9264 0717

HUSKISSON

Unit 1 51 Owen Street

Huskisson NSW 2540

T 02 4201 2264

F 02 4443 6655

CANBERRA

Level 2

11 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2601

T 02 6103 0145

F 02 6103 0148

NEWCASTLE

Suites 28 & 29, Level 7

19 Bolton Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

T 02 4910 0125

F 02 4910 0126

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street

Narooma NSW 2546

T 02 4476 1151

F 02 4476 1161

COFFS HARBOUR

35 Orlando Street

Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450

T 02 6651 5484

F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE

92 Taylor Street

Armidale NSW 2350

T 02 8081 2681

F 02 6772 1279

MUDGEE

Unit 1, Level 1

79 Market Street

Mudgee NSW 2850

T 02 4302 1230

F 02 6372 9230

PERTH

Suite 1 & 2

49 Ord Street

West Perth WA 6005

T 08 9227 1070

F 08 9322 1358

WOLLONGONG

Suite 204, Level 2

62 Moore Street

Austinmer NSW 2515

T 02 4201 2200

F 02 4268 4361

GOSFORD

Suite 5, Baker One

1-5 Baker Street

Gosford NSW 2250

T 02 4302 1220

F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN

16/56 Marina Boulevard

Cullen Bay NT 0820

T 08 8989 5601

F 08 8941 1220

BRISBANE

Suite 1 Level 3

471 Adelaide Street

Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7191 F 07 3854 0310

1300 646 131 www.ecoaus.com.au

http://www.ecoaus.com.au/

orange to molong creek dam pipeline review of environmental factors€¦ · orange to molong creek...

Documents