Vladeo Maric APA Group CC: James Beckett, Derek Prentice, Brian Watson, Katrina O Reilly

Transcription

1 7 December 2016 Vladeo Maric APA Group CC: James Beckett, Derek Prentice, Brian Watson, Katrina O Reilly Dear Vladeo, Please see attached the inspection report for 6 th December wagga wagga suite 1, 39 fitzmaurice st (po box 5464) wagga wagga nsw 2650 t f newcastle 153 tudor st hamilton nsw 2303 t bathurst 35 morrisset st po box 434 bathurst nsw 2795 t bega suite 1, 216 carp st (po box 470) bega nsw 2550 t canberra unit 17, 27 yallourn st (po box 62) fyshwick act 2609 t f sydney unit 18, level 3 21 mary st surry hills nsw 2010 t Regards, Erwin Budde Environmental Representative Wagga Wagga to Young Looping Pipeline ngh@nghenvironmental.com.au

2 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND APA Group are constructing Stage 2 of the Wagga Wagga to Young Looping Pipeline project. The project involves the installation of an underground gas pipeline and associated infrastructure. This requires the following general activities: Clearing of vegetation Stripping of topsoil Creation of a Right of Way (ROW) including waterway crossings for vehicles Trenching within the ROW and/or underboring Installing pipes, backfilling and levelling Rehabilitation of the ROW The Projects was approved under Part 3A of the EP&A Act by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in Stage 1 was completed in ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APA Group have appointed an independent Environmental Representative (ER) for the project. The ER s role is detailed in the Conditions of Approval. The relevant condition states: (Condition C17) Prior to the commencement of construction of the Project, or as otherwise agreed by the Director General, the Proponent shall nominate for the approval of the Director General, a suitably qualified and experienced Environment Representative(s) that is independent of the design and construction personnel. The Proponent shall employ the Environmental Representative(s) for the duration of construction, or as otherwise agreed by the Director General. The Environment Representative(s) shall: a) be the principal point of advice in relation to the environmental performance of the Project; b) monitor the implementation of environmental management plans and monitoring programs required under this approval and advise the Proponent upon the achievement of these plans/ programs; c) have responsibility for considering and advising the Proponent on matters specified in the conditions of this approval, and other licences and approvals related to the environmental performance and impacts of the Project; d) ensure that environmental auditing is undertaken in accordance with the Proponent s EMS(s); e) be given the authority to approve/reject minor amendments to the CEMP. What constitutes a minor amendment shall be clearly explained in the CEMP required under condition C1; f) be given the authority and independence to require reasonable steps be taken to avoid or minimise unintended or adverse environmental impacts, and failing the effectiveness of such steps, to direct that relevant actions be ceased immediately should an adverse impact on the environment be likely to occur; and g) be consulted in responding to the community concerning the environmental performance of the Project where the resolution of points of conflict between the Proponent and the community is required. To assist in meeting the requirements of the Conditions of Approval relating to the role of ER, regular inspections during construction are being completed. These inspections are documented in an Inspection 6639 Final 1

3 Report. The inspection report records recommended actions aimed at improving compliance with the Conditions of Approval for the Project and environmental legislation Final 2

4 2 DETAILS OF ER ACTIVITIES 2.1 SITE INSPECTION 06/12/2016 A site inspection was undertaken on 06/12/16 by Erwin Budde (NGH Environmental) together with Colin Clay (Monarc Environmental). The inspection looked at several sections of Loop 9 where reinstatement works have been undertaken, and a number of locations on Loop 8 where early works have commenced. The inspection focused on the following environmental issues: Reinstatement Clean water diversion Erosion and sediment controls Letter from DPE, 2/12/16 The inspection made reference to the following documentation: CEMP SWMP ESCP s prepared for Loop 8 SCL s Reinstatement Plan Reinstatement works were occurring at McHenry s Creek at the time of construction. It is noted that the current work schedule is to continue with the reinstatement of Loop 9 until it is completed, expected around Christmas Early works to gain access to rock outcrops and under bore locations on Loop 8 will continue, including limited waterway crossing constructions and some ROW establishment. It is expected that full clear and grade will commence on Loop 8 early January Table 2 1 Comments on the Inspection Location Environmental Issue Comment Loop 8 DP&E Letter DPE require a construction work plan to be submitted be prepared prior to soil stripping/stockpiling on Loop 8. It is understood that the soil stripping and stockpiling that has occurred to date on Loop 8 occurred prior to the letter being received by APA Group. No further stripping or stockpiling of soil should occur until the construction work plan is submitted to DPE. Loop 8 Ground conditions It is noted that where earthworks had been conducted on Loop 8, the ground conditions appear to relatively dry with very limited evidence of any seepage of water or soft, wet subsoil. This was evident at the meatworks and Cunjebong Creek. KP55, south of Manildra Meat Works Waterway A short section of the ROW had been excavated immediately south of the kiosk, near KP55. This consisted of clearing and grading the full width ROW from the kiosk south to beyond the wet depression created by the earthern bank (right up to the fenceline). Two defined channels cross the ROW in this location: 1. The main waterway 2. The overflow from the dam There are no diversions in place across the ROW for either of these channels. As it currently stands, any flow down these 6639 Final 3

5 Location Environmental Issue Comment channels would enter the ROW and flow, uncontrolled across and down the ROW, potentially causing erosion and sedimentation and also issues for discharge. It is recommended that defined channels be established across the ROW for both these waterways, and that these channels be lined with plastic prior to a major rainfall or an extended period of non attendance to ensure clean water is diverted across the ROW. KP55, south of Manildra Meat Works Cunjebong Creek (~KP66) Ricketts Property McHenry s Creek ERSED Controls Waterway ERSED Controls Reinstatement Runoff from the ROW within this section discharged at a single location in the northern part of the ROW. This also doubles as the waterway discharge point. No ERSED controls are in place to prevent sediment leaving the site. These controls need to be separated from the clean water diversion and kept out of the main channel. The waterway crossing at Cunjebong Creek was in place. It had been constructed generally in accordance with the ERSED Plan provided to the ER prior to the inspection. It is noted that only the Access Track had been excavated, with the remainder of the ROW left vegetated and protected. It is also noted that ERSED controls were not in stream but located at controlled discharge points. The Coir Logs did not appear to be dug into the ground. These are at risk of being undermined during a rainfall event. One of the sediment fences around a stockpile site appeared not to have been dug into the ground properly. An inspection of the state of ERSED controls on Rickett s property was conducted. It is noted that the subsoils along the ROW were still very wet and unstable. Many of the ERSED controls require maintenance including: 1. Clean water diversions require replacement. The geofabric was found to be very dirty and in places being undermined. 2. Dirty water needs to be separated from clean water at some of the clean water diversions 3. Several sediment fences were down and need to be reinstated 4. The sandbags placed in eroded drainage lines need to be replaced, with the drainage lines reformed to allow more effective control of water. It is noted that the berms were generally in good condition with no evidence of failure. Little sediment was observed to have accumulated against the berms or in the sumps, suggesting that limited erosion had occurred since they were last maintained. Reinstatement works were underway at McHenry s Creek. No issues were noted. KP 2.2 to 3 Reinstatement Completed reinstatement work was observed in this section of the ROW. It is noted that harrowing and seeding had not yet been completed. Earth berms had been reinstated in areas where berms were previously located. All topsoil has been respread over the ROW Final 4

6 Location Environmental Issue Comment It was noted that at several locations, no berms had been installed despite the long and sometimes steep slope. It is recommended that berms appropriately graded to the contours be installed to minimise the risk of erosion of the topsoil. KP 2.2 Reinstatement of waterway The waterway at KP2.2 had been reinstated. Comments include: 1. A pile of rock used for the access road was still present on the bank of the creek. This should be removed. 2. Jute matting was in place along the lower and upper slope of the bank, but not the middle slope. Jute matting should be extended along the entire bank Final 5

7 APPENDIX A PHOTOS KP55: ERSED controls lacking at main discharge point. KP55: Clean water diversion channels not in place 6639 Final I

8 Cunjebong Creek: Coir logs at risk of being undermined Cunjebong Creek: Sediment fence not dug in properly 6639 Final II

9 Rickett s property: Dirty water needs to be separated from clean water Rickett s property: Sediment fence maintenance required. Coir logs need to be dug in 6639 Final III

10 KP2.2 3: Long slopes where appropiately graded berms need to be installed KP 2.2: Jute matting needed on mid slope. Rock in foreground should be removed Final IV