Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A1

Transcription

1 Addendum 1 Public comments Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A1

2 Comments on the Document: Mount Buller Sustainable Water Security Project Off-stream Storage: Information for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 by Preliminary Documentation EPBC 2014/7303 By Dr Ian Campbell Director Rhithroecology Pty Ltd. 21 December 2017 It is quite extraordinary that the EIA document completely ignores the previous two previous EIAs conducted on the initial Boggy Creek Dam (Rhithroecology 1993) and the extension of snowmaking water harvesting (Rhithroecology 1996). The company conducting much of the work (GHD) was apparently aware of the reports, because they cited one of the reports in another document (GHD 2014). The previous reports identified several endangered plants within the footprint of the top dam, do those species still exist on the mountain? It was the Rhithroecology (1993) report which first identified the habitat of the mountain pygmy possum of Mt Buller. A key part of this EIAQ should have been an investigation of the predicted impacts from the previous documents, and evaluating whether the project had been conducted as proposed, and whether the impacts were as predicted. The Boggy Creek Aquatic Ecology Assessment is so poor as to be virtually useless. It appears to have been largely conducted as a box ticking exercise as long as the species listed under the PMST and the BA are listed and discussed, the report can be padded with irrelevant material. Boggy Creek was sampled for aquatic invertebrates which were identified to family level, and SIGNAL scores were calculated. Why? Concern about loss of habitat in alpine areas is focussed on the presence of alpine adapted species which are often present in small isolated populations and, consequently vulnerable to extinction. A listing o f families is of absolutely no use is assessing whether a development poses risks to such species. The SIGNAL score is very useful in assessing stream health, particularly when streams are potentially affected by pollution. In this case there was no reason to expect pollution was an issue, and the SIGNAL assessment was pointless. The critical issue for aquatic invertebrates in alpine areas is the presence and distribution of alpine adapted species apparently restricted to a small number of locations. The assessment considers only those listed under the Victorian FFG legislation, notably the stoneflies Thaumatoperla flaveola and Riekoperla isosceles, and the flatworm Spathula tryssa. But the assessment ignores other probably equally endangered species such as the stonefly Austroheptura campbelli Theischinger (1993), and the undescribed mayfly from the genus Coloburiscoides whose life history was described by Campbell 1986). Both are known only from Mt Buller, Austroheptura from a single location. The life histories of three other undescribed species of mayflies have also been described from Chalet Creek on Mt Buller (Campbell et al 1990), are these species likely to be unique to Mt Buller? In terms of

3 assessing the impact of the project on alpine aquatic insects with critically limited distributions the assessment is hopelessly inadequate. The 1993 Rhithroecology report assessed the aquatic invertebrate fauna at sites upstream of the (then) proposed dam on Boggy Creek. Sampling was conducted semi-quanitatively and a full species list produced. The prediction at that time was that the impact on the creek would be slight and short term. This assessment appears to be making the same predictions. However this assessment provided and excellent opportunity to re-evaluate Boggy Creek upstream and downstream of the dam constructed in 1994 to actually test the original predictions, which would in turn have provided a basis for evaluating the present proposal using real data rather than just pious (and apparently illinformed) hope. It is quite alarming that the monitoring program proposed does not include any monitoring of aquatic invertebrates, one presumes because of a lack of interest by those whose government responsibilities should encompass such things. References Campbell, I.C. (1986). Life histories of some Australian siphlonurid and oligoneuriid mayflies (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Aust. J. Mar. and Freshwat. Res. 37: Campbell I.C., Duncan M.J. and Swadling K.M. (1990). Life histories of some Ephemeroptera from Victoria, Australia. In: Campbell I.C. (ed) Mayflies and Stoneflies, Life Histories and Biology. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht, Netherlands. Rhithroecology Pty Ltd (1993) Natural Resources Survey: snowmaking water supply, Mt Buller Alpine Resort. Report to the Alpine Resorts Commission. Melbourne Victoria. Rhithroecology Pty Ltd (1996) Extension to the Natural Resources Survey: snowmaking water supply, Mt Buller Alpine Resort. Report to the Alpine Resorts Commission. Melbourne Victoria. Theischinger, G. (1993). New species of Australian stoneflies (Insecta: Plecoptera). Linzer boil. Beitr. 25/

4 Response to Mt Buller Mt Stirling Resort Management concerning EPBC Act -(EPBC 2014/7303) - Dear Mr Bennetts, In the two weeks allowed to the public for comment on the above, I have reviewed the documentation and offer the following comment. I also offer the additional comment that it is difficult to characterize a two week comment period for the 630 pages of part 1 and the 285 pages of part 2 as a genuine attempt to obtain informed comment. It could be construed more accurately as a time frame designed to make detailed and informed responses difficult. THE PROPOSAL. The Mt Buller dam requires the creation of an offset, that is, a larger area with the same natural values as the area destroyed. The offset is proposed to be protected in perpetuity. As the area to be destroyed is a very rare ecosystem in Victoria, there are few places where such an offset could be declared. It is proposed that the offset would be 262 hectares around the summit of Mount Stirling. IS THE OFFSET A CHANGE OR IMPROVEMENT? In short, the Buller/Biosis offset proposal is offering a form of protection for an area that is already protected. It is "protecting" or selling the same product twice for two purposes and does not add significantly to the existing actual status of Mt Stirling. To protect again that area of land already protected and claim a benefit of significant gains in land security, maintenance or management in return for a significant heritage loss (the dam) is a fraud. If there is to be an added layer of protection for Stirling to justify the dam then it would be better to have the PPRZ area reserved under the CLRAct, added to the Alpine-NP or given are really strong ESO with few exemptions in the schedule and change the zoning to PCRZ. The proposal as it stands in nothing else than an additional certification process and is thus not a real offset. IF THE OFFSET WAS TO BE ON LAND NOT ALREADY RESERVED, WOULD IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. In summary as the area proposed for an offset is already managed very well, there are few DELWP points to be gained. Here are some examples. 1. There is very little maintenance gain as land manager is not as-of-right permitted to do the things in PCRZ that a private person is allowed to do in Farming or Rural Conservation zones. The authority cannot forego taking trees etc for personal use because the Buller authority is not a person. Thus maintenance gain cannot contribute to the offset.

5 2. The actions proposed for vegetation improvement (purportedly a 20% gain) for activities such as controlling large herbivore grazing and rabbit eradication are impossible without fencing. Note that the construction of "physical fencing (as opposed to a genuine status change that some would call "legal fencing ) would be counterproductive as such fencing would inhibit the natural movement of native animals. For macropods such as wallabies and kangaroos, fences can be hazardous. 3. Changing the rules for recreation vehicles will have a localized affect on the tracks they use but cannot be counted as an improvement over the whole area - just a small percentage. So the Improvement gain in this case is not going to be realized. In short, in ten years, the offset area will largely look exactly the same as similar vegetation types outside the offset area. That is no physical gain. Thus vegetation gain cannot contribute to the offset. 4. Under the DELWP guidelines for offsets, measures such as the retention of logs for improvement gain (or maintenance gain only if you have as of right to remove them) is only eligible for a "gain" if the new regime of management is substantially different from the old. The proposed management regime is no different from the current management regime and thus there is no "gain" 5.The counting and control of rabbits (the land manager's legal responsibility) cannot be easily seen as gain. Note: rabbit control must be done as part of any offset where it is relevant to score gain from other improvements, but it does not score gain in itself unless control goes beyond duty of care to the elimination of rabbits). 6. The weed control proposal can possibly be counted as a gain but if implemented this would not make the 20% improvement alone. This is partly due to the status quo. There is already substantial weed control work taking place on Mount Stirling. This is being undertaken by Taungurung men such as Shane Monk and Keith Moate, and others. CONCLUSION: HOW CAN A GENUINE OFFSET BE ACHIEVED. If there is to be a genuine attempt at an offset by creating an added layer of protection for Stirling to justify the dam then it would be better to have the PPRZ area reserved under the CLRAct, added to the Alpine-NP or given are really strong ESO with few exemptions in the schedule and change the zoning to PCRZ. I look forward to your acknowledgement and response to my submission. Gerard McPhee 10 McCubbin Street East Kew 3102 Australia NO LAND LINE Mob Overseas Mobile

6 ====================================================================== FOOTNOTE ON THE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION It appears that the documentation on the Buller website was prepared by persons unfamiliar with all of the DEWLP NV Gain Guide. Here is a very short layman level plain english summary to assist the Buller Board and its advisors in the reformulation of any genuine offset proposal. DELWP NV Gain Guide 4.3 p10: Maintenance and improvement gains are only generated where the commitments are beyond the landowner s current legal management obligations (duty of care). Page 33 This is what the DELWP guide says: Site gain consists of four types gain: Prior management gain acknowledges management undertaken by landowners on a freehold site since State-wide planning permit controls for native vegetation removal were introduced in Prior management gain only applies to remnant vegetation. Security gain results from increasing the protection of native vegetation on a specific site. Landowners* can generate security gain by registering a security agreement on the land title (for example under Section 69 of the Conservation Forests and Lands Act 1987). Landowners can also generate security gain by transferring freehold land to a secure Crown land reserve managed for conservation purposes. Maintenance gain results from avoiding the decline in vegetation condition that is predicted to occur (see Figure 3). The predicted decline is based on the combined effect of allowable land uses and threats. Landowners * can generate maintenance gain by agreeing to forgo currently allowed land uses that affect the vegetation condition and agree tcontrol threats that affect vegetation condition. Improvement gain results from management commitments that improve the current vegetation condition (see Figure 3). Landowners* can generate improvement gain where they agree to commitments to improve the vegetation that are beyond their existing legal management obligations (duty of care). *The guide always refers to landowners, not Crown land managers. Gerard McPhee 10 McCubbin Street East Kew 3102 Australia NO LAND LINE Mob Overseas Mobile

7 A personal response to calls for public comment in relation to; Mount Buller Sustainable Water Security Project Off-stream Storage: Assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Reference EPBC 2014/7303 Comments by Charles Street Introduction The following is an expression of personal opinion by Charles Street. This contribution does not represent the views of any other person or organisation. Since 2014 there has been a proposal to construct a 100 Megalitre open water storage dam near the summit of Mount Buller. The proposal involves the destruction of about 5 hectares of native vegetation, and other environmental impacts. It is also proposed that there be an offset of some 262 hectares around the summit area of Mount Stirling. This contribution is, therefore, in two parts; Comments on the proposal for a 100 Megalitre dam on Mount Buller Comments on the proposed offset on Mount Stirling

8 Buller 100 ML dam personal opinion from Charles Street 1. Comments on the proposal for a 100 Megalitre dam on Mount Buller 1.1 Declining snowmaking hours One of the stated purposes of dam is to provide water for snowmaking on Mount Buller. However, it is unlikely that snowmaking will remain a viable option on Mount Buller after the year 2040, if global warming continues as projected. Ref: ARGRDP Figure 6 (2017:25) The snowmaking role of the proposed 100ML dam could be obsolete in a little more than twenty years. At the same time, the expected bushfire risk is expected to increase with global warming, (ARGRDP 2017:23) increasing the likelihood that any dam on Mount Buller could be drawn upon for fire fighting water. 1.2 Rare habitat to be destroyed The area on Mount Buller to be destroyed as a result of construction of the proposed 100 ML dam is treeless alpine landscape; rare in Victoria and ecologically fragile. Summarised from GHD 2014:ii, ecological impacts that are likely to result from the Project include: a) Disturbance of about 5 ha of native vegetation (and fauna habitat), and about 5 ha of non-native vegetation. A further 4 ha of native vegetation (and fauna habitat) may be subject to indirect impacts. b) Permanent loss of ha of the EPBC Act-listed ecological community Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens, which is synonymous with the FFG Act listed community Alpine Bog Community. c) Direct impact on at least flora species listed under the Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria 2005 (DSE 2005), which are known to occur within the PCF, and a further potential impact on up to 28 Page 2 of 7

9 Buller 100 ML dam personal opinion from Charles Street Advisory-listed species, which are unrecorded but have the potential to occur within the PCF; and d) Direct impact to habitat of three fauna species listed under one or more of the EPBC Act, FFG Act or Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria 2013 which are known or likely to occur within the PCF; Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus), and Alpine Bog Skink (Pseudemoia cryodroma) e) Ecological impacts (indirect) that may result from the Project include: Potentially significant long-term indirect impact to the alpine bog area at Mt Buller. Potential ecological impacts that would be reduced or controlled through mitigation include: Ø Ø Ø Ø Ø 1.3 Death of a thousand cuts Invasion of weeds and pathogens; Sediment input into Boggy Creek during construction; Input of toxic substances into Boggy Creek during construction; Changes to surface water flow; and Interception of shallow groundwater via the storage dam. A loss of about 5 hectares may seem trivial, but the cumulative impact of a series of such trivial losses can be significant, potentially resulting in local extinctions. 1.4 Mountain pygmy possum Whilst the Project footprint is not shown as overlapping with mapped Burramys habitat, the wanderings of male pygmy possums are unknown, but important. At its discovery in 1996 the Mt Buller population was estimated to include 350 individuals but from 1998 it experienced a sustained population and genetic diversity decline, only consisting of 40 in-bred animals in 2009 (Heinze 2010, Weeks et al 2011). (Burramys NRP 2016:4) However, removal of this habitat (by the Project) may increase the difficulty of dispersal for (Burramys) individuals moving among remaining core habitat patches in the short-term, and there is the potential for disturbance to individuals during construction. There may also be additional loss of potential Page 3 of 7

10 Buller 100 ML dam personal opinion from Charles Street dispersal habitat from areas surrounding the footprint as a result of edge effects from changed conditions. (Biosis 1, 2017:16) 1.5 Review of strategic water supply options (Biosis 1, 2017:8) Water supply options do not include the possibility of water storage, in buried tanks. Underground storage in tunnels or caverns would minimise loss of skifield terrain, and reduce damage to surface ecosystems, there would be the problem of disposing of perhaps 250,000 tonnes of excavated rock debris. The image below is of an underground storm water cavern in Japan. Water supply options do not include consideration of above-ground tank(s) supported on stilts or pedestals. Whilst above ground tank(s) would minimise the loss of skifield terrain and reduce ecosystem impacts, such tank(s) would have a significant visual impact. The technology required to construct above-ground tank(s) to accommodate up to 100,000 tonnes of water would need to be considered. Page 4 of 7

11 Buller 100 ML dam personal opinion from Charles Street 1.6 In Section 6 of Biosis 1 Environmental record of the responsible party, the following question is asked; 6.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources? The given answer is no. That is not correct. My understanding is as follows; 1. the Commonwealth took action against the Mount Buller Board in relation to damage to Burramys habitat in at various ski runs including Robin's Run, Bloody Hell and Outer Edge. Podocarpus boulderfields had to be restored and other remedial works were required. Prosecution was considered. 2. the Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Minister took action against the Buller Stirling Board regarding blasting in November 2004 and subsequent earthworks near the bottom of the Chamois Ski Run. Resort Management believed that these works were not within defined Burramys habitat, but the lack of a valid permit and the proximity to known Burramys habitat were causes of concern for DSE. Prosecution was contemplated. By mid-2005, the then CEO had departed. Page 5 of 7

12 Buller 100 ML dam personal opinion from Charles Street 2. Comments on the proposal for 262 hectare offset on Mount Stirling. It is proposed that compensation be provided for the loss of 5 hectares of rare environmentally fragile treeless alpine habitat on Mount Buller, by protecting 262 hectares around the summit area of Mount Stirling, in perpetuity. The purported equivalence of 5 and 262 is obviously daft, and should set off alarms. 2.1 Offset system is fundamentally flawed Numerous studies have shown that losing biodiversity in one ecosystem, can rarely, if ever, be compensated by preservation of natural values in another location. An instructive example of this is a major study by Lindenmayer at al. (2017) where, at great effort and expense, nest boxes were provided in compensation for destroyed natural tree hollows, resulting in negligible nest box occupancy by target species. It is better to just avoid destroying natural ecosystems in the first instance. 2.2 Mount Stirling offset is fundamentally flawed The summit area of Mount Stirling does not have the same natural values as the summit area of Mount Buller, simply because Buller is about 50 metres higher. 2.3 Mount Stirling offset creates two unfortunate precedents All of Mount Stirling is already protected because it is zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). The offset proposal seeks to protect something that is already protected. This is fraud. As Buller effectively owns Mount Stirling, Buller could, in theory, carry out environmentally destructive projects until it runs out of offset space on Mount Stirling. Unconscionable. 2.3 Would Stirling benefit from extra protection? No. The ecosystems on Mount Stirling are already well protected. If damage occurs, it is already taken care of by (for example) fencing-off the affected area, keep out signage, and rehabilitation works. 2.4 But protection in perpetuity ; that must be worth something? No. The mechanism for creating offsets is a political construct. A government of tomorrow can deconstruct any system developed by the government of today. Protection in perpetuity can be read as protection until somebody wants to build something on it. Page 6 of 7

13 3. Conclusion Buller 100 ML dam personal opinion from Charles Street I understand that Gerard McPhee has written to you pointing out the features and anomalies associated with offsets in general, and the proposed Stirling offset in particular. I fully support Gerard s submission. My views are additional to Gerard s. The need for extra water supplies on Mount Buller is not disputed. However, the ecological impacts of the 100ML open-air dam proposal are unacceptable. All means should be employed to avoid, indeed obviate those impacts. Further water storage options such as above-ground or below-ground water storage technologies should be considered. The establishment of a 262 hectare offset on Mount Stirling is nonsense. It creates two unacceptable precedents. Firstly that land already protected is to be protected again in order to excuse ecological destruction elsewhere. This is fraud. Secondly, the notion that Mount Buller can dispose of its offset obligations by simply making offsets ad libitum on Stirling is unconscionable bad practice. Regards from Charles Street B.Sc.Agr., MRACI, Grad. Dip. Quality Technology (Distinction), Grad. Dip. Education Bibliography ARGRDP (2017) Biosis 1 (2017) Biosis 2 (2017) Burramys NRP (2016) GHD (2014) Lindenmayer et al. (2017) Alpine Resorts Governance Reform Discussion Paper. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Mount Buller Sustainable Water Security Project Offstream Storage: Information for assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 by Preliminary Documentation EPBC 2014/7303. December 2017 Mount Buller Sustainable Water Security Project Offstream Storage. Preliminary Documentation (EPBC 2014/7303). Prepared for Department of the Environment on behalf of the Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Resort Management Board. 7 September 2017 National Recovery Plan for the Mountain Pygmy-possum Burramys parvus. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Mt Buller Sustainable Water Security Project - Off-stream Storage Flora and Fauna Assessment, July 2014 The anatomy of a failed offset by David B. Lindenmayer, Mason Crane, Megan C. Evans, Martine Maron, Philip Gibbons, Sarah Bekessy, and Wade Blanchard in Biological Conservation 210 (2017) Elsevier. Page 7 of 7

14 Friends of the Earth Australia Box 222 Fitzroy, Australia 3065 Ph: Fax: foe@foe.org.au Web: foe.org.au ABN No Mt Buller Mt Stirling Resort Management Alpine Central Summit Road Mt Buller, Victoria, 3723 Via waterstorage@mtbuller.com.au Mount Buller Sustainable Water Security Thankyou for the opportunity to respond to this project. The report prepared by Biosis provides an indepth summary of the values of the area in question and hence the likely impacts of a 100 Megalitre dam. While we understand the need to expand water supplies on the mountain we hold deep concerns about the planned storage facility in its current form. 1/ Impacts on vegetation and continued fragmentation of the mountain According to the report prepared for Mt Buller, most of the area to be destroyed is alpine grassy heathland. Alpine and sub alpine ecosystems on Mt Buller have been destroyed, modified and fragmented for decades and with such a small area remaining of Alpine Grassy Heathland the destruction of more than 5 ha of this habitat cannot be justified. Taken more broadly it would also further deepen the cumulative negative impacts of ski resort development on the mountain, which obviously includes significant weed infestation. It could be argued that Mt Buller is already the most heavily developed mountain in the state which has extensive alpine and sub-alpine ecosystems. This major new project would constitute another significant negative impact on an already fragmented mountain environment. Friends of the Earth Australia is a member of FoE International. FoE International is the largest environmental network in the world with member groups in over 70 countries. FoE I campaigns on the most urgent environmental and social issues of our day whilst simultaneously catalysing a shift towards a sustainable society.

15 As noted in the report, the Project is within the Victorian Alps Bioregion. Field assessments indicated that three remnant vegetation Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) are currently present within the Project Construction Footprint (PCF): Alpine Grassy Heathland (EVC 1004) This is the most abundant EVC across the PCF, covering a total area of ha. This EVC is a high altitude open heathland dominated by tussock grasses and a range of forbs. It occupies a wide range of habitats generally on slopes above 1,400 m where exposure and frost are limiting to tree growth. Graminoids and forbs are abundant and vary in cover depending on shrub density. Sub-alpine Wet Heathland (EVC 210) Sub-alpine Wet Heathland is highly localised within the PCF, restricted to a small area north-east of the existing water storage tank, and covering an area of ha. Sub-alpine Woodland (EVC 43) Sub-alpine Woodland is confined to a few localised patches (0.004 ha) within the PCF, where it occurs immediately downslope of Alpine Grassy Heathland, growing on skeletal clay loams with a rich humus topsoil layer. This EVC is a low, open woodland dominated by Snow Gum with a rich suite of grasses and herbs, or a dense layer of woody shrubs. However, a larger area of hectares in total exists within the Project Investigation Area (PIA) and may be impacted during construction. Decommissioning and realignment of other existing underground services including water supply and communications would also be required. Alpine Sphagnum Bogs We also note the potential for off site impacts on Alpine Sphagnum Bogs. A very small area of the EPBC Act-listed ecological community Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens occurs within the PCF. This small area of the bog is part of a larger bog complex (in the headwaters of Boggy Creek) that is located outside the PCF and PIA, downslope from the proposed water storage facility site, on the northern side of the mountain. Whilst this downslope bog community has been disturbed historically for the construction of an aqueduct and water collection system, it is of high ecological value and is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. The Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens ecological community is a groundwater dependent ecosystem (GDE) with a highly localised and restricted distribution at Mt Buller (total area of ha across 12 individual bog areas) (Tolsma 2014 in GHD 2014a). Around 98% of the bog extent on the mountain is situated immediately downslope (0-150 m to the north) of the PCF. 2

16 Critical to the formation of Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens is a reliable supply of groundwater, and an impeded drainage system that maintains the water level at or near the surface (DEWHA 2009 in GHD 2014a). Changes to the water runoff regime (both quantity and timing) have the potential to threaten the community as it can significantly alter the surrounding vegetation, leading to bogs and fens drying out. Modelling of the effect of storage construction (rainfall interception) on surface water and groundwater, which supplies the alpine bogs immediately downslope and to the north of the PCF, suggests that five of the 12 bogs are likely to be impacted. In summary, approximately 71% of the total alpine bog area at Mt Buller (as mapped by Tolsma 2014 refer GHD 2014a) is likely to be indirectly impacted to some degree as the proposed storage dam is located within the catchment area for these bogs. The three largest bogs likely to be impacted comprise ha. Furthermore, irrespective of the impacts associated with an upslope storage dam, the alpine bogs at Mt Buller are increasingly likely to be susceptible to climate change, particularly given their fragmented distribution in the Australian Alps and the fact that they are already at the edge of their environmental tolerance. Further impacts on these ecosystems simply cannot be justified given the known threats of climate change and very small scale of the vegetation type at present. 2/ Impacts on fauna There will be direct impact to habitat of three fauna species listed under one or more of the EPBC Act, FFG Act or Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria 2013 which are known or likely to occur within the PCF; Mountain Pygmy-possum (Burramys parvus) Broad-toothed Rat (Mastacomys fuscus), and Alpine Bog Skink (Pseudemoia cryodroma) 3/ The Mt Stirling offset It is proposed that compensation be provided for the loss of 5 hectares of rare alpine habitat on Mount Buller, by protecting 262 hectares around the summit area of Mount Stirling, in perpetuity. Numerous studies have shown that losing biodiversity in one ecosystem, can rarely, if ever, be compensated by preservation of natural values in another location. There are significant differences in vegetation between the summits of Mt Stirling and Mt Buller. All of Mount Stirling is already protected because it is zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ). This situation is reflected in the Mt Stirling 2030 vision document, which explicitly rules out development of infrastructure like accommodation or ski tows. The offset proposal seeks to protect something that is already protected. 3

17 Summary We understand the need for extra water supplies on Mount Buller. However, the ecological impacts of the 100ML open-air dam proposal are unacceptable. Further water storage options such as above-ground or below-ground water storage technologies should be considered. We do not support the project proceeding in its current form. 4

18 Addendum 2 Responses to public comments The following abbreviations have been used in the responses to public comments: Alpine Bogs both the EPBC Act threatened ecological community (Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens) and the FFG Act threatened community (Alpine Bog Community). CFA Victorian Country Fire Authority. DELWP Victorian Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. DoEE Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy. EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ERP Ecological Rehabilitation Plan. EVC Ecological Vegetation Class. FFA Flora and Fauna Assessment. FFG Act Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act MNES Matter of National Environmental Significance. HEMAMP Hydrological and Ecological Monitoring and Adaptive Management Program. PCF Project Construction Footprint for the proposed Mount Buller water storage. RMB Mount Buller and Mount Stirling Alpine Resort Management Board. SEMP Site Environmental Management Plan. OMP Offset Management Plan. Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A18

19 Author Comment Response Dr Ian Campbell (Rhithroecology Pty Ltd) 1. [T]he EIA document completely ignores the previous two previous EIAs conducted on the initial Boggy Creek Dam (Rhithroecology 1993) and the extension of snowmaking water harvesting (Rhithroecology 1996). An aquatic ecology assessment of Boggy Creek was conducted for the project in 2013 and 2014 (GHD 2014) and submitted with the EPBC Act referral in This aquatic ecology assessment considered and referenced the results of the 1996 Rhithroecology report, which focussed on the Boggy Creek catchment. The 1993 Rhithroecology report was not considered in detail because it largely focussed on the Chalet Creek catchment and Sun Valley area, which are beyond the impact area of the proposed water storage or embankment. The 1996 Rhithroecology report presents more detailed and more recent results for Boggy Creek than the 1993 Rhithroecology report. In any case, all ecological survey records from within 5 km of the PCF that have been incorporated into government databases were considered as part of the ecological assessments for the project. 2. The previous [Rhithroecology] reports identified several endangered plants within the footprint of the top dam, do those species still exist on the mountain? The 1993 and 1996 Rhithroecology studies reported the presence of Native Wintercress Barbarea grayi, Hairy Eyebright Euphrasia lasianthera and Alpine Pennywort Schizeilema fragoseum at Mount Buller. The FFA for this project recorded Hairy Eyebright within the PCF. Alpine Pennywort was not recorded but considered likely to be present. Native Wintercress was not recorded and considered unlikely to be present. These species are variously listed as rare or vulnerable on DELWP s advisory list of rare and threatened plants (i.e. at a Victorian level). These species are not threatened at a national level, not listed as MNES under the EPBC Act and are therefore beyond the scope of the Preliminary Documentation A key part of this EIAQ should have been an investigation of the predicted impacts from the previous documents, and evaluating whether the project had been conducted as proposed, and whether the impacts were as predicted The 1993 Rhithroecology report assessed the aquatic invertebrate fauna at sites upstream of the (then) proposed dam on Boggy Creek. Sampling was conducted semi-quanitatively and a full species list produced. The prediction at that time was that the impact on the creek would be slight and short term. This assessment appears to be making the same predictions. However this assessment provided and excellent opportunity to re-evaluate Boggy Creek upstream and downstream of the dam constructed in 1994 to actually test the The 1994 Boggy Creek Weir project resulted in the construction of a relatively small on-stream water storage. It differs significantly from the current proposal, which is for a larger water storage that would be offstream. A post-impact assessment of Boggy Creek Weir would have limited applicability to the current project. It is noted that the project does not seek to increase the amount of water which is currently allowed to be extracted from Boggy Creek under the Water Licences granted from Goulburn Murray Water. Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A19

20 Author Comment Response original predictions, which would in turn have provided a basis for evaluating the present proposal using real data Boggy Creek was sampled for aquatic invertebrates which were identified to family level, and SIGNAL scores were calculated. Why? Concern about loss of habitat in alpine areas is focussed on the presence of alpine adapted species which are often present in small isolated populations and, consequently vulnerable to extinction. A listing of families is of absolutely no use is assessing whether a development poses risks to such species. The aquatic ecology assessment of Boggy Creek involved the calculation of SIGNAL scores (GHD 2014). While the SIGNAL assessment may not have been necessary, it did not detract in any way from the overall environmental assessment of the project The SIGNAL score is very useful in assessing stream health, particularly when streams are potentially affected by pollution. In this case there was no reason to expect pollution was an issue, and the SIGNAL assessment was pointless. 5. The assessment considers only those listed under the Victorian FFG legislation, notably the stoneflies Thaumatoperla flaveola and Riekoperla isosceles, and the flatworm Spathula tryssa. But the assessment ignores other probably equally endangered species such as the stonefly Austroheptura campbelli Theischinger (1993), and the undescribed mayfly from the genus Coloburiscoides whose life history was described by Campbell Both are known only from Mt Buller, Austroheptura from a single location. The life histories of three other undescribed species of mayflies have also been described from Chalet Creek on Mt Buller (Campbell et al 1990), are these species likely to be unique to Mt Buller? In terms of assessing the impact of the project on alpine aquatic insects with critically limited distributions the assessment is hopelessly inadequate. The ecological assessments for the project considered all threatened species known or predicted to occur within 5 km of the PCF and listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, FFG Act and/or one of DELWP s advisory lists. The list of threatened species known or predicted to occur was generated with reference to relevant government-administered databases and tools, including the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (maintained by DELWP) and the Protected Matters Search Tool (maintained by DoEE). Aside from Spotted Tree Frog Litoria spenceri and Alpine Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii alpina, no aquatic species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are known or predicted to occur within 5 km of the PCF. 6. It is quite alarming that the monitoring program proposed does not include any monitoring of aquatic invertebrates Monitoring focusses entirely on maintaining threatened Alpine Bogs, which are listed as endangered under the EPBC Act. No aquatic species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are known or predicted to occur within 5 km of the PCF. Aquatic species do not therefore form part of any monitoring program. Monitoring of aquatic invertebrates in Boggy Creek downstream of the proposed water storage could be conducted as an indirect means of monitoring water quality. However, direct monitoring of surface water and groundwater quality will be conducted at multiple locations. Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A20

21 Author Comment Response Gerard McPhee 1. The offset is proposed to be protected in perpetuity. As the area to be destroyed is a very rare ecosystem in Victoria, there are few places where such an offset could be declared. It is proposed that the offset would be 262 hectares around the summit of Mount Stirling. The proposed project would require the removal of hectares of native vegetation, including hectares of Alpine Grassy Heathland (EVC 1011) and hectares of Sub-alpine Woodland (EVC 43). The bioregional conservation status of Alpine Grassy Heathland is indeed rare, due to the restricted distribution of alpine environments in Australia. Sub-alpine Woodland is listed as being of least concern. The project s ERP will re-instate these EVCs within the PCF (Biosis and Tract 2016). The proposed 262-hectare offset site at Mount Stirling would be a State (Victorian) offset site in accordance with State (Victorian) offset policy (Biosis 2017b). Under EPBC Act offset policy, offsets are required for residual significant impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). The project would have potential indirect impacts on hectares of the downslope Alpine Sphagnum Bogs and Associated Fens (Alpine Bogs) ecological community. In accordance with Commonwealth EPBC Act offset policy, these potential impacts will be offset by the protection and management of at least hectares of Alpine Bogs at Mount Stirling (Biosis 2017a). 2. [T]he Buller/Biosis offset proposal is offering a form of protection for an area that is already protected. It is "protecting" or selling the same product twice for two purposes and does not add significantly to the existing actual status of Mt Stirling. This comment is relevant to both the State and EPBC Act offsets at Mount Stirling. The offset sites are currently zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) under the Alpine Planning Scheme, meaning that nature conservation is currently not the primary objective of land management within these areas (management for recreation purposes is currently the primary objective). The security and land management agreement that is reached with DELWP will result in nature conservation becoming the primary land management objective at the offset sites, forgoing opportunities for future recreational developments. 3. If there is to be an added layer of protection for Stirling to justify the dam then it would be better to have the PPRZ area reserved under the CLR Act, added to the Alpine-NP or given a really strong ESO with few exemptions in the schedule and change the zoning to PCRZ. The State Offset Strategy for the project suggested that the offset area be reserved under the Victorian Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 (Biosis 2017b). However, DELWP s current preference is for a non-statutory management agreement, similar in form and content to an agreement under Section 18B of the Victorian Crown Land (Reserves) Act The agreement will be Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A21

22 Author Comment Response between DELWP and the RMB and place binding management obligations upon the RMB. 4. There is very little maintenance gain as land manager is not as-of-right permitted to do the things in PCRZ that a private person is allowed to do in Farming or Rural Conservation zones. The authority cannot forego taking trees etc. for personal use because the Buller authority is not a person. Thus maintenance gain cannot contribute to the offset. Maintenance gain will arise from the RMB foregoing recreational development opportunities at the offset site. However, maintenance gain relates to Victorian offset policy, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act. 5. The actions proposed for vegetation improvement (purportedly a 20% gain) for activities such as controlling large herbivore grazing and rabbit eradication are impossible without fencing. Note that the construction of "physical fencing (as opposed to a genuine status change that some would call "legal fencing ) would be counterproductive as such fencing would inhibit the natural movement of native animals. Improvement gain is not purported to be 20%. In accordance with State offset policy, the State Offset Strategy proposes an improvement gain of 10 habitat points per hectare, which is approximately 11-16% of current vegetation quality scores for the offset site (Biosis 2017b). In any case, improvement gain relates to Victorian offset policy, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act. Physical fencing is not proposed for the entire offset area, only for sensitive areas such as Alpine Bogs. Fencing will be unobtrusive, consisting of one (or possibly two) electrified tapes, designed to keep out large herbivores such as deer, which currently create wallows in these Alpine Bogs. Electric fencing has been trialled by the RMB to exclude deer from the Fork Creek bog on Mt Stirling and the results to date have been promising The fencing is unlikely to preclude the movement of native fauna (such as Broad-toothed Rat), which inhabit the Alpine Bogs. Additional measures to control pest animal could include more intensive shooting, baiting and trapping. 6. Changing the rules for recreation vehicles will have a localized affect [sic] on the tracks they use but cannot be counted as an improvement over the whole area just a small percentage. So the Improvement gain in this case is not going to be realized. Changes to recreational activities refer to maintenance gains (not improvement gain), which are relatively small only habitat points per hectare, which is approximately 2-3% of current vegetation quality scores for the offset site (Biosis 2017b). In any case, maintenance gain relates to Victorian offset policy which is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act. 7. [M]easures such as the retention of logs for improvement gain (or maintenance gain only if you have as of right to remove them) is only eligible for Improvement gain relates to Victorian offset policy, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act. Log retention makes a negligible contribution to Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A22

23 Author Comment Response a "gain" if the new regime of management is substantially different from the old. The proposed management regime is no different from the current management regime and thus there is no "gain". improvement gain under the current proposal. Most improvement gain will be realised through control of pest animals above that which currently occurs (to the point of functional exclusion). This will be achieved through fencing of sensitive sites and more intensive shooting, baiting and trapping (Biosis 2017b). 8. The counting and control of rabbits (the land manager's legal responsibility) cannot be easily seen as gain. Note: rabbit control must be done as part of any offset where it is relevant to score gain from other improvements, but it does not score gain in itself unless control goes beyond duty of care to the elimination of rabbits. The RMB currently conducts pest animal control within the resort. Functional exclusion of pest animals (which is a commitment undertaken as part of the proposed offsets) would be beyond current responsibilities of the RMB, meaning that a gain would be realised. 9. The weed control proposal can possibly be counted as a gain but if implemented this would not make the 20% improvement alone. This is partly due to the status quo. There is already substantial weed control work taking place on Mount Stirling. Improvement gain is not purported to be 20%. In accordance with State offset policy, the State Offset Strategy proposes an improvement gain of 10 habitat points per hectare, which is approximately 11-16% of current vegetation quality scores for the offset site (Biosis 2017b). In any case, improvement gain relates to Victorian offset policy, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act. Weed control currently takes place on Mount Stirling. However, the OMP requires the commitment from the RMB to eliminate high threat weeds, which exceeds the current land management obligations of the RMB. Charles Street 1. Since 2014 there has been a proposal to construct a 100 Megalitre open water storage dam near the summit of Mount Buller. The proposal involves the destruction of about 5 hectares of native vegetation, and other environmental impacts. The proposed project would require the removal of hectares of native vegetation. However, this native vegetation will be re-instated within the PCF as part of the project s ERP (Biosis and Tract 2016). Offsets for the removed vegetation will also occur, in accordance with State and Commonwealth requirements. 2. One of the stated purposes of dam is to provide water for snowmaking on Mount Buller. However, it is unlikely that snowmaking will remain a viable option on Mount Buller after the year 2040, if global warming continues as projected. The proposed water storage would maximise snowmaking capacity, as well as providing a reliable potable water source for the summer season Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A23

24 Author Comment Response The snowmaking role of the proposed 100ML dam could be obsolete in a little more than twenty years. Snowmaking technology is continuing to evolve and improve with the recent introduction of the Snowfactory at Mt Buller allowing for skiing before the declared snow season at Mt Buller in Fewer snowmaking hours in the future will mean that water will need to be available for snowmaking when conditions are suitable. The current water storage capacity at Mount Buller will be insufficient to meet this demand (GHD 2016). 3. At the same time, the expected bushfire risk is expected to increase with global warming, (ARGRDP 2017:23) increasing the likelihood that any dam on Mount Buller could be drawn upon for fire fighting water. An additional goal of the water storage is to maximise firefighting capacity at Mount Buller and surrounds. The CFA supports this project for this reason. 4. The area on Mount Buller to be destroyed as a result of construction of the proposed 100 ML dam is treeless alpine landscape; rare in Victoria and ecologically fragile. The proposed project would require the removal of hectares of native vegetation, including hectares of Alpine Grassy Heathland (EVC 1011) and hectares of Sub-alpine Woodland (EVC 43). The bioregional conservation status of Alpine Grassy Heathland is indeed rare, due to the restricted distribution of alpine environments in Australia (Biosis and GHD 2016). Sub-alpine Woodland is listed as being of least concern. The project s ERP (Biosis and Tract 2016) will re-instate these EVCs within the PCF. 5. Summarised from GHD 2014:ii, ecological impacts that are likely to result from the Project include: 5.1. Disturbance of about 5 ha of native vegetation (and fauna habitat), and about 5 ha of non-native vegetation. A further 4 ha of native vegetation (and fauna habitat) may be subject to indirect impacts. Changes to the project design have occurred since GHD s 2014 FFA and the FFA has since been updated (Biosis and GHD 2016). Some of these public comments therefore relate to aspects of the project that have now changed. The project would result in disturbance to hectares of native vegetation and approximately 5 hectares of predominantly introduced vegetation (Biosis and GHD 2016). This native vegetation will be re-instated during post-construction rehabilitation of the site (Biosis and Tract 2016). In the absence of mitigation measures, potential hydrological changes may result in the drying of hectares of Alpine Bog downslope of the PCF. Successful implementation of the HEMAMP's mitigation and management measures will minimise the indirect loss of Alpine Bogs to no more than hectares (Biosis and GHD 2017). This does not necessarily equate to permanent removal of native vegetation from the landscape. Any drying of Biosis Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting A24