4.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure ... · 4.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (No 44) Koala Habitat protection . State Environmental Planning Policy (No

4 Statutory and planning framework This chapter provides the statutory and planning framework for the proposal and considers provisions of relevant State and Commonwealth legislation, plans and policies. Any legislation, plans or policies that are not relevant to this proposal have not been discussed.

4.1 State Environmental Planning Policies 4.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) aims to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State. Clause 94 of ISEPP permits development on any land for the purpose of a road or road infrastructure facilities to be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent.

As the proposal is for a road and is to be carried out by Roads and Maritime Services, it can be assessed under part 5 of the EP&A Act. Development consent from council is not required.

A portion of the proposal is located on land previously reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) and includes a section of land formerly located within Kooraban National Park. However, the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2012 has been passed by the NSW Parliament which included the revocation of about 18.28 hectares of Kooraban National Park (refer to Figure 4-1). The land would be transferred to RMS for use as road reserve as part of this proposal following agreement on an offset strategy for the revocation of National Park between RMS and the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). The 18.28 hectares of land is vested in the Minister for Environment and under the management of OEH until the offset agreement is finalised between RMS and OEH. As such the proposal is permitted to be assessed under part 5 of the EP&A Act.

The proposal does not affect land or development regulated by State Environmental Planning Policy No. 14 - Coastal Wetlands, State Environmental Planning Policy No. 26 - Littoral Rainforests, State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011 or State Environmental Planning Policy (Transitional Major Projects) 2005.

Part 2 of the ISEPP contains provisions for public authorities to consult with local councils and other public authorities prior to the commencement of certain types of development. Consultation, including consultation required under ISEPP, is discussed in chapter 5 of this REF.

4.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (No 44) Koala Habitat protection

State Environmental Planning Policy (No 44) Koala Habitat protection (SEPP 44) aims to encourage the ‘proper conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for Koalas (Phascolarctos cinereus) to ensure a permanent free-living population over their present range and reverse the current trend of Koala population decline’.

Upgrade of the Princes Highway, Dignams Creek Review of Environmental Factors

103

Upgrade of the Princes Highway, Dignams Creek DIG LEGENDN EUROBODALLA SHIRE COUNCIL Revocation area boundaryA Concept designKooraban

M

N

S

ation

Stage 1 C

Park

R Stage 2al EE Potential construction access track K R Private access track OA Construction footprin

D t Dignams Creek andLGA boundaryMajor road Local road Track

National ParksGulaga National Park Kooraban National Park

DIGNAMS CREEK

BEGA VALLEY SHIRE COUNCIL DATA SOURCESLPMA 2010SKM 2011, 2013RMS 2013

° 0 400

WA Y H Gulaga

Metres

IG NationalPark

NC S HE!BATEMANS BAY

P RINSW

!NAROOMADIGNAMS CREEK

!BEGA

Figure 4-1 | Kooraban National Park revocation area 18/06/2013 | I:\ENVR\Projects\EN02937\Technical\GIS\Spatial_Directory\ArcGIS\REF\_Ver3\EN02937_GIS_REF2_F035_r2v1_RevocationArea_V2.mxd

Newcastle Spatial Team - Prepared by : ALChecked by : JC

While SEPP 44 does not apply to proposals that are being assessed under part 5 of the EP&A Act, since the Koala is listed as vulnerable under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and NSW TSC Act, targeted surveys, including surveys of know feed trees, were conducted for this species and further consideration to the impacts of the proposal on Koala habitat. Moreover, due to potential impacts upon an important population of Koala and habitat being impacted is considered critical to the survival of Koalas based on Commonwealth guidelines (DSEWPaC 2012), refer to Section 6.1. As such RMS will be submitting a referral to the DSEWPaC, to determine whether the proposal constitutes a controlled action. If the proposal is determined to be a controlled action, the approval of the Australian Government Minister for the Environment would be required.

4.2 Local Environmental Plans The proposal is located within the Bega and Eurobodalla LGAs and as such the Bega Valley Local Environmental Plan 2002 (Bega LEP), the Eurobodalla Local Environmental Plan 2012 (Eurobodalla LEP) and the Eurobodalla Rural Local Environmental Plan 1987 (Eurobodalla RLEP) are applicable. To the north of Dignams Creek the proposal would encroach on the following Eurobodalla LEP/ RLEP zones:

• RU1 – Primary production (Eurobodalla LEP) • SP2 – Infrastructure (Eurobodalla LEP). • Rural 1a – Rural environmental constraints and agricultural zone (Eurobodalla

RLEP).

Roads are permissible without development consent for SP2 and with development consent for RU1 and Rural 1a. However, as discussed in Section 4.1.1, ISEPP operates to remove the otherwise applicable consent requirement.

To the south of Dignams Creek the proposal would encroach on the following Bega LEP zones:

• 1(a) – General Rural. • 1(f) – Rural Forestry.

Roads are permissible without development consent for 1(f) and with development consent for 1(a). However, as discussed in Section 4.1.1, ISEPP operates to remove the otherwise applicable consent requirement.

Bega Valley Shire Council has recently revised their LEP, and the 2012 draft LEP is currently with the Department of Planning and Infrastructure pending gazettal.

4.3 Other relevant legislation 4.3.1 National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 The NPW Act is the primary legislation dealing with Aboriginal cultural heritage in New South Wales. Items of Aboriginal cultural heritage (Aboriginal objects) or Aboriginal places (declared under section 84) are protected and regulated under the NPW Act. Aboriginal objects are protected under section 86 of the Act. Under section 90 (1) of the Act the Director-General may issue an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) for an activity which will harm an Aboriginal object. As the proposal would impact on Aboriginal heritage items, an AHIP is required under section 90 of the NPW Act and would be required prior to construction.


105

An assessment of the potential impacts on Aboriginal cultural heritage is provided in Section 6.4. No surface Aboriginal objects were recorded during the field survey, but four survey units within or immediately adjacent to the construction footprint (survey units 9, 11, 14 and 16) were identified as Potential Archaeological Deposits (PADs). Subsequent sub-surface investigation of survey units 11 and 16 assessed the archaeological significance of these PADs as low (11) and moderate (16). The two other survey units 9 and 14 (the northern section) would not be directly impacted but have been assessed as having moderate archaeological potential. All of the four survey sites have been registered with the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS).

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) (NSW Archaeology 2010) and Addendum CHAR (NSW Archaeology 2011) indicated that there are no archaeological constraints relating to the proposal, but recommended that an AHIP would be required for the proposal (refer to Section 6.3). RMS have obtained a proposal wide AHIP (number 1131201) from OEH for all of the survey units identified in Figure 6-11, which would allow harm to these items. A copy of the AHIP is available in the OEH’s Public Register in accordance with section 188F of the NPW Act.

As discussed in Section 4.1.1, the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2012 has been passed by the NSW Parliament which included the revocation of about 18.28 hectares of land previously identified as Kooraban National Park The land would be transferred to RMS for use as road reserve as part of this proposal following agreement on an offset strategy for the revocation of the 18.28 hectares of former national parks lands between RMS and the OEH. As such the proposal is permitted to be assessed under part 5 of the EP&A Act.

4.3.2 Heritage Act 1977 The Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) provides for the protection and conservation of NSW’s environmental heritage. The Act establishes under clause 57 the need for approval for the excavation or disturbance of items or relics listed on the State Heritage Register. If an activity is required on land that would result in a relic being discovered, exposed, moved, damaged or destroyed a section 139 excavation permit is required.

Under the Act an item is defined as a place, building, work, relic, moveable object or precinct and a relic is defined as any deposit, artefact, object or material evidence that: • Relates to the settlement of the area that comprises New South Wales, not

being Aboriginal settlement, and • Is of State or local heritage significance.

Eleven potential heritage items are located within or close to the construction footprint, including:

• DC1 – Dignams Creek Bridge, listed on the RTA Section 170 Heritage and Conservation Register.

• DC2 – The old Princes Highway, including road alignments, culverts, drainage channels and bridge remains: northeast section (recorded during the 2009 field survey).


106

• DC3 – The old Bermagui Road. • DC4 – The site of the first public school at Dignams Creek. • DC5 – Remains of the second public school at Dignams Creek. • DC6 – The site of the Dignams Creek community hall/war memorial. • DC7 – Remains of a private residence/post office. • DC8 – The site of an associated dairy and machinery shed. • DC9 – Silage pits. • DC10 – Remains of a secondary creek crossing and associated road

alignment. • DC11 – The old Princes Highway, including road alignments, culverts and

drainage channel remains, in the southwest section of the proposal area (recorded during the 2010 field survey.

Only items DC2 – the old Princes Highway and item DC4 – site of the first Dignams Creek public school would be impacted by the proposal. The Historical Heritage Assessment refer to Appendix H and summarised in Section 6.5 found that neither item meets the criteria for heritage listing.

There is also potential to indirectly impact DC5 the site of the second public school during the construction of the proposal, refer to Section 6.5. Item DC5 has some limited significance at a local level however it does not warrant heritage listing. To avoid indirect impacts during construction exclusion zones would be created for this item as outlined in Section 6.5.3. In the event that impacts are proposed at DC5 a section 140 permit would be required to undertake archival recording and salvage excavation prior to works occurring.

Following construction of the proposal, item DC1 - Dignams Creek Bridge would be bypassed and would cease to be an RMS asset. According to the requirements of section 170A of the Heritage Act, the bridge would be required to be delisted from the RMS section 170 register. This would include giving the Heritage Council not less than 14 days written notice of the delisting.

4.3.3 Water Management Act 2000 The land on which the proposal is located is covered by a water sharing plan, being the Water Sharing Plan for the Murrah-Wallaga Area Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources (commenced on 17 December 2010), and hence is subject to the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act).

The WM Act regulates certain activities in, on or under waterfront land. A controlled activity approval under the WM Act would be required for certain types of developments and activities carried out in, on or under waterfront land. Waterfront land includes the bed and bank of any river, lake or estuary and all land within 40 metres of the highest bank of the river, lake or estuary. Under the WM Act, a controlled activity includes the erection of a building or the carrying out of works (within the meaning of the EP&A Act).

Section 91E of the WM Act prohibits the carrying out of a controlled activity on waterfront land (land within 40 metres of a watercourse) other than in accordance with a controlled activity approval. This section of the WM Act is applicable to the proposal as it is located within 40 metres of Dignams Creek. However, under clause 38 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2011, all public authorities (other than Landcom) have been made exempt from controlled activity approvals.


107

Therefore, RMS would be exempt from the need to obtain a controlled activity approval for the proposal.

The proposal would use water from Dignams Creek during construction of the proposal. Under section 60A of the WM Act, a water access licence is required to extract water from Dignams Creek as it is covered by a water sharing plan. However, according to Regulation 18 of the Water Management (General) Regulation 2000, RMS as a public authority is exempt from the need to obtain a water access licence if water is required for use in road construction and road maintenance. RMS would still be required to ensure the base environmental water flow within Dignams Creek is maintained to allow for the continuing supply of water to downstream water bodies. Water flows would be assessed above and below the point where water is being extracted from.

Should the construction contractor have the need to establish bores for the purpose of taking or using of water from the aquifer including for dewatering purposes, a licence would be required under section 112 of the Water Act, 1912. This would be obtained from the NSW Office of Water (NOW) prior to taking or using any water from the bore.

4.3.4 Fisheries Management Act 1994 The objects of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) are to conserve, develop and share the fishery resources of the State for the benefit of present and future generations, including conserving fish stocks and fish habitat and promoting ecological sustainable development.

Under section 199 of the FM Act, notification to the NSW DPI (Fisheries and Aquaculture) would be required in relation to dredging or reclamation works which are defined under section 198A. Dredging is defined as any works involving excavating of water land or any works that require the removal of material from water land. Reclamation work is defined as the use of any material to fill in or reclaim water land, or depositing any such material within water land for the purpose of constructing anything over water land (such as a bridge), or draining water from water land for the purpose of its reclamation. Water land is defined as land submerged by water either permanently or intermittently. As the proposal would impact on water land along Dignams Creek during the installation of the bridge piers for the new bridge notification with the Minister is required 28 days prior to works commencing.

The potential exists for the proposal to temporarily block fish passage during the construction of culverts, the temporary creek crossing and the new bridge. If this occurs a permit to block fish passage would be required under section 220(1) of the Act prior to any works occurring. Any temporary bridge crossing, if required, would be designed as a fish friendly passage. The exact location of this temporary crossing would be defined in detailed design however it would located within 10 metres of the new bridge over Dignams Creek, refer to Figure 1-2 and Figure 3-7.

No listed species under the FM Act would be significantly impacted by the proposal. Impacts on aquatic biodiversity have been discussed in Section 6.1.

4.3.5 Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 The purposes of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (ALR Act) is to provide land rights for Aboriginal persons/representative Local Aboriginal Land Councils (LALCs),


108

to vest land and provide for the acquisition and management of land to those LALCs, and for the provision of community benefit schemes by or on behalf of those LALCs.

Under section 36 of the ALR Act, a LALC can make a claim on claimable Crown lands that are not lawfully used or occupied, do not comprise lands which are likely to be needed as residential land, are not needed for any public purpose, do not comprise lands that are the subject of an application or are the subject of an approved determination for native title.

The proposal would impact on Lot 7027 DP1069205 which is Crown land and recognised as Crown Reserve 91754. This area of Crown reserve currently has an Aboriginal Land Claim (no 7761) on it and this would need to be resolved before construction commences. The proposal would impact on around 230 square metres of the overall area of this reserve/claim which would require partial acquisition. RMS is investigating acquiring the entire property and has consulted with the Land and Property Management Authority and the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (refer to Section 5.5). In the event that the acquisition process could not be achieved prior to construction, a retaining wall could potentially be built in the fill embankment to avoid impacts to the property. If necessary this wall would be designed during detailed design.

4.4 Commonwealth legislation 4.4.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Under the EPBC Act a referral is required to the Australian Government for proposed actions that have the potential to significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance or the environment of Commonwealth land. These are considered in Appendix B and Chapter 6 of the REF.

The assessment of the proposal’s impact on matters of national environmental significance and the environment of Commonwealth land (refer to Appendix B) found that there is unlikely to be a significant impact on these issues. However, RMS intends to submit a referral, to the Australian Government DSEWPaC to determine whether or not the proposal constitutes a controlled action due to: • Potential impacts upon an important population of Koala and habitat being

impacted is considered critical to the survival of Koalas based on Commonwealth guidelines (DSEWPaC 2012), refer to Section 6.1. The Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) has recently been listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act.

• Potential impacts to Square Raspwort.

If the proposal is determined to be a controlled action, the approval of the Australian Government Minister for the Environment is required.

4.5 Confirmation of statutory position RMS is both the proponent and the determining authority for the proposal. Clause 94 of the ISEPP provides that the proposal may be carried out without development consent and is therefore subject to assessment under part 5 of the EP&A Act. Development consent from Council is not required.

The National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2012 has been passed by the NSW Parliament which included the revocation of about 18.28 hectares of land previously recognised as Kooraban National Park The land would be


109

transferred to RMS for use as road reserve as part of this proposal following agreement on an offset strategy for the revocation of National Park between RMS and the OEH. As such the proposal is permitted to be assessed under part 5 of the EP&A Act.

Additional permits and approvals are also required for this proposal in addition to the part 5 determination, and these are detailed in Section 7.3.


110

5 Stakeholder and community consultation

This chapter discusses the consultation undertaken to date for the proposal and the consultation proposed for the future. The description contains the consultation strategy or approach used and the results of consulting with the community, the Aboriginal community and relevant government agencies and stakeholders.

5.1 Consultation strategy RMS has prepared a consultation strategy for the proposed works at Dignams Creek. The main objectives of the consultation strategy were to:

• Inform the community of the proposal. • Consult with the community to obtain feedback and community views/issues

regarding the proposal. • The strategy also outlined the main community involvement principles, which

were to: − Disseminate timely and accurate information to the affected community

and road users including the emergency services, cyclists and pedestrians.

− Respond immediately to community issues/concerns raised and resolve efficiently.

− Identify and anticipate emerging issues to avoid potential community concerns.

− Develop easy to read, well set out and visual communication material (eg pictures, graphics) to enable the community to understand the proposal.

Consultation in relation to the proposal has been ongoing since mid-2010 and has included consultation with local communities and interest groups, property owners, the local Aboriginal land council (LALC), council and state government agencies.

5.2 Community involvement Letter box drops and newspaper advertising has been undertaken, and face to face meetings have been held with residents/property owners who would be directly and indirectly affected by the proposal. The first community update (December 2010) was placed on public display between December 2010 and February 2011 (refer to Appendix I). The December 2010 community update was distributed to about 2000 local residents/property owners surrounding the proposal. Community updates and feedback forms were also made available at the static displays that were held during the same period at the following locations:

• RMS South Coast Office, Wollongong. • RMS website at:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/i ndex.html.

• Upon request; either in person, via phone or email.

The December 2010 Community Update provided the community with the opportunity to respond on the 2010 preferred road corridor identified as Option 1 during the phase 1 of option development (refer to Section 2.4.2) Two submissions


111

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/index.html.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/index.html.

were received regarding the selected corridor, which focused on thirteen issues. Table 5-1 summarises these issues and how RMS has responded to them in the development of the concept design. A document with this table has been available to the public on the RMS website since November 2012.

Table 5-1 Issues raised by the community as a result of displaying the preferred road corridor in December 2010

Issue/ feedback How RMS response has addressed the issue post the description December 2010 display

Scale/ impact of the highway realignment.

Realignment of the entire length of Dignams Hill was not anticipated

Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) acknowledges that the proposed road corridor displayed in December 2010 required large scale road and bridge works. The current proposal has lower cuttings and embankments and a shorter bridge compared with the alignment that was announced in December 2010. This would allow the proposal to be built at a considerably lower cost, providing better value for money and improving the likelihood of obtaining funding for construction. The estimated cost of the current proposal is approximately half the cost of the 2010 alignment. While the alignment announced in 2010 realigned the entire length of Dignams Hill (located to the south of Dignams Creek Road), the current proposed alignment would completely realign the northern section of the proposal and replace the existing narrow bridge. The southern section of stage 1 the proposal follows the existing road alignment with road safety improvements including widened shoulders, a painted median and increased sight distance around curves. The design would allow for a future realignment south of the proposal.

Cost seems high particularly given the many more intimidating curves within 20 kilometres of this area to the north.

The upgrade announced in 2010 was initially estimated to cost $85 million and as the design was refined, this estimate increased largely because of the need to increase the length of the bridge. The new alignment would eliminate the sub-standard 80 metre radius curve north of Dignams Creek bridge, replace the narrow bridge and provide a wider pavement to allow errant vehicles to recover. It is anticipated to cost less than half the estimated cost of the 2010 proposal. It provides improved value for money because of the substantially reduced earthwork volumes and bridge length. This would assist the effort to obtain early funding to construct the proposal and improve road safety at this location. It is anticipated that the next priority would be to obtain planning funding for the section of the Princes Highway north of Dignams Creek.

Road safety After the highway upgrade at Dignams Creek has been problems on the approved for construction, it is anticipated funding would be Princes Highway at sought to plan improvements to the Princes Highway other locations. between Dignams Creek and Victoria Creek.


112


Environment – destruction of forest and visual issues with large embankments up the hill.

The proposed road corridor displayed in December 2010 required large scale road and bridge works and would require large embankments and cuttings. The current proposal has smaller cuttings and embankments and a lower, shorter bridge than the 2010 alignment. The proposal has been designed to completely avoid impacts to Gulaga National Park and it minimises the loss of vegetation in Kooraban National Park. The construction footprint of the proposal is currently being revised to further mitigate environmental and visual impacts. The concept design will be placed on display early in 2013 and a REF would be put on display in mid-2013. The community will have an opportunity to comment and RMS will respond to and address any issues raised by the community. RMS is negotiating an agreement with the Office of Environment and Heritage for compensation for loss of vegetation within Kooraban National Park as a result of the proposal. A range of compensation measures are being investigated including the dedication of land to National Parks, revegetation of a portion of existing cleared land and construction of wildlife crossings.

Noise – Increase in The previously announced proposal in 2010 had a noise due to raised substantially higher bridge and embankments across the elevation of road Dignams Creek valley than is currently being proposed.

As part of the REF, a noise study is being undertaken which will assess the existing noise levels and model future noise levels post construction. Noise specialists engaged by RMS have been collecting noise data at a number of locations along the proposal for the noise assessment. The assessment will also recommend treatments to address noise impacts from the proposed realignment should they be required (refer to Section 6.3)

Property amenity – The alignment proposed in December 2010 and the current loss of amenity for proposed alignment severely impacts the Pretty property. the Pretty property RMS came to a mutually beneficial agreement for the

purchase of the Pretty property as it was substantially impacted by all options examined including the current proposal.

Dignams Creek Road intersection – safety and sight distance

The intersection design in both the 2010 and current proposal is based on current design standards for a 100 km/h speed environment and will satisfy requirements for Safe Intersection Sight Distance, improving safety at the intersection. The design of the intersection of Dignams Creek Road with the Princes Highway is currently being investigated and will be likely to include protected right and left turning lanes to improve safety.


113


Overtaking lane The proposal in December 2010 allowed for an upgrade of the existing southbound overtaking lane. The current proposal includes a southbound overtaking lane south of the new bridge which would join the existing overtaking lane. This would ensure that overtaking opportunities would not be reduced by the proposal.

New bridge over Dignams Creek – desire to retain existing bridge and fix approaches

The existing Dignams Creek bridge is narrow and even if it were widened, the height and location does not permit the approaches to be designed to meet current design standards.

Crash history – issue raised that majority of crashes are centred around bridge and approaches

Crashes have been recorded along the length of the Princes Highway which is proposed to be upgraded. It is noted that a major area of concern is the narrow bridge and the 80 metre radius approach curve north of Dignams Creek. The proposed road corridor displayed in December 2010 included a realignment of the highway, bridge approaches and included a new bridge over Dignams Creek. This would provide improved road safety for motorists. The new alignment would realign this critical section of the highway where crashes are more common and severe. Road safety improvements are proposed along the existing alignment in the southern portion including a painted median, widened shoulders and improved sight distance around curves.

Highway The existing Princes Highway does not meet current road configuration and design standards. provision of dual Neither the proposal displayed in December 2010 nor the carriageway current proposal would upgrade the highway to provide dual

carriageway. The current proposal would improve the alignment, and there is currently no foreseeable need for the additional cost to design and construct to dual carriageway (four-lane divided highway) standard at this location. It should be noted that the proposal would provide a painted median that ranges in width between one metre and three and a half metres to provide greater separation between traffic in the southern portion of the proposal where the realignment ties into the existing alignment.

Median barriers – concern of using concrete barriers in scenic National Park

Construction of a concrete median was not included in the 2010 proposal nor is it part of the current proposal. However a painted median is proposed to provide greater separation between northbound and southbound traffic. The visual impact of the proposal is currently being assessed and the scenic nature of the surrounding environment would be considered. The movement of wildlife is also being assessed and wildlife crossing structures including fauna fencing are proposed as part of the proposal (refer to Section


114


6.1). RMS has been consulting with local National Parks and Wildlife Services officers since 2010 regarding this issue.

Future traffic growth – make highway best for safety and aesthetics while considering future traffic growth

While rapid traffic growth on this section of the highway is not anticipated, both the December 2010 and the new alignment caters for future traffic growth and would improve safety and efficiency. Visual impacts of the proposal are being assessed and the community will have an opportunity to provide comments on the proposed design before it is finalised.

RMS also held a community meeting during the preliminary assessment stage of the concept design in February 2011. Feedback obtained from community members during these meetings focused on:

• Improving the safety of the corner on the Princes Highway just north of Dignams Creek and reducing accidents at this location.

• Maintaining access into Dignams Creek Road during the proposed works.

The feedback was used by the RMS to inform the development of the concept design.

In June 2011, RMS advised the community by way of a letter to the householder, that it was investigating refinements to the preferred option following stakeholder feedback and geotechnical investigations.

In May 2012, RMS advised the community by way of a letter to the householder that it was investigating the current proposal as a result of the need to go forward with a design that gives better value for money. RMS also met with property owners impacted by and immediately adjacent to the proposal

A second community update was placed on display between November 2012 and January 2013 (refer to Appendix I). The November/December 2012 community update was also distributed to about 2000 local residents/property owners surrounding the proposal. This community update provided details on the concept design of the preferred option, refer to Chapters 2 and 3. Around 80 submissions have been received by the end of the display period on 8 February 2013 and a range of issues were identified. Table 5-2 summarises the key issues identified and details the number of issues registered for each issue raised. RMS have collated the issues and have responded to each of the issues raised in an Issues Report (2013), which is available online on the project website, refer to: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/.

Submissions were made from the local community including the Dignams Creek Community Group and government stakeholders. A large number of submissions were supportive of the plan to upgrade the Dignams Creek section of the Princes Highway but most were not supportive of the concept design displayed in the November/December 2012 Community Update and which forms the current proposal.


115

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/

Table 5-2 Summary of issues raised on the display of the concept design which have been discussed in detail in the Issues Report available on-line.

Issue Total number of issues raised in submissions

Where addressed in the REF

Planning Process includes: • Consultation/transparency. • Availability of Information.

150 Chapter 5.

Road design and route option selection. 169 Chapter 3.

Social. 118 Section 6.12.

Road safety. 105

Environmental includes: • Erosion/sedimentation and water

quality. • Impacts to Koala. • Impacts to Biodiversity and threatened

species. • Impacts to Blind Creek.

282 Refer to Sections 6.6

and 6.1.

Flooding includes: • Impact of design. • Accuracy of data.

157 Chapter 3 and Section

6.6.

Loss of agricultural land. 51 Section 6.9.

Impacts during construction. 48 Chapter 3.

Noise and vibration. 57 Section 6.32.

Visual includes: • Sense of place, gateway and

transformation of locality. • Urban design.

86 Section 6.3.

Heritage includes: • Non-Aboriginal. • Aboriginal.

62 Sections 6.5 and 6.6

respectively.

Costs and funding. 20 Chapter 1, 3 and Issues

Report.

Property acquisition. 9 Section 3.6

Quality of works. 13 Issues Report

Other. 29 This REF and Issues

Report


116

5.3 Aboriginal community involvement New South Wales Archaeology Pty Limited was commissioned by RMS to conduct an assessment of impacts from the proposal on Aboriginal cultural heritage (refer to Section 6.4 and Appendix J). Consultation with the Aboriginal community was undertaken by New South Wales Archaeology Pty Limited as part of the assessment process and has been based on the Stage 2 requirements of the RMS (2011a) Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (PACHCI).

The PACHCI complies with current OEH guidelines including:

• Due Diligence Code of Practice for the Protection of Aboriginal Objects in New South Wales (DECCW, 2010a)

• Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation Requirements for Proponents (DECCW, 2010b).

• Code of Practice for the Archaeological Investigation of Aboriginal Objects in NSW (DECCW, 2010c)

The proposed impact area is situated within the boundaries of the Merrimans Local Aboriginal Land Council (MLALC). RMS undertook a native title search in 2011 which indicated that there were no native title claims granted or registered for consideration within the study area. Furthermore, no Aboriginal owners as defined by the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1979 or Aboriginal land claims were listed for the proposal.

The proposal would also impact on Lot 7027 DP1069205 which is crown land and recognised as Crown Reserve 91754. This area of crown reserve currently has an Aboriginal Land Claim (no 7761) on it and this would need to be resolved before construction commences. The proposal would impact on around 230 square metres of the overall area of this reserve which would require partial acquisition. RMS is investigating acquiring the entire property and has consulted with the Land and Property Management Authority and the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (refer to Section 5.5). In the event that the acquisition process could not be achieved prior to construction, a retaining wall could be built in the fill embankment to avoid impacts to the property. If necessary this wall would be designed during detailed design.

Consultation with the MLALC occurred as part of the stage 2 and stage 3 PACHCI assessments undertaken for the proposal. During this consultation process representatives from the MLALC conducted four site inspections of the site and area adjacent to the construction footprint (survey units 11 and 16) under the direction of the RMS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisor. These initial site inspections were conducted on 6 February 2008, 18 March 2009, 6 August 2010 and 27 October 2010.

A preliminary Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment was undertaken by New South Wales Archaeology in 2008. The report identified that the majority of the footprint associated with the option presented to the community in December 2010 (refer to Section 5.2) possesses very low or low artefact density. However two areas within the initial option footprint were identified as PADs. A Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) was subsequently undertaken in May 2011 (refer to Appendix J) by New South Wales Archaeology, in order to fulfil stage 3 PACHCI requirements and included subsurface investigations. The CHAR is summarised below and in Section 6.4. Ongoing consultation was undertaken with MLALC during the assessment process. Consultation was also undertaken with a range of nominated knowledge holders in the preparation of the oral history in 2011 and through the Aboriginal Focus Group (AFG) process (for further details refer to Appendix I).


117

An AHIP was sought and issued (number 1131201) by OEH for these sites likely to be impacted by option 1 (refer to Section 2.4.1). A variation to the AHIP was obtained for the current proposal and covers the 23 survey units that are located within and adjacent to the proposal footprint (refer to Section 6.4 and Figure 6-11). A copy of the AHIP is available in the OEH’s Public Register in accordance with section 188F of the NPW Act.

During this time, RMS also commenced discussions with the Gulaga Board of Management, who undertake the care and control of the Gulaga National Park on behalf of the Aboriginal Owners. RMS presented Option 1 to the Gulaga Board of Management on 2 December 2010 and again on 2 March 2011. The presentation detailed the design for option 1, preliminary environmental assessments undertaken of the adjacent area, future steps required and the possible impacts to the Gulaga National Park. RMS asked the Gulaga Board of Management whether option 1 (refer to Section 2.4.1) should be further progressed. Correspondence was received from the Gulaga Board of Management on the 7 April 2011 regarding option 1 (the strategic design display) a summary of the submission and the RMS response is included in Table 5-3.

However, after further option analysis and identification of option 10, an Addendum CHAR was undertaken for the sections of the alignment which were not previously assessed (refer to Section 2.4.2 and Appendix J). This included additional consultation with nominated Aboriginal knowledge holders. In addition, the AFG members for the Dignams Creek proposal conducted a separate survey of the area assessed for the Addendum CHAR under the direction of RMS’ Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisor Southern. No Aboriginal objects, areas, or places were identified by the AFG members in this survey. No additional issues were raised or submission/s were received as a result of this consultation/ additional survey work.

The results of the Addendum CHAR identified that the additional survey area impacted by the proposal did not include any Aboriginal PAD sites. The proposal does impact on survey unit 13 which was previously assessed to be a PAD site. Following test excavations, survey unit 13 is no longer considered to be a PAD site as per correspondence from NSW Archaeology dated August 2012 (refer to Appendix J). The Addendum CHAR concluded that the proposal is not considered to have any significant impacts on any known items of Aboriginal heritage. For further details on potential impacts to Aboriginal heritage and the results of the CHAR and Addendum CHAR refer to Section 6.4.

Further discussions with the MLALC and the Gulaga Board of Management have been ongoing regarding the preferred corridor and options considered including the preferred option. It should be noted that the Gulaga Board of Management was not in operation for a period in 2012/2013. The Gulaga Board of Management was appointed in early 2013. Now that the Board of Management is operational RMS can approach the board and determine if they are willing to accept the land associated with the offset package to be incorporated into Gulaga National Park. Subject to that agreement RMS can finalise the offset agreement with OEH. If the Board of Management does not accept incorporating the land under their management, an alternative offset package would need to be negotiated with OEH.


118

Table 5-3 Summary of the Gulaga Board of Management submission

RMS Response Submission from the Gulaga Board of Management

The Board was in general agreement RMS have noted the Gulaga Board of that option 1 (the strategic design) Management’s concerns and have would improve and make safer this considered this as part of the ongoing section of the Princes Highway and option analysis (refer to Section 2.4.2.). they support the proposal in principle. However the Board is concerned that this development will have significant impacts on the cultural landscape of the park and surrounding lands and recognises these is a need for detailed discussions/negotiations with the RTA to resolve the various issues.

The Board endorsed the Gulaga Board RMS would include the representatives of Management Chairperson along with from the Gulaga Board of Management the Gulaga Board of management and Merrimans LALC to attend any LALC representative from Merrimans to future RTA/DECCW meetings that attend any future RTA/DECCW discuss the proposal. meetings that discuss the proposal.

The Dignams Creek AFG meetings were held on 23 June 2009, 7 December 2010, 19 May 2011 and 17 October 2012 (refer to Appendix I). Attendees varied throughout each of the four meetings but included representatives from RMS, OEH, the MLALC, local community members and Aboriginal knowledge holders. The Gulaga Board of Management were invited to the AFG meetings but did not attend any of the four meetings. Table 5-4 summarises the outcome of each meeting.

Table 5-4 Summary of AFG meeting notes

Date Meeting summary

23 June 2009 The first AFG meeting discussed the following: • The Preliminary Aboriginal Archaeological Assessment

Report which was provided to the Aboriginal community for comment. No comment was received.

• The need for a section 87 permit to undertake excavations of areas identified as PAD sites in the preliminary investigations.

• Whether the Aboriginal community would be prepared to provide services as part of the Aboriginal archaeological investigations. An agreement was made that the Aboriginal community would/ provide services for the heritage investigations.

• Nominations for representatives as Aboriginal knowledge holders were taken.

7 December The second AFG meeting discussed the following: 2010 • Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment undertaken to date.

• The status of the concept design. • The results of the site walkover attended by representatives


119

Date Meeting summary of RMS, MLALC and NSW Archaeology.

• The results of the section 87 permit application. • The program for future Aboriginal heritage assessment work. • The proposed methodology for archaeological investigations. • The need to undertake a stage 3 of PACHI and prepare an

Aboriginal CHAR. • The need to prepare an AHIP. • Seven Aboriginal knowledge holders were identified who

agreed to be interviewed. • Applications for the positions of site officers at the proposed

excavation were received from the Aboriginal community. Questions were raised by the community and responses were provided by AFG attendees and included the following: • What would we do if we found artefacts? Response - Firstly

OEH would be notified and the site recorded and the artefacts would be reburied outside footprint adjacent to where they were found.

• What would we do if we found a burial site? Response - Stop work, notify OEH, the RMS Senior Environmental Officer, the AFG and the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisor.

• Could we have signage recognising indigenous land? Response - RMS would investigate the usage of signage. It was noted that RMS have recently employed signage on other RMS projects.

• Naming of a bridge? Response -The RMS would investigate the naming of the bridge.

19 May 2011 The third AFG meeting discussed the following: • The latest proposed alignment for the concept design was

presented by RMS. • The Aboriginal CHAR methodology and cultural impact

identified to date was discussed. • NSW Archaeology summarised the results of the subsurface

excavations which were as follows: − Most artefacts that were found as part of the excavations

were flakes (ie chipped pieces of rock). − There was about 592 artefacts found and all were taken and

hand sorted and bagged individually. − The artefacts found were similar in content and

environmental contexts to many other sites in the local area and wider region. As such the artefact scatter is common and has low educational value.

− It is recommended that no additional archaeological site work would be required for the project to proceed.

− Low potential for impact on archaeological sites within National Park areas adjacent to the proposal including in the southern portion of Kooraban National Park.

• All knowledge holders confirmed they were happy with the oral history story regarding Dignams Creek and the areas around it presented in the CHAR. One participant requesting a minor change to their oral history.

• A discussion on what to do with the discovered artefacts was


120

Date Meeting summary undertaken and it was agreed that these would be placed outside the location of the footprint of the proposal following construction. These would be located close to where they were originally taken and the site recorded with the OEH and provided to members of the AFG.

• A section 90 AHIP would be prepared for submission with the OEH.

17 October 2012

The fourth AFG meeting was held as OEH had raised concern that RMS had not fully assessed the impact on the cultural values of the landscape. Therefore, the purpose of this meeting was to identify whether RMS had missed anything. With this objective in mind the meeting discussed the following: • The current status of the option analysis including reasons for

reinvestigating options. • The new western alignment (option 13 – the preferred option

refer to Section 2.4.1) was presented. • The findings of previous investigations and the results of the

CHAR were presented, this included the histories obtained from the Aboriginal knowledge holders (refer to Appendix J). It was noted that from the test excavations Aboriginal artefacts were found in moderate density in areas near Dignams Creek that were raised above the flood plain (survey Unit 16) and areas lower in the floodplain had Aboriginal artefacts in low to negligible density (survey Unit 11).

• It was noted that the new western alignment passes through a different survey unit (13) which was originally assessed to be PAD site. However after undertaking test excavations and extrapolating results from those excavations, survey unit 13 was assessed to be of low archaeological potential as it is a similar landform to survey unit 11. On this basis it is not considered necessary to undertake further test pitting in this area and the new alignment is not considered to have any significant additional impacts on Aboriginal heritage.

• It was noted that the AHIP had been approved by OEH for PAD sites in survey units 11 and 16 where the previous alignment had been located.

• The Aboriginal community were asked if they had any additional knowledge of cultural heritage in the area that had not been assessed. Submissions were requested to be submitted by 23 October 2012, however no additional issues were raised or submissions received.

• Questions were raised regarding Aboriginal signage, naming the bridge and placement of Aboriginal artefacts exhumed during test excavations.

5.4 ISEPP consultation Clause 13 of the ISEPP requires consultation with the relevant council for development with impacts on council-related infrastructure or services. Dignams Creek Road is a road asset managed by Bega Valley Shire Council. Works undertaken on this road therefore requires consultation with Bega Valley Shire Council.


121

Clause 15 of the ISEPP states that a public authority must not carry out a development on flood-liable land that would change flood patterns other than to a minor extent, unless the authority has given written notice of the intention to carry out the development to the relevant council. Land surrounding the proposal along Dignams Creek is liable to flooding and as such consultation with Bega Valley Shire Council Eurobodalla Shire Council is required.

Clause 16 of the ISEPP states that a consent authority must not carry out any of the following development without giving written notice to the specified authority and taking their responses into consideration:

(a) development adjacent to land reserved under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 – the Office of Environment and Heritage,

(b) development adjacent to a marine park declared under the Marine Parks Act 1997 – Marine Parks Authority,

(c) development adjacent to an aquatic reserve declared under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 – the Office of Environment and Heritage,

(d) development in the foreshore area within the meaning of the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority Act 1998 – the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority,

(e) development comprising a fixed or floating structure in or over navigable waters – the Roads and Maritime Services (maritime branch),

(f) development for the purposes of an education establishment, health services facility, correctional centre or group home, or for residential purposes, in an area that is bush fire prone land (as defined by the Act) – the NSW Rural Fire Services.

The proposal is located adjacent to land reserved under the NP&W Act and as such consultation with OEH is required. The proposal is also located immediately upstream from the Dignams Creek Sanctuary Zone (Batemans Marine Park) as such consultation with the Batemans Bay Marine Parks Authority is required.

The proposal would not involve development over navigable waters, along a foreshore area or be for the purposes of an educational establishment, health services facility, correction centre, group home or for residential purposes. Consultation under clause 16c – 16f is therefore not required.

Consultation with Eurobodalla Shire Council and Bega Valley Shire Council was undertaken in accordance with Clause 13 and 15 of ISEPP 19 April 2011, 14 September 2011 and 18 December 2012. The comments received have been summarised in Table 5-5. Note correspondence with stakeholders included three rounds of correspondence and included three different proposed alignments. Alignment A refers to option 1, Alignment B refers to option 10 and Alignment C refers to the preferred option (refer to Section 2.4.2).


122

Table 5-5 Summary of ISEPP consultation

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response

Marine Parks The area of Dignams Creek downstream of the RMS have considered the impacts of the proposal to the Dignams Authority area of works is within the sanctuary zone of the Creek Sanctuary Zone (Batemans Marine Park) as part of this REF, (Alignment A as Batemans Marine Park, the objectives of which however provided the mitigation measures outlined in Section 6.1 detailed in the are: and Section 6.6 are implemented no impacts are anticipated. As correspondence 1. To provide the highest level of protection for such, the objective of the Batemans Marine Park to maintain the which is option biological diversity, habitat, ecological processes, highest level of protection for biological diversity, habitat, ecological 1 in Section natural features and cultural features (both processes, natural features and cultural features (both Aboriginal 2.4.2). Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) in the zone, and and non-Aboriginal) in the zone would be met. Mitigation measures Response dated 12/5/2011)

2. Where consistent with above, provide opportunities for i) recreational, educational and other activities that do not involve harming any animal or plant or causing any damage to or interference with natural or cultural features or any

would be included in a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) which would include a Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP would be developed in accordance with RTA QA Specifications G35 (RTA, 2011), RTA G38 (RTA, 2004), the Blue Book (Landcom, 1994) and DECCW (1997).

habitat, ii) scientific research. The works do not require a permit under clause 1.11 (2) of the Marine Park (Zoning Plans) Regulations 1999 as they lie outside the boundary

The SWMP would include details of how works in and adjacent to watercourses during construction would be undertaken so as to minimise sediment disturbance and loss to Dignams Creek and thereafter Batemans Marine Park. The SWMP would also address:

of the Batemans Marine Park however best practise management procedures are to be implemented that would include: • Work scheduling (installation of protective

measure before earthworks commence, suspension of works during rain, etc).

• Use of protective measures (silt curtains, use of bunds, site drainage, separation of ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ water, sediment traps, etc).

• Use of protective measures (silt curtains, use

• Work scheduling. • Use of protective measures. • Active management and maintenance of those measures. • Rehabilitation of impacted environments upon completion of the

works.


123

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response of bunds, site drainage, separation of ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ water, sediment traps, etc).

• Actively manage and maintain of those measures (replacing damaged sediment control measures, modify sediment control and stormwater management systems if they are not working appropriately and removing accumulated sediment, ensuring the water quality of any run-off into the lake adheres to ANZECC 2000 Guidelines, etc).

• Rehabilitation of impacted environments such as riparian vegetation and stabilisation of creek banks upon completion of the works.

All erosion and sediment controls are in accordance with ‘Managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction guidelines; 4th Edition Landcom 2004 (The Blue Book) and DECCW’s managing Urban Stormwater, Soils and Construction Guidelines, Main Road Construction (The Blue Book 2, 2009). The management of stormwater within the area of works, the water quality should comply with the water quality benchmarks for estuaries of the catchments within the Batemans Marine Park (Clyde, Moruya and Tuross Rivers) as expressed in the NSW Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) developed in accordance with the ANZECC 2000 Guidelines on water quality. (Further info is available on the DECC website at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ieo/ ).

As above.

An operational water quality strategy has been prepared for the operation of the proposal. The locations of proposed controls (e.g. water quality ponds, wetlands and biofiltration basins) have been determined based on an assessment of sensitive receiving environments and sized to meet the proposal water quality design criteria, which are based on the principles of EPA (1997), refer further to Section 6.6 and the Operational Water Quality Assessment Report (refer to Appendix E) .


124

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/ieo/

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response The workers on-site are aware of the significance and sensitivity of the receiving waters of Dignams Creek and in turn are aware of their obligations under the Protection of the Environment and Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) with respect to pollution control at the site.

Environmental awareness training would be provided to all field personnel.

Marine Parks It was noted that the realignment is now proposed Comment noted. The assessment considers impacts to Dignams Authority to be on the north western side of the current Creek (which includes Blind Creek) and Narira Creek catchments (Alignment B highway through Kooraban National Park. The which also include smaller ephemeral tributaries located in the upper which is option realignment will cross a number of tributaries catchments adjacent to the proposal. These have been considered 10 in Section flowing into Narira and Dignams Creek within the REF; refer specifically to Sections 6.1, 6.6 and 6.7. 2.4.2 response dated 31/10/2011)

Marine Parks Authority (Alignment C responses which is option 13 in Section 2.4.2 dated 18 & 30/1/2013)

The realignment will now lie northwest of the current highway across Dignams Creek Road and in turn be further upstream on Dignams creek. It was also noted (30/1/13 correspondence) that the Alignment C will include the construction of a narrower single carriageway bridge with a reduced span and the construction of steeper batters within the flood plain areas on the approaches to the

Design refinements have been undertaken (refer to Section 2.6.5) so as to confine the footprint of the road batter along Dignams Creek Road and extending down to Blind Creek and thus avoid impacts to Blind Creek and sensitive vegetation at that location.

The existing crossing of Blind Creek would be retained; RMS is not proposing any new bridge structures over Blind Creek.

bridge. It will also involve the construction of a steepened batter and bridge crossing over Blind Creek; a tributary of Dignams Creek. In terms of mitigating impacts of this proposal on the adjacent waterway we are more supportive of the previous route (Alignment B) supplied and outlined in Attachment D of the notification dated 18 Dec

Batters may appear steeper in plan view than the previous alignment however batter slopes are the same as previous alignment options (2H:1V). As the current alignment proposed has smaller fills and cuttings the footprint of the proposal has been reduced while retaining the same batter slopes.


125

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response 2012. This proposal (Alignment B) involved one creek crossing with more gradual batters and a wider spanned bridge. To better understand the proposed re-alignment and make an informed comment on the potential impacts of these design changes on the adjacent

RMS would organise a site meeting with Batemans Marine Parks Authority to discuss the proposal on site (refer to Chapter 5).

receiving waters of Dignams Creek, the Marine Parks Authority have requested the opportunity to meet with RMS on site to discuss the works. A copy of the Environmental Impact Assessment once it has been prepared has also been requested.

A copy of this REF would be forwarded to the Batemans Marine Parks Authority when it goes on display.

Eurobodalla No response received. Not applicable (n/a). Shire Council Nil response to Alignment A which is option 1 in Section 2.4.2.


126


Eurobodalla Council fully supports the proposed realignment of Noted. Shire Council this section of the Highway. The proposed (Alignment B realignment as shown in your correspondence which is option appears to be adequate to improve safety along 10 in Section the Highway. The inclusion of additional overtaking 2.4.2 response lanes will also help improve traffic flow and reduce dated travel times. . 28/9/2011) What are the future plans are for the existing length

of the Highway that will become redundant once the project is completed? Council would not be interested in taking on the responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of this length of redundant Highway. Should this length of road be required for the future access to properties a private road or right of carriageway should be created so that the future maintenance is the responsibility of the land owner and not Eurobodalla Shire Council. What are the future plans for the existing Dignams Creek Bridge? Council would not be interested in taking on the responsibility for the future maintenance of this bridge. Council asks that this bridge be removed upon completion of the project as it will no longer be required.

RMS notes that council would not maintain any section of the redundant highway. The redundant sections of the Princes Highway would be removed and rehabilitated, except where it becomes part of a private property access road. This property is currently owned by RMS but at the completion of the proposal would be sold or transferred as part of the final redundant lands process to private ownership or another authority such as OEH as part of the offset package.

It is acknowledged that Eurobodalla Shire Council does not want ongoing maintenance associated with the old Dignams Creek Bridge. The existing Dignams Creek Bridge would be retained to remain as a crossing point of the creek. It would be transferred as part of the final redundant lands process to private ownership or another authority.

Eurobodalla Referenced their initial reply relating to Alignment The painted median ranges from 1-3.5 metres and is part of road Shire Council B. An additional comment was made relating to the safety works which would also include widening the northbound (Alignment C width of the proposed painted median and shoulder and improving sight distance around corners (refer to which is option questioned the economic feasibility of this work Appendix A). As the realignment is tying into the substandard 13 in Section and suggested that the money should be spend on existing alignment, a cost effective safety benefit is proposed 2.4.2 emailed assets within the state road network. through minimal work to improve the transition between the


127

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response response dated Also requested that the relocation of signage a part realignment and existing alignment. The median would provide 6/2/2013) of the proposal. greater separation from oncoming traffic and, combined with a

widened shoulder, provide greater road space for errant vehicles to correct themselves. The road safety treatments proposed for Stage 1 have been strategically estimated to cost $2.8M, including a 64% contingency. These costs would be more accurately estimated in the coming months. RMS would liaise with Council to determine an appropriate location for the signage (refer to Chapter 5.6).

Bega Valley Shire Council Nil response to Alignment A which is option 13in Section 2.4.2

No response received. Not applicable.

Bega Valley Shire Council Nil response to Alignment B which is option 10 in Section 2.4.2

No response received. Not applicable.

Bega Valley Council’s comments regarding the works are that: The concept design (refer to Appendix A) shows that the proposal Shire Council • There will be no impact on the culvert over does not impact the culvert over Blind Creek. (Alignment C Blind Creek. Your drawing seems to show Buses are intended to stop in the widened shoulder provided on both which is option that the proposed works are clear of the sides of the Princes Highway on the departure side of the 13 in Section culvert. intersection with Dignams Creek Road (refer to Figure 3-9 and


128

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response 2.4.2 emailed • Dignams Creek Rd is a school bus route so Appendix A). Clear sight distances have been provided in the response dated the intersection has to accommodate bus proposal for traffic entering and exiting Dignams Creek Road from 12/2/2013) turning with clear sight distances and linking

to the climbing lane towards Cobargo. • Council will continue to maintain the Dignams

Creek Road from the bypass, but will not maintain any sections of the redundant highway as these will essentially be private driveways.

the Princes Highway and the southbound overtaking lane would be retained as part of the proposal. A turning path analysis has been undertaken at the intersection of the Princes Highway and Dignams Creek Road and on the realigned section of Dignams Creek Road showing the design adequately caters for all bus movements. RMS notes that council would not maintain any section of the redundant highway. The redundant highway would be removed and rehabilitated, except where it becomes part of property access road. This property is currently owned by RMS but at the completion of the proposal would be sold or transferred as part of the final redundant lands process to private ownership or another authority such as OEH as part of the offset package (refer to Section 6.1 and Appendix K).

Office of New route RMS has undertaken analysis of all options considered (refer to Environment & Overall, the exhibited concept plan with the Section 2.4) and it was identified that all options impact on the Heritage. westerly alignment is considered to have a environment (refer to Table 2-1). Preliminary analysis has shown (Alignment C greater environmental impact than the previously that for the three options presented to OEH during ISEPP which is option considered options. These comments are based consultation (alignment A or option 1, alignment B or option 10 and 13 in Section on: alignment C or option 10) the environmental impacts are very similar 2.4.2 emailed • The route takes impacts closer to the for the three options. response dated sensitive catchment of Blind Creek and the 15/2/2013) area of the Endangered Ecological

Community known as River Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Flood Plains. The embankment from the concept plan is in close proximity to the creek and road construction would have number of direct and indirect impacts on this area.

Design refinements have been undertaken so as to confine the footprint of the road batter located to the west of the realigned section of Dignams Creek Road and extending down to Blind Creek (refer to Section 2.6.5). As such, direct impacts to Blind Creek and the TEC recognised as River Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains have been avoided (refer to Section 6.1 and


129


• The Blind Creek catchment is potentially an important linkage to known Koala populations in Kooraban National Park. The report Koala Survey Kooraban and Gulaga National Parks & Adjacent Lands 2010-2011 and ongoing survey by OEH has given a greater understanding of Koalas distribution and abundance in this area. It found the important local population in the Sam’s Ridge area is persisting and the population appears to be stabilising in numbers. The Blind Creek catchment with its pockets of moist forest and higher incidence of Koala feed trees represents an important potential corridor for population dispersal. Detailed comments on the issues related to Koala assessment are contained in Attachment 1.

• OEH previously has expressed support for the option bridging the Dignams Creek floodplain to minimise impacts on the sensitive wetlands and the coastal estuary downstream. This option also crossed the creek at a narrower point of the floodplain to make use of the higher terrain. The western option now proposes a crossing consisting of a shorter bridge and a long embankment across the floodplain. This approach would have a greater impact on hydrological processes in the immediate area and downstream on the coastal estuary.

Appendix K). The existing crossing of Blind Creek would be retained and RMS is not proposing any new bridge structures over Blind Creek. Indirect impacts may result from the proposal, however provided the mitigation measures outlined in Section 6.1 and Section 6.6 are implemented no impacts are anticipated.

RMS has considered the impact of the proposal on known Koala populations in the region (refer specifically to Section 6.1 and Appendix K). Targeted Koala surveys of the proposal area using a methodology as approved by OEH prior to investigations being undertaken. Further discussion on the Koala survey and OEH assessment methodology is provided below. A hydraulic investigation of the impacts of the proposal on Dignams Creek was also undertaken in 2012 (refer to Appendix D). The proposal includes the construction of a new 91 metre bridge with bridge abutments and drainage structures over Dignams Creek. The bridge is designed to provide flood immunity to a 100 year average recurrence interval (ARI) flood level. The bridge piers are located outside of the Dignams Creek low flow level and are designed to minimise potential scouring of the banks of the waterways. The report has found that during operation the proposal would cause a minor increase in flood levels by up to 0.10 metres adjacent to the proposed bridge over Dignams Creek for the 100 year ARI level under unblocked conditions. Increase in flood levels 500 metres upstream from the proposed bridge would be nil. The proposal would not significantly change the patterns of ponding/retention of floodwaters, nor would it change the duration of inundation of the floodplain. As such, no adverse flooding impacts to adjacent properties are anticipated and no mitigation controls would be required.


130


Impacts on OEH lands It is noted that the changes to alignment are outside of Kooraban National Park, that is, the route returns to the previously agreed alignment within the Park. As stated in your letter the National Parks and Wildlife Amendment (Adjustment of Areas) Bill 2012 has been passed by the NSW Parliament

The potential impacts associated with the construction of the proposal are primarily associated with the change in topography and disruption to existing drainage patterns. As such there is potential for construction activities to have an impact on local hydrological flows, however, these are expected to be temporary and localised in nature. There is also potential for flooding to impact on construction activities and materials located on the Dignams Creek floodplain. These impacts have been considered within the REF; refer specifically to Sections 6.1, 6.6 and 6.7.

which included the revocation of about 18.28 hectares of Kooraban National Park for the purposes of use as road reserve for the Dignams Creek project. Also that RMS and OEH are currently negotiating a land and biodiversity offset package for the revocation. OEH would agree with this but, as confirmed at the last meeting, any offset package would have to be ratified by the Gulaga National Park Board of Management. The proposed upgrading treatments of the existing highway in the Stage 2 section adjacent to Gulaga National Park must be contained entirely in the road reserve. The design shows some cutting and filling in this area. No works can occur within the park boundary including any drainage treatments. OEH needs to be provided with much greater detailed information on the works to be undertaken than those provided in the concept plan. Aboriginal Cultural heritage

Assessment of impacts to water quality during operation and construction of the proposal has also been undertaken (refer to Section 6.6 and Appendix E and Appendix F respectively). As discussed above a water quality strategy has been prepared during the construction and operations phases of the proposal. This includes installation of temporary and permanent water quality controls according to the principles of the Blue Book (Landcom 2004 and EPA (1997) respectively. During construction this would include the installation of 15 temporary sediment basins, and during operation this would include the installation of one water quality ponds, two constructed wetlands and five biofiltration basins. The location of operational water quality controls has been based on a risk based assessment which considered the potential risk of an accident and whether or not there were downstream sensitive environments present. Operational water quality controls were then sized to meet the proposal water quality design criteria, as per EPA (1997).

The Biodiversity offset strategy has been completed. RMS and OEH are currently negotiating a land and biodiversity offset package for


131

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response The cultural heritage landscape of Gulaga is the revocation. Once this package has been agreed then RMS widely recognised as being one of the most would need to approach the Gulaga Board of Management to significant areas on the south coast. OEH still confirm if they are willing to accept the land associated with the considers that the Dignams Creek Realignment offset package to be incorporated into Gulaga National Park. project should adequately address the proposed Subject to that agreement RMS can finalise the offset agreement impacts on the Gulaga and Biamanga Aboriginal with OEH. If the Board of Management does not accept landscape in relation to important cultural values, incorporating the land under their management, an alternative offset in particular the loss of vegetation which will package would need to be negotiated with OEH. significantly alter the landscape and the visual impact and connectivity between the two mountains. The construction works would be contained within the road reserve.

RMS would provide OEH with a copy of the REF at the beginning of OEH issued AHIP # 1131201 on 20 January 2012 the display period. on the basis that it only authorised harm to Aboriginal objects located outside of the national park estate, so as to allow for geotechnical Consultation with the Aboriginal community (refer to Section 6.3 and testing required as part of detailed design for the Appendix I) was undertaken by NSW Archaeology as part of the associated bridge upgrade at Dignams Creek. assessment process and has been based on the stage 3 OEH has recently received an application to vary requirements of the PACHCI (RMS, 2011a) which complies with the AHIP as a result of the proposed realignment OEH guidelines (DECCW, 2010a, DECCW, 2010b and DECCW and is currently assessing this application. 2010c). This has included facilitation of AFG meetings, refer to

Whilst the AHIP will, when completed, have covered off on the legislative requirements of impact to Aboriginal objects under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 the impact on the

Table 5-4 and the preparation of a CHAR and an Addendum CHAR, refer to Section 6.5 and Appendix J. The results of the CHAR and the Addendum CHAR have found that there are no constraints or impacts to Aboriginal heritage from this proposal.

broader Aboriginal landscape in relation to important cultural values should be further RMS applied for an AHIP due to anticipated impacts associated with considered in the environmental assessment to previously considered alignments A and B in ISEPP consultation and be undertaken. recognised as option 1 and 10 respectively in Section 2.4. This

included impacts to Aboriginal artefacts that were found in moderate

ATTACHMENT ONE density in areas near Dignams Creek that were raised above the


132


Environmental assessment for Koalas OEH remains concerned about the impact of the proposal on Koalas and recommends implementation of the following survey and ameliorative actions:• For the new alignment RGBSAT surveys for

Koalas to be undertaken at 350m interval gridsites within 500m of zone of proposed impact, where this assessment has not previously been undertaken. The OEH methodology datasheet to be used is attached.

• Completed datasheets of initial Koala surveys, and those undertaken in this study to be provided to OEH to be entered into OEH Koala database.

• The fauna underpasses to be minimum 3m wide consist with the recommendations of the Investigation of the Impact of Roads on Koalas Prepared by Australian Museum Business Services for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority Final Report December 2011.

• An additional fauna underpass should be constructed on the northern side of Dignams Creek.

• Measures need to be incorporated in the design to ensure that fauna is funnelled towards underpasses: this could be appropriate fencing, dense plantings of

flood plain (survey Unit 16) and areas lower in the floodplain had Aboriginal artefacts in low to negligible density (survey Unit 11). RMS has applied to modify the AHIP as there are no impacts to identified Aboriginal heritage associated with the preferred option (this proposal). An AHIP (number 1131201) has been approved by OEH.

The Biodiversity Assessment (refer to Appendix K and Section 6.1) undertook Koala surveys using a methodology as approved by OEH prior to site investigations commencing. The field method was based on the Regularised Grid-based Spot Assessment Technique (RGBSAT) as per Phillips and Hopkins (2007) and Phillips and Callaghan (2011) and was used to record Koala activity levels in proximity to the proposal. Searches for Koala scats were conducted over a pre-determined 350 metre grid pattern placed over the study area and extending 300 to 400 metres from the proposal. A total of 20 plot sites were investigated in Kooraban and Gulaga National Parks and on private property where access had been approved. The initial search trees were selected based on the presence of a scat or given the predicted low abundance of Koalas in the area was based on tree species that are a known important food species. This included secondary and supplementary food tree species as identified in the Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) (DECC 2008b) for the south coast region. At each of these sites the base of the closest 30 live trees over 150 millimetres in diameter at breast height (DBH) were searched for Koala faecal pellets out to a metre from the trunks. The species and DBH of each of the 30 trees were recorded.

Email correspondence was provided by OEH on the 26 March 2013


133

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response rainforest understorey species in swales (refer to Appendix I) confirming that the methodology proposed by along batters, or vertical reinforced walling, RMS for the Koala survey at Dignams Creek was adequate (refer to or combinations of these measures. Appendix K and Section 6.1). The requirement to complete OEH

• The edge of the batter and the impact zone data sheets was not included as part of the Koala assessment should be at least 50 metres from the methodology developed in consultation with OEH prior to the riparian zone of Blind Creek. surveys being completed and as such this has not been undertaken.

• Plantings in riparian areas need to include a high proportion of endemic Koala browse species.

The proposal provides for a range of wildlife crossing structures, including two dedicated fauna underpasses with fauna furniture, two combined drainage culvert/fauna underpasses, one canopy rope

Analysis of the importance of Koala Habitat in bridge and a new bridge over Dignams Creek which allows fauna the Blind Creek Catchment in accordance of passage on both sides of the creek (refer to Section 3.2.3). Two of the draft EPBC referral guidelines (Dec 2012 the four fauna underpass (A and C refer to Figure 1-2) have been version). designed to be 3 x 3 metres at locations where there is sufficient fill. Generally, Koala habitat is considered critical to The remaining two fauna underpasses that would also act as the survival of the species if it has some drainage structures (D and F) would be 2.4 x 2.4 metres as there is combination of the following characteristics: not sufficient fill at these sites to accommodate a 3 by 3 metre

• A history and/or currency of use by Koalas. • Habitat structure and composition. • Extent. • Dispersal value.

structure. The RMS draft (2010) Wildlife Connectivity Guidelines recommends the use of 2.4 x 2.4 metre structures for use as fauna underpasses and has evidence that Koala and other fauna use such structures. Fauna fencing is also proposed in all areas of bushland and national park in the southern part of the proposal along the

• Recovery and persistence value. alignments for stage 1 and stage 2 and is intended to funnel fauna towards wildlife crossing structures and prevent fauna accessing the

History and/or currency of use by Koalas highway. Fauna fencing is not required at the tops of cut batters. concerns the use of the habitat patch by Koalas over time. One of the combined drainage culvert/fauna underpasses is

proposed to be constructed to the north of Dignams Creek. Due to Score =1. Reason: anecdotal records from the engineering constraints there is no other possible location to

construct an additional fauna underpass to the north of the creek


134


1970's suggesting history of resident Koalas in Dignams Hill area and likelihood that area is being used by dispersing young. Habitat structure and composition concerns the presence and proportion of important tree species in the vegetation community: locally preferred fodder species, other fodder species and/or shelter tree species.

Score = 1. Reason: Good species mix and structure in Dignams Hill section of the proposed realignment. E globoidea well represented to the east of Blind Creek. Both areas will be directly impacted. Blind Creek riparian area immediately adjacent to area of proposed impact has approximately >40% E botryoides overstorey. This is not listed as a Koala feed tree species in NSW Recovery Plan but is listed as such by the Australian Koala Foundation. We have insufficient data to be confident about this species. Extent is the area and shape of the habitat patch. For development sites, this means the total area of the suitable habitat within which the impact (direct and indirect) of your proposed action is likely to occur, not the area of the impact itself.

Score= 1. Reason: potentially important, but relatively small patch affected Dispersal value is the degree to which the habitat

and given that the majority of the landscape is cleared paddock it not considered to be necessary.

Fauna fencing would be integrated with crossing structures by guiding animals towards the crossing structure and preventing access to the road.

The edge of the batter at Dignams Creek Road is between 40 to 75 metres from the eastern bank of Blind Creek. As discussed previously impacts to Blind Creek have been minimised as part of the design refinement process (refer to Section 2.6.5).

The revegetation and landscape plan includes plantings of indigenous species from vegetation communities that are endemic to the area and which have been identified in the field surveys (refer to Section 6.1 and Section 6.3). Three of the five vegetation communities included in the area surveyed as part of the Biodiversity Assessment (refer to Appendix K) contain Koala browse trees and includes the following map units: • Map Unit 1: Silvertop Ash - Stringybark Dry Open Forest. • Map Unit 2: White Stringybark Forest. • Map Unit 3: Bangalay/Blue Gum Sheltered Forest (refer to

Table 6-2 in Section 6.1 and Table 3-6 in Appendix K).

The Biodiversity Assessment (refer to Section 6.1 and Appendix K) has considered the importance of the Koala habitat as per the methodology approved by OEH prior to field survey being undertaken. The presence of these habitats containing known feed


135

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response does, or may, provide connectivity to enable Koalas to safely move across the landscape and/or to enter or leave the area of habitat.

Score= 1. Reason: East-west link is critical. Increased speeds and proposed crash barrier will increase hazard unless fauna underpasses are effectively constructed and fauna effectively funnelled to use them. However, the current highway, with no underpasses currently makes dispersal hazardous.

tree species would be considered habitat critical to the survival of Koalas according to the advice in DSEWPaC (2011). The proposal would remove a relatively small area (19.9 hectares) of habitat critical to the survival of Koalas according to the advice in DSEWPaC (2012). This is considered a minor loss of potential habitat in this locality given the presence of over 6,000 ha of similar forests across these two reserves, further the proposed inclusion of targeted crossing structures for Koalas would improve the existing poor connectivity between the reserves effectively providing a positive outcome. The assessment concludes that the proposal is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of important populations known from the locality.

Recovery and persistence value is the additional benefit that the habitat is likely to have for the species' long-term persistence and recovery, for example by: • Protecting the species from catastrophic

events such as wildfires, droughts and periods of extreme heat.

• Maintaining the species' range. • Maintaining the species genetic diversity. • Maintaining the species capacity to adapt to

environmental changes in the future, or • Supporting an unusual occurrence of the

Koala.

Score = 2. Area immediately adjacent to small group of resident Koalas. Offspring are likely to want to try to establish home ranges immediately


136


adjacent to where other animals occur, ie in impact area. Additionally, Blind Creek likely to provide fire and drought refuge. Also arguably the rarity of the Koala in this part of the region makes it an unusual occurrence. To determine if an area is habitat critical to the survival of the species, each of the five characteristics are weighted equally and scored out of two points, making for a total possible score of 10 points. For the purposes of significant impact assessment, an area of habitat is considered to be habitat critical to the survival of the species if it scores six points or more. This scoring system can also be used to score threatened species habitat quality for the purposes of the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy.


137

5.5 Government agency and stakeholder involvement During development of the concept design, stakeholder meetings were held with the OEH, Bega Valley and Eurobodalla Shire Council’s, Gulaga National Park Board of Management and DSEWPaC. These meetings were undertaken to provide stakeholders with an overview of the strategic concept design (option1), the preferred option (option 13 – this proposal), outline the proposal objectives and gather stakeholder feedback.

RMS has consulted with relevant government agencies, utility service owners during the development of the concept design and environmental impact assessment. Government agencies consulted as part of this process included Eurobodalla Shire Council, Bega Valley Shire Council, OEH, Department of Primary industries (Fisheries and aquaculture), Department of Trade and Investment (Crown Lands) and the Mine Subsidence Board (MSB). Utility service providers consulted included Telstra, Optus, Jemena, and Essential Energy.

Formal correspondence was undertaken with most of these service providers and government agencies on 19 April 2011, 14 September 2011 and 18 December 2012. A summary of the submissions received is included in Table 5-6. Note correspondence with stakeholders included three rounds of correspondence and included three different proposed alignments. Alignment A refers to option 1, Alignment B refers to option 10 and Alignment C refers to option 13 which is the preferred option (ie this proposal) (refer to Section 2.4.2).


138

Table 5-6 Summary of general submissions


Former DTIRS (Fisheries) is responsible for ensuring that fish The DPI (1999) Policy and Guidelines for Aquatic Habitat Department of stocks are conserved and that there is “no net loss” of key Management and Fish Conservation and the FM Act has Trade & fish habitats upon which they depend. To achieve this, the been considered in the preparation of this REF. Investment, Department ensures that developments comply with the Regional requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 Infrastructure & (namely the aquatic habitat protection and threatened Services species conservation provisions in Parts 7 and 7A of the Act (Fisheries) respectively) and the associated Policy and Guidelines for (DTIRS – Aquatic Habitat Management and Fish Conservation (1999). Fisheries) now Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries and aquaculture) (DPI (Fisheries and aquaculture) (Alignment A which is option 1 in Section 2.4.2 response dated 9/5/2011)

Of particular concern to DTIRS (Fisheries) are the potential impacts that construction of the proposed new bridge may have on aquatic species and habitats and the water quality and hydrology of the waterways within the vicinity. To minimise these impacts an appropriate sediment and erosion control regime and water quality management provisions should be designed in accordance with current industry best management practices and implemented to safeguard the aquatic environment across the entire works area.

Environmental Assessment Requirements

As part of this REF, RMS have considered potential impacts to the Dignams Creek aquatic environment including the Dignams Creek Sanctuary Zone (Batemans Marine Park) and five SEPP 14 wetlands located downstream of the proposal. Provided the mitigation measures outlined in Section 6.1 and Section 6.6 are implemented no impacts are anticipated. Mitigation measures would be included in a CEMP which would include a Soil and Water Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP would be developed in accordance with current industry management practices as outlined in the RTA QA Specifications G35 (RTA, 2011), RTA G38 (RTA, 2004), the Blue Book (Landcom, 1994) and DECCW (1997).

The Department advises that the REF for the proposed development should include the following information: • Location of works (including topographic map and

photos). • Name of adjacent waterway(s).

This REF has been undertaken according to the requirements of part 5 of the EP&A Act, and addresses the information as outlined under the DTRIS – Fisheries letter pertaining to environmental assessment requirements.


139


• Description of works to be undertaken, including design plans for the road and bridge.

• Method/s of construction and proposed waste disposal.

• Timing and duration of works. • Volume and type of sediment to be excavated from the

site, if appropriate. • Aquatic and riparian habitat conditions at the site –

particularly extent and condition of riparian and aquatic vegetation, water depth, and permanence of water flow and snags (large woody debris) in the vicinity of the proposed works.

• Analysis of any interactions of the proposed works with aquatic and riparian environments and predictions of any impacts upon aquatic and riparian environments including aquatic and riparian vegetation from the road and bridge construction works (both temporary and permanent).

• Safeguards to mitigate any impacts upon aquatic environments and riparian habitats.

• Potential impacts upon water quality of the proposed construction and operation of the new road and bridge.

• Safeguards to mitigate any impacts upon water quality in Dignams Creek. In particular, provide details on proposals for erosion and sediment control (to be incorporated into a Construction Environmental Management Plan - CEMP) and proposed stormwater and road drainage management measures for the new bridge (e.g. sediment basins).

• Potential impediments to fish passage as a result of

Further the REF includes an assessment of impacts to: • Biodiversity including aquatic flora and fauna (refer to

Section 6.1) Water quality (refer to Section 6.6). Flooding and hydrology (refer to Section 6.7).

Specific measures for mitigating potential impacts including erosion and sediment control have been included and a summary of these is included in Table 7-1.


140

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response the works (e.g. temporary coffer dams, bunds or work platforms) and possible mitigation measures to be employed to negate these impacts.

• Details of proposed revegetation of adjacent riparian areas. RMS has noted that the proposal is defined as both

dredging and reclamation works under Section 198A of the As a public authority, the RTA is required under section 199 FM Act due to works along the floodplain section of Dignams of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 to consult with Creek. As such RMS would notify and seek approval from DTIRS (Fisheries) and take into account any issues raised the Minister for NSW Department of Trade and Investment, prior to approving dredging and reclamation works in a Regional Infrastructure and Service (Department of Primary waterway (e.g. bridge abutment and pier demolition and Industries) under section 199 of the FM Act prior to works construction). I&I NSW should also be consulted regarding commencing. A 28 day consultation period would be any works which may result in the temporary or permanent provided to the Minister. The proposal may temporarily block blockage of fish passage in a waterway. fish passage during the construction of culverts and bridges.

As such RMS would obtain permit to block fish passage

Once the REF has been prepared for the proposal could under section 220(1) of the FM Act (refer to Section 4.3.4).

you please forward a copy to this office for our review and further comment? RMS would provide DTRIS – Fisheries now DPI (Fisheries

and aquaculture) with a copy of the REF when it goes on display (refer to Section 5.6).

For further detailed advice on DTIRS (Fisheries) aquatic habitat requirements, please refer to the Department’s Policy and Guidelines Aquatic Habitat Management and Fish Conservation (1999) available on our website www.dpi.nsw.gov.au

Information available on the website specifically in regards to the Policy and Guidelines Aquatic Habitat Management and Fish Conservation has been noted and considered in this REF (refer to Section 6.1).

DPI (Fisheries No additional comments to original correspondence of Not applicable. and 9/5/2011. Aquaculture) (Alignment B


141

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response which is option 10 in Section 2.4.2 email response dated 28/9/2011)

DPI (Fisheries and Aquaculture) (Alignment C which is option 13 in Section 2.4.2 email response dated 8/1//2013)

No additional comments to original correspondence of 9/5/2011

Not applicable.

Mine Subsidence Board (Alignment A which is option 1 in Section 2.4.2 response dated 2/05/2011)

This property is not within a proclaimed Mine Subsidence District and is not subject to any building restrictions imposed by the Mine Subsidence Board.

Noted.

Mine Subsidence Board

No changes to original correspondence. Noted.


142

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response (Alignment B which is option 10 in Section 2.4.2 response dated 20/09/2011)

Mine Subsidence Board (Alignment C which is option 13 in Section 2.4.2 response dated 28/12/2012)

No changes to original correspondence. Noted.

Essential There is a powerline that crosses the proposed realignment Preliminary investigations have indicated that overhead Energy of the highway just north of Dignams Creek. The finished electrical transmission lines would require adjustment as (Alignment A level of the road needs to achieve the required clearances. part of the proposal (refer to Section 3.2.2 and Section which is option If the clearances cannot be maintained than the powerline 3.5). 1 in Section will need to be moved and/or raised. A drawing highlighting The relocation of utilities would be undertaken in 2.4.2 emailed the power line in question was attached. consultation with the utility authorities during detailed response dated design. Should it be identified that relocation requires work 18/05/2011) outside of the construction footprint, consultation with

RMS’s Senior Environmental Officer would be undertaken to confirm if any additional environmental impact assessment would be required (refer to Section 5.6).

Essential Energy

Comments have not changed from original response. Noted


143

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response (Alignment C which is option 13 in Section 2.4.2 emailed response dated 15/01/2013)

Department of Issue: RMS notes the response from the Department of Trade and Trade and The Roads & Maritime Services have requested the Investment (Crown Lands) regarding the compulsory Investment Departments approval to the compulsory acquisition of acquisition of Crown Land being whole of Lot 7027 DP (Crown Lands) Crown Land being whole of Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and 1069205 and whole of Lot 464 DP 752155 for proposed (Preferred whole of Lot 464 DP 752155 for proposed new road works new road works on the Princes Highway at Dignams Creek. option, refer to on the Princes Highway at Dignams Creek. Section 2.4.2 letter sent 6/05/2013)

Background: The Roads & Maritime Services advised in letters dated 23

RMS understands that the ALC 7761 must be determined by the Minister before the acquisition can progress.

November 2012 and 18 January 2013 that it resolved to compulsorily acquire approximately 3880 square metres of Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155 adjoining the Princes Highway at Dignams Creek for construction / road widening of Princes Highway as shown by the blue dot hatching on Diagram “A”.

The Roads & Maritime Services has advised that after construction of the new highway part of the existing Princes Highway will be closed and it will not be possible to provide safe access to Crown Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155.

The subject parcels; Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155 are Crown Land and registered in the name of The State of New South Wales. The lots are in the Parish of

RMS notes that early entry to the site has not been permitted by Crown Lands.

RMS notes that acquisition would proceed in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and compensation would be determined by the Valuer General in accordance with Treasury Direction 469.03.

RMS notes the four recommendations made by the Department of Trade and Investment (Crown Lands) regarding the compulsory acquisition of Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155.


144

Stakeholder Consultation summary RMS Response Narooma, County of Dampier, Land District of Moruya and LGA of Eurobodalla Shire.

Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155 are part of Reserve 91754 under the trusteeship of Eurobodalla Shire Council being the Eurobodalla (South) Reserve Trust.

The Roads & Maritime Services has consulted with the Eurobodalla (South) Reserve Trust and Council has no objection to the acquisition (refer DOC13/047657).

RMS notes that approval for early entry can only be given after a letter of agreement is provided from the Land Council.

RMS notes that part of Lot 7027 DP 1069205 forms part of Crown Reserve 91754 which is under the trusteeship of Eurobodalla Shire Council being the Eurobodalla (South) Reserve Trust for the purposes of a public reserve. RMS has consulted with the Eurobodalla (South) Reserve Trust

Currently Aboriginal Land Claim 7761 is registered against Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155. Roads and Marine Services are aware of the presence of this incomplete Aboriginal Land Claim.

Due to the lodgement of ALC 7761, Crown Lands Division can only give conditional consent to the subject acquisition in accord with Circular 2011/16.

Please see the attached diagrams for the location of Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155.

Aerial photo 1 shows the section to be acquired by Roads & Maritime Services as grassland and lightly timbered.

Current Situation: The total area for the acquisition is 3880 square metres being Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155 as shown by the blue dot hatching on Aerial Photo 1.

Roads & Maritime Services has requested:

1. Concurrence to the proposed acquisition.

and Council has no objection to the acquisition (refer DOC13/047657).


145


2. Upon submission to Nowra Crown Lands Office, sign the Deposited Plan Administration sheet and return for lodgement.

ALC must be determined by the Minister before the acquisition can progress.

No approval can be given by Crown Lands to permit early entry to the site.

The acquisition is proposed to proceed in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 and compensation will be determined by the Valuer General in accordance with Treasury Direction 469.03.

Recommendation: 1. Conditional consent be given to Roads & Maritime

Services for the acquisition of Lot 7027 DP 1069205 and Lot 464 DP 752155 on the basis that RMS is clearly advised that the acquisition will only be able to be progressed and finalised if ALC 7761 is determined not to be claimable land.

2. RMS also be advised that the conditional consent is on the basis that the Crown is to be compensated based on the Valuer General’s Office valuation in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 which includes the investigation fee of $487.70.

3. RMS be advised that no approval for early entry can be given until a letter of agreement is provided from the Land Council.


146


4. To enable the ALC to be progresses, RMS be requested to supply evidence that the land was identified as being required for the proposed road widening prior to lodgement of ALC 7761 in October 2005.


147

5.6 Ongoing or future consultation 5.6.1 Community This REF will be placed on public display for comment. Following the submissions period, RMS will collate submissions. After consideration of community comments RMS will determine whether the proposal should proceed as proposed, or whether any alterations to the proposal are necessary.

The project manager would also be available for any queries that the community or affected road users may have during the public display period and during construction. During the project display period, the project manager can be contacted on (02) 4221 2430. The project manager’s contact details during construction will be provided on the project website when available. Additionally, RMS will continue to update the proposal website and issue community updates during the display of this REF and during construction. The proposal website address is as follows: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/index. html

All directly affected landholders would be consulted prior to commencement of construction activities and access to private properties would be maintained, in consultation with individual landholders. Consultation would be undertaken with those property owners whose land would be acquired to ensure that their concerns are clearly understood and can be addressed wherever possible. Consultation would also be undertaken with affected landowners prior to and during construction in regards to noise impacts, individual noise mitigation treatments and night works.

5.6.2 Government agency and service providers Government agencies such as OEH, Batemans Marine Park Authority, DPI (Fisheries and Aquaculture), Bega Shire Council, Eurobodalla Shire Council and emergency service providers will continue to be consulted prior to and during construction, specifically in regard to staging plans, traffic management, road shutdowns, impacts to waterways, fish passage and activities identified as dredging/reclamation works. Each government agency would be notified when the REF goes on public display and a copy would be provided to agencies that have requested one including OEH, Batemans Marine Park Authority, DPI (Fisheries and aquaculture), Department of Trade and Investment (Crown Lands), Eurobodalla and Bega Valley Shire Councils. A copy of the REF would also be provided to registered Aboriginal stakeholders.

Service providers such as Telstra, Optus, and Essential Energy would continue to be consulted to ensure the design adheres to their requirements and to ensure no services are inadvertently impacted by the proposal.

A site inspection with the Batemans Marine Authority would be undertaken to discuss the proposal and mitigation measures proposed, including construction and operational water quality controls. RMS would liaise with both Councils to determine appropriate locations for any signage associated with the proposal.

If the Dignams Creek Bridge is bypassed, and ceases to be an RMS asset, then RMS will need to notify the Heritage Branch in accordance with section 170(A) of the Heritage Act as the bridge will need to be delisted.


148

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/index.html

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/princes_hway/dignams_creek/index.html

Documents

4.1.1 State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure ... · 4.1.2 State Environmental Planning Policy (No 44) Koala Habitat protection . State Environmental Planning Policy (No