Expert Evidence (Groundwater) · 2 days ago · Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Documents Reviewed EHS Support

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Environment Effects Statement (EES)

Prepared for: Mornington Peninsula Shire Council and Cardinia Shire Council

Prepared by: Christopher Smitt

October 2020

EHS Support Pty Ltd i

Table of Contents

1 Expert Evidence Information............................................................................................... 1

2 Instructions ........................................................................................................................ 3

3 Documents Reviewed ......................................................................................................... 4

4 Findings .............................................................................................................................. 6

4.1 Does the EES adequately document the investigation, avoidance and minimisation of potential environmental effects (groundwater), of the Project and relevant alternatives, as well as associated environmental mitigation and management measures? Does the EES adopt Best Practice principals? ............................................ 1 4.1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 4.1.2 Analysis ............................................................................................................ 2

4.1.2.1 Data and Data Uncertainty ................................................................. 2 4.1.2.2 Risk Assessment .................................................................................. 8

4.2 If the Project, as described in the EES cannot achieve a level of environmental performance, are there any recommendations that you would make? .................... 11

5 Declaration by the Expert ................................................................................................. 14

List of Tables

Table 4‐1 Groundwater Related Concerns Table 4‐2 Recommendations and Potential Environmental Performance Requirements (EPR)

List of Appendices

Appendix A CV Appendix B Harwood Andrews / MPSC Instructions Appendix C Maddocks / CSC Instructions

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Expert Evidence Information

EHS Support Pty Ltd 1

1 Expert Evidence Information

This report has been prepared in accordance with the Planning Panels Victoria (PPV) “Guide to Planning Expert Evidence”. The content requested is outlined below:

(a) Name and address

Christopher Smitt c/o EHS Support Pty Ltd 14/440 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3000

(b) Expert's qualifications, experience and area of expertise

Qualifications

BSc (Honours) Majoring in Hydrogeology and Geophysics

Certificate in Advanced GIS Analysis and Modelling (Hydrology and Groundwater Modelling with GIS)

Experience

I have 20 years of experience as a Hydrogeologist. My CV (Appendix A) details my experience.

Area of expertise

Hydrogeology (refer to 1(c))

(c) Expertise to make this report

My areas of expertise relevant to my instructions include:

Hydrogeology;

Catchment health and water quality;

Numerical modelling to determine the impacts of groundwater extraction for both the Natural Resource Management and heavy industry sector (including water resource assessment and well field design); and

Investigating the role of climate change/variability on Australia’s groundwater resources.

In addition to having expertise in the above areas, I have had considerable experience in developing hydrogeological conceptual and numerical models, as well as developing environmental performance requirements (EPRs) for a range of projects. Most recently was the review of the North East Link Project (NELP) Environmental Effects Statement (EES) and Mordialloc Bypass (Freeway) EES. Other relevant projects include the M80 Freeway Upgrade and developing closure criteria and performance metrics for the closure and rehabilitation of the Anglesea Coal Mine.

I have also undertaken and reviewed many risk assessments as part of (and member of), the ISA Superbasin and Cooper Basin Geological and Bioregional Assessment (GBA) Technical Working Groups (TWGs). The working group assists the Federal members of the Australian Government GBA Program (primarily the Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE); Geoscience Australia

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Expert Evidence Information


(GA) and CSIRO) to assess the potential impacts of selected unconventional hydrocarbon plays on water and the environment and provide independent scientific advice to governments, landowners and the community, business and investors.

I have been assisted by the following personnel in preparing this statement:

Dr Ben Petrides (Principal Hydrogeologist – EHS Support), who provided technical support and internal review of this statement.

(d) Reference to any private or business relationship between the expert witness and the party for whom the report is prepared

Nil, other than the current engagement.

(e) All instructions that define the scope of the report (original and supplementary and whether in writing or oral)

All instructions that define the scope of the report are written. These are presented in Section 2 and attached in Appendix B and Appendix C.

(f) The facts, matters and all assumptions upon which the report proceeds

Provided in Section 2 to Section 4 of this report.

(g) Reference to those documents and other materials the expert has been instructed to consider or take into account in preparing his or her report and the literature or other material used in making the report

Referenced within Section 3 of this report.

(h) The identity and qualifications of the person who carried out any tests or experiments upon which the expert relied in making the report.

I have relied on the published materials presented in Section 3 of this report.

(i) Statement of the expert

Provided in Section 4 of this report.

(j) A signed declaration by the expert

See Section 5 of this report.

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Instructions


2 Instructions

I have been instructed by Harwood Andrews (acting for Mornington Peninsula Shire Council, (MPSC)) and Maddocks (acting for Cardinia Shire Council, (CSC)) collectively, “the Councils” to prepare an expert witness statement and appear on behalf of the Councils at the IAC Hearing.

The written statement of evidence should provide a summary of the key issues and contain my opinion and recommendations on matters relevant to the Council’s municipal area and your area of expertise (groundwater).

Appendix B contains my instruction from Harwood Andrews (acting for MPSC).

Appendix C contains my instruction from Maddocks (acting for CSC).

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Documents Reviewed


3 Documents Reviewed

In constructing this advice, I have reviewed the project specific documents listed below:

1. Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environment Effects Statement chapters:

a. Chapter 1 Introduction

b. Chapter 2 Project‐Rationale

c. Chapter 3 Project Development

d. Chapter 4 Project Description

e. Chapter 5 Key Approvals and Assessment Framework

f. Chapter 7 Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity

g. Chapter 8 Surface Water

h. Chapter 9 Groundwater

i. Chapter 10 Contamination and Acid Sulfate Soils

j. Chapter 17 Land Use

k. Chapter 20 Agriculture

l. Chapter 25 Environmental Management Framework

m. Chapter 27 Conclusion

2. EES Chapters, Technical Appendices and Attachments:

a. Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Executive Summary

b. Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Summary Document July 2020

c. EES Technical Report B: Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Impact Assessment

d. EES Technical Report D: Groundwater Impact Assessment

e. EES Technical Report E: Contamination and Acid Sulfate Soil Assessment

f. EES Technical Report O: Agriculture Impact Assessment

g. Attachment III: Environmental Risk Report

h. Attachment VI: Draft Planning Scheme Amendment

i. Attachment VII: Map Book

I have also been supplied with or had access to the below documents, where additional background information was sought:

1. EES Public Submissions and Witness Statements:

a. Jonathan Michael Medd Witness Statement – Groundwater Impacts – Western Port Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project (Dated September 25, 2020)

b. Inquiry and Advisory Committee (16 September 2020) Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Request for Further Information

2. Other Documents:

a. Barnett et al., 2012 (Australian Groundwater Modelling Guidelines)

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Documents Reviewed


b. Coffey (6 April 2018) Crib Point to Pakenham Pipeline Project Desktop Geotechnical and Hydrology Study, 18027‐EP‐L‐302

c. DELWP (July 2013) Referral Form, Version 5

d. DELWP (2015). Ministerial Guidelines for Groundwater Licensing and the Protection of High Value GDEs

e. DELWP (October 2018) Reason for Decision Under Environment Effects Act 1978, Public Notice via Internet.

f. DELWP (January 2019) Scoping Requirements for the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environment Effects Statement

g. Environment Protection Council (Victoria) Act 1995

h. Harwood Andrews (14 September 2020) Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project Environmental Effects Statement Inquiry and Advisory Committee Hearing – Information Request Letter.

i. Jacobs (28 August 2018) AGL Gas Import Jetty Project Contaminated Land Assessment. IS210700‐EP‐RP‐007

j. Jacobs (28 August 2018) AGL Gas Import Jetty Project Hydrology Impact Assessment. IS210700‐EP‐RP‐003

k. Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (Seventh edition, 2006)

l. National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM, 1999)

m. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000a. Guidance for the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G4)

n. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000b. Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory Agency‐Wide Quality System, EPA Order 5360.1 A2

o. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006a. Data Quality Assessment: A Reviewer’s Guide (EPA QA/G‐9R)

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Findings


4 Findings

As per my instructions, I have presented my findings in accordance with the questions outlined in my instructions (refer Appendix B and Appendix C). As my evidence incorporates both CSC and MPSC instructions, Table 4‐1 identifies which specific issue is relevant to each Council municipal area.

In summary, and in my opinion, the EES does not adequately assess the potential groundwater related nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project. My specific concerns are outlined in Table 4‐1. Section 4.1.3 provides further rational to these concerns.



Table 4‐1 Groundwater Related Concerns

Concern Rationale Can this be addressed by an EPR / Required before project approval

Relevant to MPSC Municipal Area

Relevant to CSC Municipal Area

No Groundwater baseline has been established

Only one groundwater gauging event (January 2019) has been undertaken. This is inadequate to:

Characterise a baseline assessment.

Define environmental performance requirements (EPRs) and their feasibility.

Evaluate the mechanisms controlling hydraulic processes surrounding potential GDEs (e.g. recharge).

Support project assumptions.

Support other technical disciplines (such as ecology, e.g. what is the consequence if a GDE is without water for a period of time).

Furthermore the EES does not satisfy Page 20 of the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (Seventh edition, 2006), which States

“Arrangements for management of and access to baseline and monitoring data, to ensure transparency and accountability of environmental management as well as to contribute to the improvement of environmental knowledge”.

Refer to Section 4.1.3.1.1 for further information.

Prior to project approval:

A groundwater monitoring event should be undertaken in early spring when groundwater tables are expected to be at their shallowest.

Confirm if findings agree with current assumptions. If not revisit the impact assessment.

An ecologist is required to survey the GDEs along the alignment with the outcomes to inform an updated risk and impact assessment.

x x

No groundwater data has been obtained from the basaltic aquifer where EES Technical Appendix D Figure A3 suggests GDEs (moderate potential) are mapped.

The final two kilometres of the pipeline (from KP55.0) is inferred to be underlain by outcropping basalts of the Older Volcanics Lower Tertiary Basalt aquifer. The Older Volcanics (and basaltic aquifers generally) are known to be highly heterogeneous meaning the behaviours or groundwater can be vastly different over just a few short meters. Further, it is common for perched water tables to exist on top of this aquifer. These perched aquifers can be extremely important in supporting GDEs where groundwater is expected to be deep. As GDEs have been mapped in this area, it is likely perched aquifers exist.




During the construction:

Where a potential GDE has been mapped, and on advice from an ecologist, implement mitigation measure MM‐C02 as defined in Table 4‐2.

‐ x

Groundwater Quality and Contamination

PFAS was only analysed in GW04 and GW05 (i.e. in the vicinity of the Tyabb Landfill) and it is noted that the concentration of PFOS in the GW05 triplicate sample exceeded the 99% species protection value

Given the persistent nature of PFAS in the environment and the wide‐spread use of PFAS related products, PFAS analysis at other hot spot zones is considered warranted. For example, groundwater near a meat packer facility (G&K O’Connor) located at KP 48.2 is considered where PFAS may be found.



Additional sampling is required to verify the PFAS results at GW05.

Additional groundwater investigations between KP7.3 – KP7.9 and adjacent to the meat packer facility (G&K O’Connor) at ~KP 48.2 are required and must include PFAS analysis. These locations are near commercial/industrial facilities.


Implement mitigation measure MM‐C02 as defined in Section 4.1.3.1.4

x x

Analytical Modelling and omission of a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis

Numerous uncertainties and errors were found in EES Technical Appendix D. These give the reviewer little confidence regarding the accuracy of the outputs. These uncertainties include:

Groundwater monitoring well GW04 is logged as a “sand”, but the derived hydraulic conductivity (0.0097 m/day) is indicative of a clay lithology.

The aquifer thickness used to derive the Transmissivity model input parameter is not consistent with the bore logs or conceptual site model.

Section 5.3 states that the aquifer thickness increases from approximately KP30, where the sediments are 10 to 50 m thick. This data should be adopted in the analytical model. Using a


Additional modelling scenarios based on a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis are required to confirm the groundwater flux required to dewater the trench. This potentially presents a risk, as the volumes of water to be managed can’t be determined, in particular where contaminant plumes are present

Confirmation is required if the errors are typographical or if scenarios are required to be re‐estimated. .

x x



Concern Rationale Can this be addressed by an EPR / Required before project approval

Relevant to MPSC Municipal Area

Relevant to CSC Municipal Area

greater aquifer thickness will derive a higher Transmissivity. Using a higher Transmissivity in the modelling will equate to a reduction in drawdown at the same pumping/extraction rate (i.e. 0.6 m3/day). However, adopting a higher Transmissivity will mean that a greater pumping rate may be required to achieve the desired drawdown in the trench (i.e. 2.29 m).

The storage coefficient adopted is considered low (i.e. 1 %) given the logged sandy units in various parts along the alignment. It is noted that using a higher storage coefficient in the modelling will equate to reduced drawdowns but will mean higher volumes of groundwater to manage to dewater the trench to the desired relative level (RL).

Some of these errors identified include: Spreadsheet 1 (dewatering of the pipeline trench):

On the right‐hand side of the spreadsheet it states that the flow rate per bore is 0.6 L/sec however in the table on the left‐hand side it states 0.0069 L/sec.

On the table on the left‐hand side, the total volume produced during the test is 1.2 kL, however based on the pumping rate of each well (i.e. 0.6 m3/day) the total volume produced should be 20 m3/day.

Spreadsheet 2 (thrust bore bell hole or HDD tie‐in bell hole):

The drawdown predicted at 25 m (i.e. 0.10 m) is different to that presented in Table 7‐1 of the Final EES Technical Report D report (i.e. 0.78 m).

Also, there is a typographic error on the worksheet. For the thrust bore bell holes, it should read the number of bores per 10 m not 100 m.

Refer to Section 4.1.3.1.5 and Section 4.1.3.1.6 for further information.

Groundwater Recovery Times

Recovery modelling has not been provided and the potential long‐term effects on GDEs can’t be assessed. This a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.



Conduct analytical recovery modelling based on worst case dewatering scenarios.

Present findings to an ecologist to assist in determination of impacts to all mapped GDEs along the alignment.

x x

Risk Assessment

Some risk assessment items are not classified adequately. For example, the initial risk of re‐mobilising contaminant plumes has been evaluated as Low (known location near the former Tyabb Landfill and Hastings facility), however I would consider the risk as Medium (Moderate consequence and possible likelihood).

Furthermore, the risk assessment indicates that a long‐term loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or long‐term impact to groundwater users in the local area is only considered a “Moderate Consequence”. Meaning for a “High” risk to occur, the Likelihood needs to be Almost Certain (i.e. the event is expected to occur in most circumstances). In my opinion, regardless of the scale, ANY long‐term loss or long‐term impact on a beneficial user whether environmental or human, should be treated as Major or Severe with respect to its consequence.

Refer to Section 4.1.3.2 for further information.


Re define the risk assessment whereby ANY long‐term loss or long‐term impact on a beneficial user whether environmental or human, should be treated as Major or Severe with respect to its consequence.


Where risks are medium at minimum implement mitigation measure MM‐C02 as defined in Table 4‐2

x x

Registered bore At the time of writing, almost 2 years has passed since an initial bore survey was undertaken. In the time since, numerous additional groundwater bores could have been completed.


A more recent registered bore search should be undertaken to confirm if additional bores have been registered since 10 January 2019

x x



4.1 Does the EES adequately document the investigation, avoidance and minimisation of potential environmental effects (groundwater), of the Project and relevant alternatives, as well as associated environmental mitigation and management measures? Does the EES adopt Best Practice principals?

Instruction reference: Appendix B instruction 3a, 3b and Appendix C Instruction 10.1 and 10.2

4.1.1 Finding

As stated earlier, the EES does not adequately assess the potential groundwater related nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.

I acknowledge that a majority of the potential groundwater related impacts are a Low risk and can be managed with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and/or environmental performance requirements (EPRs) however there still remain significant data gaps and uncertainties. These have been summarised in Table 4‐1 and described in more detail below.

4.1.2 Environment Effects Act 1978

The Environment Effects Act 1978 provides for assessment of proposed projects that are capable of having a significant effect on the environment. The Environment Effects Act 1978 does this by enabling the Minister administering the Environment Effects Act 1978 to decide that an EES should be prepared.

The Minister for Planning decided on 8 October 2018 that an EES is required for the Gas Import Jetty Facility and Crib Point to Pakenham Gas Pipeline proposal, as described in the referral accepted on 13 September 2018.

The reasons for the decision included:

The project has the potential for significant environmental effects, including on native vegetation, habitat of threatened terrestrial and aquatic species listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, as well as risk to some aspects of the ecology in the North Arm of the Western Port Ramsar site.

There are potential effects from construction and operation of the gas pipeline on water quality of waterways and the Western Port Ramsar site and on Aboriginal cultural heritage.

While these potentially significant effects and other residual effects could be assessed and managed through a range of separate statutory processes, an EES is warranted to help ensure the proposal’s effects and relevant uncertainties are rigorously investigated as part of an integrated assessment process prior to any statutory approvals.

As outlined in the Environment Effects Act 1978, the specific objective of the EES assessment process are:

To provide for the transparent assessment of potential environmental effects of proposed projects, in the context of applicable legislation and policy, including principles and objectives of ecologically sustainable development.

To provide timely and integrated assessments of proposed projects to inform relevant decisions, in the context of coordinated statutory processes.



To ensure proponents are accountable for investigating potential environmental and related effects of proposed projects, as well as for implementing effective environmental management measures.

To provide public access to information regarding potential environmental effects as well as fair opportunities for participation in assessment processes by stakeholders and the public

To provide a basis for monitoring and evaluating the effects of works to inform environmental management of the works and improve environmental knowledge.

As part of the EES process, the Minister for Planning issued six (6) evaluation objectives that identify desired outcomes in the context of potential project effects and legislation: These are:

1. Energy efficiency, security, affordability and safety – To provide for safe and cost‐effective augmentation of Victoria’s natural gas supply in the medium to longer term.

2. Biodiversity – To avoid, minimise or offset potential adverse effects on native flora and fauna and their habitats, especially listed threatened or migratory species and listed threatened communities.

3. Water and catchment values – To minimise adverse effects on water (including groundwater, waterway, wetland, estuarine, intertidal and marine) quality and movement particularly as they might affect the ecological character of the Western Port Ramsar site.

4. Cultural heritage – To avoid or minimise adverse effects on Aboriginal and historic cultural heritage.

5. Social, economic, amenity and land use – To minimise potential adverse social, economic, amenity and land use effects at local and regional scales.

6. Waste – To minimise generation of wastes by or resulting from the project during construction and operation, including accounting for direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.

With respect to my area of expertise (hydrogeology), my analysis presented in Section 4.1.3 addresses the adequacy of the EES to address scoping requirement 3 (Water and Catchment Values).

4.1.3 Analysis

Through my analysis, I have focused on fundamental aspects that are required when developing an EES to meet the scoping objectives listed in Section 0 (item 9). That is;

Data o The data collected and how it was used. o The transparency and accuracy of the data.

Data uncertainty of key areas within the project area.

The use of predictive tools (such as analytical and numerical models).

The development and application of a risk assessment.

Defining and understanding the feasibility of project environmental performance requirements (EPRs).

4.1.3.1 Data and Data Uncertainty

My analysis began with an understanding of the data because if there is an issue identified with the data, its collection (or lack thereof) and application, the ramifications can propagate through all aspects of the project.



4.1.3.1.1 Baseline Dataset

Page 20 of the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (Seventh edition, 2006) states:

“An EES should incorporate a framework for managing the environmental effects and risks of a project, including:

o Arrangements for management of and access to baseline and monitoring data, to ensure transparency and accountability of environmental management as well as to contribute to the improvement of environmental knowledge”.

In the simplest of terms, the project does not contain a baseline dataset from which predictions about groundwater behaviour and impacts can be made. Only one round of groundwater monitoring was undertaken, and this was during summer when groundwater levels were at their lowest. The results of this one round of gauging suggested that the shallowest groundwater level was 1.09 mbgl at the most northern monitoring well (MW22) and trench location between KP3‐KP6; KP12‐KP17, KP18‐KP21 and KP48‐KP56 would encounter groundwater.

Given the predicted shallow depth of the project excavation works, the groundwater impact assessment presented a set of conservative assumptions to examine the possible impacts associated with lowering the groundwater level (drawdown) and potential movement of groundwater. This included assuming that the depth to groundwater could be as high as 0.5 mbgl to account for possible seasonal variation; adoption of the upper end of permeability for the soils measured from aquifer tests conducted in the project monitoring wells; and the adoption of a low water specific yield of one percent.

Whilst I am partially satisfied on the above approach to account for the lack of data, in my opinion there is still a requirement for a winter/spring groundwater level gauging event (when groundwater tables should be at their shallowest) to be undertaken to confirm the project assumptions. For minimal project expenditure, this additional datapoint whilst still not representative of a baseline, can act as a line of evidence to support the project assumptions. This can also be used to evaluate the mechanisms controlling hydraulic processes surrounding a groundwater dependant ecosystem (GDE), and to assess the significance and acceptability of potential impacts on GDEs. Whilst GDEs have been mapped in the area, without a baseline dataset or validation of the extent of groundwater levels and movement, I have no confidence regarding the behaviour of surface water and groundwater interactions.

4.1.3.1.2 Basalt Aquifer

The final two kilometres (km) of the pipeline (from KP 53.6) located in the Cardinia Shire Council region is underlain by outcropping basalts. Groundwater monitoring wells were not installed in the basalt aquifer as the inferred groundwater levels were greater than 10 m. This may be the case, however aquifers where its lithology is predominately basaltic/volcanic of origin are known for their heterogeneity and anisotropy (e.g. over a short distance groundwater can behave very differently).

In addition, perched aquifers are commonly found sitting on top of basaltic aquifers and can be important for supporting terrestrial vegetation and other ecosystems. Installing at least one groundwater well in the vicinity of a mapped GDE to approximately 4 m would have confirmed this as well for allowing aquifer parameters such as recharge rates to be determined.



Obtaining the information above along with a recommended ecological survey of GDEs, will allow for mitigation and contingency measures to be defined and confirmation that the alignment maintains a Low risk to groundwater supported environments.

4.1.3.1.3 Modifications to the Groundwater Flow Regime

An initial concern was regarding long term groundwater mounding on the up‐gradient side of the pipeline and watertable reduction on the down‐gradient side of the pipeline can impact upon GDEs. However upon review of AECOM (APPENDIX C) appearing in Jonathan Michael Medd Witness Statement (Dated September 25, 2020), I am satisfied that whilst groundwater levels may change slightly either side of the trench, the risk of long term mounding along the pipeline alignment and impacting GDEs is low.

4.1.3.1.4 Groundwater Quality and Contamination

Sources

The Final EES Technical Report E provides a detailed discussion on potential hot spots of groundwater contamination which is supported by site specific groundwater quality analytical data. Localised groundwater contamination may be encountered during the Project construction works:

Adjacent to the former Tyabb Landfill (KP14.0 – KP14.3 impacted by poly‐fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)). This is located in the MPSC municipality.

Adjacent to the metal recycling yard in Hastings (KP7.3 – KP7.5 impacted by nickel). This is located in the MPSC municipality.

PFAS was only analysed in GW04 and GW05 (i.e. in the vicinity of the Tyabb Landfill), however given the persistent nature of PFAS in the environment and the wide‐spread use of PFAS related products, PFAS analysis at other hot spot zones is considered warranted. The screening criteria in Table B4 (Final EES Technical Report D) are not presented for PFAS. It is noted that the concentration of Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) in the GW05 triplicate sample exceeded the 99% species protection value. This has implications on how to treat/dispose of groundwater resulting from dewatering activities (i.e. in the vicinity of KP14) and where to obtain groundwater for dust suppression and hydrostatic testing. Additional sampling is required to verify the PFAS results at GW05.

It was also confirmed that due to access constraints intrusive investigations could not be undertaken between KP7.3 – KP7.9 (located in the MPSC municipality) and recommended additional groundwater investigations prior to pipeline construction. This location is within commercial/industrial facilities, and this data gap is a limitation to assess the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.

A comprehensive search of online search engines, historical aerial photographs and other databases were utilised in the process of developing the EES to identify other potentially contaminating land uses, including past historical baseline environmental contamination investigations (Jacobs 2017). A meat packer facility (G&K O’Connor) was constructed between 1974 and 1979. The facility is located at KP 48.2. The facility (also referred to as an abattoir or rendering facility) is surrounded by farmland with a Water Recycling Plant located 800 m north‐east of the project area. Wastewater from the abattoir and rendering facility is treated in a lagoon system and either irrigated or discharged to sewer. The lagoons are located approximately 200 m to the west of the pipeline alignment. There are no groundwater wells to confirm the contamination status of the shallow



aquifer. This data gap is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project and is considered a key omission from the EES.

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation measures proposed to treat groundwater contamination are referenced in the Pipeline Works Construction Environmental Management Plan (PWCEMP). However, in the EES, there is no discussion on how the contaminant plume(s) will be controlled/managed to prevent migration or expansion during dewatering. Dewatering activities are likely to induce migration of the plume towards the trench, thereby impacting beneficial uses of groundwater and potentially surface water and changing the spatial extent of the contaminant plume. In the EES, this risk was evaluated as Low, however I would consider the risk as Medium (Moderate consequence and Likely likelihood). Re‐mobilising contaminant plumes without proper in‐situ controls is likely. Therefore, I consider that this risk is still Medium even after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures (refer to Table 6‐1 Risk ID C6 in Final EES Technical Report E), unless the PWCEMP provides clarification on intrusive remedial controls. The PWCEMP has not been provided for review.

Finally, it is typical and good practice of EES projects to present a stand‐alone chapter regarding the data and if contamination is identified or likely to be found, the National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure 1999 (NEPM, 1999) requires Data Quality Objective (DQO) to be set (also refer USEPA 2000a, 2000b and 2006a). This EES does not state any DQOs despite contamination such as PFAS being present. As such does not meet best practice objectives. I concur with and strongly recommend amendments to mitigation measure (MM‐C02) that have been defined by and in Jonathan Michael Medd Witness Statement (Dated September 25, 2020). That is:

Where dewatering is required for the horizontal thrust bore bell holes, a management plan in line with the requirements of Dewatering Management Level 1 of the national guidelines should be implemented and include, as a minimum:

Installation of a groundwater monitoring well at approximately 10 metres from the thrust bore bell hole where acid sulfate soils are present and groundwater is intersected and dewatering is required during construction.

Water table level monitoring daily during the dewatering operation and compare against the estimated drawdown and/or radial extent of the groundwater cone of depression to ensure that the actual drawdown and/or radial extent of the groundwater cone of depression is not more than that predicted from calculations.

Measurement of the groundwater pH every day in the groundwater monitoring well and the excavation inflow during the dewatering operation to assess for groundwater acidification.

Cessation of dewatering and undertake risk assessment to determine appropriate remediation option(s) if the results of groundwater and/or dewatering effluent monitoring indicate deterioration in groundwater quality e.g. groundwater pH is less than 5.5 pH units,

If the actual duration of dewatering exceeds 7 days and the radial extent of the groundwater cone of depression is greater than 50 metres, a management plan in line with the requirements of Dewatering Management Level 2 would need to be implemented in line with the national guidelines.

4.1.3.1.5 Aquifer Parameters

Groundwater monitoring well GW04 is logged as a “sand”, but the derived hydraulic conductivity (0.0097 m/day) is indicative of a clay lithology. The value for hydraulic conductivity is questionable



and is likely not representative of the shallow system in the area. It is considered that GW04 should be omitted from the dataset or further discussion provided.

4.1.3.1.6 Analytical Modelling

In order to assess the risk of potential impacts to groundwater as a result of dewatering, an understanding of the location and magnitude of drawdown is required. This is problematic when the definition of the watertable throughout the proposed alignment is poorly characterised and a baseline dataset is not presented.

For example, uncertainties regarding the analytical model relate to input parameters adopted. Using inappropriate data can result in uncertainties with the model outputs. This may be underestimating the extent of dewatering impacts or the volumes of groundwater required for treatment/disposal. These uncertainties include:

At the time of model development, a groundwater baseline had not been established. The purpose of a baseline assessment is to “establish a point from which future measurements and predictions can be calculated”. If a baseline is not established, the model outputs become unreliable. Whilst the report acknowledges that a groundwater baseline has not been established, implications on predictive model assumptions and uncertainty need to be emphasised.

The aquifer thickness used to derive the Transmissivity model input parameter is not consistent with the bore logs or conceptual site model (i.e. 2.5 m thick instead of ~4 m thick). I consider that these values should be used for the aquifer thickness in the absence of site‐specific soil boring (i.e. the soil boring across the alignment only extended to 4 mbgl). Section 5.3 in the Final EES Technical Report D states that the aquifer thickness increases from approximately KP30, where the sediments are 10 to 50 m thick. This data should be adopted in the analytical model. Using a greater aquifer thickness will derive a higher Transmissivity. Using a higher Transmissivity in the modelling will equate to a reduction in drawdown at the same pumping/extraction rate (i.e. 0.6 m3/day). However, adopting a higher Transmissivity will mean that a greater pumping rate may be required to achieve the desired drawdown in the trench (i.e. 2.29 m). Therefore, additional modelling scenarios are required to confirm the groundwater flux required to dewater the trench. This potentially presents a risk, as the volumes of water to be managed can’t be determined, in particular where contaminant plumes are present.

I consider the storage coefficient adopted to be low (i.e. 1 %) given the logged sandy units in various parts along the alignment. It is noted that using a higher storage coefficient in the modelling will equate to reduced drawdowns but will mean higher volumes of groundwater to manage to dewater the trench to the desired relative level (RL).

Recharge (and or rainfall) has not been applied to the modelled scenarios.

I also identified errors in the EES Technical Report D report. Some of these include: Spreadsheet 1 (dewatering of the pipeline trench):

On the right‐hand side of the spreadsheet it states that the flow rate per bore is 0.6 L/sec however in the table on the left‐hand side it states 0.0069 L/sec. I believe this is a typographical error because the cumulative volume per day of 20 m3/day should be correct (33 bores x 0.6 m3/day = 20 m3/day)

On the table on the left‐hand side, the total volume produced during the test is 1.2 kL, however based on the pumping rate of each well (i.e. 0.6 m3/day) the total volume produced should be 20 m3/day.



Spreadsheet 2 (thrust bore bell hole or HDD tie‐in bell hole):

The drawdown predicted at 25 m (i.e. 0.10 m) is different to that presented in Table 7‐1 of the Final EES Technical Report D report (i.e. 0.78 m).

Also, there is a typographic error on the worksheet. For the thrust bore bell holes, it should read the number of bores per 10 m not 100 m. Typographic errors on the dewatering spreadsheet have not been addressed in the Final EES Technical Report D.

These uncertainties and potential errors are a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project, and do not provide confidence in the model outputs used to assess potential risks to groundwater users and GDEs. The ramification of using or reporting incorrect data can be serious. For example, model predictions or setting design EPRs to protect/maintain the ecosystem could be wrong. It also raises concerns over the quality assurance (QA) and quality checking (QC) process that has (or has not) been undertaken.

Sensitivity Analysis

The omission of a dewatering options assessment as a potential mitigation measure is considered a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project. It is noted that some of the trench depths may be greater than 3 mbgl. In addition, it is likely that dewatering of the trench deeper than the base RL of the trench will be required for construction purposes. It is noted that groundwater pumping from a series of extraction wells in a low permeability lithology with limited saturated water column may not be a feasible methodology for dewatering. Other methodologies should be discussed and considered. Current estimates of dewatering rates and/or drawdown extent may vary based on the adopted dewatering methodology.

Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis are considered industry best practice when presenting modelling analysis. The omission of a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project. Additional scenarios and/or changes to input parameters, that should be modelled, to be able to assess the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project include:

Adopting a greater saturated aquifer thickness and predicting the corresponding extent of drawdown and volumes of groundwater to be managed. All thrust bore bell holes are 3 m deep however the modelling presents an aquifer thickness of 2.5 mbgl. Also, the aquifer thickness is less than the drawdown in the middle of the trench. There is uncertainty if this assumes that the dewatering will occur in an underlying aquifer. This also applies to the pipeline trench where the adopted aquifer thickness for the pipeline trench is 2 m however the drawdown is 2.29 m.

Where the trench crosses unsealed roads, the depth is likely to increase to >3 m.

The HDD tie‐in bell holes would be approximately 5 m long, 5 m wide and 2.5 m deep. These may require short term dewatering if groundwater is intersected.

Given that dewatering is most likely required to enable pipe installation, it is more than likely that GDEs will be impacted, in particularly in the south of the alignment. The mitigation measure presented states “minimise the duration of dewatering activities” This is a very generic mitigation measure presented because it doesn’t consider construction constraints, where longer dewatering periods may be required to ensure safe and reliable pipe installation. Additional modelling may be required to estimate fluxes as a result of longer dewatering periods. The cone of depression may extend beyond the defined buffer zone of 30 m, and potentially impact on GDEs that are located beyond the current defined buffer zone. This absence of additional modelling scenarios is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.



Aquifer Recovery

Section 7.1.2 GDE and Watercourses (Risk ID HG2) of the Final EES Technical Report D states that any reduction in groundwater levels from trench dewatering would be temporary in nature (< 1 week) and < 2 days for HDD tie‐in‐bell holes. However, the analytical modelling presented does not include an analysis of timeframes for aquifer recovery. The absence of a baseline dataset, including a comprehensive understanding of groundwater surface water interaction, and timeframes for full aquifer recovery means that the potential long‐term effects on GDEs can’t be assessed. This is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project. The IAC also requested clarification on whether groundwater flows will naturally re‐establish upon cessation of dewatering.

4.1.3.2 Risk Assessment

4.1.3.2.1 Qualitative Descriptors

Whilst my stated area of expertise is “hydrogeology”, this also includes risk assessments as discussed in Section 1. In my opinion, the adopted risk assessment process is very subjective and tried to assess all aspects of the EES scoping requirements against the same criteria (for example, dewatering impacts of GDEs are assessed against the same criteria as impacts on agriculture).

There is no consequence rating for permanent loss of beneficial uses of groundwater and/or permanent impact to groundwater users in a Local Area (i.e. within the study area). There is a potential that this could occur associated with contaminant migration towards trenches/pits during dewatering. Furthermore, the time definitions for consequence have no reference point. For example, a Minor consequence infers a temporary loss while a Moderate consequence infers a long‐term loss however there is no definition of timing related to these (i.e. 1 day, 1 year, 10 years).

It is noted that Table 4‐3 in the Final EES Technical Report D indicates that a long‐term loss of one or more beneficial uses of groundwater, or long‐term impact to groundwater users in the local area is only considered a “Moderate Consequence”. Meaning for a “High” risk to occur, the Likelihood needs to be Almost Certain (i.e. the event is expected to occur in most circumstances). In my opinion, regardless of the scale, ANY long‐term loss or long‐term impact on a beneficial user whether environmental or human, should be treated as Major or Severe with respect to its consequence.

In my opinion, I believe this has caused the risk assessment to undervalue certain items. To demonstrate this, I will reference a risk that has been identified as Low such as “drawdown related impacts on GDEs”.

This risk was identified as a Low risk based on the following conditions (refer Table 6‐1, Risk ID HG2, Final EES Technical Report D):

“Possible likelihood” of an impact

“Minor consequence” of impact; and

“Low risk” if the impact were to occur.

However, considering: 1. It is stated that between KP19 and KP20 GDEs (MPSC municipality) fall within the study area

and that over 11 watercourses that cross the alignment are likely to be gaining systems. There are high potential GDEs mapped within the project area at KP15 and groundwater



levels in the closest monitoring well GW05 are shallow. No management measures are presented to protect GDEs where shallow groundwater is present.

2. Section 5.8 in the Final EES Technical Report D states that the following watercourses that cross the pipeline alignment are potential GDEs: Toomuc Creek, Cardinia Creek, Lower Gum Scrub Creek and Deep Creek. The National mapping of major streams is available through the Australian Hydrological Geospatial Fabric Surface Hydrology Catchment dataset. This shows that Toomuc Creek, which crosses the pipeline at KP41 is a gaining watercourse. Also, there are two HDD sections that cross these watercourses at KP40 and KP41. Toomuc Creek is noted as having suitable habitat for the dwarf galaxias, Australian Grayling, Growling Gras Frog, which are key EPBC Act listed fauna (refer Table 24 in EES Technical report B Terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity impact assessment).

3. GDEs have requirements including physical characteristics of the groundwater, such as the quantity, location, timing, frequency and duration of groundwater delivery and chemical characteristics.

If the above is taken into consideration, the residual risk is “Medium” (Moderate consequence and Likely Likelihood).

Note: It is recommended at the location presented in point 2 above mitigation measure MM‐C02 as defined in Table 4‐2 should be adopted.

4.1.3.2.2 Project Risks – Uncertainties

A number of identified risks presented in the Final EES Technical Report D have been defined as a Low risk, based on the consequence and likelihood ranking. The absence of a baseline dataset, the omission of a sensitivity analysis for the analytical modelling and some contradictions presented in the various EES technical reports, are limitations on assessing the risk and nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project. These are described below in more detail.

The Final EES Technical Report D states that the project requires 10 ML of water for hydrostatic testing while in the Final EES Technical Report E it states that the project needs 15 ML for hydrostatic testing. This discrepancy should be clarified as disposal of water, with potential contaminants has the potential to impact the shallow groundwater system.

In the Final EES Technical Report D, the risk assessment for Risk ID HG5 (Overland flow of groundwater) has been re‐evaluated to a Low risk (Consequence Minor and Likelihood Possible). Based on the revised consequence ranking criteria detailed in the Final EES Technical Report D I would consider this risk as Medium (Moderate consequence and Possible Likelihood). Summer thunderstorms are common, and these can quickly cause runoff from areas which may contain organics or other contaminants. A risk ranking of Medium requires the development of Environmental Performance Indicators.

In the Final EES Technical Report D, Section 1.2.6 Construction – states that pipeline installation is expected to occur primarily in summer, when ephemeral streams are less likely to be flowing and any surface water runoff into open trenches would be reduced. As noted, summer thunderstorms are common and direct runoff into ephemeral streams has the potential to impact stream sediments, where runoff may be contaminated. Long‐term re‐mobilisation of contaminants bound to sediments presents another risk to the shallow groundwater system that has not been assessed in the Groundwater Impact Assessment. Even though this risk would be Low, it should still be acknowledged.

The risks associated with groundwater extraction to be used for dust suppression, construction and/or hydrostatic testing have not been addressed in the Final EES Technical Report D. The EES dismisses the risk for groundwater extraction used for these purposes because the water would be sourced under relevant legislation and policy requirements.



However, no risk assessment has been undertaken on the environmental risk (i.e. GDEs, other groundwater users in a deeper formation, water quality risks (i.e. high salinity in basalt aquifers etc.)). The absence of a detailed risk assessment on water supply means that a risk evaluation on the water quantity, water quality, saline intrusion and GDEs can’t be undertaken. Additionally, it is stated that the Koo Wee Rup (KWR) Water Supply Protection Area (WSPA) is fully allocated and that a temporary entitlement may need to be purchased from an existing landholder. There is no risk assessment conducted on the potential risks associated with water availability and how this may impact on the Project.

Analytical groundwater quality data suggests that groundwater quality in certain parts of the alignment exceed the adopted criteria for some of the protected beneficial uses. Understanding how this water will be treated before disposal onto the ground is required. Table 6‐1 (Risk ID C4) in the Final EES Technical Report D details the mitigation measures to be implemented to treat contaminated groundwater. The proposed methods to treat and control contaminated water will be detailed in a PWCEMP with reference to the SEPP and PFAS NEMP. As this document has not been reviewed these risks can’t be assessed and it is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.

The mitigation measure presented to protect GDEs is that dewatering activities should be limited in duration (see Table 6‐1 HG2 in the Final EES Technical Report D). However additional management measures such as monitoring during construction and operations and implementing trigger levels, I consider would be considered more appropriate. Therefore, the mitigation measures proposed are not appropriate to protect the high potential GDE areas (i.e. Toomuc Creek) where groundwater is likely to be shallow during winter. We note that the measured groundwater level at MW18 (located at KP 40.5) was 3.93 mbgl in summer, however this is likely to fluctuate and be much higher during the winter period. This is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.

The Final EES Technical Report D states that drilling mud is used to install the pipeline where HDD is used, and the potential effects on groundwater quality could be further reduced if non‐toxic and biodegradable drilling muds are used. They also state that these non‐toxic muds may be used only where geotechnical conditions allow. However, further information on what type of drilling muds will be used if geotechnical conditions do not allow is required. A risk assessment will be required to evaluate additional risks associated with other forms of drilling muds that may contain constituents above background levels. This data gap is a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project and is considered a key omission from the EES.

Note: with regards to the above I also concur and recommend amendments to mitigation measure (MM‐HG02) that has been defined by in Jonathan Michael Medd Witness Statement (Dated September 25, 2020). That is:

Drilling muds used in horizontal directional drilling should be non‐toxic and where possible biodegradable

4.1.3.2.3 Project Risk Omissions

Groundwater related project risks not presented in the Groundwater Impact Assessment (Final EES Technical Report D) or within the Contamination and Acid Sulfate Soils Impact Assessment (Final EES Technical Report E) report include:

Project decommissioning risks.

Induced leakage from overlying wetlands due to Horizontal directional drilling (HDD).

Construction of the pipeline risks.



Increased runoff following backfilling and/or increased recharge.

Additives to the hydrostatic test water (i.e. oxygen scavenger and biocide additives).

Residue from pipe construction (sediments and metals).

Operation risks such as chemicals or hazardous substances entering groundwater due to a

failure of pipeline and release of contaminants.

Contaminated water entering watercourses and then recharging groundwater

Hydrostatic water risks. Will the water be stored in dams, tanks or come straight from the

well?

Changes to recharge due to earthworks (30 m footprint) have not been considered.

As stated in the Final EES Technical Report E the End of Line Scraper Station (EOLSS) works will take 16 weeks to complete. It is stated that it is unlikely that groundwater will be

intersected however there are no groundwater wells in this area to assess the potential

risks.

These other risks not addressed present a limitation on assessing the nature and extent of the environmental effects of the Project.

4.2 If the Project, as described in the EES cannot achieve a level of environmental performance, are there any recommendations that you would make?

Instruction reference: Appendix B instruction 3c, 3d and Appendix C Instruction 10.3

The Final EES Technical Report D and Chapter 25 (Environmental Management Framework) Volume 3 of the Main Report list numerous mitigation measures (or EPRs), however most of them contain very little information (other than a headline) on what will be achieved or targeted. Most of these mitigation measures relate to the development of specific Environmental Management Plans such as an Acid Sulfate Soil EMP or PFAS EMP. As stated in Chapter 25 (Environmental Management Framework) Volume 3 of the Main Report:

A range of monitoring programs would be specified in contractor CEMPs and OEMPs as relevant to monitor environmental compliance with the required mitigation measures and statutory approvals conditions. Monitoring frequency and monitoring parameters would be informed by regulatory requirements and scale of environmental risk. Monitoring may include periodic inspections of construction work areas and the operation of Project elements constructed. The contractor CEMPs for the Pipeline Works and Gas Import Jetty Works would be subject to regular reviews to verify that:

The monitoring frequency is sufficient to identify non‐conformance(s) with the mitigation measures, statutory approvals conditions, management documents and applicable legislation

The range of parameters being monitored is adequate (this is particularly relevant if an activity has led to an incident or complaint)

Changes to approved construction and operational activities are adequately covered by the monitoring programs.

The PWCEMP and contamination, acid sulfate soils or groundwater specific EMPs have not been provided for review, therefore the adequacy of monitoring programs, defined trigger levels or identified risk specific EPRs can’t be validated. As discussed above, several risk factors and/or omissions in understanding hydrogeological behaviour and its potential impact on environmental receptors are presented. Therefore, I have provided some recommendations or EPRs for additional



work that is considered necessary to address data gaps, and monitoring requirements to assess risks to environmental receptors during construction (Table 4‐2). This is in addition to the requirements summarised in Table 4‐1.

Finally and in addition to those listed in Table 4‐2 all recommended mitigation measures presented in Jonathan Michael Medd Witness Statement (Dated September 25, 2020), Refer Section 7, be adopted.

Table 4‐2 Recommendations and Potential Environmental Performance Requirements (EPR)

Risk / Uncertainty Suggested EPR/Additional Work

Establishment of a groundwater baseline not achieved


A groundwater monitoring event should be undertaken in early spring when groundwater tables are expected to be at their shallowest.

Confirm if findings agree with current assumptions. If not revisit the impact assessment.


In addition, when presenting the data, a QA/QC summary should also be provided to ensure outliers are identified and appropriate procedures have been followed. This seems to be missing in the EES and is considered best practice to include this information.

Groundwater quality and verification of contamination not achieved

Additional groundwater intrusive investigations are required at:

In the area between KP7.3 and KP7.9 once vegetation has been cleared, to confirm presence or absence of contaminated groundwater within the area, due to historical and existing land uses.

Adjacent to the meat packer facility (G&K O’Connor) at ~KP 48.2.

At this stage of the EES it is considered that an understanding of the current and predicted migration of contaminated groundwater have been underestimated.

Groundwater quality and verification of contamination not achieved

Amendments to mitigation measure (MM‐C02) that has been defined by and in Jonathan Michael Medd Witness Statement (Dated September 25, 2020). That is:

Where dewatering is required for the horizontal thrust bore bell holes, a management plan in line with the requirements of Dewatering Management Level 1 of the national guidelines should be implemented and include, as a minimum:

Installation of a groundwater monitoring well at approximately 10 metres from the thrust bore bell hole where acid sulfate soils are present and groundwater is intersected and dewatering is required during construction.

Water table level monitoring daily during the dewatering operation and compare against the estimated drawdown and/or radial extent of the groundwater cone of depression to ensure that the actual drawdown and/or radial extent of the groundwater cone of depression is not more than that predicted from calculations.



Risk / Uncertainty Suggested EPR/Additional Work

Measurement of the groundwater pH every day in the groundwater monitoring well and the excavation inflow during the dewatering operation to assess for groundwater acidification.

Cessation of dewatering and undertake risk assessment to determine appropriate remediation option(s) if the results of groundwater and/or dewatering effluent monitoring indicate deterioration in groundwater quality e.g. groundwater pH is less than 5.5 pH units,

If the actual duration of dewatering exceeds 7 days and the radial extent of the groundwater cone of depression is greater than 50 metres, a management plan in line with the requirements of Dewatering Management Level 2 would need to be implemented in line with the national guidelines.

The groundwater model does not address all risks identified in the project area

Additional sensitivity and uncertainty modelling analysis should be undertaken. Under a range of scenarios designed to stress the system, re‐run the analytical model. Use the results to confirm the risk status or develop mitigation strategies where risks are still apparent. This is particularly relevant if the revised modelling scenarios indicate dewatering impacts beyond the project buffer.

A stand‐alone chapter detailing the model assumptions and revised scenarios should be provided.

Mitigation measures proposed to minimise the risk to GDEs not appropriate

The mitigation measure presented to protect GDEs is that dewatering activities should be limited in duration. However additional management measures such as monitoring during construction and operations and implementing trigger levels would be considered more appropriate. This may be detailed in the EMPs; however, they have not been provided for review.

Risk assessment process

The adopted risk assessment process is very subjective. There is no consequence rating for permanent loss of beneficial uses of groundwater and/or permanent impact to groundwater users in a Local Area (i.e. within the study area). There is a potential that this could occur associated with contaminant migration towards trenches/pits during dewatering.

The time definitions for consequence have no reference point. For example, a Minor consequence infers a temporary loss while a Moderate consequence infers a long‐term loss however there is no definition of timing related to these (i.e. 1 day, 1 year, 10 years).

It is recommended that the consequence categories are revised.

Environmental Compliance

Appoint an Independent Reviewer and Environmental Auditor (IREA) to review and approve the construction and operational environmental management plan (EMP) other plans approved under the EPRs, to ensure compliance with the Environmental Management Strategy.

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Declaration by the Expert


5 Declaration by the Expert

With respect to my instructions, I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and that no matters of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld.

Sincerely,

Chris Smitt, Principal Hydrogeologist | Director | CEnvP EHS Support Pty Ltd

Expert Evidence (Groundwater) – Crib Point Gas Impot Jetty and Crib Point Pakenham Pipeline Project Appendicies

EHS Support Pty Ltd

Appendix A CV

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE

+61 3 9646 8615 | chris.smitt@ehs‐support.com | Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ehs‐support.com

chris.smitt@ehs‐support.com

+61 3 9646 8615

Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Search Chris Smitt

CHRIS SMITT, B.SC (HONS) HYD & GEO Principal Hydrogeologist

Chris is a principal hydrogeologist with over 20 years’

experience in both private and public sector within Australia,

North America and the Middle East. After graduating with a degree in Physics and Earth

Science, Chris majored in Hydrogeology & Geophysics during his honours year (2000)

from the Flinders University of South Australia.

Chris then began his career as a hydrogeologist with CSIRO Land & Water where he

developed a large‐scale 3D numerical model capable of predicting surface water &

groundwater interactions in complex basaltic aquifers across Southern Australia.

In 2006, Chris has worked as a hydrogeologist in private industry and has been

responsible for project delivery of numerous large scale, technically and logistically

complex projects including; CSG and Shale gas resource development projects in

Australia and North America (e.g. Great Artesian Basin Drilling Program); Coal mine

rehabilitation (e.g. rehabilitation of the Anglesea Coal Mine); Managed Aquifer Recharge

Projects (e.g. Canberra Integrated Water Management Program); Sustainable

Groundwater Development projects (e.g. Aspire Zone Development, Doha, Qatar); and

Catchment and groundwater impacts assessments (e.g. Development of an Victorian

Index of Groundwater Condition and numerous development and review of State

groundwater management plans).

Chris has worked extensively with upstream Oil and Gas development projects focusing

on CSG and Shale gas resource development projects in Australia and North America.

Throughout these projects, Chris has worked with peers and senior management within

client organizations to deliver numerous large scale, technically and logistically complex

Aquifer Injection Projects (such as in the Roma MAR Scheme, Australia), Irrigation

assessments and Hydraulic Fracking Risk assessments.

International Association of

Hydrogeologists

National Groundwater

Association

Australian Institute of

Geoscientists

Australian Water Association

Certificate of Advanced GIS

Analysis & Modelling, Adelaide

University, 2002

Certificate of competency for

German language studies,

Adelaide University, 2003

Advanced Resuscitation and

Senior Occupational First Aid

Managed aquifer recharge (MAR)

Analytical and numerical groundwater modelling

Expert Witness / Evidence Statements

Deep bore installation supervision

Inter‐aquifer communication and petroleum activities

Coal seam/shale gas water management

Groundwater investigation in complex fractured rock and

sedimentary basinsClifton StrengthsFinder identifies natural strengths and is used to build

high performance, well‐balanced teams that maximize productivity,

efficiency, harmony and engagement.

Bachelor of Science (Honours, Hydrogeology and Geophysics), Flinders University, Adelaide

EDUCATION

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

CERTIFICATION & TRAINING

EXPERTISE COMPETITION

ACTIVATOR

FOCUS

DELIBERATIVE

ANALYTICAL

STREN

GTH

S

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE –CHRIS SMITT, B.SC (HONS) HYD & GEO Pg. 2 of 9

+61 3 9646 8615 | chris.smitt@ehs‐support.com | Port Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENTS 1. Mordialloc Bypass (Freeway) Environment Effects Statement (EES) Inquiry ‐ Planning Panel Victoria; Advisory Committee

Hearing, January to March, 2019.

2. Peninsula Hot Springs and Southern Rural Water and St Andrews Beach Country Club Golf Course ‐ VCAT Proceeding No.

P2730/2015

3. 320 Mooleric Road, Ombersley (Colal Otway Shire Council and MCG Quarries Pty Ltd) – VCAT Proceeding No. P281/2015

4. Max Castle vs Southern Rural Water ‐ VCAT proceeding no p1348/2007

5. O'Keefe and Brimin Sands Groundwater License Application – Expert report VCAT appeal P205/2008

HYDROGEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS AND AUDITS Anglesea Coal Mine Rehabilitation | Anglesea Victoria Project Manager and Lead Hydrogeologist The long‐term objective is the development of a pit lake with a self‐sustaining circum‐neutral stratified water body and discharges

from the pit lake which can potentially improve downstream beneficial users in the Lower Anglesea River.

However, within the mine catchment, the geological profile consisting of the Eastern View Formation (EVF) is dominated by a coal

lithological unit containing a pyritic siltstone, a form of iron sulfide. As a result, the catchment naturally generates acid when its

shallow coal seams (which contain high a sulfur content) come in and out of contact with water and oxygen.

Due to the elevated dissolved metals and acidity within the surface water, active and passive treatment methods have been

developed to be incorporated in the Mine Closure Plan to increase alkalinity and reduce dissolved metal concentrations. These

methods are summarized in a surface water and groundwater management and monitoring plan and are a critical component of

water quality management during the early stages of pit lake development to ensure the long‐term objectives are achieved.

The hydrogeological technical studies that formed the basis behind the Mine Closure Activities were:

Sub Catchment Scale Geochemical Modelling

Numerical Groundwater Modelling

Water Quality Baseline sampling and Analysis

Pit and Spoil pH Balance Assessment

Risk assessment in accordance with AS/NZ ISO 31000:2009; and

Management of civil design engineers tasked with works on waterways, surface water diversion structures and dam analysis

Rehabilitation of the Point Henry Refinery | Geelong, Victoria Technical Hydrogeologist Chris was tasked with peer reviewing 3rd party hydrogeological reports as well as developing regional and site hydrogeological

models. This led to the development of a groundwater monitoring network in which Chris assisted in supervising the installation of

over 200 groundwater and soil gas monitoring bores.

KEY EXPERIENCE



Residential Development Impact Assessment, New Gisborne | Colanz Pty Project Engineer Project engineer involving a desktop assessment, site visit and field investigations to provide Colanz Pty Ltd with technical advice

upon the impact of a residential development on the racecourse reserve Marshlands. The project involved drilling, instillation and

sampling of 6 licensed groundwater investigation bores. A short‐term pumping test and analysis was also performed.

Securing Sustainable Groundwater for Aspire Zone | Aspire Zone Doha, Qatar Project Manager The Leisure Land precinct adjacent to Aspire Zone in Doha, Qatar was irrigated with potable water supplied by Khara‐Maa. Due to

high costs and the possibility of Khara‐Maa tightening supply, Aspire Zone wished to replace or augment this supply with a suitable

supply of groundwater. As such, a hydrogeological study was undertaken to characterise the quality and quantity of groundwater

that can be extracted and to design an extraction regime. Chris project managed a series of hydrogeological investigations on the

proposed site. This included a desktop analysis of the characteristics and history of the aquifer and surrounding area. Drilling,

completion and sampling of 13 boreholes. Pumping tests and analysis to determine optimum well yield and aquifer parameters;

Development of a numerical model of the physical resource and to test various well‐field configurations that may be used in the

development of the groundwater resource.

LGL Ballarat Groundwater Monitoring System | Lihir Gold Limited Assistant Auditor Assistant auditor to conduct an audit of the groundwater monitoring system at LGL Ballarat as part of EPA Works Approval No

WA63536. The works approval is to allow LGL Ballarat Pty Ltd to store recycled brine within the Terrible Gully Tailings Storage Facility

(TSF) at the Woolshed Gully Site in Ballarat. The audit objectives were to the assess the adequacy of the groundwater monitoring

program, and to provide recommendations for any additional measures required

Canberra Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme, Federal Treasury Project Manager and Technical Hydrogeologist Project manager and technical hydrogeologist to assist the ACT Government to reduce the demand on the mains water supply, by

12% by 2013 and 25% by 2023. This was partly achieved by stormwater harvesting, storage and recovery as a means to help the ACT

Government achieve these targets.

In order to identify suitable areas for this type of MAR scheme to occur, the project involved exploratory geophysics, groundwater

bore design and installation, geochemical modelling and other hydraulic information to assist in the procurement and detailed

design of surface infrastructure to trial a MAR scheme in the northern suburbs of Canberra. The project found one of the highest

yielding parts of the Canberra Formation investigated to date (>50 l/s) which allowed the ACT Government to store and recover

more water than anticipated.

Western Metropolitan Melbourne MAR Feasibility, Melbourne Water Project Manager Project manager for a regional review on the feasibility for a 1‐2GL/year type MAR schemes across western metropolitan Melbourne

for irrigation and third pipe in new suburb developments. The initial phase was to complete a desktop assessment of the

groundwater conditions at a number of strategic distribution locations in the region, including the presence, quality and depth of

groundwater (both in the shallow and deeper aquifers and movement between these aquifers) and to assess the suitability of these

aquifers for the storage and extraction of captured water. The desktop assessment was undertaken in accordance with the National

Water Quality Management Strategy guidelines for Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR), published in July 2009. The final phase of the

project focused on the most promising locations, based on the outcomes of the Entry Level and Stage 1 Risk Assessment, and

collecting site specific data and conceptualising the potential MAR scheme with the groundwater conditions to develop an

understanding of the key data gaps and work required to progress a MAR scheme in the area.

to ensure the risk to the beneficial uses is minimised and maintained at an acceptable level.



Development of an Victorian Index of Groundwater Condition | Dept of Sustainability and Environment Project Manager Project manager and lead hydrogeologist for developing the Victorian Index of Groundwater Condition (IGC). An online user friendly

tool which identified which aquifers within Victoria were under stress from either human or environmental factors. The project

involved a trial in six aquifers assessing their beneficial use and “naturalness” for groundwater quality, quantity, environmental

support and physical characteristics.

Determining Victoria Groundwater Age for Management Options | Dept of Sustainability and Environment Project Manager In Southern Australia, groundwater became a significant freshwater resource since the onset of the drought in the (mid 1990’s to

late 2000’s), with the rates of bore installation and extraction of water from aquifers increasing during this time. Whilst the drought

has led to many declining groundwater levels across the State of Victoria, it has also facilitated studies involving isotope

hydrogeochemistry to better understand surface water / groundwater interactions, groundwater flow paths and age of the

resource. Chris was the project manager and lead hydrogeologist to conduct a desktop literature review and collect additional field

data involving carbon‐14 (14C), tritium (3H), chloride‐36, (36Cl) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) dating to determine the ages of the

groundwater in “key areas” of Victoria. The results helped set sustainable future allocation limits for groundwater extraction.

Yarra Valley Water Hydrogeological and Geophysical Assessment | Coca-Cola Amitil Project Manager Project manager of a desktop study followed by on‐site investigations in the Yarra Valley region of Victoria to identify a new

groundwater source which will supplement existing bottled spring water supplies and assist in making amendments to the existing

groundwater extraction license on the site. The hydrogeological assessment involved geophysics, baseflow impact calculations into

the Don River and surrounding rivers as well as analysis of isotope geochemistry.

Impacts of the Donald Wastewater Treatment Plant | Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water Project Manager The Donald Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is situated near the Donald township and the Richardson River and came under

question by the Donald Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plan (NEIP) that operations at the WWTP are having a negative

effect on water quality in the Richardson River via leaching of nutrients and contaminants to the watertable, with contaminated

groundwater discharging to the river as baseflow. Chris project managed and undertook an investigation whether the WWTP and its

operations are resulting in adverse impacts on the river. The project involved the collation of data and site history. A review of the

monitoring program, including the sampling methodology to determine reliability of the monitoring results was undertaken and soil

infiltration potential was calculated. The assessment concluded that there has been no evidence of treated wastewater impacting

the Richardson River via baseflow, however, localised contamination could be identified in other areas of the landscape. Suggested

improvements to the current monitoring programs and remedial actions which may mitigate any identified or potential

environmental impacts to the River in the future were made.

Development of a Groundwater and Irrigation Drainage Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (MER) Plan | Mallee Catchment Management Authority Project Manager Project manager who was responsible the development of a groundwater and irrigation drainage Monitoring, Evaluation and

Reporting (MER) plan to help identify which parts of the landscape are sufficiently being monitored and those where threats related

to groundwater and irrigation drainage are deficient. The project was a large Microsoft Access and GIS database which was accepted

by the Mallee CMA in 2006.



Lake Corangamite Groundwater Modelling | Corangamite CMA Project Manager Lake Corangamite is a terminal lake within the Corangamite River Basin in south western Victoria. In the past, water has been

diverted away from the lake to the Barwon River via the Woady Yaloak diversion scheme. This resulted in relatively low water levels

and increased salinity which in part has been exacerbated by drought conditions over the past decade. Chris project managed and

developed a steady‐state numerical groundwater model (Modflow) for the target region, encompassing Lakes Corangamite,

Weering, Gnarpurt, Beeac, Colac, Murdeduke and Cundare Pool. The model was calibrated to best represent the naturally occurring

conditions associated with the major lakes and rivers in the area. A number of scenarios trialing the effects of drought, extraction,

land‐use and lake level were then run. Scenario modelling highlighted the changes to groundwater systems, under a number of

different environmental conditions. For drought and extraction scenarios recharge was altered to show the effect on groundwater

flow conditions by removing/adding water to the system. The effect of lake level modelling found that changing lake levels altered

capture zones and flow paths, as well as changing groundwater divides between lake systems.

Critical Review of the Warrion WSPA Groundwater Management Plan | SRW Project Manager In 2002 the Consultative Committee developed the Warrion Water Supply Protection Area (WSPA) (Groundwater) Management Plan

to be submitted to the Minister. The plan acknowledged that the PAV was estimated with a low level of confidence and adopted a

PAV of 16,500 ML/yr which is greater than the recommended level set out in 2001. On behalf of the Department of Sustainability

and Environment, Chris developed a decisions paper detailing recommendations as to any consequent changes to the plan or the

plan prescriptions. The paper provided an assessment of the key technical issues related to the development of the Warrion WSPA

groundwater management plan. In particular the assessment focused on technical studies related to Groundwater Dependent

Ecosystems; Surface water and groundwater connectivity; Acid Sulfate Soil potential; and Groundwater level trends.

Determine a New Method for Assessing the Status of Dryland Salinity Across Victoria | Dept of Sustainability and Environment Project Manager The 2000 National Land and Water Resources Audit estimated that 670,000 ha of land was at high risk from shallow water tables

(equivalent of high dryland salinity risk) in Victoria. The Audit then predicted that by the year 2050, the risk of dryland salinity in

Victoria would increase by over 450%. However, by 2008 only 256,194 ha of mapped dryland salinity existed (this equates to a 76%

reduction of the Audit’s prediction for 2008. With this new evidence, Chris project managed a review that assessed the extent and

nature of the current dryland salinity risk, identifying and discuss the major factors influencing this and describe the likely future

outlook to the year 2015 and 2050 for two areas in Victoria these being the Corangamite Catchment Management Area (CCMA) and

the North Central Catchment Management Area (NCCMA). The outcomes of the review provided recommendations to DSE on future

policy directions for dryland salinity management across the areas and eventually across the State. These were then later adopted in

the 2008 Biodeversity white paper.

Determining Water and Salt Balances for the Murray-Darling Basin End-of-Valley Target Sites | Murray Darling Basin Authority Project Engineer The project involved collation of all available flow and electrical conductivity (EC) data for the 32 Murray‐Darling Basin End‐of‐Valley

target stations for the benchmark period (1975‐2000). Various statistical methodologies were then used to explore the raw data

with the use of flow, EC, and saltload exceedance curves. Estimation of historical stream salinity trends for the benchmark period

using the GENSTAT statistical software, and Estimation of historical catchment salt balances for the last 15 years of the benchmark

period (1985‐2000) was then undertaken. The results were used as a basis for policy development for environmental flow and water

allocation issues throughout the Murray‐Darling Basin.



Defining Groundwater Flow Systems (GFSs) on the Victorian Volcanic Plains to Accurately Assess the Risks of Salinity and Impacts of Changed Land Use | Corangamite Catchment Management Authority Project Engineer The project involved the development a 3D geological and hydrological numerical model using GMS MODFLOW and ARC Hydro to

produce images of the lithology and groundwater chemistry under the Victorian Volcanic Plains (VVP) of western Victoria. The model

was then calibrated using water level and chemistry data. The model improved our understanding of the hydrological processes

across the VVP and helped delineate where local, intermediate and regional GFS dominate the salinity processes. The model also

helped establish the cause(s) of rising salinity trends in the VVP as described in the Corangamite Regional Salinity Action Plan and

enabled new targets to be established on saline land to measure the risk to the ecology from either increasing or decreasing salinity

as described in the Corangamite Regional Salinity Action Plan.

COAL SEAM GAS EXPERIENCE Tier 1-3 Groundwater and Soil Gas Risk Assessments | South West Queensland Technical Hydrogeologist and PM 2 The project involved management and coordination for a major Oil and Gas Company to undertake a soil gas investigation and risk

assessment works in the relevant parts of the regulator‐imposed “Excavation Caution Zone (ECZ)” close to Chinchilla (QLD).

The over‐arching strategic objectives were to undertake a phased approach to:

Undertake a risk assessment and develop control measures to mitigate identified risks; and

To demonstrate that CSG development in the relevant overlapping parts of the ECZ can be conducted safely with acceptable and

mitigated risk to employees, the community and the environment.

More specific project objectives include:

Assess and characterise shallow geology and delineate the likelihood of potential UCG combustion gases in the shallow

soil/weathered rock profile being present within the study area;

Assess human health and environmental risk exposure pathways and risks associated with the identified likely combustion gases

within the ECZ/Orana gas field overlap area;

Assess the potential for contaminants associated with the UCG site to be mobilised due to CSG development operations.

Roma Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme, Santos Senior Project Manager and Technical Lead Senior project manager and technical lead for the Roma Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme valued at $18M over 2 years. The

project initially involved drilling design, supervision and pump testing deep (>250m) groundwater observation bores and injection

wells used to trial water injection into the Great Artesian Basin (South‐East Queensland). Results from the trial (which included

hydrochemical analysis and numerical modelling) lead to the development of detailed design requirements for the installation of

large scale MAR scheme consisting of up to 8 injection wells and 12 observation bores targeting deep (up to 600m) beneficial use

aquifers capable of receiving up to 20‐30ML/d of treated CSG water.

Multiple Irrigation and Groundwater Assessments, Origin Energy South West Queensland Technical Lead and Project Manager Origin wished to expand the areas of irrigation using treated coal seam Gas water at several locations, however it is understood that

irrigation rates that exceed the internal drainage capacity could potentially lead to seepage and discharge of saline irrigation water

to surfacewater systems. As a result, for each area, Chris undertook a study that involved a hydrogeological investigation and

development of a numerical groundwater model to assess the potential for seepage and associated impacts of irrigation.



Santos GLNG Well and Bore Integrity Risk Assessment, Santos Project Manager and Technical Lead Santos GLNG has expended considerable effort in the management and maintenance of the aquifers and the prevention of aquifer

interconnectivity. However, to date all of this work has not been integrated into a single plan or report. This project provided a

systematic review of the well installation processes, the management and assessments completed by Santos GLNG to date, and an

assessment of the potential risks posed by existing and proposed wells. Through this process, Santos GLNG demonstrated that

aquifer interconnectivity arising from well or bore failure has been adequately considered in the development program, and the

methodologies used for drilling, completion and abandonment of CSG wells are sufficient for management of long term risks.

Well Integrity Risk Assessment, Confidential Client Project Manager and Technical Lead Chris undertook a risk assessment for a proponent which evaluated common mechanism of failure for historic conventional oil and

gas wells, CSG wells, and private landholder water bores. The likelihood and consequence of failure was also addressed, and the

methodology used is adaptable to future development areas.

The risk assessment demonstrated that historical conventional oils and gas wells posed the highest risk relative to CSG production

wells for gas migration to surface and inter‐aquifer interaction. Private landholder water bores were also considered in terms of gas

and fluid migration. While the majority of these bores were constructed in a relatively unregulated industry (during the early 20th

century), they pose a low risk of cross aquifer flow being low. These bores are generally located above potential coal seam or

conventional gas targets resulting in low risk of gas migration.

By using this desktop approach, the proponent can satisfy community, State and Federal environmental concerns, as well as

recognizing significant cost or cash flow reduction (multi millions) as management actions including risk‐based monitoring,

inspection and plug and abandonment decisions could be implemented and prioritized based on the relative magnitude of risk.

Armour Energy, Identifying Sources of Sustainable Water for 2014/15 Shale Gas Drilling Program Project Manager and Technical Lead Chris undertook the following tasks:

1. Reviewed existing environmental values and surface water characteristics 2. Assesses groundwater characteristics within the project area with a view to completing a baseline assessment 3. Summarise the system’s capability to take water from either the surface or the groundwater system.

The results found across the eastern half of ATP 1087, water is likely to be available from both surface water (Nicholson River) and groundwater options.

Across the western half of ATP 1087 no perennial surface water systems exist with only intermittent and ephemeral river systems being available for potential water extraction. Water in this region should focus on groundwater within the Walford Dolomite which known to contain water bearing lenses.

Bibblewindi Study, Santos Technical Lead The study involved an assessment of the potential impacts of brine seepage and development of remedial alternatives for

groundwater. A detailed hydrogeologic conceptual model was developed using hydrogeologic and geochemical analyses to assess

the magnitude of impacts and leakage and the fate and transport in groundwater. Using information on groundwater and

soil/bedrock chemistry the maximum lateral extent of impacts was determined and a groundwater extraction system designed and

installed.



Tintsfield Study, Santos Technical Lead Hydrogeologic and geochemical assessment of coal seam water storage ponds. The study involved a detailed assessment of

hydrogeologic data and groundwater geochemistry to assess the potential for pond leakage and impacts in the perimeter

groundwater monitoring network. The study demonstrated that the pond was not significantly impacting groundwater and a long‐

term monitoring program, better focused on groundwater geochemistry, was developed to assess the potential for leakage.

Development of an EMP for an Underground Coal Gasification Pilot Trial, Confidential Client Hydraulics Technical Lead This project involved completion of a risk assessment and development of an EMP for an Underground Coal Gasification Pilot Trial in

South East QLD. An underground gas storage risk assessment was conducted to determine the adequacy of geological strata for the

trial. The project also involved understanding contaminants of concern and undertaking a toxicology risk assessment. A fate and

transport model was also undertaken as well as risk‐based rehabilitation and remediation plan.

Gunnedah Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme, Santos Project Manager and Technical Hydrogeologist Project manager and technical hydrogeologist to assess the viability and risks of a proposed managed aquifer recharge scheme in

the Gunnedah‐Oxley basin, NSW. The project involved assessing the hydrogeological properties of the region, developing a

numerical model to estimate impacts, and undertaking a risk assessment and priority matrix to define priority areas for MAR.

Narrabri Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme | Santos Project Director Project director of a proposed MAR scheme where treated CSG water would be discharged in to the base of a deep alluvial creek

system in the Narrabri region, NSW. The project involved geophysical transect to determine the storage capacity of the system as

well as laboratory analysis of core samples to determine geochemical compatibilities and surface water / groundwater interactions.

Liaison with the NSW Office of Water was also a key consideration of the project with all approved outputs being used to assist in

the procurement and detailed design of surface infrastructure to trial a MAR.

Scotia Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme, Santos Senior Project Manager and Technical Lead Senior project manager and technical lead for the Scotia Managed Aquifer Recharge Scheme. The project involved an assessment of

the groundwater conditions underneath the site, including, coring 500m of aquifer material with XRD/XRF analysis, design and

supervision of large diameter, deep injection wells, pumping tests, geochemical compatibility modeling, and detailed design criteria

for the procurement of surface infrastructure. The project was undertaken in accordance with the National Water Quality

Management Strategy guidelines for Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR), published in July 2009.

Surat Basin Flow and Solute Transport Numerical Model, Santos Project Manager Project manager for the development of a flow and solute transport numerical model. The model was designed to simulate

cumulative impacts of a proposed MAR scheme in the Roma CSG field and its potential impact on surrounding landholders and town

water supply bores. The model was also used to inform injection pressure calculations and pipe diameter sizing for the EPCM

contractor to factor in to the engineering detail design.

Arrow Energy MAR Feasibility Options Analysis, Arrow Energy Project Manager A review up to 50 Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) schemes from around the world, its objectives and results (if a trial has

occurred) was undertaken. The results were then used to guide Arrow Energy’s water management strategy involving MAR.



Publications and Presentations Smitt, C., Goulding, N., and Silverman, T., (2014). Surat Basin Well Integrity Risk Assessment. In Proceedings of the American Society

of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Shale Engineering Energy Conference, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, July 21‐24.

Smitt, C., Vanderzalm, J., Dillon, P., Ife., D and Davidge, S., (2012). Aquifer Recharge to Assist in the Management of Produced CSG

Water. in Proceedings of 2012 Annual APPEA Conference, Adelaide.

Smitt, C., Vanderzalm, J., Dillon, P., Ife., D and Davidge, S., (2011). Aquifer Recharge to Assist in the Management of Produced Coal

Seam Gas Water. in Proceedings of 2011 National Groundwater Association Spring Meeting, Baltimore, Maryland.

Dahlhaus, P., Cox, J., Simmons, C., Smitt, C., (2007). Beyond hydrogeologic evidence: challenging current salinity models in the

Corangamite region, Australia. Hydrogeology Journal HJ‐2007‐0621

Smitt, C. M., Cox, J. W., Herczeg, A., Wilford, J., Henschke, C., Liddicoat, C., and Walker, G., (2006). The origins, mobilisation and

management of salt in the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges of South Australia. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences.

Smitt, C., Herczeg, A., Davies, P., and Cox, J (2005). Identifying sources of salt and its mobilisation processes in the Eastern Mt Lofty

Ranges, South Australia. in Proceedings of “Where Waters Meet” NZHS‐IAH‐NZSSS Auckland Conference, New Zealand, 28th

November to 2nd December

Smitt, C., Gilfedder, M., Dawes, W., Petheram, C., Stauffacher, M., and Walker, G., (2001). Modelling the Effectiveness of Recharge

Reduction for Salinity Management: Sensitivity to Catchment Characteristics, in Proceedings of Murray‐Darling Basin Groundwater

Workshop, September, Victor Harbor


EHS Support Pty Ltd

Appendix B Harwood Andrews / MPSC Instructions

zzemail\P.1 - S.1\P:10/07/20 5:28 ha <<52>>

Our ref: 21806053 Contact: Allison Tansley Direct Line: 03 9611 0197 Direct Email: [email protected] Principal: Kate Morris

10 July 2019 Chris Smitt EHS Support Email: [email protected] Subject to legal professional privilege Dear Chris, Crib Point Gas Import Jetty and Crib Point-Pakenham Pipeline Project (Project) Environment Effects Statement (EES) process We act for Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (Council) in respect of the EES process for the above Project. We are instructed to engage you to provide expert evidence in the area of groundwater. The EES is being exhibited from 2 July 2020 to 26 August 2020. An electronic copy can be accessed here. You can request a hard copy of the exhibited documents here. An Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) will be appointed to:

• Review and consider the EES and public submissions received in relation to the environmental effects of the Project;

• Review the draft planning scheme amendment C272morn (Amendment), which has been prepared to facilitate the Project, along with any public submissions received in relation to the Amendment;

• Provide advice that can be used to inform the EPA’s consideration of the Works Approval Application prepared by the proponent for the Project.

The Terms of Reference for the IAC can be accessed here. Please take the time to read them and familiarise yourself with purpose of the IAC as set out in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the Terms of Reference. The IAC will hold a public hearing scheduled to run from 12 October 2020 for 6-8 weeks. We will represent Council at the public hearing and propose to call you as an expert witness for Council.

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.gasimportprojectvictoria.com.au/environment-effects-statement#view-the-ees

https://www.gasimportprojectvictoria.com.au/order-ees

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/environment-assessment/browse-projects/projects/crib-point#panel-committee

2

zzemail\P.2 - S.1\P:10/07/20 5:28 ha

Instructions We request that you provide a fee proposal to:

1. Review the exhibited EES documents relevant to Council’s municipal area (the Mornington Peninsula) and your areas of expertise (groundwater), in particular:

a. Summary Document; b. Main Report:

i. Chapter 3: Project development ii. Chapter 4: Project description iii. Chapter 5: Key approvals and assessment framework iv. Chapter 9: Groundwater v. Chapter 25: Environmental Management Framework;

c. Technical Report D: Groundwater; d. Attachment II: Legislation and policy report; e. Attachment III: Environmental risk report; f. Attachment VI: Draft Planning Scheme Amendment C272morn including the Draft Incorporated

Document; g. Attachment VII: Map Book.

2. Review the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental

Effects Act 1978 (2006).

3. Prepare an expert witness report on behalf of Council that contains your opinion on the following matters, as relevant to Council’s municipal area and your areas of expertise (groundwater):

a. Does the EES adequately document the investigation, avoidance and minimisation of potential environmental effects (groundwater), of the Proposal and relevant alternatives, as well as associated environmental mitigation and management measures? If not, why not?

b. Do you agree with the EES assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project, their significance and acceptability having regard to the draft evaluation objectives in the EES scoping requirements, relevant policy, legislation, best practice, and the principles and objectives of “ecologically sustainable development”? If not, why not?

c. Are there any specific measures or changes (including to the design or management of the Project via the draft Amendment, works approval and environmental management framework) you recommend to avoid, mitigate or manage the environmental effects of the Project within acceptable limits having regard to the draft evaluation objectives in the EES scoping requirements, relevant policy, legislation, best practice, and the principles and objectives of “ecologically sustainable development”?

d. If you do recommend such measures, then to the extent that it is within your expertise to do so,

please provide you opinion on whether or not such measures are feasible. Your expert witness statement must:

a. Comply with Planning Panels Guide to expert evidence (DOCX, 81.8 KB), April 2019; b. Provide a summary of key issues, opinions and recommendations.

Subject to acceptance of your fee proposal, we request a copy of your expert witness statement be provided to us by 20 July. Fee proposal and invoices Please send your fee proposal to Council care of Harwood Andrews by email, marked for the attention of Allison Tansley. Your proposal should be broken-down in the following tasks:

• your review of the EES, works approval application and draft Amendment;

• preparation of expert witness statement;

• up to 2 hours of conferences with Council’s lawyers;

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/95237/DSE097_EES_FA.pdf

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/95237/DSE097_EES_FA.pdf

https://www.planning.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0026/98162/G2-Guide-to-Expert-Evidence-Apr-2019.DOCX

3

zzemail\P.3 - S.1\P:10/07/20 5:28 ha

• your review and comments on other parties’ expert evidence;

• your attendance at any conclave if experts requested by the IAC; and

• your appearance as an expert witness on behalf of Council at the hearing. Should your fee proposal be approved, tax invoices may be addressed to: Mornington Peninsula Shire Council c/- Allison Tansley Harwood Andrews [email protected] Please note that our invoices to Council have 30-day payment terms. Confidentiality and legal professional privilege Council sat on the Technical Refence Group (TRG) for the project and provided comments on the draft EES. As a member of the TRG, Council is bound by obligations of confidentiality under the TRG terms of reference. These confidentiality obligations apply to any consultant engaged by Council to review information provided to TRG members. This means you must not disclose your assessment of the draft EES to any other party. Please note that your expert evidence must be based on the exhibited EES documentation and not on any information provided to Council as part of the TRG. Further, your professional opinion is sought in the context of us providing legal advice to Council. In the circumstances, your expert witness report provided to us attracts legal professional privilege until circulated. To ensure that legal professional privilege is maintained, we request that you keep the preparation of your expert witness statement confidential until it is circulated. If you have any queries, please contact Allison Tansley (9611 0197, [email protected]) or Kate Morris (9611 0142, [email protected]). Yours sincerely,

Kate Morris HARWOOD ANDREWS





EHS Support Pty Ltd

Appendix C Maddocks / CSC Instructions

[8236642: 27667551_1]

PLANNING PANELS VICTORIA INQUIRY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE BETWEEN AGL PTY LTD and APA GROUP and MINISTER FOR PLANNING and CARDINIA SHIRE COUNCIL and OTHERS

MEMORANDUM TO EXPERT – GROUNDWATER

INTRODUCTION

1. We act for Cardinia Shire Council (Council).

2. As you are aware, this matter involves a joint proposal by AGL Energy Ltd and APA Group (collectively, the Proponents) to establish a gas import jetty at Crib Point and construct a pipeline from Crib Point to connect the jetty to the gas transmission network at Pakenham.

3. The proposal seeks permission for:

mooring of a floating gas storage and regasification unit at the existing Crib Point jetty, with capacity to convert liquid natural gas to its gaseous state;

construction of new jetty facilities to enable re-gasified natural gas to be transferred from the FSRU to a new receiving facility at the landward end of the jetty;

construction of the receiving facility providing odorising of the gas;

construction of a 57 kilometre high-pressure gas pipeline from the receiving facility to Pakenham; and

construction of a facility to enable connection of gas delivered by the new pipeline to the existing gas transmission network, including capacity to correct pressure and ensure delivered gas meets system specifications.

(Proposal)

4. The proposed pipeline will be approximately 57kms long and will be located within a 15m wide easement. Buried at a depth of approximately 1.2m below ground, it will run through Cardinia’s Westernport Green Wedge Land used for agricultural purposes and public land, including land owned and managed by Council on behalf of the community.

5. The Minister for Planning (Minister) has required that an Environmental Effects Statement (EES) under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 be undertaken for the proposal.

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 2

6. This matter has been listed by Planning Panels Victoria for hearing by an Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) to commence on 12 October 2020 for 6-8 weeks. A Directions Hearing is scheduled for 17 September 2020.

YOUR INSTRUCTIONS

7. We understand that you were previously briefed (by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council) in respect of the EES process for the Proposal and that you have a copy of all the materials relating to this Proposal.

8. You provided preliminary advice to Council on 14 August 2020.

9. We are instructed to engage you to provide an expert witness statement and request that you appear on behalf of Council at the IAC Hearing. Your written statement of evidence should provide a summary of the key issues and contain your opinion and recommendations on matters relevant to Council’s municipal area and your area of expertise (groundwater).

10. Consistent with your preliminary advice, we ask that your expert evidence address as relevant in Cardinia Shire:

10.1 Does the EES adequately document the investigation, avoidance and minimisation of potential environmental effects (groundwater), of the Proposal and relevant alternatives, as well as associated environmental mitigation and management measures?

10.2 Do you agree with the EES assessment of the potential environmental effects of the Project, their significance and acceptability?

10.3 Are there any specific measures or changes (including to the design or management of the Project and environmental management framework) you recommend in Cardinia Shire to avoid, mitigate or manage the environmental effects of the Project within acceptable limits?

11. In forming your opinions we request that you consider the following exhibited EES documents, in particular:

11.1 Summary Document;

11.2 Main Report:

11.2.1 Chapter 3: Project development

11.2.2 Chapter 4: Project description

11.2.3 Chapter 5: Key approvals and assessment framework

11.2.4 Chapter 9: Groundwater

11.2.5 Chapter 25: Environmental Management Framework;

11.3 Technical Report D: Groundwater;

11.4 Attachment II: Legislation and policy report;

11.5 Attachment III: Environmental risk report;

11.6 Attachment VII: Map Book.

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 3

12. Please also consider the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (2006).

13. We will advise when your written statement of evidence is required to be circulated following the directions hearing. We ask you to kindly provide a draft statement a week in advance of the deadline.

14. Your statement of evidence must comply with the Planning Panels Guide to Expert Evidence, April 2019, a copy of which is included in your brief.

COUNCIL’S POSITION

15. On 17 August 2020, at its Council meeting, Council resolved:

15.1 to note the Issues Paper for Council: Exhibition of Environmental Effects Statement: Proposed AGL-APA gas Import Jetty, Pipeline and delivery Facility – Crib Point to Pakenham;

15.2 not to support the exhibited EES in its current form;

15.3 to endorse a submission to the Department of Environment, Water and Planning generally in accordance with the draft submission which details issues relating to:

15.3.1 Inconsistency with The Renewable Energy (Investments and Jobs) Act 2017, the Climate Change Act 2017, the Victorian Reductions Emissions Targets, and incorrect and insufficient data relating to gas demands and sustainability of the proposal.

15.3.2 Impacts on groundwater have not been satisfactorily addressed and may exceed acceptable levels.

15.3.3 Inaccurate traffic impact data and the need for a traffic management strategy to be prepared based on accurate information.

15.3.4 Refinement of the pipeline alignment to reduce impacts on the future viability of agricultural land in the Green Wedge Zone.

15.3.5 Insufficient information relating to the ongoing impacts on all types of land holdings that fall within the 640 metre Measurement Length of the proposed Pipeline.

15.3.6 No direct consultation with owners and occupiers of land holdings that fall within the 640 metre Measurement Length of the proposed Pipeline.

16. A copy of Council’s meeting minutes and the submission it made are included in your brief.

BACKGROUND

17. While you are already aware of the background to this proceeding, we provide a brief background summary below for completeness.

Background to Crib Point Proposal

18. On 20 August 2018, at its Council meeting, Council was requested to consider a petition presented to the Victorian Legislative Assembly raising concern with the proposed Crib Point to Pakenham High Pressure Gas Pipeline. This report called for an alternate pipeline design on the basis that the proposal would result in the following issues:

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 4

The risk to valuable high production agricultural land, which forms a substantive part of Melbourne’s food bowl.

The potential risk of a significant event (leak, explosion or fire) which would compromise human and food safety.

Negative impacts on farming enterprises and therefore local employment and other businesses dependent on the farming enterprises.

Disruption to private landowners and the environment

Destruction of endangered species habitat

The landowner identified route makes better use of existing linear infrastructure, takes into consideration current and future land use considerations and community needs and has the least practical impact on landowners.1

19. Council resolved to note the petition regarding the AGL Crip Point to Pakenham High Pressure Gas Pipeline and advise the lead petitioner that it is Council’s preference that the pipeline follows road reserves and existing easements to minimise the effect on farming land and communicate this to local State Members of Parliament.

20. On 13 September 2018, the Minister accepted the referral of the Proposal.

21. On 8 October 2018, the Minister determined that an environmental effects statement is required for the Proposal. In the reasons for this decision, the Minister noted that:

21.1 The project has the potential for significant environmental effects, including on native vegetation, habitat of threatened terrestrial and aquatic species listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, as well as risk to some aspects of the ecology in the North Arm of the Western Port Ramsar site.

21.2 There are potential effects from construction and operation of the gas pipeline on water quality of waterways and the Western Port Ramsar site and on Aboriginal cultural heritage.

21.3 While these potentially significant effects and other residual effects could be assessed and managed through a range of separate statutory processes, an EES is warranted to help ensure the proposal’s effects and relevant uncertainties are rigorously investigated as part of an integrated assessment process prior to any statutory approval decisions.

22. On 18 February 2019, at its Council meeting, Council considered the proposed EES and the assessment of environmental effects of all components and stages of the proposal. Council considered (and the legislative requirements for the preparation of the EES require) that the EES should include:

22.1 the likelihood of adverse effects and associated uncertainty of available predictions or estimates;

22.2 the potential effects on individual environmental assets – magnitude, extent and duration of change in the values of each asset – having regard to intended avoidance and migration measures and (if different) both maximum operational capacity and intended operational rates;

1 Council’s Issue Paper page 10.

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 5

22.3 further management measures that are proposed where avoidance and mitigation measures do not adequately address effects on environmental assets, including specific details of how the measures address relevant policies;

22.4 risk ratings of unintended but foreseeable events such as spills or other mishaps that could result from construction or operation of the project;

22.5 the likely residual effects that are likely to occur after all proposed measures to avoid and mitigate environmental effects are implemented; and

22.6 potential cumulative impacts arising in conjunction with the impacts of other projects or actions that may affect the same environmental asset or assets.

23. At the 18 February 2019 meeting, Council resolved that the report be noted and Council Officers advocate as part of the Technical Reference Group to require the pipeline to be located within road reserves where possible.

Proposal

24. As described above, the Proposal seeks to establish a gas import jetty at Crib Point and construct a pipeline from Crib Point to connect the jetty to the gas transmission network at Pakenham.

25. The Proposal is located within Western Port, a large tidal bay which opens to the Bass Strait and incorporates approximately 260km of coastline. Western Port is used for a variety of uses including recreational activities such as fishing and boating. It was listed as an international Ramsar site since 1982 with international significance for migratory birds.

26. The high environmental, social and economic worth of Western Port is recognised further through the declaration of Western port as an UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and the presence of several marine national parks within the Ramsar site including Churchill Island, French Island and Yaringa.

27. The proposed pipeline commences at a receiving facility at Crib Point which sits adjacent to the jetty at Crib Point and travels toward Tyabb, then north east to Pakenham through the Mornington Peninsula, Casey and Cardinia local government areas.

28. The proposed pathway for the pipeline travels through predominantly agricultural and cultivated properties including horse and hobby properties, cattle, egg and poultry farms.

29. The general pathway of the proposed pipeline is shown in the excerpt below:

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 6

(Source: Environmental Effects Statement Consultation Plan September 2019)

30. The proposed pipeline as it traverses through the municipality of Cardinia is shown in the excerpt below:

(Source: Environmental Effects Statement, Map Book July 2020)

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 7

31. The below image demonstrates the CPT proposed pipeline route (pink) compared to the landowner identified pipeline alignment (purple):

(Source: Council Issues Paper 17 August 2020)

Exhibition and Consultation

32. The Draft scoping requirements for the EES were exhibited for public comment between November 2018 and December 2018. After the Minister had considered the public submissions received, the final Scoping Requirements were released in January 2019.

33. The Department of Environment Land Water and Planning convened the Technical Reference Group of which Council is a member. Other government organisations included in this group include:

33.1 DELWP – Water and Catchments;

33.2 Heritage Victoria;

33.3 Parks Victoria;

33.4 EPA Victoria;

33.5 Aboriginal Victoria;

33.6 Melbourne Water; and

33.7 Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority.

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 8

34. On 14 April 2020, consultation with the Technical Reference Group concluded and the Minister’s assessment of the adequacy of the EES against the scoping requirements commenced shortly after.

35. The EES, together with a draft planning scheme amendment, a pipeline licence application, and the EPA works approval application was formally exhibited for public comment from 2 July 2020 to 26 August 2020.

36. Copies of the exhibited documents including technical reports are available here.

37. The Proponents have engaged in consultation with all landowner’s whose property is proposed to be traversed by the pipeline in order to determine the alignment through their properties.

38. Some of the issues which have been raised by stakeholders and those persons engaged in consultation with the Proponents include (by way of summary):

38.1 not aware the formal exhibition had commenced;

38.2 not aware of that a 640m Measurement Length (ML) would be applied to their properties;

38.3 lack of information in the technical reports in relation to the ML;

38.4 pipeline aligned through private properties;

38.5 property value impacts;

38.6 property use impacts;

38.7 safety of the project;

38.8 national energy policy and future use of gas;

38.9 impacts from the preferred pipeline route including property acquisition, traffic disturbances and vegetation impacts. 2

IAC

39. The IAC has been appointed to: • Review and consider the EES and public submissions received in relation to the

environmental effects of the Project; • Review the draft planning scheme amendment C272morn, which has been prepared to

facilitate the Project, along with any public submissions received in relation to the Amendment;

• Provide advice that can be used to inform the EPA’s consideration of the Works Approval Application prepared by the proponent for the Project.

40. The Terms of Reference for the IAC can be accessed here. Please take the time to read them and familiarise yourself with purpose of the IAC as set out in paragraphs 5 to 8 of the Terms of Reference.

Fee proposal

41. Before starting any work, we ask you provide us with an electronic copy of your fee proposal for the requested scope of work for our client’s consideration.

2 Environmental Effects Statement Consultation Plan September 2019.

[8236642: 27667551_1] page 9

42. Please also provide a schedule of fees and rates in the event you are required to perform additional tasks in the future relating to this matter.

Your accounts

43. If your fee proposal is approved, all accounts for this matter should be referred directly to Maddocks (marked to the attention of Kierra Parker).

Maintaining client legal privilege and confidentiality

44. The advice you are asked to provide may be relied upon for any future hearing or litigation and for the purpose of providing legal advice to our client. You must as far as legally possible treat all communications relating to the scope of works as confidential and subject to client legal privilege.

Other matters

45. Please find enclosed an indexed brief of documents. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Kierra Parker on 9258 3796 or by email on [email protected].

Date delivered: 4 September 2020

Maddocks

___________________________