Tooleybuc Bridge replacement - Transport for NSW

Tooleybuc Bridge replacementEnvironmental constraints analysisMAY 2014

RMS 14.174ISBN 978-1-925093-57-5

(blank page)

Roads and Maritime ServicesTooleybuc Bridge ReplacementEnvironmental Constraints AnalysisMay 2014

Prepared forRoads and Maritime Services

Prepared by

AECOM Australia Pty LtdLevel 21, 420 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

© Roads and Maritime Services

The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Roads and Maritime Services. Youmust not reproduce any part of this document without the prior written approval of Roads and Maritime Services.

Contents Glossary of terms and abbreviations ...................................................................................................... v

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................vii

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Proposal Background .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and scope of report ......................................................................................... 1 1.3 Strategic need for the proposal ..................................................................................... 2 1.4 Report structure ............................................................................................................ 4

2 Development of the study area ..................................................................................... 5 2.1 Proposal location ........................................................................................................... 5 2.2 The study area .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Proposal corridors ......................................................................................................... 7

3 Statutory planning considerations ................................................................................. 9 3.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 9 3.2 Commonwealth environmental approval process and considerations ....................... 10 3.3 NSW environmental approval process and considerations ........................................ 12 3.4 Victorian environmental approval process and considerations .................................. 19

4 Community and stakeholder engagement .................................................................. 26 4.1 Community consultation .............................................................................................. 26 4.2 Stakeholder engagement ............................................................................................ 26 4.3 Recommendations for future consultation .................................................................. 26

5 Environmental constraints ........................................................................................... 27 5.1 Biodiversity .................................................................................................................. 27 5.2 Aboriginal heritage ...................................................................................................... 45 5.3 Non-Aboriginal heritage .............................................................................................. 52 5.4 Land contamination ..................................................................................................... 57 5.5 Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 62

6 Other considerations ................................................................................................... 63 6.1 Geotechnical ............................................................................................................... 63 6.2 Flooding and hydrology ............................................................................................... 69 6.3 Engineering, design and navigation ............................................................................ 77

7 Summary of constraints and next steps ...................................................................... 81 7.1 Summary of constraints .............................................................................................. 81 7.2 Next steps ................................................................................................................... 85

8 References .................................................................................................................. 86

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement ii Roads and Maritime Services Environmental Constraints Analysis

Appendices Appendix A Biodiversity constraints report

Appendix B Aboriginal cultural heritage constraints report

Appendix C Non-Aboriginal

Appendix D Contamination

Appendix E Geotechnical

List of tables Table 5-1 Ecological vegetation classes in proximity to the three broad corridor options

Table 5-2 Flora species with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of the broad corridor options

Table 5-3 Fauna species with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of the broad corridor options

Table 5-4 AHIMS registered site in close proximity to the study area

Table 5-5 Aboriginal site prediction model

Table 5-6 Summary of identified non-Aboriginal (historic) heritage items and their significance

Table 5-7 Areas of potential contamination concern within the study area

Table 7-1 Summary of constraints, design considerations and recommendations for the proposal within the study area

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement iii Roads and Maritime Services Environmental Constraints Analysis

List of figures The study area

Proposal Corridors

Planning approval pathways

Wakool Shire Council (NSW) – Land use zoning

Swan Hill Planning Scheme (Victoria) - Land use zoning

Swan Hill Planning Scheme (Victoria) –Land use zoning overlays

Vegetation communities identified during the site inspection

Threatened flora and fauna species identified during the site inspection.

Large old trees identified during the site inspection

Areas of potential archaeological sensitivity

Identified heritage items

Areas of potential contamination concern

Figure 2-1

Figure 2-2

Figure 3-1

Figure 3-2

Figure 3-3

Figure 3-4

Figure 5-1

Figure 5-2

Figure 5-3

Figure 5-4

Figure 5-5

Figure 5-6

Figure 6-1 Murray River banks downstream of Tooleybuc Bridge; erosion of the bank has undermined vegetation

Figure 6-2 Cracking in dried sediments adjacent to Murray River

Figure 6-3 Murray River flow downstream of Swan Hill (Millilitres (mL) per day)

Figure 6-4 Proposal flood considerations

Figure 6-5 Murray River flow considerations within the study area

Figure 6-6 Murray River navigation chart at Tooleybuc. Source River Murray Charts (Barry and Maureen Wright, 2003)

Figure 6-7 Proposed cross section for the Swan Hill Bridge replacement

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement iv Roads and Maritime Services Environmental Constraints Analysis

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement vRoads and Maritime ServicesEnvironmental Constraints Analysis

Glossary of terms and abbreviationsTerm MeaningAAADT Annual average daily traffic

The total volume of traffic passing a roadside observation point over a periodof a year, divided by the number of days per year. It is calculated frommechanically obtained axle counts.

Aboriginal culturalheritage

The tangible (objects) and intangible (dreaming stories, songlines, and places)cultural practices and traditions associated with past and present dayAboriginal communities.

Aboriginal object Any deposit, object or material evidence (not being a handicraft made forsale), including Aboriginal remains, relating to the Aboriginal habitation ofNSW.

Aboriginal place Any place declared to be an Aboriginal place under s.94 of the National Parksand Wildlife Act 1974.

ACHRIS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register Information System (Victoria)AEP Annual exceedence probability – The probability that a given rainfall total

accumulated over a given time will be exceeded in any one year(Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, 2013).

AHD Australian Height DatumAHIMS Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (NSW)

A register of NSW Aboriginal heritage information maintained by the Office ofEnvironment and Heritage.

AHIP Aboriginal Heritage Impact PermitBBCS Bioregional Conservation StatusBiosite Physical area of land or water containing biological assets with particular

attributes, such as the presence of rare or threatened flora, fauna or habitatrequired for their survival and/or rare or threatened vegetation communities(The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2005).

CCHAR Cultural Heritage Assessment ReportCLP Act Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994DDEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries (Victoria)DECC Former Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW)DNRE Department of Natural Resources and Environment (Victoria)DSE Department of Sustainability and the Environment (Victoria)EEE Act Environment Effects Act 1978EES Environment Effects StatementEIS Environmental Impact StatementEP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW)EPA Environment Protection Authority (NSW)EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999EVC Ecological Vegetation ClassFFFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988FM Act Fisheries Management Act 1994GGMWC Goulburn-Murray Water Corporation (Victoria)HHeritage Act Heritage Act 1977 (NSW)

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement viRoads and Maritime ServicesEnvironmental Constraints Analysis

HPFV High Productivity Freight VehicleHPV High Productivity VehiclesIISEPP State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007KKTP Key threatening processLLGA local government areaMMallee CMA Mallee Catchment Management AuthorityMDBA Murray Darling Basin AuthorityMNES Matters of National Environmental SignificanceMRSA Murray River Skippers AssociationMurray CMA Murray Catchment Management AuthorityMurray REP Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine LandNNOW NSW Office of WaterNPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW)NW Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW)OOEH Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW)PPACHCI Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation

(Roads and Maritime, 2011)P&E Act Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Victoria)RRoads andMaritime

NSW Roads and Maritime Services

SSEPP 44 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (NSW)SEPP 55 State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (NSW)SEPP (RuralLands)

State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 (NSW)

SIS Species Impact StatementSSI State Significant InfrastructureSWC NSW State Water CorporationTTEC Threatened Ecological CommunityTfNSW Transport for New South WalesTSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW)VVROTS Victorian rare or threatened species advisory listWWakool LEP Wakool Local Environmental Plan 1992 (NSW)Wamba WambaLALC

Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council

WM Act Water Management Act 2000 (NSW)WSP Water Sharing Plan

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement viiRoads and Maritime ServicesEnvironmental Constraints Analysis

Executive summaryNSW Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) in partnership with VicRoads hascommenced investigations into the replacement of the existing bridge over the Murray River atTooleybuc, located on the NSW / Victorian border in south-western NSW (the proposal).

The existing Tooleybuc Bridge is a single lane lift span Allan truss timber bridge, which opened in1924. It is located on the Mallee Highway which travels through Tooleybuc, linking Balranald in south-western NSW to the Murray Valley and Mallee Highways in north-western Victoria. The MalleeHighway is a strategic road freight corridor in NSW and Victoria and has also been identified as analternate road freight route between Sydney and Adelaide.

Given the strategic importance of this route, the proposal would be delivered as part of the NSWGovernment’s ‘Bridges for the Bush’ program. Replacing the existing Tooleybuc Bridge would meetthe main objectives of the program by reducing maintenance requirements and ongoing costsassociated with timber truss bridges. A new bridge would cater for Higher Mass Limit (HML) vehicles,improving road freight productivity.

This report identifies potential environmental constraints associated with replacing the bridge. Theconstraints analysis undertaken to inform this report focuses on a study area which covers threebroad proposal corridor options that were displayed to the local community through a publicinformation session held in April 2013.

Feedback gathered at the information session suggests there is a strong community preference forthe replacement bridge to be located in close proximity to the existing bridge to ensure trafficcontinues to pass through the town. The community also expressed a preference for a high levelbridge, rather than a lifting span similar to the existing structure.

Depending on the which proposal corridor is selected as the preferred alignment, the proximity of theTooleybuc Township to the Murray River will place considerable constraint on the design of thereplacement bridge; in particular, the achievable grades of bridge approaches on either side of theRiver while maintaining appropriate clearances for river navigation.

This environmental constraints analysis will inform the selection of the preferred proposal corridor andthe development of the preferred option that best meets the project objectives. The report providesdiscussion of relevant social, environmental and technical information. Constraints that should beconsidered when selecting the preferred option for the replacement bridge include the following:

Biodiversity Nine flora and 31 fauna species listed under one or a combination of the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Threatened Species Conservation Act 1999, Flora andFauna Guarantee Act 1988 and/or the Victorian rare or threatened species advisory list (VROTSadvisory list) have been observed within; or have a moderate to high likelihood of occurring withinthe study area.

The Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray RiverCatchment Area, listed as an Endangered Ecological Community under the FisheriesManagement Act 1994.

A number of large hollow-bearing River Red Gum trees across all three proposal corridors, mostlylocated within the riparian zone of the Murray River on the NSW and Victorian side of the MurrayRiver and adjacent parkland.

Areas of native vegetation along the riparian zone (up to a width of 200 metres from the MurrayRiver).

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement viiiRoads and Maritime ServicesEnvironmental Constraints Analysis

Aboriginal heritage One scarred tree on the Victorian side of the study area.

One potential mound site on the Victorian side of the study area.

A number of archaeological sites in the study area but outside of the proposal corridors, includingmodified trees and oven mounds on the NSW side of the study area.

Three areas of potential archaeological sensitivity that extend across the three proposal corridors;the banks of Lake Coomaroop in NSW, the area surrounding and including the lunette landformsystem in NSW and the banks of the Murray River and associated channels out to a distance of200 metres on the NSW and Victorian sides of the Murray River.

Non-Aboriginal heritage Six heritage items within the central and / or upstream proposal corridors:

- Tooleybuc Bridge (currently heritage listed, but Roads and Maritime is seeking approval todelist the bridge from the State Heritage Register).

- A Historic steam engine on the Victorian side of the Murray River.

- The Tooleybuc Bridge Keepers Cottage curtilage, including the Cottage, Punt Gare andMemorial Plaques within Mensforth Park on the NSW side of the study area.

- Mooring cross historical site, located within the Victorian side of the study area.

Tooleybuc Cemetery, located within the study area but outside of the three proposal corridors onthe NSW side of the study area.

Land contaminationTwelve areas of possible contamination concern within the proposal corridors that would potentiallyneed to be remediated, including:

The existing Tooleybuc Bridge as a result of historic pest treatment.

An irrigation pump house with several adjacent 200L drums (with unidentified contents) on theNSW side of the Murray River.

A Roads and Maritime maintenance / equipment storage yard on the Victorian side of the MurrayRiver.

Scattered metal waste and abandoned machinery along the riparian zone on the Victorian side ofthe study area.

The Tooleybuc service station / NRMA depot within the main Tooleybuc township.

A council depot, south-east of the Tooleybuc township.

A rail yard, south-east of the Tooleybuc township.

A chemical shed with drums (content unknown) and hazchem signs indicating that hazardouschemicals are stored, south-east of the Tooleybuc township.

The Tooleybuc Rural Fire Service Station within the Tooleybuc township.

Potential pesticides and herbicides on agricultural land throughout the study area.

A fill mound of unknown origin south-east of the Tooleybuc township.

A historic service station on the south-east corner of the intersection of Murray Street and LeaStreet.

GeotechnicalSoft ground, scour erosion, expansive soils and dispersive soils were identified as geotechnicalconstraints present across the study area. These should be considered when selecting the preferredproposal corridor: It was also noted that:

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement ixRoads and Maritime ServicesEnvironmental Constraints Analysis

The selection of a longer alignment over areas of weaker soils would potentially result inadditional construction and maintenance costs.

Reinforced concrete bored piles (eg excavated then constructed in situ) could be difficult giventhe expected high groundwater levels and potentially loose sediments within the proposalcorridors.

The setback and height of abutments from the river bank for the replacement bridge would beinfluenced by geotechnical and hydraulic design requirements, as well as the height clearance forboats travelling along the Murray River.

Subgrades of variable strength may be found within the study area. Lower strength subgradematerial could potentially be found within the Murray River floodplain, which could contribute toconstruction cost differences between the three proposal corridors.

Flooding and hydrologyInvestigations into flooding and hydrological processes in the study area identified the followingconstraints to be considered when selecting the preferred corridor option and design of thereplacement bridge:

The structural stability of the replacement bridge would be affected by potential scouring at bridgeabutments as a result of erosion and sedimentation.

There is the potential for flooding to occur along the Murray River within the study area as a resultof sediment accumulation along the River and subsequent blockages of waterway areas.

Based on the constraints identified as part of this analysis, it is recommended that the followingactions be undertaken to inform the development and environmental assessment of the preferredcorridor and the design of the replacement bridge and its associated road infrastructure:

Further targeted surveys of nine flora species, 30 fauna species and the Aquatic ecologicalcommunity in the Natural Drainage System of the Lowe Murray Endangered ecologicalcommunity.

Undertake formal consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and prepare a Cultural HeritageAssessment Report in accordance with Roads and Maritime’s Procedure for Aboriginal CulturalHeritage Consultation and Investigation, and a Cultural Heritage Management Plan under theVictorian Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.

Undertake sensitivity testing within areas of potential archaeological sensitivity that would beimpacted by the preferred proposal corridor.

Undertake further detailed assessment, including a Statement of Heritage Impact for anyhistoric heritage items which would be impacted by the alignment of the replacement bridge andassociated road infrastructure.

Undertake a quantitative traffic and transport assessment on the preferred proposal corridor aspart of the environmental assessment.

Undertake further assessment and remediation (if relevant) on areas of potential contaminationconcern within the preferred proposal corridor.

Survey and develop a rating curve for the Murray River at Tooleybuc to convert measured waterlevels into flow data.

Review the results of the ‘Three Towns Flood Risk Study’ once available. Assess the floodingand hydrology constraints associated with the proposal in light of these results.

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement 1Roads and Maritime ServicesEnvironmental Constraints Analysis

1 Introduction1.1 Proposal BackgroundNSW Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) in partnership with VicRoads hascommenced investigations into replacing the existing bridge over the Murray River at Tooleybuc,located on the NSW / Victorian border in south-western NSW (the proposal).

The existing Tooleybuc Bridge is a single lane lifting span Allan truss timber bridge which opened in1924. It is located on the Mallee Highway, which travels through Tooleybuc; linking Balranald insouth-western NSW to the Murray Valley and Mallee Highways in north-western Victoria. The MalleeHighway is a strategic road freight route in NSW and Victoria and has been identified as an alternateroad freight route between Sydney and Adelaide.

Given the importance of the route as a road freight corridor, the proposal would be delivered as partof the NSW Government’s ‘Bridges for the Bush’ program. Replacing the existing Tooleybuc Bridgewould meet the main ‘Bridges for the Bush’ program objectives by reducing maintenancerequirements and ongoing costs associated with timber truss bridges. A new bridge would alsoservice higher productivity road freight vehicles.

1.2 Purpose and scope of reportThe scope of this report is to identify and analyse environmental constraints associated with replacingthe existing bridge over the Murray River at Tooleybuc (the proposal). The constraints analysisundertaken for the proposal included mapping social, environmental and technical information toidentify potential constraints associated with the three corridors that have been identified for theproposed bridge replacement (refer Section 2.3).

The analysis of environmental constraints considered all environmental issues identified, however thefollowing primary constraints enabled distinctions to be made between the three proposal corridors;

Biodiversity.

Aboriginal heritage.

Non-Aboriginal heritage.

Land contamination.

Traffic

Other matters that were considered as part of the constraints analysis included:

Geotechnical.

Flooding and hydrology.

Engineering, design and river navigation.

Further, this report:

Details the potential NSW, Victorian and Commonwealth planning approval pathways for theproposal in accordance with legislative requirements relevant to the proposal.

Provides recommendations for further assessments to be undertaken throughout the routeoptions assessment, concept design development and environmental assessment phases of theproposal.

Outlines recommendations to be carried forward into the next stages of the proposal.

The constraints analysis also satisfies Victorian statutory requirements.


The information contained in this report will be used to inform the selection of the most appropriateproposal corridor, the concept and detailed design of the replacement bridge, approaches andassociated road infrastructure.

1.3 Strategic need for the proposal1.3.1 Murray River road freight crossingsBetween Mildura and Echuca, there are seven principle Murray River road bridge crossings suitablefor heavy freight vehicles. Two of these; located at Robinvale / Euston and Mildura / Buronga havebeen constructed in the last 25 years and are capable of carrying Higher Mass Limit (HML) freightvehicles (defined as high productivity freight vehicles (HPFV) in Victoria and high productivity vehicles(HPV) in NSW).

The remaining crossings at Tooleybuc, Echuca, Swan Hill and Barham are timber and steel trussbridges and the bridge at Nyah is a steel girder bridge with a concrete deck. These bridges have loadand width restrictions, making them unsuitable for HML vehicles. Heavy vehicle movements on theexisting Tooleybuc Bridge are limited to semi-trailer and B-double vehicles only.

The Mallee Highway from Pinnaroo on the South Australian / Victorian border, eastwards throughVictoria to Tooleybuc provides an alternative east-west link to the Sturt Highway, which crosses theMurray River at Mildura. The highway is part of the Principal Freight Network in Victoria and acts asan alternative Adelaide to Sydney freight route. Vehicles travelling north along the Mallee Highwaycross the NSW / Victorian state border at Tooleybuc via the existing Tooleybuc Bridge over theMurray River, continuing to Balranald, where vehicles would then re-join the Sturt Highway. Therestriction of HML freight vehicle movements at Tooleybuc limits the potential of the Mallee Highwayas an alternative Adelaide to Sydney road freight corridor for these vehicles.

1.3.2 Road freight technologyIn comparison to rail, road freight offers flexibility and is suitable for carrying perishable, fragile ortime-sensitive freight. Since the early 1960s, the cost effectiveness of road freight has improvedmarkedly (The Allen Consulting Group, 2010). This improvement is a result of improved road vehicleproductivity and road infrastructure quality, the gradual removal of regulations restricting road freightcarriage and growth in interstate trade (BTRE, 2009a). Improvements in truck design have mostrecently been focused towards the production of larger vehicles which offer lower unit costs ofoperation. Such improvements provide considerable benefits in terms of environment, safety andeconomic efficiency (E.W. Russel, 2011).

B-Double heavy vehicles comprise a prime mover towing two semi-trailers and are typically between19 and 25 metres in length. The use of B-doubles is currently well established across NSW andVictoria (The Allen Consulting Group, 2010). B-doubles were introduced in 1986 and after 20 yearsimplementation, accounted for 12,800 of 70,000 or 18 per cent of trucks in use. The Truck IndustryCouncil anticipates that there will need to be around 100,000 trucks in use by 2030 unless furtherimprovements in truck design are achieved.

B-triple vehicles, which comprise a prime mover and three semi-trailers operate Australia-wide buttheir use is hindered by inconsistent road access and operating conditions across state and territoryborders. The National Transport Commission has predicted that the operation of B-triples in Australiawould improve productivity, safety, the environment and the amenity of communities through whichfreight travels, would reduce the effect of increased freight movements on roads and would result inan estimated $1.1 billion in savings from reduced vehicle numbers and kilometres travelled (NationalTransport Commission, 2012).

1.3.3 Strategic planningThe NSW State Infrastructure Strategy (Infrastructure NSW, 2012) notes that regional production,(including agriculture), industrial products and natural resources are heavily reliant upon efficient andeffective transport networks. Freight costs and efficiency impact the total cost of all export and importgoods, which are moved intrastate, interstate and to major ports to service the export market.


The NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan (Transport for NSW (TfNSW), 2012) notes that roadtransport is the most heavily used mode for freight transport, responsible for 63 per cent of currentvolumes, followed by rail at 33 per cent. Freight movements along the NSW road network comprisehalf of Australia’s road freight, and 75 per cent of all interstate road journeys on NSW roads (Roadsand Maritime, 2012).

The dominant corridors for interstate freight are between Sydney and Melbourne, and Sydney andBrisbane. Of this freight task, 80 per cent is via road based on overnight and ‘just-in-time’ deliveryrequirements. It has been predicted that road freight is going to continue to dominate interstate freightmovement, and will double by 2031 (Commonwealth Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and RegionalEconomics, 2010). This is tied to the prediction that the current combined freight task in NSW isexpected to increase from the current 409 million tonnes per annum to approximately 794 milliontonnes by 2031 (TfNSW, 2012).

The Interstate Freight in Australia Research Report ((Commonwealth Bureau of Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Economics, 2010) identified that although road freight productivity in Australiahas more than doubled in productivity over the last 40 years, productivity growth has slowed in recentyears. This is supported by the NSW State Infrastructure Strategy, which notes that road freightproductivity is linked to vehicle size and the amount of weight that can be carried. Moving heavier,larger vehicles requires road networks that can support them. NSW has a number of gaps in its HighProductivity Vehicles (HPV) and High Mass Limit (HML) road network that can cause freight costs tobe higher in NSW than in some other states. Productivity and efficiency constraints along freightroutes in NSW are common and solutions need to be focused on increasing access of HPV and HMLvehicles to specific corridors to enhance competitiveness of the regional suppliers.

Significant investment into the NSW road network to improve road freight routes is thereforeconsidered necessary to meet the demand for increased access of larger, safer and heavier freightvehicles. While a significant proportion of the forward transport program as part of the NSW StateInfrastructure Strategy is committed to major road upgrades, targeted minor proposals need to bealso progressed.

The ‘Bridges for the Bush’ program was announced by the NSW Government in October 2012. Theprogram aims to improve road freight productivity in regional NSW by replacing or upgrading existingbridges at 17 key locations to improve the mass limits and increase the capacity of the road networkto carry freight and HML vehicles on key freight corridors. The ‘Bridges for the Bush’ program canhave high returns because it can unlock constraints hindering HML and HPV movements along awhole corridor and the wider road network. This proposal carries high economic benefits at arelatively low cost. The program aims to prioritise investment on the bridges and connectinginfrastructure that will have the greatest economic impact.

The significant upgrade works in South Australia including the South-Eastern Freeway, and Adelaideto Crafers Highway upgrade (including the Heysen tunnels) have improved road safety andmanoeuvrability for freight vehicles through the Adelaide Hills towards the eastern states of Victoriaand NSW. The proposal would further improve connectivity for road freight between Adelaide andSydney.

1.4 Report structure The environmental constraints analysis has been structured as follows: • Chapter one provides an overview of the proposal and outlines the scope and structure of the

report.

• Chapter two describes the development of the study area and the broad corridor options subject to the constraints analysis.

• Chapter three outlines the State and Commonwealth statutory planning considerations for the proposal.

• Chapter four summarises the community consultation undertaken for the proposal to date.

• Chapter five provides an analysis of the environmental constraints associated with each of the corridor options.

• Chapter six details engineering and design considerations associated with the development of the proposal.

• Chapter seven provides a summary of the constraints, engineering and design considerations and recommendations for the proposal, and also outlines the next steps that should be undertaken regarding the development of the proposal.

Tooleybuc Bridge Replacement 4 Roads and Maritime Services Environmental Constraints Analysis

2 Development of the study area 2.1 Proposal location The proposal is located in and around the NSW township of Tooleybuc, about 45 kilometres west of Swan Hill and 50 kilometres south of Balranald. The proposal is located within both NSW and Victoria, and the state border is delineated by the high-water mark on the Victorian side of the Murray River (refer to Figure 2-1). At this location, the Murray River runs south to north, with Victoria on the western side of the River, and NSW on the east. Within the NSW section of the proposal, land is located within the western riverina bioregion and within the Wakool Shire Council local government area. On the Victorian side of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge, the proposal is located within the Murray-Mallee ward of the Swan Hill Rural City Council local government area (refer to Figure 2-1).

2.2 The study area The study area for the proposal was broadly defined in July 2013 (refer to Figure 2-1). On the Victorian side of the Murray River the study area comprises a 1.5 kilometre square corridor centred on the existing Tooleybuc Bridge and Mallee Highway, extending south-west to the Murray Valley Highway. On the NSW side of the Murray River the study area gradually narrows from 1.5 kilometres wide to about 320 metres wide. The NSW section of the study area terminates immediately adjacent to the Tooleybuc Cemetery, about two kilometres north-east of the existing bridge and the Tooleybuc township.


Figure 2-1 The study area


2.3 Proposal corridors For the purposes of community consultation and preparing the environmental constraints analysis, the study area includes three potential proposal corridors. These three corridors are illustrated in Figure 2-2 and are described generally in Section 2.3.1, 2.3.2 and 2.3.3.

2.3.1 Central corridor The central proposal corridor is about 2.3 kilometres in length and about 170 metres wide. On the Victorian side, the central proposal corridor generally follows the existing Mallee Highway road reserve for about 300 metres, where it then crosses the Murray River at about the same location as the existing Tooleybuc Bridge (refer to Figure 2-2). The central proposal corridor then extends north for about 320 metres along Murray Street from the existing Tooleybuc Bridge to the intersection of Murray Street with Lea Street (Mallee Highway). The central proposal corridor then follows the existing Lea Street / Mallee Highway alignment for about 360 metres, finishing south-west of the Tooleybuc Cemetery (refer to Figure 2-2).

2.3.2 Upstream corridor The upstream proposal corridor is about 300 metres wide and 2.4 kilometres in length, situated south of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge. The upstream proposal corridor extends for about 400 metres west of the Murray River on the Victorian side of the study area. On the Victorian side, the upstream proposal corridor follows the existing Mallee Highway for about 250 metres at its westernmost extent. As the upstream corridor approaches the Murray River, it deviates south of the Mallee Highway road reserve and crosses the Murray River about 150 metres south of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge (refer to Figure 2-2). The alignment of the upstream proposal corridor then generally heads east, following Grant Street to its intersection with Wood Street. At this point the upstream corridor heads north-east, intersecting agricultural land where it then joins the Mallee Highway and finishes about 480 metres south-west of Tooleybuc Cemetery (refer to Figure 2-2).

2.3.3 Downstream corridor The downstream proposal corridor is about 2.2 kilometres long and 150 metres wide, located north of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge. The downstream proposal corridor crosses the Murray River about 250 metres downstream of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge (refer to Figure 2-2). On the Victorian side, the downstream proposal corridor deviates from the existing Mallee Highway, and travels north-east through vegetated Crown land and privately owned land. On the NSW side of the Murray River a new alignment of the Mallee Highway would be required. This section of the downstream corridor would be about 230 metres in length and would pass through parkland managed by Wakool Shire Council and a section of the Tooleybuc Tourist Park before re-joining the existing Mallee Highway road reserve from its intersection with Murray Street. The downstream corridor option would then follow the existing Mallee Highway road reserve for about 1.8 kilometres.


Figure 2-2 Proposal corridors


3 Statutory planning considerations 3.1 Overview As a consequence of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge spanning across the NSW and Victorian State border (refer to Figure 2-1), the environmental planning approvals process for the proposal is subject to the environmental assessment process of both states. The environmental assessment processes for NSW and Victoria are discussed in Section 3.3 and Section 3.4 respectively and are shown on Figure 3-1. This environmental constraints analysis is the preliminary stage of the environmental approvals process for the proposal. The environmental planning process for the proposal following this stage will include: • Route options assessment.

• Identification of preferred option.

• Environmental assessment and determination.

3.1.1 Route options assessment The results of this environmental constraints analysis will be used to inform the identification of refined route options within the three corridors against the project objectives. Other criteria that will be considered throughout the route options assessment process includes functionality, engineering, geometric design, community and stakeholder constraints as well as value-for-money. To meet the requirements of both NSW and Victorian agencies, the route options will be subject to further detailed environmental assessment (where considered necessary) to enable better differentiation between the route options.

3.1.2 Identification of the preferred option The process for determining the preferred option will include an options development workshop, whereby the route options are considered against the identified constraints to create a shortlist of options for the proposal. The shortlist will be carried through into a value management process to identify the preferred option. The value management process would include a workshop involving participants from the community, NSW, Victorian and Commonwealth (if required) agencies and consultants with technical areas of expertise. The value management process would also evaluate the route options against a range of evaluation criteria, including but not limited to: • Impacts on property and residents.

• Environmental and cultural impacts.

• Engineering considerations.

• Safety of road users.

• Compatibility with the proposal objectives.

3.1.3 Environmental assessment and determination An environmental assessment will then be prepared and displayed. It is envisaged that the environmental assessment would be a single report that meets the relevant NSW, Victorian and Commonwealth legislative requirements. the environmental assessment process would examine the potential impacts of the preferred route during construction and operation and would also propose measures to reduce and manage any identified impacts. The environmental assessment would include community and stakeholder consultation, and would be placed on public exhibition for comment.


3.2 Commonwealth environmental approval process and considerations

3.2.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) a referral is required to the Australian Government for proposed ‘actions’ that have the potential to significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance (MNES), or the environment of Commonwealth-owned land. The environmental constraints analysis has determined that dependent on the outcomes of future ecological assessment, including targeted surveys and assessments of significance, the proposal may require referral to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act. The planning approval process for the proposal in accordance with the provisions of the EPBC Act is illustrated below in Figure 3-1. Bilateral agreements are a formal process recognised by the EPBC Act that aim to reduce duplication of environmental assessment and approval processes between the Commonwealth and Australian states / territories, allowing the Commonwealth to accredit particular environmental approval pathways. In December 2013, the Commonwealth and NSW Governments entered into a bilateral agreement, which accredits environmental assessments for actions occurring wholly within NSW under the following: • Part 4, Division 4.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

• Part 5.1 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

• Part 4, Division 7 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

• Schedule 6A, section 75W of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Commonwealth and Victorian governments entered into a bilateral agreement in 2009. The Commonwealth bilateral agreement with Victoria accredits environmental assessments under the following: • An Environment Effects Statement under the Environment Effects Act 1978.

• Assessment by Advisory Committee or Joint Advisory Committee / Panel under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

• Assessment by permit application under the Planning and Assessment Act 1987.

• Assessment under the Environment Protection Act 1970.

• Assessment by Panel under the Water Act 1989.

The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment gave notice of intent to develop a draft bilateral agreement with the State of Victoria in December 2013, and NSW in November 2013, both of which include a declaration under section 46 of the EPBC Act that classes of actions do not need approval under Part 9 of the EPBC Act. Figure 3-1 below has been prepared assuming that the bilateral process would be applied to the proposal.


Figure 3-1 Planning Approval Pathways


3.2.2 Other potential Commonwealth legislative considerations Water Act 2007 and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 establishes the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) with the functions and powers, including enforcement powers, needed to ensure that Basin water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way. The MDBA is the single body responsible for overseeing water resource planning in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Commonwealth Water Act requires the MDBA to prepare the Basin Plan, a strategic plan for the integrated and sustainable management of water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. The proposal is required to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the Basin Plan. Further consideration of the Commonwealth Water Act and Basin Plan will be required throughout the preparation of the environmental impact assessment of the proposal. 3.3 NSW environmental approval process and considerations 3.3.1 NSW approvals pathway In accordance with Clause 94 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP), development for the purpose of a road or road infrastructure facilities on behalf of a public authority may be carried out on any land without consent. As the proposal would be for a road proposal and would be carried out on behalf of Roads and Maritime, it can be assessed under Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Depending on the outcomes of the further environmental assessment throughout the route options assessment and the identification of the preferred route option, the proposal has the potential to be subject to determination by Roads and Maritime or the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure. NSW approval pathway one: determination by Roads and Maritime For the purposes of the proposal, Roads and Maritime is the proponent and the determining authority. As a determining authority, in accordance with Clause 111 of the EP&A Act, Roads and Maritime is to ‘examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of that activity’. This approval pathway requires the preparation of a review of environmental factors in accordance with Clause 228 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (EP&A Regulation). NSW approval pathway two: determination by the NSW Minister for Planning and Infrastructure Should it be determined that the proposal is likely to significantly affect the environment, section 112 of the EP&A Act requires that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be prepared and the proposal would be declared SSI under Clause 115(U) of the EP&A Act. In accordance with Clause 115U (3) of the EP&A Act, “Development that may be so declared to be State Significant Infrastructure (SSI) is development of the following kind that a State environmental planning policy permits to be carried out without development consent under Part 4: a) Infrastructure. b) Other development that (but for this Part and within the meaning of Part 5) would be an activity for

which the proponent is also the determining authority and would, in the opinion of the proponent, require an environmental impact statement to be obtained under Part 5”.

A summary of the potential approvals pathway in accordance with the EP&A Act is provided in Figure 3-1.


3.3.2 Other potential NSW legislative considerations State Environmental Planning Policies State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 ISEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across NSW. Clause 94 of ISEPP permits development on any land for the purpose of a road or road infrastructure facilities to be carried out by or on behalf of a public authority without consent. As the proposal is for a road and is to be carried out by Roads and Maritime in partnership with VicRoads, it can be assessed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act. Development consent from council is not required. Part 2 of the ISEPP contains provisions for public authorities to consult with local councils and other public authorities prior to the commencement of certain types of development. Future consultation, including consultation as required by ISEPP, will need to be undertaken in accordance with these requirements. State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 State Environmental Planning Policy (Rural Lands) 2008 (SEPP (Rural Lands)) aims to facilitate the orderly and economic use of rural lands, including the subdivision, development and protection of rural lands. It applies to all land within the Wakool LGA. Clause 8 of the SEPP (Rural Lands) sets out the rural subdivision principles as follows: a) The minimisation of rural land fragmentation.

b) The minimisation of rural land use conflicts, particularly between residential land uses and other rural land uses.

c) The consideration of the nature of existing agricultural holdings and the existing and planned future supply of rural residential land when considering lot sizes for rural lands.

d) The consideration of the natural and physical constraints and opportunities of land.

e) Ensuring that planning for dwelling opportunities takes account of those constraints.

Should land acquisition, including strip acquisition be required for the purposes of the proposal, the SEPP (Rural Lands) would need to be considered. Should it be determine the proposal is subject to assessment and determination by Roads and Maritime, the SEPP (Rural Lands) would not apply to the proposal. State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44) aims to encourage the proper conservation and management of areas of natural vegetation that provide habitat for koalas to ensure that permanent free-living populations are protected in their present range, and to reverse the current trend of population decline. The policy applies to the Wakool LGA; however, as the proposal does not require development consent in accordance with ISEPP, SEPP 44 does not apply to the proposal. The constraints analysis undertaken for the proposal identified that there is a moderate likelihood that the Koala could occur within 10 kilometres of the proposal. Recommendations and next steps, including the need for targeted surveys, are discussed in Section 5.1 and Appendix A. State Environment Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land State Environmental Planning Policy No. 55 – Remediation of Land (SEPP 55) promotes the remediation of contaminated land for the purpose of reducing the risk of harm to human health or any other aspect of the environment. Clause 7(1) states that a consent authority must not consent to the carrying out of any development on land unless it has considered whether that land is contaminated and whether remediation is required.


The constraints analysis undertaken for the proposal concluded that there is a low likelihood of land being affected by contamination from current or historic land use within the study area of the assessment. A number of areas of potential contamination concern were identified. These areas may require further assessment and/or remediation prior to construction of the proposal, and would be considered further throughout the development of the concept design of the proposal. Additional detail regarding land contamination is provided in Section 5.4 and Appendix D of this report. Should the proposal be subject to assessment and determination by Roads and Maritime, no approvals under SEPP 55 would be required for the proposal. Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine Land The ‘Murray Regional Environmental Plan No. 2 – Riverine Land’ (Murray REP), a deemed SEPP, applies to land within the riverine land of the River Murray within the City of Albury and the areas of Balranald, Berrigan, Conargo, Corowa, Deniliquin, Hume, Murray, Wakool, Wentworth and Windouran. The objectives of the Murray REP are: ‘(a) to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to development with the potential to adversely affect the riverine environment of the River Murray. (b) to establish a consistent and coordinated approach to environmental planning and assessment along the River Murray. (c) to conserve and promote the better management of the natural and cultural heritage values of the riverine environment of the River Murray.’ In accordance with Clause 12(1) of the Murray REP, Roads and Maritime as a public authority would be required to consult with the National Parks and Wildlife Service should the proposal affect an Aboriginal site or any other place that is generally recognised as a place of cultural significance to the Aboriginal community. Where required, Roads and Maritime would need to comply with the consultation requirements listed in Clause 12 and 13 of the Murray REP. The requirements of the Murray REP would be considered throughout the environmental assessment stage of the proposal.

Local Environmental Plans Wakool Local Environmental Plan 1992 The proposal is located within the Wakool Shire local government area (LGA) which is governed by the conditions of the Wakool Local Environmental Plan 1992 (Wakool LEP).The proposal is located on land zoned as 1(a) General Rural, 1(c) Rural Small Holdings and 2(v) Village or Urban Zone (refer to Figure 3-2). In accordance with the provisions of the Wakool LEP, the proposal would be permitted with development consent within all three land use zones, all of which require development consent. Clause 94 of the ISEPP permits Roads and Maritime as a public authority to carry out development for the purpose of a road and/or road infrastructure facilities on any land without consent. As a result, consent from Wakool Shire Council would not be required for the proposal. However, throughout later stages of the proposal, Wakool Shire Council will be consulted where necessary. The Wakool LEP aims to encourage the proper management, development and conservation of natural and man-made structures within the Shire of Wakool by protecting, enhancing or conserving: • Prime crop and pasture land

• Timber, minerals, soil, water and other natural resources

• Areas of significance for nature conservation

• Areas of high scenic or recreational value

• Place or buildings of archaeological or heritage significance, including aboriginal relics and places

• The waterways and associated wetlands for their fish and fish habitat values.


The designs for the proposed Tooleybuc Bridge replacement would consider the intent of the Wakool LEP.


Figure 3-2 Wakool Shire Council (NSW) – Land use zoning


Other relevant legislation National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 The National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) provides for the conservation and management of nature and objects, places and features of cultural value. It is the primary legislation for the protection of Aboriginal cultural heritage in NSW. Part 6 of the NPW Act provides protection for all Aboriginal objects and Aboriginal places in NSW. Under Section 90 of the Act, an Aboriginal Heritage Impact Permit (AHIP) is required prior to the disturbance of Aboriginal objects or places. The environmental assessment of the proposal will consider the requirements of the NPW Act with regards to impacts to Aboriginal heritage. Aboriginal heritage items within the study area are discussed in further detail in Section 5.2 and Appendix B of this report, as well as recommendations for further detailed assessment of Aboriginal heritage in the study area. Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 The Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) provides for the conservation and protection of threatened species, populations, ecological communities and their habitat. All threatened species, populations or communities listed on Schedules 1, 1A and 2 of the TSC Act, likely to occur within 10 kilometres of the study area, and known to use habitats within this area, would be subject to an assessment of significance. The assessment of significance must address the requirements of Section 5A of the EP&A Act and be prepared in accordance with the ‘Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines’ (Department of Environment and Climate Change DECC (now OEH),2007). The assessment of ecological constraints within the study area has identified 39 threatened species with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence. It has been recommended that targeted surveys be undertaken for these species in accordance with the requirements of the TSC Act. Should targeted surveys determine that the proposal would significantly impact any of these species, relevant Species Impact Statements (SIS) will be prepared and the proposal will be determined SSI in accordance with Section 115(U) of the EP&A Act. Heritage Act 1977 The Heritage Act 1977 (Heritage Act) provides a mechanism for the protection of items of both local and state non-Aboriginal significance in NSW, and establishes the State Heritage Council. Approval from the Heritage Council is required prior to the potential disturbance or excavation of items, relics and artefacts with Non-Aboriginal heritage significance. The analysis of non-Aboriginal heritage constraints identified five items of heritage significance within the study area. Additional investigations will need to be undertaken and a Statement of Heritage Impact prepared if the proposal impacts on any identified historic features. This will be considered further throughout the environmental assessment of the proposal once the preferred option has been determined. Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 The Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 establishes a regulatory framework for the protection and restoration of the environment. It provides a mechanism for licensing for certain activities, listed in Schedule 1 of the POEO Act. The proposal would not meet the definition of a scheduled activity under Schedule 1 of the POEO Act, and an Environmental Protection Licence will therefore not be required for the proposal.


Water Management Act 2000 The Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) provides for the sustainable and integrated management of water resources for the benefit of both present and future generations. It provides for the implementation of water sharing plans that establish rules for sharing a water resource while taking into account the environmental need of the resource. The three broad corridor options subject to this environmental constraints analysis are located on land within the Water Sharing Plan for the Murray Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources, and the Water Sharing Plan for the NSW Murray and Lower Darling Regulated Rivers Water Sources. As a public authority, Roads and Maritime is exempt from the requirement to obtain the following: • A water access licence under Section 56.

• A water use approval under Section 89.

• A water management work approval under Section 90.

• A controlled activity approval or aquifer interference approval under Section 91.

Fisheries Management Act 1994 The Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) aims to conserve, develop and share the fishery resources of NSW for the benefit of present and future generations. In particular, the FM Act provides a mechanism to conserve fish stock, key fish habitats and threatened species, populations, and communities of fish and marine vegetation. Any species, populations or ecological communities listed in Schedules 4, 4A or 5 of the FM Act that are likely to occur within five kilometres of the three corridors, and known to use that type of habitat, would be subject to an assessment of significance. If applicable, the assessment of significance must address the requirements of Section 5A of the EP&A Act and be prepared in accordance with the ‘Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines’ (DECC, 2007). No FM Act listed species was identified as occurring within five kilometres of the study area. The proposal would consider dredging and reclamation works under Section 198A of the FM Act. In accordance with Section 199, Roads and Maritime as a public authority must notify the Minister of the proposal prior to the authorisation or carrying out of any dredging and reclamation work. Roads and Maritime must consider all the matters that are raised by the Minister concerning the proposal within 28 days after the giving of the notice. Noxious Weeds Act The Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act) establishes control mechanisms to reduce the negative impacts of weeds on the economy, community and environment, and also includes a system for the identification and control of noxious weeds. The NW Act divides noxious weeds into five categories which determine the level of control required. Under Section 13 of the Noxious Weeds Act, Roads and Maritime as a public authority, is obliged to control noxious weeds on land that it owns and prevent noxious weeds from spreading to adjoining properties. The management of noxious weeds will need to be considered further throughout the environmental assessment of the proposal once the preferred option has been determined. Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 The Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 applies to the acquisition of land (by agreement or compulsory process) by a public authority authorised to acquire the land by compulsory process. It provides a guarantee that, when a public authority requires the acquisition of land, the amount of compensation will not be less than the market value of the land. The Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 will apply to the acquisition of any land required for the proposal. The


requirements of the Land Acquisition (Just Terms Compensation) Act 1991 will be considered further throughout the development of a preferred option and the environmental assessment of the proposal.

3.4 Victorian environmental approval process and considerations 3.4.1 Victorian approvals pathway The proposal would be subject to assessment and determination in Victoria under either the Environmental Effects Act 1978 (EE Act) or the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (PE Act). A summary of the potential approvals pathway for the proposal in accordance with Victorian legislation is provided in Figure 3-1 and summarised below. Victorian approvals pathway one: Planning and Environment Act 1987 The P&E Act establishes a framework for planning the use, development and protection of all land in Victoria in the present and long-term interest of all Victoria. The P&E Act sets out procedures for preparing and amending the Victoria Planning Provisions and planning schemes, obtaining permits under schemes, settling disputes, enforcing compliance with planning schemes and other administrative procedures. Assuming that an EES is not required for the proposal, assessment of the proposal could take place under the P&E Act as amendments to the Swan Hill Planning Scheme through the application of a public acquisition overlay. For the purposes of the P&E Act, the relevant council, in this case Swan Hill Rural City Council or VicRoads will be the planning authority for the proposal. The general procedure for applying for a planning scheme amendment under the P&E Act is shown in Figure 3-1. Victorian approvals pathway two: Environmental Effects Act 1978 In accordance with Section 4(1) of the EE Act, “Before commencing any public works to which this Act applies, the proponent must cause an Environment Effects Statement (EES) to be prepared and submit it to the Victorian Minister for the Minister for the Environment for the Minister’s Assessment of the environmental effects of the works”. To assist in whether a referral to the Minister should be made, the Victorian Department of Sustainability and the Environment (DSE) has issued ‘Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’ (DSE, 2006). The proposal would be referred to the Minister for a decision of the planning approvals process if it meets the referral criteria outlined in the guidelines. If the Minister determines that the proposal would have a significant impact in accordance with this criteria, an EES would be prepared in accordance with the EE Act. This will be determined following the route options assessment for the proposal and the determination of a preferred option. The approval process under the EE Act is illustrated in Figure 3-1.

3.4.2 Other potential Victorian legislative considerations Local Planning Schemes Swan Hill Planning Scheme On the Victorian side of the Murray River, the proposal is located within the Swan Hill Rural City Council within the Murray-Mallee Ward. The land subject to the environmental constraints analysis is located on land subject to the Swan Hill Planning Scheme.


Under this scheme, the three corridors are located across three land use zones: the farming zone (FZ), public conservation and resource zone (PCRZ) and category 1 road zone (RDZ1). These are shown on Figure 3-3. The three overlays relevant to the three proposal corridor options are the schedule 1 environmental significance overlay (ESO1), land subject to inundation overlay (LSIO) and the schedule 1 vegetation protection overlay (VPO) (refer to Figure 3-4). Should the appropriate planning approval pathway for the proposal be determined by the Victorian Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DoTPLI) as a planning scheme amendment under the P&E Act, the land use zoning and overlay maps would be amended with a land acquisition overlay that would cover the footprint of the proposal. This will be considered further once the approvals pathway for the proposal is determined, and the preferred corridor option has been identified.


Figure 3-3 Swan Hill Planning Scheme (Victoria) – Land use zoning


Figure 3-4 Swan Hill Planning Scheme (Victoria) – Land use zoning overlays


Other relevant legislation Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 The purpose of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) is to enable and promote the conservation of Victoria’s native flora and fauna. It also provides a choice of procedures which can be used for the conservation, management or control of flora and fauna and the management of potentially threatening processes. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the FFG Act lists threatened flora, fauna and communities which are protected under the Act. This assists in the identification of species and communities that require management intervention to survive, and identifies the processes that require control to minimise threats to native flora and fauna species and communities across Victoria. Impacts on FFG Act listed flora and fauna on public land would require a permit under the FFG Act in the following circumstances: • If FFG listed flora species (or other species which the Scientific Advisory Committee has

determined require conservation) that are members of a listed community are anticipated to be killed, injured, disturbed or collected from public land

• If the area subject to the proposal is declared critical habitat for the species.

The assessment of ecological constraints for the proposal identified that a permit may be required for impacts to flora as a result of the proposal. This has been discussed further in Section 5.1 and Appendix A. Requirements of the FFG Act will be considered throughout the environmental assessment of the proposal once the preferred option has been determined. Wildlife Act 1975 The Wildlife Act 1975 forms the procedural, administrative and operational basis for the protection and conservation of native wildlife within Victoria. This Act often sits as the default reference for other associated legislation, and it is the basis for the majority of wildlife permit/licensing requirements within the state. In accordance with this Act, if any wildlife is located within vegetation proposed for clearing, salvage and translocation of such wildlife may be needed in accordance with a management authorisation under the Act. It has been recommended that 19 fauna species listed under the FFG Act be subject to further assessment in the form of targeted surveys. Should any of these species, or their likely habitat be identified, a permit under the Wildlife Act 1975 would be required to enable any salvage and translocation of any fauna present within the proposal area. Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 provides for the protection of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in Victoria. The proposal could potentially be considered a high impact activity in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, including ground disturbance for construction which could potentially impact on items of registered Aboriginal significance. A Cultural Heritage Management Plan would therefore be required for the proposal in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. This will be considered further once the preferred option has been determined, and the extent of impact of items on Aboriginal heritage significance are known in additional detail.


Heritage Act 1995 The Victorian Heritage Act 1995 (Victorian Heritage Act) is administered by Heritage Victoria and is the Victorian Government’s key piece of cultural heritage legislation. The Victorian Heritage Act establishes the Victorian Heritage Register, the Heritage Inventory and the Heritage Council of Victoria. The Act also identifies and protects heritage places and objects that are of significance to the State of Victoria including historic archaeological sites and artefacts, historic buildings, structures and precincts, gardens, trees and cemeteries, and cultural landscapes. Under the Victorian Heritage Act, the Heritage Council and Heritage Victoria are responsible for issuing permits for the development of places of state significance. The existing Tooleybuc Bridge is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register, and a permit would be required for works to the bridge in accordance with the Victorian Heritage Act. This will be considered further throughout the environmental assessment of the proposal. Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 The Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 provides a framework for a land management system and establish a system of land management cooperative agreements. Section 66(1) of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 states that “prior to the commencement of any works specified in Schedule 3, a public authority must submit a plan of works to the Secretary (to the Department of Primary Industries) for comment on any necessary measures to be taken for the protection of land, waters and wildlife”. The carrying out of developments within a habitat, which has been determined to be a critical habitat under the FFG Act, is listed under Schedule 3 of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987. Should it be determined throughout the development of the proposal that any areas of vegetation clearance to accommodate the proposal will involve the removal of critical habitat, Section 66(1) of the Conservation, Forests and Lands Act 1987 would be applicable as VicRoads is a public authority. Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CLP Act) is the main Victorian legislation that governs noxious weed and pest animal management in Victoria. The CLP Act also sets up a framework for the integrated management and protection of catchments. Under the CLP Act landowners have a responsibility to avoid creating or contributing to land degradation, including taking all reasonable steps to conserve soil, protect water resources, eradicate regionally prohibited weeds, prevent the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds, and where possible, eradicate established pest animals. The management of noxious weeds listed under the CLP Act will need to be considered further throughout the environmental assessment of the proposal once the preferred option has been determined. Environment Protection Act 1970 The Environment Protection Act 1970 establishes a legislative framework for the protection of the environment in Victoria with regard to the principles of environment protection. This Act establishes the Environment Protection Authority and makes provision for the Authority’s powers, duties and functions. These relate to improving the air, land and water environments by managing waters, control of noise and control of pollution. The Act is outcome oriented, with a basic philosophy of preventing pollution and environmental damage by setting environmental quality objectives and establishing programs to meet them.


State environment protection policies are subordinate legislation made under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1970 to provide more detailed requirements and guidance for the application of the Act to Victoria. Any potential impacts of the proposal on air, land, groundwater and/or noise would need to consider the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1970 and the relevant State Environment Protection Policies. Road Management Act 2004 The Road Management Act 2004 establishes a coordinated management system for public roads that promotes a safe and efficient State and local public road networks and the responsible use of road reserves for other legitimate purposes such as the provision of utility services and public transport. The proposal, where relevant, will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Road Management Act 2004. This will be considered in additional detail throughout the identification of a preferred corridor and the environmental assessment of the concept design for the proposal. Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986 The Road Management Act 2004 authorises VicRoads to compulsorily acquire land and pay compensation in accordance with the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act 1986. Should any land need to be acquired for the proposal on the Victorian side of the proposal, acquisition will be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Act This will be considered further throughout the environmental assessment of the proposal once the preferred corridor option has been determined.


4 Community and stakeholder engagement 4.1 Community consultation A public information session was held at the Tooleybuc Sporting Club in April 2013, which was attended by a large number of residents from Tooleybuc and surrounding towns. Tooleybuc has a population of about 180 people and around 80 people were in attendance. Feedback gathered to date suggests there is a strong preference for the replacement bridge to be located in close proximity to the existing bridge such that it remains in town or very close to town. There is a view that businesses in town rely heavily on through traffic and that a potential bypass created by relocating the bridge too far from its existing alignment would have a detrimental impact on businesses and the prosperity of the town. Another important view held by the local community is that the new bridge should preferably be a ‘flyover’ type bridge rather than a lifting span similar to the existing structure.

4.2 Stakeholder engagement In addition to the public information session, consultation with relevant stakeholders has been undertaken to inform the environmental constraints analysis. Relevant stakeholders include: • Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)

• NSW Office of Water (NOW)

• NSW State Water Corporation (SWC)

• Mallee Catchment Management Authority (Mallee CMA)

• Murray Catchment Management Authority (Murray CMA)

• Swan Hill Rural City Council

• Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI)

• Victorian Goulburn-Murray Water Corporation (GMWC)

• Wakool Shire Council

• NSW Wamba Wamba Local Aboriginal Land Council (Wamba Wamba LALC)

• Victorian Wadi Wadi Aboriginal Corporation (WWAC)

• The Murray River Skippers Association (MRSA).

To date MDBA, NOW, SWC, DEPI, OEH and Wakool Shire Council have provided input into the assessment of flooding constraints and this is discussed in more detail in Section 6.2. The NSW Wamba Wamba LALC has provided a report assessing the cultural heritage values of the study area following consultation and the one day targeted inspection undertaken as part of the Aboriginal Heritage constraints assessment. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2 and provided in Appendix B. At the time of writing; a similar report was being prepared by WWAC but had not been received. Feedback has also been received from MRSA regarding the potential placement of a new bridge in the vicinity of Tooleybuc and this is discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.

4.3 Recommendations for future consultation Ongoing consultation will be carried out with local communities and relevant stakeholders during the development of the preferred option. In particular, as the corridor options are refined, affected property owners and businesses will be informed and engaged to ensure that the expectations are considered and the requirements of future planning approvals for the preferred option are met.


5 Environmental constraints 5.1 Biodiversity 5.1.1 Methodology The analysis of ecological constraints associated with the proposal included undertaking a desktop review, preliminary site assessment, consultation with relevant stakeholders and a likelihood of occurrence assessment. The detailed methodology for the analysis of ecological constraints is detailed in Section 3 of Appendix A. The desktop review comprised searches of relevant NSW, Victorian and Commonwealth ecological databases to identify the presence or likely presence of threatened species and ecological communities within the study area. A full list of databases that were searched is provided in Section 2 of Appendix A. The BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife Search was undertaking using the minmum search area of 10 square kilometres. All other database searches were undertaken using a five kilometre buffer around the three proposal corridors for all threatened flora and fauna species records, and a one kilometre buffer for Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs), Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) and BioSites. The preliminary site assessment was undertaken by two AECOM ecologists on 22 and 23 August 2013. This included a site walkover, nocturnal survey, mapping of remnant native vegetation and a large tree survey. The survey transects for the biodiversity site inspection are shown on Figure 2-1 of Appendix A. The area covered by the preliminary site assessment included the three broad corridor options, and areas in close proximity to these corridors which were identified as supporting native vegetation and/or were considered to provide value as potential native fauna habitat. As such, particular focus was given to the riparian zone of the Murray River and remnant vegetation alongside the Mallee Highway on the Victorian and NSW side of the proposal. The likelihood of occurrence assessment was undertaken for all threatened flora and fauna and migratory species identified through previous records collated from database searches, data collected during the preliminary site assessment, the current (known) distribution of these species, and the presence and condition of suitable habitat in the study area. Likelihood categories include unlikely, low, moderate, high and present. An explanation of each of these categories is provided in Section 3.4 of Appendix A.

5.1.2 Results Ecological character The ecological character of the study area generally exhibits signs of historical modification with areas of remnant native vegetation mostly restricted to the riparian zone of the Murray River. The ecological character of the NSW and Victorian portions of the study area are described below. New South Wales Along the majority of the NSW side of Murray River within the study area, the riparian vegetation zone is no more than 30 metres wide, and generally comprises a linear strip of large River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) growing above an understorey dominated by weed species. Although this vegetation provides an unbroken habitat link along the Murray River, it is considered to be a modified, representative version of the River Red Gum – herbaceous tall open forest of the Riverina and Murray Darling Depression Bioregion vegetation type (OEH, 2012) (refer to Figure 5-1). Mensforth Park is located on the land between the riparian zone of the Murray River and the Mallee Highway. This public park is managed by Wakool Shire Council and includes large open recreational areas underneath mature individual River Red Gums and scattered amenity plantings of Silky Oak (Grevillea robusta), Desert Ash (Fraxinus angustiflora) and Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata). North-east of the Tooleybuc Township there are patches of remnant vegetation classified as Black Box Open Woodland with chenopod understorey. This vegetation type is present within the broad


corridor options as a stand of Black Box (Eucalyptus largiflorens) trees alongside the Mallee Highway and as a larger patch between an orchard and the western boundary of Lake Coomaroop (refer to Figure 5-1). Within the study area, the Murray River is classified as the Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray Catchment; listed as an EEC under the Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the FM Act. This community includes all native fish and aquatic invertebrates of the Murray River downstream of the Hume Weir at Albury. Sixty-three flora species were recorded within the NSW section of the study area during the preliminary site assessment, of which 30 were considered exotic. Patches of remnant vegetation on the NSW side of the Murray River within the study area exhibited low structural and species diversity and provided little flora habitat, with residential development in close proximity to the Murray River facilitating disturbance. Fauna During the site inspection, fauna lists were not compiled by state, as most species observed were highly mobile, and thus likely to utilise the range of habitats on both sides of the Murray River. Across the entire study area, 26 fauna species were recorded during the preliminary site assessment (refer to Appendix C of Appendix A). With the exception of one amphibian species, the Common Froglet (Crinia signifera), observed fauna comprised woodland and aquatic bird species. The majority of the recorded species are highly mobile and are likely to utilise the banks on either side of the Murray River. Victoria Downstream of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge on the Victorian side of the study area, the width of riparian vegetation along the Murray River is generally greater than what is present on the NSW side. This area contains numerous oxbow lakes and its botanical value is recognised in the Swan Hill Planning Scheme, where part of this area is included as a vegetation protection overlay of this area (refer to Figure 3-4). The banks of the Murray River downstream of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge on the Victorian side of the study area are shallower and more prone to flooding events. As a result, land in close proximity to the river at this location is mostly unsuitable for agricultural purposes. Vegetation in this area was deemed to be of higher quality, displayed the greatest range of fauna habitat across the entire study area, and therefore exhibited the greatest potential for threatened fauna species to be present. The understorey of vegetation in this area was dominated by exotic species; however, the patch of vegetation retained some structural characteristics of the Sedgy Riverine Forest EVC (refer to Figure 5-1). With the exception of a picnic area immediately adjacent to the existing Tooleybuc Bridge, the upstream portion of the study area on the Victorian side is largely privately owned land, extending to the water line of the Murray River and comprises a much narrower riparian zone. Vegetation surrounding the picnic area contains a small patch of the Sedgy Riverine Forest EVC (refer to Figure 5-1).Within privately owned land there is a marked shift in vegetation structure, with lower species diversity. Native vegetation cover within this area along the riparian zone remains relatively high and was assessed as Grassy Riverine Forest EVC. Away from the Murray River, native vegetation adjacent to the Mallee Highway in the Victorian section of the study area also displays some ecological value. This remnant vegetation was not continuous and was similar in composition to the riparian vegetation downstream of the existing bridge. Forty-three flora species were observed on the Victorian side of the Murray River during the preliminary site assessment. Over 50 per cent of these species were exotic.

Threatened flora Searches of the relevant ecological databases identified 11 flora species listed under one or a combination of the EPBC Act, TSC Act, FFG Act and/or VROTS advisory list. The VROTS advisory


list is maintained by the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries. and assists the Victorian Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (DoTPLI) in making planning decisions. Of the 11 species identified as being on the VROTS list, nine were considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of, and including the proposal corridor options (refer to Table 5-2 for species). No listed threatened flora has previously been recorded within the three proposal corridor options. No EPBC Act, TSC Act or FFG Act listed flora species were recorded during the preliminary site assessment; however, three flora species listed under the VROTS advisory list were recorded. These species included: • Fragrant Saltbush (Rhagodia parabolica), listed as a rare species on the VROTS advisory list.

• Black Roly-poly (Sclerolaena muricata var. muricata), listed as a rare species on the VROTS advisory list.

• Showy Lawrencia (Lawrencia berhae), listed as a vulnerable species on the VROTS advisory list.

Threatened fauna Database searches identified 45 fauna species listed under one or a combination of the EPBC Act, TSC Act, FFG Act and/or VROTS advisory list. Thirty of these species were assessed as having a medium to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of and including the broad corridor options (refer to Table 5-3). The Grey-crowned Warbler, listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act and Endangered under the FFG Act has been previously recorded within the study area, north of Lea Street and about 270 metres from the proposal corridor options. The location of this previous recording is shown on Figure 5-2. The Great Egret (Ardea alba), listed as a migratory species under the EPBC Act and vulnerable under the FFG Act, was recorded during the preliminary site assessment (refer to Figure 5-2). As mentioned previously, the Murray River within the study area and surrounds is listed as the Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray River Catchment EEC under the FM Act. This EEC is characterised by a number of native animal species, including several types of crustaceans, fishes, insects and molluscs, many of which are listed under the FM Act, as well as the EPBC Act and / or FFG Act. As the site inspection did not include an aquatic survey, the biodiversity constraints report (refer to Appendix A) has included a likelihood of occurrence assessment for all listed species that form part of the representative assemblage for this EEC.

Large trees Twenty-six River Red Gums within the study area for the preliminary site assessment were considered to be large trees (trees with a diameter at breast height of at least 120cm). Nineteen large trees were recorded on the Victorian side of the Murray River and seven on the NSW side. These trees are likely to provide good habitat value, with hollows present on 17 of the 26 recorded large trees (refer to Figure 5-3). Hollows are likely to provide habitat for a range of threatened species that were identified in the desktop review. The loss of hollow-bearing trees is classified as a KTP under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act and under the FFG Act.

Migratory Species Searches of the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool identified 12 listed migratory species with the potential to occur within five kilometres of the broad corridor options. Of these species, eight were considered to have a moderate or high likelihood of occurrence within the study area (refer to Table 5-3). One migratory species, the Great Egret was recorded during the preliminary site assessment.

Vegetation communities The EPBC Act protected matters search tool identified three Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs) listed as endangered within one kilometre of the corridor options. These communities included: • Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions

• Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia

• Weeping Myall Woodlands.


No EPBC Act listed TECs were recorded during the preliminary site assessment. Several Buloke trees (Allocasuarina leuhmanii) were observed at the corner of Grant Street and Wood Street adjacent to an orange plantation where the understorey was significantly degraded. This patch of Buloke trees did not meet the listing criteria for the EPBC Act listed Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling Depression Bioregions vegetation community. No TSC Act or FFG Act listed ecological communities were identified in the database searches undertaken or during the preliminary site assessment. The Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray River Catchment is listed as an EEC under Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the FM Act. This community is characterised by an assemblage of native animal species, including several types of crustaceans, fishes, insects and molluscs. The Victorian Government’s policy for native vegetation is outlined in Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE, 2002)). In accordance with the framework, native vegetation in Victoria was classified into EVCs and arranged into bioregions. Searches of the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) Biodiversity Interactive Map identified 14 EVCs within one kilometre of the broad corridor options and located within the Murray Fans and Murray Mallee bioregions. EVCs and the bioregion in which they occur are used to determine the bioregional conservation status (BCS) of each EVC and to determine biodiversity offset requirement arising from vegetation removal. A summary of the classification of remnant vegetation within five kilometres of the broad corridor options is provided in Table 5-1 below. Table 5-1 Ecological vegetation classes within five kilometres of the corridor options

EVC number

EVC name Bioregion BCS Area within ecological study area (hectares)

86 Woorinen Sands Mallee Murray Mallee Depleted 0.66

96 Ridged Plains Mallee Murray Fans Endangered 6.62 Murray Mallee Endangered 39.38

97 Semi-arid Woodland Murray Fans Vulnerable 17.67 Murray Mallee Vulnerable 51.18

98 Semi-arid Chenopod Woodland Murray Fans Endangered 14.25 Murray Mallee Vulnerable 34.63

103 Riverine Chenopod Woodland Murray Fans Endangered 402.13 Murray Mallee Depleted 4.63

104 Lignum Swamp Murray Fans Vulnerable 52.6 106 Grassy Riverine Forest Murray Fans Depleted 77.49

158 Chenopod Mallee Murray Fans Vulnerable 32.64 Murray Mallee Vulnerable 62.14

810 Floodway Pond Herbland Murray Fans Depleted 6.31

811 Grassy Riverine Forest/Floodway Pond Herbland Complex Murray Fans Depleted 8.91

816 Sedgy Riverine Forest Murray Fans Depleted 50.62 Murray Mallee Vulnerable 6.39

823 Lignum Swampy Woodland Murray Fans Vulnerable 520.41 Murray Mallee Vulnerable 2.77

824 Woorinen Mallee Murray Fans Vulnerable 0.06 Murray Mallee Vulnerable 13.06

826 Plains Savannah Murray Fans Endangered 0.16 Murray Mallee Endangered 0.12


Two EVCs were recorded during the preliminary site assessment: • Sedgy Riverine Forest, listed as having a depleted BCS and vulnerable BCS within the Murray

Mallee and Murray Fans bioregions, respectively.

• Grassy Riverine Forest within the Murray Fans bioregion is listed as having a depleted BCS (refer to Figure 5-1).

Noxious Weeds During the preliminary site assessment, six noxious weeds listed under the NW Act and/or CLP Act were recorded within the study area. These species included: • Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides).

• Horehound (Marrubium vulgare).

• Onion Weed (Asphodelus fistulosus).

• Hairy Fiddleneck (Amsinckia calycinaI).

• Soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae).

• Spear Thistle (Cirsium vulgare).


Table 5-2 Flora species with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of the broad corridor options

Scientific name Common name EPBC Act listing TSC Act listing FFG Act/VROTS listing Likelihood of occurrence

Recorded during site inspection Yes/No Status Yes/No Status Yes/No Status

Marsdenia australis Doubah No - No - Yes Vulnerable (VROTS)

High No

Haegiela tatei Small Nut-heads No - No - Yes Vulnerable (VROTS)

High No

Callitriche cyclocarpa Western Water-starwort

No - Yes Vulnerable No - Moderate No

Halosarcia pterygosperma subsp. pterygosperma

Black Roly-poly No - No - Yes Poorly known (VROTS)

Present – observed in the study area

Yes

Rhagodia parabolica Fragrant Saltbush No - No - Yes Rare (VROTS)

Present– observed in the study area

Yes

Sclerolaena muricata var. muricata

Whiteseed Glasswort No - No - Yes Rare (VROTS)

Moderate No

Bossiaea walkeri Cactus Bossiaea No - No - Yes Moderate No

Swainsona murrayana Slender Darling-pea Yes Vulnerable Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered (FFG Act)

Moderate No

Lawrencia berhae Showy Lawrencia No - No - Yes Vulnerable (VROTS)

Present– observed in the study area

Yes


Table 5-3 Fauna species with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of the broad corridor options

Scientific name Common name

EPBC Act listing TSC Act listing FFG Act/VROTS listing Likelihood of occurrence

Recorded during site inspection

Yes/No Status Yes/No Status Yes/No Status

Frogs

Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog (includes the Southern Bell Frog, Green and Golden Frog, Warty Swamp Frog)

Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered Yes Endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No

Birds

Botaurus poiciloptilus

Australasian Bittern

Yes Endangered Yes Endangered Yes Endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No

Ninox connivens connivens

Barking Owl No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered – FFG listed

High No

Hamirostra melanosternon

Black-breasted Buzzard

No - Yes Vulnerable No - High No

Burhinus grallarius Bush Stone Curlew

No - Yes Endangered Yes Endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Yes Migratory No - No - High No

Stagonopleura guttata

Diamond Firetail No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

Moderate No

Ardea modesta Eastern Great Egret

Yes Migratory No - Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

High No

Pachycephala inornata

Gilbert's Whistler

No - Yes Vulnerable No - Moderate No






Ardea alba Great Egret Yes Migratory No - Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

Present Yes

Falco hypoleucos Grey Falcon No - Yes Endangered No - Moderate No

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Yes Migratory No - No - Moderate No

Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis

Grey-crowned Babbler

No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered - FFG Listed

Moderate No

Melanodryas cucullata cucullata

Hooded Robin No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Near Threatened -FFG Listed

Moderate No

Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret

Yes Marine No - Yes Critically Endangered - FFG listed

Moderate No

Cacatua leadbeateri leadbeateri

Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo

No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

Moderate to high

No

Nycticorax caledonicus hillii

Nankeen Night Heron

No - No - Yes Near threatened High No

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater

No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

Moderate No

Pedionomus torquatus

Plains-wanderer Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered yes Critically endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater

Yes Migratory No - No - Moderate No

Polytelis anthopeplus monarchoides

Regent Parrot (eastern subspecies)

Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

High No






Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher Yes Migratory No - No - Moderate No

Lophoictinia isura Square-tailed Kite

No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No

Haliaeetus leucogaster

White-bellied Sea-Eagle

Yes Migratory No - Yes Vulnerable – FFG listed

Moderate No

Fish

Macquaria australasica

Macquarie Perch

Yes Endangered No - Yes Endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No

Maccullochella peelii peelii

Murray Cod Yes Vulnerable No - Yes FFG listed High No

Mammals

Nyctophilus corbeni Corben's Long-eared Bat

Yes Vulnerable Yes Vulnerable No - Moderate No

Phascolarctos cinereus

Koala Yes Vulnerable Yes Vulnerable No - Moderate No

Myotis macropus Southern Myotis No - Yes Vulnerable Yes Near threatened Moderate No

Reptiles

Morelia spilota metcalfei

Carpet Python No - No - Yes Endangered – FFG listed

Moderate No


Table 5-4 Species and communities associated with the with the Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray River Catchment Endangered Ecological Community with a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence within five kilometres of the proposal corridors


FM Act Listing EPBC Act listing FFG Act/VROTS listing Likelihood of occurrence Yes / No

Status Yes / No

Status Yes / No

Status

Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray River Catchment Endangered Ecological Community *

Yes Endangered No - No - High

Fishes Maccullochella macquariensis

Trout Cod Yes Endangered Yes Endangered Yes Endangered – FFG listed Critically Endangered – VROTS

Moderate


Figure 5-1 Vegetation communities identified during the site inspection


Figure 5-2 Threatened flora and fauna species identified during the site inspection


Figure 5-3 Large old trees identified during the site inspection


5.1.3 Summary of biodiversity related constraints The following matters were identified as being present within the study area: • One EEC; the Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower

Murray River Catchment, listed under Part 3 of Schedule 4 of the FM Act.

• Three flora species listed on the Victorian VROTS Advisory List and one EPBC listed migratory species.

• Twenty-six large old trees, 17 of which were hollow-bearing River Red Gum trees.

• Four native vegetation communities classed as:

- Black Box Open Woodland with chenopod understorey (NSW).

- River Red Gum herbaceous tall open forest of the Riverina and Murray Darling Depression Bioregion (NSW).

- Grassy Riverine Forest (Victoria).

- Sedgy Riverine Forest (Victoria).

5.1.4 Recommendations and next steps The results of the biodiversity site inspection and walkover, as detailed in Section 5.1.2 and summarised in Section 5.1.3 will be used to inform the selection of a preferred route for the proposal which avoids impacts to the biodiversity values as much as possible.

Targeted surveys Further targeted threatened fauna and flora surveys are required to accurately determine the presence or absence of the species highlighted as having ‘moderate’ or ‘high’ likelihood of occurrence in the study area, and hence allow for a quantification to be made of the potential ecological impact of the proposal. Further refinement of the list of species provided below may be required following consultation with relevant state and Commonwealth authorities. The completion of targeted surveys will assist in determining the potential impact of the proposal on biodiversity values within the study area and inform the selection of the preferred route for the proposal. It is therefore recommended that a biodiversity assessment be undertaken for the proposal as part of further environmental assessment in accordance with Roads and Maritime’s ‘Environmental Impact Assessment Practice Note for Biodiversity Assessments’. A summary of recommended targeted surveys and the season within which they should be undertaken is provided in Table 5-5. Threatened flora Following the desktop and preliminary site assessments that were undertaken in the study area, the following flora species are considered to have a medium or high likelihood of occurrence in the study area or are known to occur in the study area. These species are recommended for targeted surveys once the preferred corridor option has been determined: • Slender Darling-pea (Swainsona murrayana)

• Western Water Starwort (Callitriche cyclocarpa)

• Doubeh (Marsdenia australis)

• Black Roly-poly (Sclerolaenamuricata var. muricata)

• Fragrant Saltbush (Rhagodia parabolica)

• Small Nut-heads (Haegiel atatei)

• Whiteseed Glasswort (Halosarcia pterygosperma subsp. Pterygosperma)

• Cactus Bossiaea (Bossiaea walkeri)

• Showy Lawrencia (Lawrencia berhae).


Threatened fauna Based on the results of the desktop and preliminary site assessments, 30 threatened fauna species with a medium to high likelihood of occurrence in the study area are recommended for further targeted surveys. These species include: • Growling Grass Frog (includes the Southern Bell Frog, Green and Golden Frog, Warty Swamp

Frog) (Litoria raniformis)

• Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus).

• Barking Owl (Ninox connivens connivens).

• Black-breasted Buzzard (Hamirostra melanosternon).

• Bush Stone Curlew (Burhinus grallarius).

• Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis).

• Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata).

• Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta).

• Gilbert's Whistler (Pachycephalain ornata).

• Great Egret (Ardea alba).

• Grey Falcon (Falco hypoleucos).

• Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus).

• Grey-crowned Babbler (Pomatostomus temporalis temporalis).

• Hooded Robin (Melanodryas cucullata cucullata).

• Intermediate Egret (Ardea intermedia).

• Major Mitchell’s Cockatoo (Cacatua leadbeateri leadbeateri).

• Nankeen Night Heron (Nycticorax caledonicus hillii).

• Painted Honeyeater (Grantiella picta).

• Plains-wanderer (Pedionomus torquatus).

• Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus).

• Regent Parrot (eastern subspecies) (Polytelis anthopeplus monarchoides).

• Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca).

• Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura).

• White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster).

• Macquarie Perch (Macquaria australasica).

• Murray Cod (Maccullochella peelii peelii).

• Trout Cod (Maccullochella macquariensis)

• Corben's Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni).

• Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

• Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus).

• Carpet Python (Morelia spilota metcalfei).


Table 5-5 Summary of recommended targeted flora and fauna surveys to be undertaken within the study area

English Latin Timing of threatened species surveys

Fauna – birds Australian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus Spring/Summer during breeding

season Barking Owl Ninnox connivens connivens March-June and November to march

(to avoid breeding season) Black-breasted Buzzard Hamirostra melanosternon Detectability highest at onset of

breeding (August to January) Bush Stone Curlew Burhinus grallarius Detectability appears highest during

nights of a full moon Cattle Egret Ardea ibis Year-round Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata Spring-Summer Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta Year-round Gilberts Whistler Pachycephala inornata Spring-Summer Great Egret Ardea alba Year-round Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos Detectability highest at onset of

breeding (August to January) Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus July to Aril during their non-breeding

migration to Australia Grey-crowned babbler Pomatostomus temporalis Year-round Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata

cucullata Year-round

Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia Year-round Major Mitchell Cockatoo Lophochroa leadbeateri Year-round Nankeen Night Heron Nycticorax caledonicus hillii Year-round Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta Presence is correlated with mistletoe

flowering, so survey to occur over spring-summer

Plains Wanderer Pedionomus torquatus Year-round, on nights of no breeze and no rain

Rainbow bee-eater Merops ornatus September to February during the breeding season

Regent Parrot Polytelis anthopeplus monarchoides

Breeding season (between August and December) is best time for survey.

Satin Flycatcher Myiagra cyanoleuca Spend their breeding season (summer) on southern Australia

Square-tailed Kite Lophoictinia isura Detectability highest at onset of breeding (August to January)

White-bellied Sea-eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster Detectability highest at onset of breeding (August to January)

Fauna - Frogs Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis November- March Fauna - Mammals Corbens Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus corbeni Year-round Southern Myotis Myotis macropus Year-round Koala Phascolarctos cinereus Year-round Fauna – Fish Murray Cod Maccullochella peelii Year-round Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica Year-round Trout Cod Maccullochella macquariensis Spring/summer Fauna – Reptiles Carpet Python Morelia spilota metcalfei Spring/summer


English Latin Timing of threatened species surveys

Flora Slender Darling-pea Swainsona murrayana Spring/summer Western Water Starwort Callitriche cyclocarpa Spring/summer Doubeh Marsdenia australis Spring/summer Black Roly-poly Sclerolaenamuricata var.

muricata Spring/summer

Fragrant Saltbush Rhagodia parabolica Spring/summer Small Nut-heads Haegiel atatei Spring/summer Showy Lawrencia Lawrencia berhae. Spring/summer Cactus Bossiaea Bossiaea walkeri Spring/summer Whiteseed Glasswort Halosarciapterygosperma

subsp. pterygosperma Spring/summer

Further legislative considerations Commonwealth Eight commonwealth listed species are recommended for targeted surveys. Should any assessments of significance undertaken identify that the proposal is likely to significantly impact on any of these listed threatened species or their likely potential habitat, a referral to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment would be undertaken. New South Wales Two flora and 19 fauna species listed under the TSC Act and / or FM Act are recommended for targeted surveys. Should any of the listed flora and fauna species or their potential habitable identified within the preferred corridor option during the targeted surveys, a seven part test would be undertaken for each of these species in accordance with the ‘Threatened species assessment guidelines: The assessment of significance’ (DECC, 2007). The Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray River Catchment EEC is assumed to be present throughout the study area. It is anticipated that further survey would confirm its presence, and the quality of the EEC in accordance with its listing under the FM Act. A seven part test would be undertaken for this community in accordance with the ‘Threatened species assessment guidelines: The assessment of significance’ (DECC, 2007). Should any seven-part tests identify that the proposal would have a significant impact in accordance with the TSC Act and / or the FM Act, a Species Impact Statement for each species and / or community would be undertaken. The proposal also has the potential to include the loss of hollow bearing trees, which is listed as a KTP in Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. The impact of this activity on threatened flora and fauna will be determined through the seven part tests. The proposal will be required to comply with the requirements of SEPP 44 if the targeted surveys identify the presence of Koala or core Koala habitat within the preferred proposal corridor. Victoria One flora species and 20 fauna species listed under the FFG Act are recommended for targeted surveys. Should the FFG listed Slender Darling-Pea (Swainsona murrayana) be recorded, or potential habitat is identified during the targeted survey of this species, a permit issued by the Victorian DEPI is required prior to its removal. A permit under the Wildlife Act 1975 is required for the salvage and translocation of any fauna present within the proposal area if any of the 20 fauna species listed under the FFG Act, or likely potential habitat, is recorded within the preferred proposal corridor.


In accordance with Victoria’s ‘Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action’, the clearing of remnant native vegetation requires a vegetation quality assessment to be undertaken within the preferred proposal corridor using the habitat hectares methodology as outlined in ‘Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – Guidelines for applying the habitat hectares scoring method, Version 1.3’ (DSE, 2004). Any native vegetation to be removed for the purposes of the proposal will be offset in accordance with the Victoria’s ‘Native Vegetation Management - A Framework for Action’ and the Mallee Catchment Management Authority native vegetation plan. Under the CLP Act the proponent will need to demonstrate responsible measures have been taken during the construction phase to prevent the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds. The presence of these weeds will need to be determined during a detailed assessment of the construction footprint. Under the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) the proponent will need to demonstrate that all environmental risks to surface water associated with the construction of the proposal have been identified and addressed using practical, modern techniques.


5.2 Aboriginal heritage The analysis of Aboriginal cultural heritage within the study area has been undertaken to meet the requirements of Stage 2 of the ‘Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation’ (PACHCI) (Roads and Maritime, 2011).

5.2.1 Methodology The analysis of Aboriginal heritage constraints included: • A desktop review of the study area to identify previously recorded sites of Aboriginal heritage

significance and any areas with the potential for archaeological sensitivity

• Consultation with NSW Wamba Wamba LALC, as facilitated by the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisor for Roads and Maritime.

• Consultation with the Victorian Wadi Wadi Aboriginal Corporation (WWAC).

• Development of an Aboriginal site prediction model, summarising the Aboriginal archaeological site types that have the potential to exist within and in close proximity to the study area.

• Two site inspections. The first site inspection was attended by two AECOM archaeologists the Roads and Maritime Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Officer and NSW Wamba Wamba LALC representatives. The second site inspection was attended by one AECOM archaeologists and two representatives from the Victorian WWAC. The aim of the site inspections was to ground-truth items of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance identified during the desktop review, and to identify any surface expressions of Aboriginal archaeological and cultural heritage values within the study area. Notes were taken throughout the site inspection detailing landform, ground surface visibility and areas of exposure. The site inspection involved:

- A combined vehicle and pedestrian inspection in the Victorian section along Tooleybuc Road as well as along the western bank of the Murray River.

- A combined pedestrian and vehicle inspection in the NSW section along the Kyalite-Tooleybuc Road / Mallee Highway, Tooleybuc Street, Murray Street, Lea Street, Tooleybuc Street, Wakool Street, Wood Street and along the eastern bank of the Murray River.

- Ground-truthing of previously registered Aboriginal sites in close proximity to the study area.

• Identification and mapping of areas of Aboriginal archaeological potential as well as previously recorded sites

• Development of a draft archaeological testing methodology.

5.2.2 Results Desktop Review Aboriginal archaeological context Environmental factors such as topography, hydrology, geology, soils, flora and fauna would have been key influences on past Aboriginal occupation and land use. Archaeological site patterning and distribution, site survival over time and the likelihood of detecting any existing archaeological sites also depend on such factors. The study area covers an undulating lowland plain stretching from Lake Coomaroop in the east to the Murray River in the west and its associated floodplain on the Victorian side. It is rich with natural water sources which would have provided both drinking water and riverine/lake resource foods for Aboriginal people.


Historical context The study area is within the traditional country of the Watiwati (or Wati-Wati) Aboriginal language group, also known by the names Wathiwathi, Watthiwatthi, Wattewatte, Watty-watty, Wadiwadi, Wotti-wotti, Withaija, WohdiWohdi, Woani and Woonyi. The name Narinari has also been applied to the Aboriginal people of this area, but this may refer to a different group that was located within the same general region. The traditional country of the Watiwati language group was along the Murray River, between Murrumbidgee Junction and the contemporary town of Swan Hill, to contemporary Piangil and north to Moolpa (Clark, 1990). Records of the explorer Mitchell from 1836 indicated that the Aboriginal people of the area had already encountered European peoples. He also identified the importance of fish in the diet, describing Aboriginal people diving for fish in the Murray River and throwing them onto the bank (Mitchell, 1839). Later, settler Beveridge, along with Mitchell and Hawdon before him, commented on the rich resources available to Aboriginal people in the Murray River area. Aboriginal heritage database search results A search of the NSW Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) within a 13 square kilometre area centred of the study area identified 33 registered sites of Aboriginal heritage significance. These included one burial, three modified trees and 29 oven mounds (refer to Appendix E of Appendix B). The AHIMS database records identified a total of eight registered archaeological sites located within the study area. However, on closer inspection, this data proved highly inaccurate with some site coordinates having them located in Victoria and others with multiple duplications errors. The original site cards were used to relocate these sites and approximately identify their correct position. Following the review of site cards for these eight items, it was identified that no previously recorded sites are located within the three proposal corridors. However, three AHIMS registered sites were listed as occurring outside the three proposal corridors but within the study area. These are detailed in Table 5-6. It should be noted that the AHIMS searches only identify a central point for each registered site, and as such, some sites may extend into the study area. Table 5-6 AHIMS registered site in close proximity to the study area

AHIMS number

Site type Site card details

52-2-0008 Oven mound The AHIMS coordinates placed this item outside of but in close proximity to the study area.

53-2-0012 Shell midden The central point of this site is located outside of the study area; however, it is possible that this midden may extend into the study area.

53-2-0033 Scarred River Red Gum Tree

The site card describes the scarred tree site as being located just outside (but in close proximity to) the study area.

A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register Information System (ACHRIS) did not identify any registered Aboriginal items within the study area. The closest identified site was a scarred tree about 1.1 kilometres from study area.


Site Inspections The site inspections undertaken identified two previously recorded AHIMS sites; 53-2-0012, and 53-2-033 located outside of the three proposal corridors. Two additional previously unrecorded sites of Aboriginal heritage significance were identified within the study area. A potential mound site was also identified in the Victorian section of the study area, on privately owned land. Due to limited ground surface visibility (GSV), AHIMS site 52-2-008 (oven mound) was not located during the site inspection. During the second site inspection, a number of burnt clay fragments were noted on the Victorian side of the study area within and in proximity to the proposal corridors. Burnt clay is normally associated with the presence of hearths and Aboriginal mounds. Many of the clay fragments observed were identified as isolated finds, suggesting that they were not in situ and may have been redeposited due to flood events or farming activities.

Aboriginal site prediction model The Aboriginal site prediction model prepared for the proposal was developed based on the information collected as part of the desktop review. Six potential Aboriginal archaeological site types that could potentially be present within the study area were identified, and a predictive statement on the likelihood of finding each site has been provided. The Aboriginal site prediction model for the proposal is detailed in Table 5-7. Table 5-7 Aboriginal site prediction model

Site type Description Prediction Oven mound Circular shaped mounds of earth that were

utilised by Aboriginal people to cook food in. Typically they will contain baked clay and charcoal. Often the mound itself may have been destroyed, leaving a circular deposit visible at ground level.

Multiple oven mounds have already been identified in this area and it is predicted as likely that further mounds could be identified within or in close proximity to the study area.

Middens Concentrations of shell deposited over varying periods of time by Aboriginal people. These deposits represent the utilisation of local food resources. Middens can also contain stone tools along with the shell material.

A midden has already been identified in this area and it is predicted as likely that further shell deposits could be identified within or in close proximity to the study area.

Modified trees Wood and bark of trees have been used in the past by Aboriginal peoples for a variety of purposes, such as carrying implements, shields or canoes. The removal of this raw material from a tree produces a ‘scar’.

The study area has been systematically cleared of much of the native vegetation. It is predicted as unlikely that a culturally modified tree will be identified in areas of vegetation clearance, but likely that they may be located in areas where mature vegetation remains extant.

Stone artefact scatters

Activities associated with this site type include stone tool production, hunting and gathering or domestic sites associated with campsites. Stone artefacts may be flakes of stone, cores (flakes are removed from the stone cores) or tools. Some scatters may also contain other material such as charcoal, bone, shell and ochre.

It is likely that artefact scatters may be identified within the study area.

Isolated artefacts

Isolated artefacts can occur when individual artefacts are discarded or exposed through taphonomic processes. This site type can also be indicative of further sub-surface archaeological deposits.

It is expected that there is a high potential for the identification of isolated artefacts in the study area.


Site type Description Prediction Aboriginal burials

Aboriginal communities strongly associate burial sites with a connection to country and are opposed to disturbance of burials or their associated sites. They are more likely near watercourses or in dunes near old lake beds. Burials are often located near other sites such as oven mounds, shell middens or artefact scatters

Due to the nature of the landforms present it is considered likely that burials could occur within the study area.

Areas of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity Three areas of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity have been recorded within or in close proximity to the study area for the proposal; Lake Coomaroop, Lunette features and the Murray River. Lake Coomaroop The dune systems surrounding Lake Coomaroop have the potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological deposits. A small section of Lake Coomaroop and its surrounds was inspected as part of this analysis. This resulted in the identification of an unregistered site of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance, and is indicative of the Aboriginal cultural sensitivity of this area. Lake Coomaroop has therefore been identified as a culturally sensitive area (refer to Figure 5-4). Lunette feature As a landform, lunettes were historically utilised by Aboriginal people as a resource area. The lunette feature within the study area and surrounds has therefore been identified as a culturally sensitive area, with the potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological deposits (refer to Figure 5-4). Murray River The Murray River has been identified as an important resource historically for Aboriginal people residing in the region, with numerous AHIMS registered site present which are associated with the River. The Murray River is therefore considered to be a culturally sensitive area with the potential to contain Aboriginal archaeological deposits (refer to Figure 5-4). As the origin of burnt clay fragments identified in the site inspection could not be determined, it was decided through consultation with Aboriginal representatives from NSW and Victoria that the application of a 200 metre cultural sensitivity buffer around the Murray River and associated channels would assist in capturing in situ archaeological sites that might be present within these areas.


(blank page)


Figure 5-4 Areas of Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity


5.2.3 Summary of Aboriginal heritage constraints Based on the desktop review and site inspections, the following items of Aboriginal heritage significance are identified as occurring or potentially occurring within the three proposal corridors for the proposal: • One scarred tree.

• Midden site AHIMS #52-2-0012 may extend into the proposal corridors in subsurface deposits.

• One potential mound site.

• Three areas of potential archaeological sensitivity:

- The banks of Lake Coomaroop, NSW.

- The area surrounding and including the lunette landform system in NSW.

- Both banks of the Murray River.

5.2.4 Recommendations and next steps Based on the results of the desktop assessment, consultation with relevant Aboriginal stakeholders and the preliminary site inspections, it is likely that the proposal will potentially impact on one or a combination of the abovementioned objects, places and / or items of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance depending on which proposal corridor is identified as being preferred. It is recommended that once the preferred proposal corridor has been determined, concept design development and environmental assessment phases for the proposal would include formal consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) is undertaken. The CHAR would be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the following so as to meet NSW and Victorian Aboriginal heritage assessment and consultation requirements: • Aboriginal cultural heritage consultation requirements for proponents (OEH, 2010).

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

• Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation (Roads and Maritime, 2011).

• Guide to preparing a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (Victorian Department of Planning and Community Development). As defined by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Regulations (2007), regardless of which proposal corridor is identified as being preferred, impacts to Aboriginal cultural heritage would not be considered a low impact activity, and as a result, a Cultural Heritage Management Plan would be required to be prepared.

When identifying the preferred proposal corridor, known sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance and areas of potential archaeological sensitivity should be avoided as much as practically possible. A program of archaeological subsurface testing will be undertaken in accordance with the ‘Code of practice for archaeological investigation of Aboriginal objects in NSW’ (OEH, 2010) if the preferred proposal corridor is unable to avoid these areas. Subsurface testing will be undertaken to determine the presence or absence of Aboriginal archaeological deposits within the alignment of the preferred option as well as the nature and extent of these deposits. Consultation and the preparation of a CHAR in accordance with Stage 3 of the PACHCI will also meet the requirements of The Aboriginal Heritage Planning Tool under regulation 44 of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. As the proposed works occur in both NSW and Victoria, it is recommended that the legislation, appropriate to the two States, be followed for testing on either side of the Murray River. A proposed archaeological testing methodology has been prepared as part of the constraints analysis for the proposal in accordance with the requirements of Stage 2 of the PACHCI. The methodology is provided in full in Section 7 of Appendix B.


5.3 Non-Aboriginal heritage 5.3.1 Methodology The analysis of non-Aboriginal constraints associated with the three broad corridor options within the study area included: • Searches of relevant Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian heritage inventories

• A review of available historical information

• A site inspection by two AECOM archaeologists, Dr. Luke Kirkwood and Dr. Darran Jordan, on Thursday 29 August 2013

• An assessment of significance for all identified items on non-Aboriginal heritage significance in accordance with ‘Assessing Significance for Historical Archaeological Sites and ‘Relics’’ (NSW Heritage Branch, 2009).

Further detail with regards to the methodology of the non-Aboriginal (historic) heritage constraints analysis is provided in Appendix C.

5.3.2 Results Heritage inventory searches Searches of the relevant Commonwealth, NSW and Victorian heritage inventories were undertaken between 19 August and 23 August 2013. The heritage inventory searches identified one listed heritage item within the three proposal corridors, being the existing Tooleybuc Bridge. The existing Tooleybuc Bridge is currently listed on the following inventories: • NSW State Heritage Register

• NSW State Heritage Inventory

• Victorian Heritage Register

• Heritage Inventory Victoria

• National Trust

• Roads and Maritime Section 170 Register.

A strategic study into the conservation of timber truss road bridges in NSW identified the Tooleybuc Bridge for divestment from the Roads and Maritime folio of NSW State Heritage Register listed items (Roads and Maritime, 2011). As a result, Roads and Maritime is currently undergoing a de-listing process for the Tooleybuc Bridge which would remove its legislative heritage listing. At the time of writing, the Tooleybuc Bridge was still listed as a heritage item. However, assessments of the significance of the Tooleybuc Bridge have not been considered any further as part of this constraints analysis. The Wakool Shire Community Heritage Study (Wakool Shire Council, 2007) identified places of non-Aboriginal heritage significance based on community interest. Within the study area for the proposal the community heritage study identified the existing Tooleybuc Bridge and Tooleybuc Cemetery as items that should be considered for listing under the Wakool Shire local environmental plan. One item of local heritage significance not listed on any heritage registers, the Tooleybuc Bridge Keepers Cottage and historic punt gate, is located within the study area. This heritage item is located within Mensforth Park on the NSW side of the Murray River. The location of these heritage items are shown on Figure 5-7.


Figure 5-5 Identified heritage items


Historical Context In the 1840s, whaling entrepreneur Ben Boyd established the Puon Buon run, with the historic saltbush plain landscape of the Tooleybuc area being taken up by sheep grazing by 1847. By the late nineteenth century there were more than 50,000 sheep within the Puon Buon run (OEH, 2009). The Tooleybuc post office opened in 1873 as an adjunct to a local store and the public house, a riverside hotel called the Tooley Buc. The only other building existing at this time was a small wooden chapel, which was described as being unused (The Argus, 1876). The Tooleybuc Post Office closed in 1885, and from the 1870s onward, a vehicular punt was in operation for access between the NSW and Victorian sides of the Murray River. During this period, river steamers regularly travelled along the Murray River in the area, largely for the transportation of wool. The Puon Buon run was subdivided shortly before the First World War, which saw a shift from the sheep industry to agriculture, particularly fruit growing. The subdivision of the Puon Buon run assisted in the development of the Tooleybuc township (OEH, 2009). Development of the Tooleybuc township continued with the establishment of the Tooleybuc Central School in 1916, and the opening of a rifle range in 1917. In response to the ongoing and growing pressure from local farmers, the Tooleybuc Bridge was authorised, with construction commencing in 1922. Due to the ongoing use of the Murray River in the area by river steamers, Percy Allan designed the bridge as a timber truss and steel lift span bridge which was designed to open in order to let steamers through. The bridge was completed in 1925. A timber and tin cottage was constructed at the location of the old punt crossing as a residence for the bridge keeper and his family.

Site Inspection The inspection of the study area determined that the majority of standing structures present appear to be of modern construction. Some buildings in close proximity to the banks of the Murray River are potentially replacements for earlier structures damaged by historic flooding of the Murray River. The original Tooleybuc hotel and church mentioned in the reviewed literature were not identified during the site inspection; rather newer replacement structures were present. The items of non-Aboriginal heritage significance identified as part of the desktop review were located and inspected. In addition, a further two heritage items were identified during the survey on the Victorian side of the Murray River. They were a mooring cross historic site and engine display historic site (Figure 5-5). Mooring cross historical site The timber mooring cross was found adjacent to the maintenance yard on the Victorian side of the study area, south-west of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge on the river bank. The mooring is embedded into concrete and attached to an Aboriginal scarred tree using metal studs. During the site inspection, the WWLALC CEO contacted a local Aboriginal resident, who noted that the mooring cross predated his arrival in the area more than 40 years ago. The mooring provides an example of contact between Aboriginal culture and the later European river trade along the Murray River. Historic engine display A historic engine, with the makers mark ‘Marshall Sons & Co London & Gainsborough,’ is located within a raised wooden rectangular display enclosure in close proximity to the mooring cross/scarred tree and the maintenance yard. The engine has been moved to this location as a historical display, but there is no contextual heritage value tying it to this specific location. A desktop search identified the manufacturer as a UK based machinery company that operated between 1848 and the late 1960s.

Assessment of significance Assessments of heritage significance in accordance with NSW and Victorian criterion (where relevant) were undertaken for each historic heritage item identified within the study area during the desktop review and site inspection. The NSW and Victorian heritage assessment criterion are discussed in detail in Section 4.2 of Appendix C.


An assessment of significance is undertaken to explain why a particular site is important from a heritage standpoint, and to determine appropriate site management measures, and curtilage of a heritage item to be determined where necessary. A summary of the assessments of heritage significance undertaken for the identified historic heritage items is provided in Table 5-8. Table 5-8 Summary of identified non-Aboriginal heritage items and their significance

Heritage item Significance significance category

Comments

Tooleybuc Cemetery (NSW).

local b – historical association significance d – social significance

The Tooleybuc Cemetery has historical associative significance as the resting place of many Tooleybuc residents from the 1800s onwards. Further, the cemetery has social significance, due to the cultural and spiritual significance of the cemetery to the local community.

Bridge Keepers Cottage, Punt Gate and memorial plaques (NSW).

local b – historical association significance d – social significance.

The Bridge Keepers Cottage and Punt Gate are of local historic associative and social significance, demonstrating the course of Tooleybuc’s historical progression. The cottage and gate holds associative and social significance to the local community, being the residence of successive bridge keepers from the 1930s to 1994. To a community focused on the Murray River, the bridge keeper was an important and vital member of the community. This is further demonstrated by the erection of a plaque for Bill Bax, the last bridge keeper.

Mooring cross historical site (Victoria).

local a – historical association significance b – rarity significance g – social significance

The Mooring cross is of local significance for its historical, rarity and social associations. It is an example of the make-shift infrastructure erected along the Murray River to service river vessels. It is also indicative of the interaction between Aboriginal cultural and European settlement. The mooring cross is a rare physical reminder of the differing uses and connections to the Murray River held by Aboriginal people and Europeans.

Steam engine display (Victoria).

local a – historical association significance

The steam engine has associative significance as it is an example of the type of imported farming machinery utilised in the local area. It has been placed on display at this location by the Mallee Steam, Oil and Machinery Club due to their assessment of its historic value and local association.

5.3.3 Summary of non-Aboriginal heritage constraints Five items of non-Aboriginal (historic) heritage significance have been identified as occurring within the study area for the proposal, including: • The existing Tooleybuc Bridge

• Tooleybuc Cemetery

• Bridge Keepers Cottage and Punt Gate

• Mooring cross historical site

• Steam engine display.


5.3.4 Recommendations and next steps It is recommended that where reasonable and feasible, the preferred proposal corridor avoids direct impacts to items identified as being on historic heritage significance, including: • Tooleybuc Bridge Keepers Cottage, punt gate and memorial plaques; unlisted heritage items of

local significance.

• The historical mooring cross, embedded into an Aboriginal Scarred Tree.

• The historic engine on display.

Consideration of the location of these items should be taken into account when determining the preferred corridor option, and throughout the development of the concept design of the proposal. Should it be determined that the preferred location for the replacement bride and associated road infrastructure will potentially impact on any items of historic heritage significance, additional heritage investigations would need to be undertaken. Additional investigations would include the preparation of Statements of Heritage Impact for each potentially impacted item, and would relevantly comply with NSW and Victorian heritage guidelines. Additional investigations would also include mitigation strategies to minimise potential direct and indirect impacts to items of historic heritage significance. Any Statements of Heritage Impact that are prepared should incorporate contingency measures which deal with the discovery of unexpected historic finds and potential direct and indirect impacts.


5.4 Land contamination 5.4.1 Methodology The main objective of the constraints analysis undertaken for the proposal with regards to land contamination was to identify potential contamination issues within the study area in order to minimise disruptions throughout the construction of the proposal and impacts to the surrounding environment and human health. It was also to minimise the risk of contamination exposure to site workers and the environment throughout construction of the proposal. The analysis of contamination-related constraints associated with the proposal comprised: • Review and interpretation of existing background information relevant to both the Victorian and

NSW sections of the Study Area including:

- Identification of known contaminated sites as detailed on the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) list of NSW contaminated sites notified to EPA

- Identification of properties which are listed on the NSW EPA Contaminated Land Record of Notices

- Identification of properties listed on the Victorian EPA Contaminated Land Priority Sites Register.

- Identification of properties which are listed on the NSW Government Land and Property Information (LPI) database of central restrictions. Identification of other areas where current or historical land uses (such as service stations and dry cleaners) are likely to have caused contamination

- Review of published maps of the area to gain an understanding of surface and subsurface conditions (eg geology, hydrogeology, soil, topography etc)

- Interviewing of key Roads and Maritime proposal personnel throughout the site walkover to assess any pertinent information relating to potential contamination issues along the proposed route.

- Search and review information readily available through the internet (eg historical parish maps, NOW registered groundwater bore database within identified areas of concern etc)

- A review of existing reports relevant to the study area (where available).

• A walkover of the study area to verify site conditions compared to the document review, make a record of the general conditions and land uses and to identify potential sources of contamination along the route.

5.4.2 Results The searches of the relevant databases did not identify any known contaminated sites within the study area. Further, a search of the water bores registered with NOW did not identify any registered bores within 500 metres of the study area and no records of unexploded ordnance were identified on the Australian Department of Defence Unexploded Ordnance Contamination database. The site inspection undertaken by two AECOM environmental scientists identified 11 areas of potential contamination concern (refer to Table 5-9). Based on the desktop assessment, and the observations made during the site inspection, potentially contaminating activities within the study area have been identified. These are described in Table 5-10 and the areas of concern are shown on Figure 5-6.


Table 5-9 Areas of potential contamination concern within the study area

Location Identifier (refer to Figure 5-8)

Lot and DP Address

1 Unknown Mallee Highway, Tooleybuc NSW

2 Lot 1 DP 585209

Mallee Highway, Tooleybuc NSW



5 Lot 23 DP 758985

Murray Street, Tooleybuc NSW

6 Lot 5 DP 263617

Wood Street, Tooleybuc NSW

7 Lot 5 DP 758985

Wood Street, Tooleybuc NSW

8 Lot 4 DP 1127817 Grant Street, Tooleybuc NSW

9 Unknown Immediately west of the intersection of Murray Street and Lea Street

10 Lot 39, 40, 49 and 51 DP 756584

Mallee Highway, Tooleybuc NSW

11 Within the road reserve

Immediately north-east of the intersection of Wood Street and Grant Street

12 Lot 10 DP 758985

79 Murray Street, Tooleybuc, NSW


Table 5-10 Potentially contaminating activities and associated contaminants of concern

Potentially Contaminating Activity

Potential Contaminants of Concern

Identified Areas of Concern (Location Identifier, refer Fig A-2)

Use and weathering of hazardous materials, such as asbestos-containing fibre-cement building materials and lead based paints, in buildings within and adjacent to the Study Area

Asbestos, Lead 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12

Storage and use of pesticides, fuels and /or other agricultural chemicals on rural land within and adjacent to the Study Area.

Metals, Organo-chlorine and Organo-phosphorus Pesticides (OCPs and OPPs), Herbicides, Fungicides, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene (BTEX), Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Volatile Halogenated Compounds (VHCs)

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12

Treatment of livestock with pesticides at sheep/cattle dips

OCPs, OPPs, Arsenic 8

Use of fill of unknown origin along the roadway and on adjacent land.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, OCPs, OPPs, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs), Metals, Herbicides, Fungicides, Asbestos

Roadways and adjacent land

Localised dumping or burial of waste materials on private properties and along public roadways.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, PCBs, OCPs, OPPs, Metals, Herbicides, Fungicides, Asbestos

1-10 (potentially)

Spillage of fuel, oil, and potentially hazardous loads from traffic accidents along the Mallee Highway and on intersecting roads within the Study Area.

TPH, BTEX, PAHs, Metals Roadways and adjacent land

Use of fire fighting foam to extinguish fires resulting from traffic accidents along the Mallee Highway and on intersecting roads within the Study Area.

Perflorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)

9, roadways and adjacent land

Migration of contamination from current and former service station sites, auto repair garages, NRMA depot etc (in the event of leaking underground fuel tanks, oil pits, etc).

TPH, BTEX, Metals, PAH 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12

Potential leaks or seepage from septic tanks located on rural properties. It is noted that no septic tanks were identified during inspection of the Study Area.

Nutrients and pathogens 10


Figure 5-6 Areas of potential contamination concern within the study area


5.4.3 Summary of contamination constraints Based on the desktop review and site inspection, it has been determined that the potential of the study area being subject to widespread contamination is likely to be low. However, a number of locations have the potential to be affected by localised contamination (refer to Table 5-9 and Figure 5-8).

5.4.4 Recommendations and next steps It is recommended that a Phase I contamination assessment be undertaken on the preferred route once it has been selected. The phase I would be undertaken during the preparation of the environmental assessment for the proposal. A Phase I assessment would build upon the results of the contamination constraints report and would include further desktop assessment and detailed site investigation. Depending on the results of the Phase I assessment, and the footprint of the preferred corridor that is selected, a Phase II contamination assessment may also potentially be required. Further assessment and required remediation activities will be determined following the identification of a preferred corridor and could potentially include: • Sampling of the soil at locations within the preferred route that have been identified as being

areas of potential contamination concern, potentially including:

- Equipment and maintenance / storage yards.

- Fill mounds.

- Areas of abandoned waste material.

- Agricultural land identified within or adjacent to the preferred route.

- underneath the existing Tooleybuc Bridge (if it is to be disturbed as a result of the proposal),

• Sampling activities should be undertaken prior to the disturbance of these areas to minimise the potential for identifying unexpected finds and proposal delays during construction.

• Conducting hazardous materials audits on buildings requiring demolition, disturbance or alteration as a result of the proposal. The audit should be undertaken prior to the disturbance of these areas to inform construction programming and minimise the potential for proposal delays.

• Prior to commencement of construction, request information from property owners identified as having a current or existing land use comprising storage of chemicals and petroleum hydrocarbons to evaluate whether potential contamination may have occurred on or migrated into the study area.


5.5 Traffic Traffic is not expected to be a key constraint for the construction and operations of the proposal; however, potential construction traffic impacts may be able to provide some differentiation between the three proposal corridors with regards to ease of construction under existing traffic conditions and minimising disruption to traffic flow throughout construction and operation of the replacement bridge. Construction of the replacement bridge within any of the proposal corridor options would require some minor traffic diversions. All proposal corridors would maintain the existing bridge and access for heavy and light vehicles during construction and traffic would be switched from the existing bridge to the replacement bridge on opening. A construction methodology that maintains as much existing traffic flow as possible would be preferred in comparison to an option that requires traffic diversion. The upstream corridor would provide the most opportunity for offline construction of the replacement bridge, which would result in the smallest amount of traffic diversions. Maintaining traffic flow throughout construction of the proposal, regardless of what corridor is selected as the preferred option could be achieved through the implementation of standard traffic management practices. All three proposal corridors would maintain operational traffic flow along the Mallee Highway across the Murray River at Tooleybuc, and would offer the same improvement to the level of service for heavy vehicles in the long term. The Upstream proposal corridor would alter the existing traffic pattern by diverting traffic away from the main street of Tooleybuc and along an offline section to the East and South of the main Township. The downstream proposal corridor would also divert traffic flows, but to a lesser extent. The downstream proposal corridor would diverge away from the main street of town in a westerly direction in the vicinity of the Lea Street and Murray Street intersection, before crossing the Murray River and re-joining the existing highway on the western side of the river. The maintenance of the existing traffic flow through town has been expressed as a key objective for the local community and the Central option that follows the existing alignment for its entirety, would perform better against that objective than the other two options with their associated offline components. Traffic has been considered as part of the constraints analysis qualitatively and at a high level. It is recommended that a quantitative traffic and transport assessment be undertaken throughout the concept development and environmental assessment stages of the proposal in order to develop appropriate mitigation measures to be identified and subsequently implemented throughout construction and operation of the proposal.


6 Other considerations 6.1 Geotechnical 6.1.1 Methodology The geotechnical assessment comprised a site walkover on 21 August 2013, a desktop assessment of available maps, aerial photographs and other published information, followed by an assessment of geological constraints and geotechnical requirements that may be likely to affect the selection of a preferred option.

6.1.2 Results Overview Tooleybuc is situated within the Mallee dune field system of the Murray Geological Basin, which is bounded by the south-eastern and southern highlands of NSW and Victoria to the east, and the Mt Lofty and Olary Ranges of South Australia in the west (Bowler et al, 2006).

The Murray Basin has been infilled with sediments over the past 65 million years in response to changes in climate and to some extent to tectonic influences. Sediments have included fluvial (deposited through river action), aeolian (deposited through wind action), lacustrine (lake sediments) and marine deposits. The upper sedimentary layers are those that will require the most consideration for this proposal. Bedrock is likely to lie at significant depth within the study area.

Lithology The 1:250,000 Geological Map of Swan Hill (1992) indicates that the flood plain of the Murray River within the study area is underlain by recent fluvial sediments (Coonambidgal Formation) and includes clays, sands and sandy clays.

Pleistocene aged Woorinen Formation is mapped at the eastern and western boundaries of the study area outside the Murray River flood plain. This formation comprises aeolian dune sands, and may include calcareous and clayey layers and paleosols (old topsoil layers). The Murray River has cut a channel through the Woorinen Formation prior to depositing the recent Coonambidgal Formation sediments. The sediments underlying the Coonambidgal and Woorinen Formations are likely to be older and more highly consolidated deposits, likely including sands and gravels of the Monoman Formation.

Structural geology There are no named faults mapped in the study area, with the closest mapped fault, the Tyrell Fault, running about 60 kilometres to the west of the study area.

River channel banks and erosion There appears to have been no migration of the active Murray River channel at Tooleybuc since the construction of the bridge in 1924. It is understood from available information that the overall course of the river is relatively stable due to the low flow velocities in the river and control measures in place, both up and down stream of Tooleybuc.

Evidence of localised erosion of the river banks was observed during the site walkover. The most significant location of erosion observed was on the outside of the bend immediately downstream of Tooleybuc Bridge (refer to Figure 6-1).

Any localised erosion of the river bank over time could be stabilised using engineered stabilisation measures. Construction of the new bridge within a straighter section of the river (such as that associated with the general and upstream options) will require less scour protection, and would assist in reducing the amount of stabilisation required.


Intermediate piers of the proposed bridge will need to consider and allow for river bed scour around foundations positioned within the river channel, but this will be a common constraint to all three corridor options.

Figure 6-1 Murray River banks downstream of Tooleybuc Bridge; erosion of the bank has undermined vegetation

River meanders and oxbows Meandering river channels and oxbows can be seen to the north of the Mallee Highway on the Victorian side of the river. These channels did not contain standing water during the site visit, though wetland vegetation was observed to be growing in the base. It is understood that these meanders are no longer active, but are quite likely to become saturated and flood during periods of heavy rainfall or when the river levels are elevated.

Lunette lakes Lake Coomaroop is situated 1.6 kilometres to the east of the Murray River and is located just outside of the study area. This lake is currently water filled, is oval in shape, about two kilometres by one kilometre in size and with a lunette dune on its eastern edge. The outlet from the lake joins the Murray River about 800 metres upstream of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge.

Sand dunes Woods Road at the eastern edge of Tooleybuc runs along a dune with a rounded indistinct crest approximately 10 metres high and trending roughly north-south. The dune elevation reduces to the south of Grant Street and roughly corresponds with the location of a lunette dune mapped on the 1:100,000 Swan Hill Geological Map. Lunette dunes are lenticular dunes which generally form on the eastward side of lakes in this region, an example of which lies on the eastern shore of Lake Coomaroop. A review of aerial photographs taken in 2010 suggests there may be some movement of sand around the western shore of Lake Coomaroop.

Groundwater No areas of saturated ground were encountered during the site walkover in August 2013. The groundwater within surface soils in close proximity to the Murray River is expected to be at or around river level and may be elevated adjacent to the river banks. Vegetation indicative of wet ground was observed in areas of the flood plain adjacent to the river, suggesting higher ground water levels do occur periodically. Ground water levels away from the Murray River may be at a greater depth and have been noted to be at 12 metres to 15 metres below the surface by Lewis et al. (2008).


The Parilla Sands are a regional aquifer within the Murray Basin. This aquifer may be semi-confined where it is overlain by the low permeability sediments of the Blanchetown Clay, and the study area lies within the region occupied by the large pre-historic lake, within which the Blanchetown Clay was deposited (Evans, 2013). The likelihood of encountering this aquifer will need to be considered further as part of a detailed geotechnical investigation.

Soft soils Soft soils, including soft clayey and loose sandy sediments, may be encountered within the study area both within the Murray River flood plain and discrete layers of the sand dune areas. Soft soils are associated with a number of relevant geotechnical issues including:

• Slope instability of bridge abutments and embankments

• Low bearing capacity under structure foundations

• Post construction settlements under embankment or structural loads

• Weak subgrades for road pavements

• Liquefaction within loose sandy soils.

These constraints are commonly encountered in and around bridges near rivers and have a number of established treatment options for structures, earthworks and pavements. A detailed geotechnical site investigation will be required to confirm the depth and extent of soft clayey soils and loose sands along the bridge alignment and adjoining road tie-ins.

Acid sulphate soils Acid sulfate soils are naturally occurring sediments which contain iron sulfides and their oxidation products. These soils are usually associated with estuarine environments, salt marshes and coastal rivers and creeks. They remain chemically stable under anaerobic conditions (eg no oxygen) but when exposed to air, oxidation of the iron sulfide minerals produces sulfuric acid. The released acid has the potential to acidify groundwater, and to corrode concrete and steel structures.

The Australian Soil Resource Information System National Acid Sulfate Soil data set describes the potential for the occurrence of acid sulfate soils within the study area as an extremely low probability of occurrence, and site observations and the geological desktop review were consistent with these Australian Soil Resource Information System assumptions.

Expansive soils Near-surface cohesive soils around the Murray River floodplain are expected to be expansive, and subject to shrinking and swelling in response to seasonal variations in their moisture content. This behaviour can cause differential movements that adversely affect near-surface foundations and pavements, in particular where soil moisture changes are irregular across an area. Pile foundations are typically not significantly influenced by such movements, though differential movements can occur between pile supported bridge abutments and soil embankments affected by such movements.

The effects of expansive soils are typically managed through a combination of avoidance of susceptible materials for settlement sensitive infrastructure, adopting management measures to reduce seasonal moisture content variability, and design and construction to accommodate seasonal movements

Site observations noted such soils to be present along the river bank and noted shrinkage cracking on the exposed soil surface (refer to Figure 6-2).


Figure 6-2 Cracking in dried sediments adjacent to Murray River

Dispersive soils Dispersive soils tend to break down and become prone to erosion once they become saturated, which can result in slumping of the ground or tunnel gully erosion. Alternatively a reduction in the soil pore space can lead to dense high strength soils when dry, with low infiltration and water-logging common. It is possible these soils will be present within the study area, although no evidence of dispersive soils was observed during the site walkover.

6.1.3 Summary of geotechnical constraints The geotechnical considerations for the Tooleybuc Bridge replacement are predominantly consistent for each of the three general alignment options being considered and these geotechnical considerations generally have established engineering solutions commonly adopted for civil infrastructure. Potential geotechnical differentiators between different alignment options may be considered more in terms of cost in relation to structure length and associated interaction with the recent river sediments. A longer alignment extent over these weaker soils will tend to require additional cost to manage the likely constraints over and above infrastructure formed over sand dune areas.

No clear geotechnical differentiator was found for the different potential bridge locations within the study area other than areas of increased river bank erosion at the outside of river bends (tending to increase proposal costs).

Bridge foundations Pile foundations are likely to be required due to the likely thickness of weak near-surface sediments. Driven piles (eg pre-formed concrete or steel piles driven into place) are likely to be a suitable form of bridge foundation, founded in underlying denser sands and gravels (Monoman Formation). Reinforced concrete bored piles (eg excavated then constructed in situ) are expected to be less suitable given the expected high groundwater levels and potentially loose sediments that would be prone to collapsing during the pile excavation.


No records of the existing bridge foundations were available at the time of writing this report, but these records may give some indication as to the depth of a suitable support stratum (eg dense sands or gravels). Given the bedded nature of the ground conditions and potential for weaker sediments at depth, the bearing stratum will require confirmation to below the pile base level. Piling design and construction will need to consider the presence of the semi-confined aquifer within the Parilla Sands if long piles are required (subject to confirming the ground conditions at the bridge site).

Erosion and scour will need to be considered in the design and construction of the bridge abutments and any intermediate piers. The extent of scour protection is expected to vary between options but will not preclude any of the three locations and will become a consideration of proposal cost. For example, it is expected that construction of the new bridge within a straighter section of the river (such as that associated with the general and upstream options) will require less scour protection and stabilisation and will therefore be less expensive.

The potential for liquefaction will require assessment at the proposed bridge location and may influence the depth of piles and design loads, in particular for abutment loads.

Bridge abutments The setback and height of abutments from the river bank will be influenced by geotechnical requirements (eg slope stability and river bank scour) as well as by hydraulic design requirements (eg conveyance of flood flows) and the clearance requirements for vessels, which is discussed further in Section 6.3.

For the purpose of the consideration of options, bridge abutments are assumed to be open embankments formed at 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) and subject to confirmation by specific investigations and design.

Site observations indicate that the abutments for a new bridge will need to be either set back by several metres from the existing riverbank or will require ground improvements to strengthen the supporting ground. Open abutments, comprising earthworks on a gentle slope, are expected to be more cost effective for a new bridge, rather than vertical retained abutments.

The approach embankments are expected to settle post construction and may induce down drag loads onto pile bridge foundations. These loads are quite common for pile supported bridges near rivers and will not be a significant differentiator between options. Retained approaches, if required to limit encroachment over adjoining land, may require ground improvements to provide adequate strength.

The ground supporting the bridge approaches will require a detailed investigation for liquefaction, and will require additional strengthening measures if liquefaction was found to occur in a design earthquake event. This is considered to be a low risk at this location, but it is recommended to be evaluated early in the design process due to the significant adverse consequences if it is found to be a constraint later in the proposal development process.

Earthworks As noted above in relation to bridge abutments, for the purposes of considering options, relatively conservative embankments of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) are recommended over recent sediments near the Murray River. Steeper slopes maybe possible within areas underlain by dune sand.

Embankments will require consideration of settlements, typically managed during construction through pre-loading or surcharging, and by adopting deep foundations for settlement sensitive infrastructure.

Minor cuts and fills may be required to construct the bridge approaches and local road connections through the dunes in NSW. Existing cuts within the dune sands have been formed at around 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Cut slopes in sand will also require consideration of erosion with similar treatment options to those noted above.


Pavement subgrades Low strength subgrade may be encountered within the Murray River flood plain and variable subgrade strength may be encountered within the study area. Extensive patching was also observed on Lea Street on and around the dune crest. However, generally the existing paved roads through Tooleybuc were observed to be in reasonable condition during the site walkover.

Consideration of pavement subgrades is not considered to be an option differentiator although it may contribute to cost differences between options. For example, pavements over sand dune areas are likely to be thinner and therefore less costly than pavements over river sediments.


6.2 Flooding and hydrology 6.2.1 Methodology The assessment of flooding constraints included a desktop review of available flood data, identification of known levees in the study area and restrictions in the floodplain including upstream and downstream controls, identification of the major flood events and consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Feedback received from the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), NSW Office of Water (NOW), State Water Corporation (SWC), Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI), NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) and Wakool Shire Council (WSC) has all provided input into this constraints analysis.

6.2.2 Murray River flow considerations Regulation and operation of the Murray River The Murray River at Tooleybuc is a regulated river. In addition to rainfall-runoff processes, flow at Tooleybuc can be influenced by consumptive use upstream (predominately irrigation) and the controlled release of water to provide environmental flows.

Flow characteristics during large flooding events can be influenced by upstream dams, including the SWC Hume Dam and GMWC Yarrawonga Weir.

Under the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 (and regulations), the MDBA is the single authority responsible for overseeing water resource planning for the Murray River. The MDBA partners with state governments under joint program arrangements to inform and implement management decisions. Other agencies with roles relevant to the proposal include:

• OEH (NSW) is responsible for the protection of rivers and wetlands in NSW, as well as thepurchasing and delivery of environmental water to and from the Murray River (managed throughNational Parks). The OEH also assists Councils through the Floodplain Management Program.OEH is currently supporting Wakool Shire Council to deliver the ‘Murray Towns Flood RiskStudies’ which will provide a flood study for the town of Tooleybuc. The study is scheduled forcompletion in 2014.

• NOW is responsible for managing access to water. NOW regulates this through Water SharingPlans (WSPs) under the WM Act. The purchase and delivery of environmental or consumptivewater can influence the flow of the Murray River at Tooleybuc.

• SWC operates the major dams in NSW with the Hume Dam (jointly managed by SWC andGMWC on behalf of the MDBA) playing a flood mitigation role on the Murray River.

• The Mallee CMA supports local and community based natural resource management includingriparian, ecological and water resource management activities on the Victorian side of the MurrayRiver at Tooleybuc. The Mallee CMA also manages flood risk data.

• Swan Hill Rural City Council is responsible for operational floodplain management on theVictorian side of the Murray River including implementing flood-related development controls.

• DEPI is responsible for floodplain management policy in Victoria. DEPI also supports the MalleeCMA in managing the floodplain on the Victorian side of the Murray River hosts the Victorianstate-wide flood database that was used to inform this constraints analysis.

• GMWC is the resource management body for northern Victorian water systems. This includesdetermination of seasonal water entitlements for all Victorian Murray water entitlement holders,bulk water supply and water allocation trading. GMWC operates the Yarrawonga Weir on behalfof the MDBA and manages the Goulburn River which contributes significant flow to the MurrayRiver at Tooleybuc.

• Wakool Shire Council is responsible for floodplain management of the Murray River on the NSWside of the Tooleybuc Bridge. This includes delivery of the ‘Murray Towns Flood Risk Studies’,which is scheduled for completion in 2014.


Wakool Shire Council has acquired LiDAR (light detection and ranging) survey of the floodplain around Tooleybuc to inform the ‘Three Towns Flood Risk Study’. This data was requested, however, was not available to inform this analysis.

Historical flooding of the Murray River The closest flow station to the proposal is located at Swan Hill about 50 kilometres upstream of the study area, and it is managed by the MDBA. No significant inflows or outflows have been identified between Swan Hill and Tooleybuc. The flow for the Murray River downstream of the Swan Hill flow station with the relative minor, moderate and major flood level at the gauge site is shown on Figure 6-3.

The Victorian Flood Database, managed by DEPI, includes flood mapping for the Murray River for the one per cent AEP flood event, being the probability that a given rainfall total accumulated over a given duration will be exceeded in any one year (Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, 2013). Figure 6-4 details the AEP flood mapping for the Murray River; however it should be noted that the metadata associated with this mapping indicates that its reliability is low.


Figure 6-3 Murray River flow average annual flow rate downstream of Swan Hill (1909-2013) (MDBA)


(blank page)


Figure 6-4 Proposal flooding considerations


6.2.3 Summary of flood design considerations Flooding and bridge span considerations The Murray River is subject to erosion and sedimentation that over time has the potential to give rise to movements of the river bed and banks. This process can result in scouring at bridge abutments, affecting structural stability. Conversely, accretion along the Murray River can result in blockage of waterway areas, which can have subsequent flood impacts. Such changes to the geomorphology of the Murray River as a result of erosion and accretion can also impact river navigation as the velocity and depth profile of the river is altered. Areas of potential future erosion and accretion are indicated in Figure 6-5.

Based on the available data and imagery, the Murray River within the study area appears to be geomorphically stable since the construction of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge in 1924. A site inspection by an AECOM geotechnical engineer (refer to Section 6.1) identified some evidence of scour downstream of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge on the bank of the Murray River on the NSW side of the study area. The frequency, volume and duration of larger channel-forming flow events along the Murray River have been restricted due to the construction of dams and the extraction of water from the River for consumptive use.

Construction of a new bridge will require the installation of new bridge piers within the channel of the Murray River. Piers can result in a localised increase in upstream flood levels, and dredging or piling to install piers in the river bed can mobilise sediment during construction. The bridge span required for the proposal will influence the number of piers required. Consultation with Murray Skippers Association through the preparation of this constraints analysis indicated that a replication of the existing 15 metre bridge span will provide an appropriate navigational clearance for through traffic along the Murray River.

Bridge soffit considerations The existing bridge soffit (underside of the bridge structure) is located at an elevation of 63.45 metres Australian Height Datum (AHD). The current one per cent AEP flood level at Tooleybuc (as defined by the Victorian Flood Database) is 62.25 metres AHD, resulting in a current freeboard of 1.2 metres underneath the existing bridge. The definition of the one per cent AEP flood level at Tooleybuc may potentially change in accordance with the results of the ‘Three Towns Flood Risk Study’ that is currently being undertaken by Wakool Shire Council. The results of this study will not be available until 2014. Should the one per cent AEP flood level not change considerably, the current freeboard is considered adequate and subject to navigational or other constraints, could potentially be reduced if required.

In accordance with Figure 6-6, the one per cent AEP flood level does not change significantly between the three broad corridor options.

Approach embankment considerations The approach embankments for all three broad corridor options will traverse the one per cent AEP flood extent within the study area (refer to Figure 6-4). The construction of embankments within the one per cent AEP flood extent has the potential to alter flood behaviour of the Murray River, which could increase or decrease flood risk at locations within and beyond the study area. The construction of elevated approach embankments may have significant impacts on flood levels within the study area.

The significance of these changes will need to be incorporated into the concept design for the proposal, and could include design measures such as:

• The provision of overflow relief structures through the embankment

• Lengthening or increasing the number of bridge spans to increase the available waterway areaunderneath the replacement bridge

• Scour protection in areas where velocities may be increased.


(blank page)


Figure 6-5 Murray River flow considerations within the study area


6.2.4 Recommendations and next steps In order to provide a similar data set for Tooleybuc, a rating curve will need to be developed to provide a relationship between stream flow and water surface elevation at Tooleybuc. This task is beyond the scope of the current assessment.

When completed, the results of the ‘Three Towns Flood Risk Study’ would supercede the information presented in this review. As such, these results would need to be considered throughout future stages of the proposal. This will include examination of the flood characteristics for flood events larger than the one per cent AEP, and for the potential impact of climate change on flood levels. This information is not currently known, but it is anticipated that it would be detailed in the flood study.

During the route options development stage of the proposal, the potential for relative flood impacts of the three corridor options identified should be qualitatively quantified. This should be followed by a detailed flood assessment of the preferred corridor for the proposal to inform the development of the concept design. During this stage of the proposal, data from the three towns flood risk study, namely historic flood levels, levee locations and crest heights should be obtained and used to inform the selection of route options for the proposal.

6.3 Engineering, design and navigation 6.3.1 Methodology Roads and Maritime has investigated current lift span technology and potential options for a lift span should one be built at Tooleybuc.

The preliminary desktop investigation on lift span moveable bridge options considered:

• Examples of lift span options, including technologies to support them along with advantages anddisadvantages.

• Indicative upfront costs, operating costs and maintenance costs of lift spans.

• Maintenance issues and constraints of opening bridges in NSW, interstate and overseaslocations where relevant to Tooleybuc.

• Review of the Swan Hill Bridge (which is the nearest Murray River bridge to Tooleybuc) and theproposal for a lift span at that site.

• Geometric and engineering suitability for Tooleybuc including consideration of highway traffic,river traffic and water levels.

6.3.2 Key issues From the review undertaken by RMS and in keeping with the objective of constructing the replacement bridge close to the town, two types of moveable bridge are considered to be feasible. They are the bascule and vertical lift bridges.

Bascule bridges are moveable bridges that have counterweights with the span opening in an upward swing by pivoting about a horizontal axis, which may be fixed or may translate horizontally. The word bascule is a French term meaning seesaw.

Vertical lift bridges are moveable bridges that open by lifting, without rotation or translating horizontally. The lift span usually consists of a truss type structure. The lift span is generally balanced by counterweights connected to wire ropes that pass over sheaves at the lifting towers. The existing bridge is a vertical lift bridge.

6.3.3 Summary of engineering, design and river navigation-related constraints

Not all of the considerations for bridge design options noted above will affect the location of the bridge replacement. Those considerations that are likely to affect the preferred location are discussed below.


Water level and flood immunity It is anticipated that the frequency and type of river traffic passing through Tooleybuc will be similar but somewhat less frequent than that passing through Swan Hill. From the review of the Swan Hill replacement bridge assessment, it is proposed that the clearances of the proposed Swan Hill replacement bridge be adopted for the concept design of the Tooleybuc Bridge. The clearances are:

• Soffit of all spans set at 0.6 metres above the one per cent AEP of 62.25 metres

• Vertical clearance of 7.2 metres from top of water level to soffit of movable span soffit in theclosed position during periods of normal summer flow. This will allow passage of double deckhouse boasts under the bridge without requiring opening the moveable span

• Horizontal clearance between piers of movable span of 15.95 metres as per existing bridge.

Social and economic impact on Tooleybuc As discussed in Chapter 4 there is a strong preference within town to locate the replacement bridge in close proximity to the existing bridge location. With respect to the effect on the type and appropriateness of a moveable bridge in the vicinity of Tooleybuc, the exact position is unlikely to have much influence on the lifting arrangement and span costs as the topography of the river banks is relatively consistent along this section of the Murray River.

River traffic and navigation Liaison with the Murray River Skippers Association has been undertaken to understand the potential issues relating to the placement of any new bridge in the vicinity of Tooleybuc and in particular safe navigation for the expected river traffic. Feedback suggested that current alignment, opening height and spans are satisfactory and that any increase on these dimensions would therefore also be acceptable.

The representative from the Murray River Skippers Association indicated that if the bridge was to be shifted from its currently alignment, it could be located slightly further downstream, but it was strongly recommended that the bridge location should not deviate too far downstream from its current location due to the sharp bend and flow conditions in the river which could place constraints on river navigation. Upstream of the existing bridge would be more suitable and, in particular, placing the bridge on a straight section of the river would be ideal from a navigation perspective. The position of a new lift span will need to take into account the main navigational channel of the Murray River. The route options selection process would include surveys of the river bed to accurately identify the location of the main navigational channel.

In addition to liaison with the Murray River Skippers Association, a review of the available navigation charts along the Murray River (Barry and Maureen Wright, 2003) was undertaken. The available navigation charts generally supported the recommendation that location of the replacement bridge on a straight section of river will be preferable for ease of navigation for current and expected river traffic. An extract from the navigation charts for the section of the Murray River at Tooleybuc is shown in Figure 6-6.


Figure 6-6 Murray River navigation chart at Tooleybuc. Source River Murray Charts (Barry and Maureen Wright, 2003)


Road traffic and geometry of local road tie-ins The annual average daily traffic (AADT) of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge in 2010 indicates 792 vehicles per day with 33 per cent of those heavy vehicles with unrestricted access to the road system. This type of heavy vehicle, which fits into the General Mass Limit (GML) class of vehicles can be up to 4.3 metres high, 2.5 metres wide with a maximum gross mass of 42.5 tonnes. The intention is to increase the capacity of the bridge to cater for HML vehicles.

The bridge cross-section proposed for the Swan Hill replacement bridge is also appropriate for the Tooleybuc Bridge as it provides sufficient capacity to accommodate current as well as future traffic volumes and vehicle loads. The proposed cross section for the Swan Hill Bridge is shown in Figure 6-7.

Figure 6-7 Proposed cross section for the Swan Hill Bridge replacement

The length of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge is approximately 88 metres with the lengths of the embankment at approaches one and two at 20 metres and 50 metres, respectively.

In the fixed river spans for the replacement bridge, precast concrete beams could potentially be used, while in the moveable spans, either a bascule or vertical lift steel superstructure may be adopted. The structural depth of the new superstructure may be greater compared to the existing timber and steel superstructure. The implication of a higher structural depth is that the bridge approaches will be longer resulting in a larger structural footprint. The structural depth can be reduced by introducing more spans but additional spans will require additional piers to be constructed and may incur additional costs depending on whether or not the piers are constructed within the river.

It has been assumed that the potential crossing widths and the levels required for the replacement bridge will be similar to the existing bridge at various locations along the Murray River near Tooleybuc. As such, in order to maintain a maximum grade of four per cent at the approaches, for every one metre increase in height of the bridge, the embankment will extend 25 metres at the approaches.

The difference in height between the soffit of the existing lift span and the soffit of the proposed new movable span is between one to two metres. This means that the proposed embankment approaches for the replacement bridge could potentially be an additional 100 metres long compared to the existing approach length.


7 Summary of constraints and next steps 7.1 Summary of constraints Based on the investigations undertaken into the study area of the proposal, several potential environmental constraints and engineering and design considerations have been identified within or in close proximity to the three broad corridor options. Based on the constraints and considerations identified, recommendations have been made for the proposal, including matters to be considered to identify a preferred corridor option. These matters will be subject to further evaluation as part of the environmental assessment for the proposal once a preferred option has been identified.

Table 7-1 provides a summary of environmental constraints and engineering and design considerations for the proposal, as well as recommendations for the proposal within the study area.


Table 7-1 Summary of constraints, design considerations and recommendations for the proposal within the study area

Specialist Area Potential constraints identified Recommendations Biodiversity (refer to Section 5.1)

Nine flora and 31 fauna species listed under one or a combination of the EPBC Act, TSC Act, FFG Act and/or the VROTs advisory list. This could be through: A number of large hollow-bearing River Red Gum trees, which would be identified as a Key Threatening Process under the TSC Act. Presence of the Aquatic Ecological Community in the Natural Drainage System of the Lower Murray EEC. Removal of native vegetation.

Further targeted surveys of the nine flora and 31 fauna species listed under one or a combination of the EPBC Act, TSC Act, FM Act, FFG Act and/or VROTS advisory list and assessed as having a medium to high likelihood of occurrence within the study area should be undertaken (refer to Section 5.1.4 for a list of these species).

Aboriginal heritage (refer to Section 5.2)

The following items and areas of Aboriginal heritage significance were identified as occurring within the three proposal corridors: One scarred tree A potential mound site. One Midden site AHIMS #52-2-0012 Three areas of potential archaeological sensitivity; the banks of Lake Coomaroop, NSW, the area surrounding and including the lunette landform system in NSW and both banks of the Murray River and associated channels.

Avoid known sites of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance and areas of known potential archaeological sensitivity where reasonable and feasible when determining the preferred corridor option and developing the concept design for the proposal Undertake formal consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders and prepare a Cultural Heritage Assessment Report (CHAR) be prepared in accordance with the Stage 3 requirements of the PACHCI Undertake testing within areas of potential archaeological sensitivity that would be impacted by the proposal.

Historic heritage (refer to Section 5.3)

The following historic heritage items e have been identified as occurring within or in close proximity to the three proposal corridors: The existing Tooleybuc Bridge (currently going through the process of being removed from the State Heritage Register). Tooleybuc Cemetery. Bridge Keepers Cottage and Punt Gate. Mooring cross historical site. Steam engine display.

Avoid sites of historic heritage significance identified within the study area where reasonable and feasible Consider the location of these items when determining the preferred corridor option, and throughout the development of the concept design and environmental assessment of the proposal Should impacts to these items be unavoidable, further detailed assessment would be required during the environmental assessment of the proposal, including the preparation of Statements of Heritage Impact.


Specialist Area Potential constraints identified Recommendations Land contamination (refer to Section 5.4)

Based on the desktop review and site inspection, it has been determined that the potential of the study area being subject to widespread contamination is likely to be low. However 11 areas of potential contamination concern have been identified within the study area (refer to Table 5-9)

Undertake a Phase I contamination assessment within the preferred route option during the concept design development / environmental assessment phase. Should the preferred option impact on areas of potential contamination concern, undertake relevant further assessments and remediation activities if required. This could potentially include soil sampling of areas of potential concern if they are to be disturbed for the purposes of the proposal, hazardous materials audits of buildings requiring demolition and/or obtaining further historical and current land use information for areas of potential contamination concern that may be impacted by the proposal.

Geotechnical (refer to Section 6-1)

A longer alignment extent over weaker soils will tend to require additional cost to manage the likely constraints over and above infrastructure formed over sand dune areas Reinforced concrete bored piles (eg excavated then constructed in situ) would not be suitable given the expected high groundwater levels and potentially loose sediments that would be prone to collapsing during the pile excavation Setback and height of abutments from the river bank will be influenced by geotechnical and hydraulic requirements, as well as the clearance requirements for vessels Low strength subgrade may be encountered within the Murray River flood plain and variable subgrade strength may be encountered within the study area. Pavement subgrades may contribute to cost differences between options. For example, pavements over sand dune areas are likely to be thinner and therefore less costly than pavements over river sediments recent sediments.

Confirm the bearing stratum below the pile base level Consider the following as part of the design of the proposal: Presence of the Parilla Sands semi-confined aquifer Potential erosion and scour Potential for liquefaction to occur at the preferred bridge location, including the ground supporting the new bridge, once its location has been determined Settlement at embankments. Open abutments are expected to be more cost effective for a new bridge, rather than vertical retained abutments Retained approaches, if required to limit encroachment over adjoining land, may require ground improvements to provide adequate strength Additional strengthening measures would need to be incorporated into the design of the proposal should liquefaction be found to occur.

Flooding and hydrology (refer to Section 6.2)

Movement of the banks of the Murray River could potentially give rise to erosion and sedimentation. This can result in scouring at bridge abutments, affecting structural stability Potential flood impacts as a result of accretion along the Murray River and subsequent blockages of waterway areas Potential upstream flood level impacts from construction of elevated approach embankments.

Survey and develop a rating curve for the Murray River at Tooleybuc to convert measured water levels into flow data Review results of the ‘Three Towns Flood Risk Study’ once completed. Assess flooding and hydrology constraints associated with the proposal in light of the outcomes of the study Identify relative potential flood impacts of the three broad corridor options. The preferred option would then be subject to a detailed flood assessment to inform the development of the concept design.


Specialist Area Potential constraints identified Recommendations Engineering design and river navigation (refer to Section 6.3)

Adopt the following clearances for the design of the replacement bridge: Soffit of all spans at least 0.6 metres above the one per cent AEP flood level. Horizontal clearance between piers of movable span of 15.95 metres as per existing bridge Vertical clearance of 7.2 metres from top of water level to soffit of movable span soffit in the closed position during periods of normal summer flow. Use of precast concrete beams while in the fixed river spans Use of a bascule or vertical lift steel superstructure in the moveable spans.


7.2 Next steps 7.2.1 General The importance of achieving a balance between environmental, community, technical and cost factors as well as meeting current and anticipated demands on the route as an important freight corridor is well recognised. The NSW Government is committed to this outcome and the successful delivery of the ‘Bridges for the Bush’ funding program. Replacement of the existing Tooleybuc Bridge will meet the main objectives of the program by reducing maintenance and ongoing costs associated with timber truss bridges and upgrading bridge infrastructure to service higher productivity road freight vehicles and higher mass limits.

7.2.2 Selection of a preferred option To satisfy Victorian legislative requirements, detailed environmental investigations would be undertaken for the three proposal corridor options. The detailed environmental investigations would be used to assist in the determination of the preferred proposal corridor option. A preferred route will be determined by considering the following: • Community feedback in response to the display of the environmental constraints analysis and

ongoing community and stakeholder engagement around the three proposed corridor options • Further and more detailed analysis of physical characteristics and impacts of the route options as

outlined in Table 7-1 • The findings of a value management and value engineering process performed to review the

above information together with all the information and data which has already been collected and analysed from this and previous studies.

The value management and value engineering process will be conducted as a workshop process. Participants at the workshops will include technical and non-technical representatives from a range of government, Council and community interests. The process is tailored to ensure that the interests of all stakeholders are considered in the decision making process. The objective is to identify an option that provides the best overall outcome taking into account all factors. The recommendations of the value management process will be considered together with ongoing and more detailed analysis of the three possible options, and the outcome will be the recommended preferred location for the bridge replacement. Following approval and announcement of the preferred route, a full concept design for the preferred option will be developed and an environmental impact assessment undertaken.

7.2.3 Environmental Impact Assessment of the preferred option A more detailed environmental assessment would be carried out to meet the NSW and Victorian statutory approvals processes. Under the relevant Victorian legislation, detailed environmental investigations are required to inform the selection of the preferred option. Under the relevant NSW legislation, detailed environmental investigations would be undertaken following the selection of the preferred option. Both processes would include further community engagement and would inform the development of the detailed design and construction of the proposal.

7.2.4 Ongoing community engagement Roads and Maritime is committed to continued community engagement throughout the whole process including selection of the preferred option, environmental impact assessment, detailed design and construction. Information and progress will continue to be relayed via updates posted to community households and included in local media, meetings with individuals and groups and through a dedicated proposal website. In conjunction with the information provided to the community, continued feedback and comments will be welcomed by the proposal team.



8 ReferencesThe Allen Consulting Group (2010), National Freight Network Strategy Background Paper, Report toInfrastructure Australia,http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/publications/files/freight_network_background_paper_Feb_2010.pdf, accessed 20 February 2014.

The Argus 1876, January 29, The Riverine Trade: Down the Murray,http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2049816?searchTerm=tooleybuc&searchLimits=.

Barry and Maureen Wright 2013, River Murray Charts: Renmark to Yarrawonga, Yarrawonga toHume, 7th edition.

Bowler JM, Kotsonis A, and Laurence CR 2006, Environmental evolution of the Mallee region,Western Murray Basin, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, vol. 118, no. 2, pp. 161-210.

Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (2010), Interstate Freight in Australia,Report 120, Canberra ACT.

Clark, I. 1990, Aboriginal languages and clans: An historical atlas of western and central Victoria,1800-1900. Melbourne: Monash University.

Commonwealth Bureau of Meteorology, 2013, Australian water information dictionary.

Department of Environment and Climate Change 2007, Threatened species assessment guidelines:The assessment of significance, Goulburn Street, Sydney, NSW.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries 2013, Native Vegetation Groups for Victoria,http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/native-vegetation-groups-for-victoria,accessed 26 September 2013.

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management:A Framework for Action.

Infrastructure New South Wales (2012), State Infrastructure Strategy,http://www.infrastructure.nsw.gov.au/state-infrastructure-strategy.aspx, accessed 20 September2013.

Mitchell, T. L 1839, Three Expeditions into the Interior of Eastern Australia (2nd ed.). London: T. & W.Boone.

National Transport Commission 2012, Modular B-triples: Fact sheet,http://www.ntc.gov.au/filemedia/Publications/ModBTriplesFactSheetMay2012.pdf, accessed March2012

NSW Heritage Office, & NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (1996a), NSW HeritageManual. Parramatta: Heritage Office & Department of Urban Affairs & Planning,http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/03_index.htm#M-O.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 2009, Tooleybuc Bridge Over Murray River,http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?ID=4301077,accessed August 16, 2013.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage 2012, Vegetation Types Database, NSW Government,Sydney.

Pitt & sherry 2013, Tooleybuc Bridge – Preliminary assessment for lift span or moveable bridgeoptions. Unpublished report to Roads and Maritime Services.

Roads and Maritime Services 2011, Procedure for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Consultation and Investigation. Roads and Maritime (2012), Timber Truss Bridge Conservation Strategy, http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/maintenance/documents/timber_truss_bridges/120800_timber_truss_bridges_subs_revised_strategy_august_2012.pdf, accessed February 2014 Russel EW (2011), Murray-Mallee Regional Transport Study, http://www.railfreightalliance.com/files/Central%20Murray%20Transport%20Study.pdf, accessed February 2014 The State of Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment 2005, BioSites Update Port Phillip Region, http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dse.vic.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0009%2F99225%2FPP_Biosites_Brochure.pdf&ei=2ftIUuHkNamwiQekwoHgBw&usg=AFQjCNEN_9agzlhMkdg2zwYQ9IjLl3oTQA&sig2=7E_39wCtP5wHMkKtCkUBjA&bvm=bv.53217764,d.aGc accessed 30 September 2013. Transport for NSW (2012), NSW Long Term Transport Master Plan, http://engage.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/transportmasterplan, accessed 20 September 2013.


http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/maintenance/documents/timber_truss_bridges/120800_timber_truss_bridges_subs_revised_strategy_august_2012.pdf

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/roadprojects/projects/maintenance/documents/timber_truss_bridges/120800_timber_truss_bridges_subs_revised_strategy_august_2012.pdf

http://www.railfreightalliance.com/files/Central%20Murray%20Transport%20Study.pdf

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dse.vic.gov.au%2F__data%2Fassets%2Fpdf_file%2F0009%2F99225%2FPP_Biosites_Brochure.pdf&ei=2ftIUuHkNamwiQekwoHgBw&usg=AFQjCNEN_9agzlhMkdg2zwYQ9IjLl3oTQA&sig2=7E_39wCtP5wHMkKtCkUBjA&bvm=bv.53217764,d.aGc




http://engage.haveyoursay.nsw.gov.au/transportmasterplan

Documents

Tooleybuc Bridge replacement - Transport for NSW