Referral of proposed action - Rural City of Murray Bridge - SA.Gov.au

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Application - Version 2 of October 2009 EPBC Ref 2008/4211 Southern and Hills 2010 Transport Plan (2001) and Addendum (2004) undertaken byengineering consultants QED; State Strategic Plan (2004); Murray and Mallee Regional Transport Study (2002) undertaken by engineering consultantsConnell Wagner; Regional Action Plan – Murraylands (2001) undertaken by engineering consultants Brownand Root, Mack Consulting; SA Development Plan;Mt Lofty Ranges Central Regional Industry Strategy (2002) by Planning SA, andCountry Towns Structure Plan Study (2002) undertaken by Planning SA, Transport SA andDepartment of Industry and Trade.3.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislationNative Vegetation Act 1991 (SA)Since the proposed upgrade will require the clearance of some native vegetation, an assessmentof the amount and type (including threatened species) of vegetation to be cleared is required.Additionally, the SA Native Vegetation Council requires that a document detailing the managementof vegetation during and post construction be created. An assessment of the vegetation presentalong the proposed road upgrade and the amount of vegetation to be cleared has beenundertaken by EBS. Under the Act, any native vegetation clearance must be offset by a SignificantEnvironmental Benefit (SEB). The Native Vegetation Act requires the Rural City of Murray Bridgeto achieve a SEB by one (or a combination) of the following actions:Set-aside and protect (e.g. through Heritage Agreements) an area of intact nativevegetationRegenerate (i.e. weed control, bushcare, fencing) an area of degraded native vegetationRevegetate and maintain an area of cleared landMake a payment into the Native Vegetation Fund, which will then be spent on conservationprojects throughout the state.Council are reviewing their options in this regard and await feedback from the SA NativeVegetation Council as part of the Application and approval process for that Authority.Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)The Project will require assessment under Commonwealth legislation due to potential impacts onmatters of national significance (threatened and migratory species) listed under theCommonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Minister forthe Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts will determine if approval is required for the Projectunder the Act.Following Council’s initial application submission to the Minister in May 2008, the Project wasdeemed a “controlled action” in June 2008. A summary of events is as follows:‣ May 2008 - Council’s initial Project submission to DEWHA.‣ June 2008 – Project deemed a “controlled action”.‣ 25 June 2008 DEWHA letter to Council - seven points specified that requirefurther information to enable the Department to consider all the relevantissues. Follow-up email clarification received on 4 July 2008 re the sevenpoints to address.‣ August 2008 – Meeting held at Murray Bridge Council and at the Projectsite between Council Project Representatives and DEWHA Representatives,Ms Yogi Lal-Parks and Ms Amanda Slade. Council Agenda and meetingRural City of Murray Bridge – Ferries McDonald Rd (Ver 2) Page: 16 of 35
Application - Version 2 of October 2009 EPBC Ref 2008/4211discussion focused on the above DEWHA letter advice to Council dated 25June 2008.‣ September 2008 - Council’s second Project submission to DEWHA -addressed each of the seven points (refer Appendix 1 of 12 September 2008submission) referred to in the Department’s letter to Council dated 25 June2008.‣ September 2008 - Email correspondence dated 30/09/2008 received byCouncil from Ms Yogi Lal-Parks, Assistant Director. The correspondencehighlighted that:“. . . while the information in your response does address some ofthe questions, the Department is of the view that all of the questionshave not been addressed”.Three areas being (i) EPBC Listed Flora, (ii) Information to DTEI, (iii)Malleefowl were highlighted as requiring further information and research.‣ October 2008 - Email correspondence dated 9/10/2008 sent from Councilto Ms Yogi Lal-Parks in response to the above three areas.‣ October 2008 – Email correspondence dated 16/10/2008 received byCouncil from Dr Andrew Weavers, Director. The correspondence highlightedthat:Four specific questions were listed as a “way forward” thatneeded to be addressed in “providing the requiredinformation and/or addressing the considerations raised”.“The following is a list of questions we would like furtherinformation on . . .”oooo“What is the extent of the surveys for threatened flora?”“What are the concrete steps you will take, as agreed withthe roads department that will address the potential impactson the Malleefowl? This is the area of greatest concern fromthis project and we need to understand how your project willinteract with the Malleefowl population”.“What are the alternatives to developing this road? . . . Weneed a clear statement establishing the relative merits of theother alternatives or a justification ruling them out entirely aspossibilities”.“Why can’t other road alignments be created in this generalarea that avoids all significant impacts?”3.6 A staged development or component of a larger projectThe proposed project is not part of a staged development. As has been specified in previoussections of this application, the Project will form part of a broader and needed north-south freightroute extending between Langhorne Creek and the Barossa Valley.Rural City of Murray Bridge – Ferries McDonald Rd (Ver 2) Page: 17 of 35
Page 1 and 2: Application - Version 2 of October
Page 15: Application - Version 2 of October

Referral of proposed action - Rural City of Murray Bridge - SA.Gov.au

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?