Professional Documents
Culture Documents
David Hogg
8 July 2009
Report to Cardno Young Pty Ltd
1. Introduction
The following report has been prepared on behalf of Cardno Young Pty Ltd as a first
step in the systematic assessment of the environmental issues relevant to the
proposed extension of Sandford Street to the Federal Highway.
The main purpose of the scoping study is to identify environmental issues which may
need to be addressed in the design and construction of the road. In addition, it
provides information which may assist in determining whether an environmental
impact statement (EIS) is required under the Planning and Development Act 2007
(P&D Act) and, if so, would assist in the scoping of that EIS.
This issue of whether an EIS would be warranted for the project is discussed in
Section 4, taking account of both the statutory requirements under the P&D Act, and
the pragmatic considerations of whether an EIS would lead to a better environmental
outcome or is desirable to address community concerns about the proposal.
Decision 2. General location of the road. The general location of the road is
dictated by the existing locations of Sandford Street and the Antill Street roundabout,
and by land uses that have been established adjacent to the road. The road location
was determined in a previous engineering study for Sandford Street extension (Ref.
3) and does not need to be reviewed in the scoping study.
Decision 3. Detailed location of the road. The detailed location of the road within
the road reserve is addressed in the current design study. The scoping assessment
is focused largely on those issues which are relevant to the detailed road design.
Decision 4. Design of the road. This is also part of the current engineering study,
and may be influenced by environmental issues arising from the scoping
assessment. The design process may include the preparation of an environmental
management plan (EMP) for application during the construction process. This would
reflect environmental issues identified in the current scoping.
There are no significant ecological issues along the western part of the road
extension, where the environment is already substantially modified.
Significant trees. Several mature trees of ecological and/ or landscape value are
likely to be removed as a result of road construction. It is desirable to retain as many
of these trees as possible in the design of the road, with priorities for retention being
set according to both ecological and landscape criteria. As stated above, retention
of regenerating trees within the road reserve is also desirable where this is
practicable.
Ecological continuity. Apart from possibly Sullivans Creek, there are no areas
along the road extension which are likely to be important as wildlife movement
corridors. The main corridor for wildlife movement around Gungahlin is located
further to the east.
Exotic plants and animals. While much of the road corridor (particularly the
western end) is dominated by exotic groundcover, there are no major issues
associated with exotic plants or animals.
Modification of animal behaviour. Apart from the interaction between animals and
traffic (see below) the road extension is unlikely to have any significant impacts in
modifying animal behaviour.
Wildlife mortality. Particularly in the short term, some risk of wildlife mortality
(particularly kangaroos) can be expected along the road extension. This risk would
probably not be as high as on the parallel section of the Federal Highway, however.
In the longer term, urban development within North Watson and Kenny is likely to
reduce the extent of kangaroo movement across Sandford Street, with a consequent
reduction in wildlife mortality.
Potential for ecological enhancement. There is potential for enhancing the quality
of woodland within the edges of the road corridor. This could be achieved both by
facilitating natural regeneration and by planting appropriate species.
Soil management. Responsible soil management during and after construction will
be important. This would need to be addressed in the detailed design and the EMP,
and subsequently throughout the construction process. Subject to appropriate best
practice measures being implemented, this is unlikely to be a major issue.
Altered hydrological regime. The main issues associated with hydrology are
maintaining the flow in Sullivans Creek and avoiding any works which would affect
soil moisture levels in the vicinity of the 2CA transmitter at the western end of the
road. It is expected that these issues would be addressed in the design process.
There is also an extensive pedoderm north of the western end of the road which
traps and temporarily stores groundwater following heavy rain. A trench beside the
road would be designed to intercept this groundwater and use it to recharge
Flemington Road Pond P2. There may be changes to the hydrological regime of the
minor watercourse near the eastern part of the road.
Flood risks. It is assumed that flood risks, particularly those associated with
Sullivans Creek, would be taken into account in the engineering design of the road,
and would not be significant.
Water quality. No significant water quality issues are expected to arise as a result
of the road. The risk of turbidity and sedimentation resulting from runoff during
construction is discussed under Construction impacts.
Air quality. The increased volume of traffic on Sandford Street and connecting
roads is not likely to lead to any significant air quality impacts on nearby land uses.
The impacts on air quality at the metropolitan scale would be negligible.
Noise and vibration. Traffic noise is an issue which needs to be addressed in the
design of both the road and adjoining land uses. The only existing land use in the
vicinity of the road which is likely to be noise-sensitive is a rural residence near the
Antill Street roundabout. No major vibration issues associated with the road appear
likely.
Visual impacts. The visual impacts resulting from the road would be of a local
nature only. In the longer term, the road would appear as an edge road to the
suburb of Kenny, and would be viewed as part of that suburb.
Views from the road. The nature of the road is such that views from the road are
unlikely to be a significant factor influencing its design.
Land use impacts – general. The road would impact on the property fronting the
Federal Highway at the Antill Street roundabout as well as on grazing land to the
north of the equestrian trail. The latter area would eventually be withdrawn from
rural use when Kenny is developed. There would be no impact on the Bimberi Youth
Justice Centre.
Effect on recreational uses. The road would intersect the equestrian trail north of
Antill Street roundabout, requiring a safe crossing for horse riders, but would
otherwise not affect that trail. No other recreational uses are likely to be affected.
Property values. Construction of the road is not expected to have any significant
impacts on the value of existing properties.
Other economic effects. There are economic benefits from a broad planning
perspective, but this is not relevant in the design context.
Existing services and infrastructure. Where the road crosses any existing
infrastructure, such effects would be routinely addressed in the design of the road.
Most of the route does not appear to be subject to such constraints. The proposed
road alignment crosses under an existing ActewAGL overhead electrical power line.
This line will be raised or diverted underground.
Bushfire risk. With future urban development proposed to the north of the road and
south of the Federal Highway, the risk of bushfires spreading across the road
corridor would be low. In the short term, the road could be exposed to grass fires
approaching from the north, but this is unlikely to be of serious concern in the context
of the wider road network. The road itself would not increase bushfire risk.
Energy implications. The road would have a marginal energy benefit in reducing
travel distance and hence fuel consumption between Mitchell and the Federal
Highway.
Sustainability. There does not appear to be any opportunity to address the issue of
sustainability in a meaningful way at the design level in the current project.
Climate change implications. The proposed road does not appear to raise any
significant issues in the context of climate change.
4. EIS Requirement
The possible requirements for an EIS is considered from two perspectives. One
perspective relates to the statutory requirements under the P&D Act. The other is in
terms of whether preparing an EIS would determine any real benefits in terms of
achieving a better environmental outcome or in addressing community concerns
about the proposal.
Schedule 4 of the P&D Act sets out conditions for which a development proposal
requires an EIS. Those conditions possibly relevant to the current proposal are as
follows:
proposal involving –
With regard to Part 4.2, Item 1, ‘major road’ is defined in the P&D Act as meaning ‘a
road with physically separated carriageways, which has at least 4 lanes (in either
direction) and is at least 1 km long’. While the current construction project is for a
single carriageway only, the full potential development should be considered in the
environmental assessment.
There are no residential areas, however, that would be affected by the initial
construction of the road and, with appropriate design of the road adjacent to
subdivisions, it should be possible to avoid any significant impacts with respect to air
quality, ambient noise, vibration or visual intrusion. It is therefore considered that
this provision would not justify the preparation of an EIS.
With regard to Part 4.3, Item 1, there is the possibility that the regenerating woodland
towards the eastern end of the road may be considered as part of the endangered
ecological community, yellow box – red gum grassy woodland, as a result of recent
regeneration of eucalypts and native groundcover. While it is not shown as such in
Action Plan No. 27 (Ref. 4), the information in the Action Plan is several years old
and it is apparent that the condition of the woodland, at least in the vicinity of the
road, has improved since that information was compiled.
With regard to Part 4.3, Item 3, it appears that the roadworks would involve the
clearing of more than 0.5 ha of the regenerating woodland and that the woodland
would be considered to be native vegetation, even though its forb diversity is lower
than in a natural situation. While the definition of native vegetation under the P&D
Act and the Nature Conservation Act is unclear, it is considered that this impact
would trigger the preparation of an EIS based on a strict interpretation of Schedule 4.
The main distinguishing feature between an EIS and other forms of environmental
documentation is that an EIS is prepared to inform the wider community about a
proposal and offer the opportunity for public comment. Its preparation does not
necessarily involve additional technical analysis than would otherwise be the case,
but requires much effort to present the important environmental information in a
succinct form which the lay person can understand. The value of the EIS process
lies in the extent and quality of community feedback, in particular its ability to attract
constructive comments which can lead to a better environmental outcome.
In practice, the level of public response to an EIS tends to depend on the level of
controversy associated with a project rather than necessarily the scale of its impacts.
This in turn is influenced by how many people are potentially affected, usually
adversely but sometimes beneficially. Responses commonly take the form of an
objection, which may or may not be supported by rational argument. While these are
legitimate from the viewpoint of allowing people to express their opinions, they do not
necessarily add to the information that influences decisions on a project. Some
responses, however, may present information which is not readily obtainable through
the environmental assessment process that precedes the EIS, for example, local
community uses of an area or seasonal observations of plants or animals which are
generally not detectable. Such information may be useful in influencing the course
of a project.
The EIS is just one tool that can be used for public engagement in relation to a
project. Its relative effectiveness compared with other tools, such as direct
stakeholder consultation or community information sessions, depends on the nature
of the project and the extent of public interest. It is not possible using a prescriptive
approach, such as that in Schedule 4 of the P&D Act, to determine whether an EIS is
effective or efficient in engaging the community in relation to a specific project.
Given the extensive resources required to write an effective EIS, there are often
alternative approaches which can achieve a better outcome for less cost or effort.
If an EIS is prepared for the Sandford Street extension, the key issues that would
need to be discussed, based on the preliminary scoping assessment in Section 3,
are as follows:
None of the other issues considered in the scoping assessment would generate any
meaningful discussion in an EIS. In summary, there do not appear to be any major
environmental issues or matters of public controversy that would justify public airing
through an EIS.
The value of an EIS for the road can be further questioned in terms of its context.
Specifically, discussion of many of the road impacts on the existing semi-rural
environment would be meaningless when the adjacent development of Kenny is to
take place a few years later. Issues of this nature need to be debated at a more
strategic level in the decision-making process, as has occurred through the original
Gungahlin EIS (Ref. 2).
In addressing the above issues, the most relevant individuals or interest groups are
likely to be as follows:
While future residents of Kenny, particularly those backing onto the road, may have
a legitimate interest, it is not possible to identify those people at present.
It is assumed that there would be ongoing consultation with affected lessees during
the project. Government agencies would be consulted through the normal
interdepartmental consultation processes. If any community groups are interested in
the project (e.g. environmental groups, Gungahlin Community Council), they could
be informed through a community information session which could, if necessary, be
complemented with a field inspection of areas of interest. These measures are likely
to be more effective than an EIS in addressing any environmental details that might
otherwise have been overlooked in the planning and design process.
The wider Canberra community is likely to regard the road extension as a routine
minor development project of little environmental consequence and would be unlikely
to take any interest in an EIS.
References