Macquarie River - Orange Water Pipeline

As attached.

As attached.

As attached.

As attached.

As attached

As attached.

As attached.

submission is in the attached PDF File FOM Belinda Scott
Thank you
XXXXXXXX on behalf of Friends Of The Macquarie

I have attached my letter of objection.

This project is not in the national interest, nor in the interest of the preservation of the Murray Darling Catchment, nor that for important endangered fish species.

This project is a quick fix with long term consequences of a much higher magnitude.

Please read my letter of objection as attached.
Kind regards
Diane Donohue

Attached is our objection to the project, it also contains recomendations.

Please find letter giving reasons for objection

Please find attached letter of objection and our XXXXXXXX (for which I am one of teh XXXXXXXXXXXX) area which XXXXXXX also manages in regards to cultural surveys and protecting our sites and lands.

Thank you for the opportunity to lodge an objection to the Macquarie River to Orange Pipeline traversing my property.
I object to the pipeline traversing my property because I believe there is a strong probability that installation of the pipeline will cause soil erosion that may be impossible to remediate.
I submit that the proponents of the pipeline have not completed an adequate assessment of the potential for erosion to occur along any of the route of the proposed pipeline as was strongly recommended by the Douglas Partners Report on Geological Inspection Orange Drought Relief Connection (Attachment 1) which was appended to the Orange Drought Relief Connection Concept Investigation Report Prepared for Orange City Council 6th January 2011 which was completed by MWH Level 2, 39-41 Chandos Street St Leonards NSW 2065 (Their Project No. A1276402). One might assume this is a standard of the Contractor for this project GHD (who coordinated this current EA) from their report regarding the Wannon Water Shaw River Power Station Project Water Supply Pipelines Groundwater Impact Assessment September 2009 - found at http://www.glng.com.au/ library/EES_Appendix_28.pdf. (Attachment 2)
Material I Believe is Relevant to My Objection
Description of Property
I have owned and managed my property (L 4 DP586403) since September 1979. My property boundary fronts Long Point Road and Oaky Lane. The proposed pipeline will traverse approximately 1.2 kilometres of my property parallel to Oaky Lane .
My Concerns
I am concerned re the possibility that the Macquarie Pipeline will cause soil erosion where it traverses my property.
My issues of concern are:
1. my property is located within the Hill End Trough and is predominantly Class III and Class IV Land with extensive areas of highly dispersible soils. The NSW State Soil Map indicates that the soil on either side of Oaky Lane is designated as Barnby Hills Shale.
2. soils on my property are highly dispersible thus the country is susceptible to erosion from water. Soils are also subject to piping and there are areas of piping on my property.
The western boundary fence of my property is essentially parallel to Oaky Lane over a distance of around 1200 metres. The proposed pipeline route is in a north/south direction and has been pegged approximately ten metres inside my boundary fence. Oaky Lane runs through a valley in a southerly direction from the Long Point Road to the Lookout Road. The lane surface is generally situated near the bottom of the western side of the valley. Thus all runoff from the lane flows into my property. Oaky Lane is reasonably level for the first four hundred metres from its junction with the Long Point Road. It then falls to the south by
approximately twenty metres over the next 600 metres. The valley through which the lane runs over this 600 metre section provides a channel for water which drains approximately ten hectares of my property (eastern side of the lane) and approximately fifteen hectares of the property on the western side of the lane. (There are swales which channel runoff from the east at approximately 770 metres from Long Point Road and a swale which channel runoff water from the west at approximately 900 metres from Long Point Road). Over the 600 metre sloping section of the lane runoff water flows in a gully to the eastern side of the lane surface until it enters my property. It does cross Oaky Lane from east to west at approximately 820 metres from Long Point Road and then crosses back from west to east at approximately 900 metres from Long Point Road). Much of this gully is within my property boundary - I chose to place the boundary fence I built in 1980 to the east of this gully so that Council graders could construct run off channels to divert water from the lane surface. Runoff water then flows with the fall of the land into an extensive boggy section of my property. It then drains to an eroded gully where the water course (swale) narrows before it enters my neighbour's property.
The pipeline is to be placed at a shallow angle through the middle of the worst of this boggy section where the channel from Oaky Lane enters my property.
3. the easement for the pipeline traverses steep sections of my property.
The land on my property that the pipeline traverses falls in a westerly direction. At a point starting approximately thirty metres from the boggy section there is a one hundred metre section at the centre of the easement for the pipeline where the slope is between one in four and one in three in its steepest part. Trenching of this section will almost certainly
compounded by a slate shelf at some shallow depth below the surface. Thus there is potential for water to ingress the trench along the steep section and flow underground through the trench to emerge where the trench crosses the bog.
On 28th August last subcontractors to Orange City Council attended my property to address my concerns regarding the damage installation of the pipeline might cause to my property. One of those personnel has been contracted from Department of Soil Conservation within the Department of Primary Industries. When I asked him how machinery might go about digging a trench across the steep part of the designated route of the pipeline he replied that the installation contractors would bench the slope with a bull dozer, dig the trench, and then restore the slope. I am concerned that it will be impossible for satisfactory restoration of this anticipated benching of the slope to occur.
It may be impossible to remediate land that has eroded. Some twenty years ago I consulted an officer from the Dept of Soil Conservation re rehabilitation of an eroded area on my property of approximately three hectares. His advice was that I could spent significant funds on the rehabilitation without guarantee of success and that my best option was to fence the area to keep it free of stock and to eliminate rabbits and other pest animals.
Orange City Council staff who have consulted with me on site have said that no guarantee could be given that the installation of the pipeline would not cause erosion on my property. They have also indicated that if erosion occurred it would be repaired though this process may take up to two years depending on the weather.
I have consulted with two Soil Scientists re the potential impact of a trench being created through my property. The first Soil Scientist said that there was little point in his assessing the potential that soil erosion might occur because it was well known to soil scientists that the majority of the properties the pipeline will traverse consist of highly dispersible soil which is subject to erosion. He added that if I did obtain independent opinion from a soil scientist the soil scientist I engaged would end up in court arguing with the soil scientist engaged by those contracted to build the pipeline who would argue that erosion could be remedied - and that I might be liable for significant costs with no significant gain.
The second Consultant Soil Scientist who did survey the route of the pipeline through my property commented regarding one section that the pipeline was going through the middle of a watercourse/swamp. The pipeline is, as mentioned above, to be placed at a shallow angle through the middle of the worst of this boggy section.
4. there is stable groundwater and perhaps groundwater flows under the surface of my property.
Extensive areas of my property subject to water logging during/following periods of rain. Under these conditions the ground surface can be seen to rise and fall in a wave like manner when crossed by a vehicle. The soil under the surface crust is the consistency of soup. I believe there is potential for this groundwater to emerge at the surface if the backfill for the trench impedes any flow under the surface. This is particularly the case where the trench is set out to travel at a shallow angle across the boggy section mentioned in 2. and 3. above.
5. farm dams on this property should not be constructed in swales. I have learnt this from constructing two dams in swales - these dams do not hold water as water that flows into them drains over time through the floor of the dam. I have not constructed a farm dam in the swale to be traversed by the pipeline as water flows at some indeterminate depth under the swale.
6. I do not believe that topsoil can be removed for trenching a later replaced.
The topsoil on my property is extremely shallow. In many areas topsoil can be removed by removing the grass cover. There is slate at quite a shallow depth under much of my property. When excavating a site for a 90,000 litre domestic water tank with a D9 bulldozer, the driver reported that he was uncertain as to whether or not he could complete the excavation as the rippers on the D9 were having little impact on the slate at a depth of around 600mm.
7. there are both native and feral animals on my property.
I believe these native and feral animals may sabotage efforts to restore the ground surface of the trench. These native animals include kangaroos, wallabies, echidnas and, over the past five years, wombats. Kangaroos and wallabies will jump fences to eat newly established pastures. Echidnas and wombats in particular burrow in softer soils. Feral animals include rabbits and pigs. These pests are attracted to new grasses and will burrow in the case of rabbits, and root in the case of pigs, in softer soils especially where new pasture has been established.
Animals may thus impact on the restored trench surface to provide ingress of surface flow of water with subsequent erosion of the trench.

Please see file attached

Thank you for the opportunity to lodge an objection to the Macquarie River to Orange Pipeline.
I object to the pipeline because I believe there is a strong probability that installation of the pipeline will cause soil erosion or land slips that may be impossible to remediate.
I submit that the proponents of the pipeline have not completed an adequate assessment of the potential for erosion to occur along any of the route of the proposed pipeline as was strongly recommended by the Douglas Partners Report on Geological Inspection Orange Drought Relief Connection (Attachment 1) which was appended to the Orange Drought Relief Connection Concept Investigation Report Prepared for Orange City Council 6th January 2011 which was completed by MWH Level 2, 39-41 Chandos Street St Leonards NSW 2065 (Their Project No. A1276402). One might assume this is a standard of the Contractor for this project GHD (who coordinated this current EA) from their report regarding the Wannon Water Shaw River Power Station Project Water Supply Pipelines Groundwater Impact Assessment September 2009 - found at http://www.glng.com.au/ library/EES_Appendix_28.pdf. (Attachment 2).
I note that Douglas Partners do not appear to have contributed to the current EA.
Given the large number of issues regarding geology not addressed in the EA I remain unconvinced of the cost estimates for the installation and maintenance of the pipeline.
Material I Believe is Relevant to My Objection
I have owned and managed my property (L 4 DP586403) since September 1979. My property
boundary fronts Long Point Road and Oaky Lane.
My Concerns
I am concerned re the possibility that the Macquarie Pipeline will cause soil erosion where it traverses dispersible soils along its route.
My issues of concern are:
1. soils along a significant proportion of the pipeline route highly dispersible thus the country is susceptible to erosion from water.
Until the late 1960's there was no road from the Long Point area through the Mullion Range State Forest to Mullion Creek. Access from the Long Point area to Orange was via Oaky Lane to either Lookout Road or Ophir Road. In periods of rain Oaky Lane became impassable thus if travellers wished to take a vehicle through the lane landowners were obliged to cord Oaky Lane by laying logs across the lane - these logs would eventually sink below the surface of the lane.
After periods of significant rain sections of Oaky Lane still becomes impassable to all traffic for extensive periods. The local name for this dispersible soil when it is saturated is "spewy
soil" - my observation of the consistency of the soil when the surface crust is broken suggests that the "spewy" terminology is appropriate.
I do not know the mechanism by which groundwater is retained perhaps 150mm below the surface crust to provide an environment in which soil attain this spewy consistence. From observations on my property I presume there is a horizontal layer of rock some distance below the surface.
I am confident that if I wished to install a pipeline through this ground I would want to ensure the pipeline was supported on some sort of solid foundation.
Hopefully proponents of the pipeline are aware of the construction and cost implications of installing the pipeline through this country.
I could find no indication in the EA as to how the pipeline might be installed given issues described above other than that the pipeline would be installed in accord with government standards.
4. there is no indication in the EA that a comprehensive geological assessment of the of the proposed route of the pipeline.
5. Slopes above the Bridal Track, which runs from Hill End to Bathurst on the northern bank of the Macquarie River, are renowned for land slips which block the Track. There was a major land slip in the 1960's of the slope to the Macquarie River below where Boshes Creek enters the River.
6. The Douglas Partners Report (Attachment 1) specifically mentions the potential fragility of the slope to the river at the proposed "take off" point is the pipeline is installed at that location. The EA appears to ignore Douglas Partners recommendation for geological assessment of these slopes before the pipeline in installed.

There are some major problems with the geomorphic aspects of the Environmental Assessment. Please see the attachment.

Thank you for the opportunity to lodge an objection to the Macquarie River to Orange Pipeline.

I object to the pipeline because I believe there is strong probability that that the EA does not meet the standards of probity as detailed in Section 7 of the NSW Local Government Act (Attachment 1; see also The Precautionary Principle - Attachment 2) particularly in regard to:

1. the lack of geological assessment of the route of the pipeline as recommended in the Douglas Partners Report on Geological Inspection Orange Drought Relief Connection (Attachment 3) which was appended to the Orange Drought Relief Connection Concept Investigation Report Prepared for Orange City Council 6th January 2011 which was completed by MWH Level 2, 39-41 Chandos Street St Leonards NSW 2065 (Their Project No. A1276402);

2. inadequate assessment of the incidence of threatened or endangered fish species in the Macquarie River above Burrendong Dam as detailed in other submissions against the pipeline that have been forwarded to you; and

3. use of statistically inappropriate strategies for evaluation of flows in the Macquarie River as detailed in other submissions against the pipeline that have been forwarded to you.

ORWSA objects to the project as outlined in the attached submission

SUBMISSION TO OPPOSE THE MAQUARIE RIVER PIPELINE PROJECT
Ref No: 10_0235

To Belinda Scott (Planning N.S.W. Government),
As rate paying residents of Orange for almost 50 years we are appalled that the Government is considering funding an environmentally disastrous and unnecessary project such as the MACQUARIE PIPELINE PROJECT.
The natural environment has already been plundered by our ancestors who moved to the area in the 1840's. As farmers and orchardists they cleared native vegetation, polluted rivers and creeks and introduced a plethora of weeds and pests. Our 97 year old aunty talked fondly of the Koalas on her property. We have never seen a Koala in the area. As children we saw platypus in local streams. our children have never seen one. The ignorance of our ancestors and many like them has resulted in major environmental repair for our generation. On our 2.5 hectare block we have bulldozed blackberries and have a continual battle with rabbits and foxes. We DO NOT ACCEPT that with our education and sophisticated knowledge of the repercussions of our actions on the environment we can plead a similar ignorance to that of our ancestors of 170 years ago. Surely we are more informed than poor, illiterate English settlers!
During the recent drought, the residents of Orange, including our 78 year old mother (used to hosing down the path and leaving a sprinkler on to keep the lawn green in summer,) proved that they were able to modify their water use to a more sustainable level of 250 litres per person each day. The amount quoted as justifying the pipeline 404 litres per person each day is exaggerated and certainly not necessary.
Further researched and agreed KEY points AGAINST the PIPELINE are as follows:-
KEY POINTS:
1. The pipeline is not justified because it has been designed to supply an artificially high water demand. The proposal is based on `unrestricted' average personal daily water use that is much higher than recent usage in Orange.
2. The upper Macquarie River is significant habitat for the nationally endangered Trout Cod. Other threatened fish species found in this river reach include Murray Cod, Silver Perch and Catfish.
3. The proposed extraction of water from upper Macquarie River at low flows will disrupt fish passage and degrade important habitat values.
4. The pipeline route will destroy good condition roadside vegetation that provides important wildlife corridors and habitat in a highly cleared landscape.
5. The pipeline route with associated access road and power line will cause disturbance to highly unstable soil structures in very steep terrain, threatening landslides into the river.
6. A regional water supply solution, that services more than the needs of Orange, needs to be developed using state and federal grant monies in an ecologically sustainable manner.
We urge you to OPPOSE the MACQUARIE RIVER PIPELINE.
Government money needs to be spent to develop environmentally sensitive, sustainable and intelligent water supply solutions for Orange, so that future generations look back with pride at our initiative and care.
Yours sincerely,
Dianne Farley-Pelley
Geoffrey Pelley
Andrew Farley
2 Rahiri Lane,
Orange, 2800.
14th October 2012.

See attached.