1. EES Methodology & Approach
Edithvale & Bonbeach Level Crossing Removals Environmental Effects Statement
NSRFL Reponse (No Sky Rail: Frankston Line) Community Association No: A C
EES Methodology & Approach
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

2. Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A
Chapter Introduction
We have broken our presentation down into the Chapters shown below.
The topic of this Chapter is highlighted below.
Section
Title
Duration
Contents
Chapter A
Introduction
20 mins
Introduces NSRFL presentation on the EES on the Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removals.
Chapter B
Methodology
NSRFL response to the EES statement, reviewing its Methodology and Approach.
Chapter C
Rebuttals
Reviews pro-Sky Rail submissions and other anti-Rail Under Road position taken by a small number of people
Chapter D
Community View
30 mins
Community views of a Rail Under Road solution.
This shows you want the community actually would like to see.
Chapter E
Summary
Brings together all sections of our presentation.
Links these to the EES panel hearings over the past two weeks.
Chapter F
Publicity Material
Appendix of supplementary and supporting material.
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

3. Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission
Sean Wise – Resume
Bachelor of Engineering (Chemical) RMIT Melbourne, MBA (Technology Innovation)
24 years experience in the Engineering and Construction Industry, across a number of industries
Qualifications
Worked in various roles over 11.5 years with Melbourne Water in Design, Capital Management, Operations, Process Engineer, HACCP Quality control and undertaking internal environmental auditing
Over 10 years experience as a Consulting Engineer, in various roles including Design, Engineering Management, and Project Management.
This experience has included on multi-billion infrastructure, mining/metals, Oil/gas and chemical industries, including the Melbourne Desalination Project, which also posed Environmental constraints to be managed (such as Acid Sulphate Soils).
Has also extensive experience working in projects across 3 major Hazard Facilities, and therefore understanding of risk assessment, mitigation and management
Professional Experience
Aspendale Resident for 18 Years, and enjoys the Coastal Amenity and proximity to the Wetlands and Public Transport.
Keen community advocate, having been involved in Apex for 17 years at club and committee level
Community
Views expressed in this presentation are my own, based on personal experience in such projects.
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

4. Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A
EES Outcomes
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

5. NSRFL Approach to EES Outcomes
Our submission (Number #205) details our analysis of the ESS Main body and Technical Reports/Attachments.
Our team reviewed the entire set of documents, and stated our position accordingly in our own 103 page submission
Our expertise across the group encompasses engineers, designers, surveyors, project managers, construction, assessors/auditors, journalists, researchers and health professionals
Over the next few pages, we detail our response to the EES Outcome.
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

6. EES Outcomes: Wetlands
We approached our EES assessment on the basis of a sound rationale being undertaken, as follows:
A) No impact on Wetlands
We agree with EES findings that a trench does not pose a threat to the Edithvale Wetlands or the Carrum to Aspendale foreshore based on Negligible and Minor risks documented in EES and Technical Reports.
B) Risk Based Approach
Predicated on the EPR’s being met and further monitoring or design verification, the LXRA appear to have taken an appropriate risk-based approach - assessed initial risk, residual risk and mitigations
Summary Text for these points in here (or deleted)
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

7. EES Outcomes: Water Modelling
We approached our EES assessment on the basis of a sound rationale being undertaken, as follows:
C) Water Modelling
Robust risk-based approach of building a calibrated water model comparing predicted vs actual outcomes
D) Future Proof Modelling
Water modelling that covered a substantial historical dataset that included Extreme events (Worst Case), actual field testing, vs predictions and climate change predictions that resulted in a very high confidence interval of 99%, as a basis in the recommendations made.
E) Robust Analysis
This water modelling provides a robust analysis and takes due account of uncertainty , supported by Technical Reports A, B and D detailing risk assessment, and mitigation of risks.
F) No residual Risk
NO Residual risk above minor or negligible has been identified, backed up by Kingston Council Expert Assessment by Dr Andrei Woinarski (Senversa Hydrology Review) that “None of the identified issues would prevent the construction of the level crossings at Edithvale or Bonbeach”
Summary Text for these points in here
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

8. EES Outcomes: Public Scrutiny
We approached our EES assessment on the basis of a sound rationale being undertaken, as follows:
G)Long-Term Modelling
Providing for ongoing long-term monitoring and updating of modelling in the Environmental Performance Requirements (EPR). We very much support this objective.
H) Substantive Body of Work
Based on the reports provided, we note the EES body of work is substantive, and stated as peer reviewed.
I) Further Public Scrutiny
Where further, ongoing data is required to substantiate or design verify outcomes, such as EPR compliance, peer review, this information should be made public for scrutiny, and to ensure such EPR’s are met
Thus, NSRFL fully supports the Rail Under Road (trench) designs for Bonbeach and Edithvale to proceed to the Minister for Approval to proceed.
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

9. Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A
EES Risks
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

10. RISKS: Protecting the Wetlands
Two key risk areas raised to be addressed by both the EES and opponents of the EES outcomes relate to the Edithvale RAMSAR Wetlands and Foreshore vegetation
It is NOT on the basis of preliminary or superseded reports performed before the EES being performed. Any submissions citing pre-EES reports should be ignored, as they are superseded by the EES Findings.
Risks are based solely on the EES Body and associated Technical Reports/Attachments.
This requires due consideration and Precautionary Approach
Risks are assessed under standard, AS/NZ AS31000 Risk Assessment.
This is an approach considered as Typical Industry/Major Project Approach, and in our opinion appropriate to proceed
“Negligible” to “Minor Risks” are the highest in the EES – Risk treatment has been classified.
Use of worse case scenarios is good.
It shows that the LXRA are taking a precautionary approach. We as a community HIGHLY VALUE the Edithvale Wetlands and would never want to see any harm or damage.
Even after all of this work – Minor/Negligible risks on the Wetlands (no impact), and to Foreshore vegetation.
But both will be subject to EPR’s to ensure such risks are mitigated so as not to ensure they are not realised.
We support ongoing monitoring during and after construction, to monitor performance, and address any concerns raised.
This information should be public so that stated risk is proven to be mitigated
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

11. RISK: Ground Water & A.S.S.
Concerns have been raised about damage to the Wetlands, due to groundwater mounding, Acid Sulphate Soils and in the past damage to the Wetlands caused by exposure of the peat layer.
People will ask, well if its happened before, what assurances do we have that it won’t happen again?
To say that Engineers ‘get it wrong’, is to ignore the substantive body of work undertaken in the EES to get it right!
Acid Sulphate Soils (A.S.S.)
For Acid Sulphate Soils, the technical reports detail EPR’s (CL1 – CL4) for exposure, sampling, treatment and disposal to accredited landfill.
Such management plans are typical of construction projects of this nature.
Ground Water
For Groundwater, 4 EPRS (GW1 – GW4) cover Trench design review, performance outcomes, management and monitoring plan and Independent Peer Review
These concerns are EXACTLY why an EES has been performed, as a robust and documented means of ensuring no damage is realised to the Wetlands, or the Foreshore Vegetation as a result of the project
Most importantly , in analysing risk, it is important to differentiate between Quantitative Risk Ranking to an accepted Australian Standard, as opposed to Qualitative opinion without basis in fact (proof) that can serve to overstate risk.
NSFRL have deliberately focused on what the common, unbiased person would see as a reasonable approach, and commented accordingly.
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

12. Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A
Treatment of Risks
The EES has detailed in Technical Reports such assessments.
In all cases, the highest residual risks remaining are NEGLIGIBLE TO MINOR.
It is acceptable for a project to proceed on this level of risk.
Engineers and Statutory bodies undertaking these works are required to exercise due diligence in regards to risk, and this project is no different.
Items of particular interest are:
Design verification of the horizontal slotted trench. We note that in earlier Inquiry Hearings via expert Dr Andy Chan that additional mitigations such as a second passive drain at high water mark in case main deeper drain blocks are already being looked at.
This is a prime example of how once risks are identified, design solutions are proposed to demonstrate the risk CAN be managed, prior to Construction
Ongoing monitoring during Design, Construction, and Operation, particularly in relation to Groundwater flow and Quality
This is, in our view, an expected and reasonable outcome of the EES, and of the Design going forward.
This is in line with Industry Standard, underpinned by accountability via EPR’s
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A

13. Elevate Rail would devastate….
Some have stated that NSRFL have run a campaign based on ‘protecting peoples views’ or having ‘strong views on aesthetic grounds’ as the only reason we oppose Elevated Rail.
This is a very simplistic, and narrow view, which we contest. Our view on Rail Under Road for Edithvale and Bonbeach is based on:
Visual Bulk would dominate
Large, domineering visual bulk of elevated rail would be visible all across the community and dominate the visual landscape, forever.
Coastal Character Destroyed
This is not in line with the seaside character of the area, and would be seen from the beach (where people go to relax away from urban disturbances)
Overshadowing of Houses
Elevated rail would create extensive overshadowing in morning/afternoon periods
Noise would travel across rooftops
Train noise heard all across the community, particularly for houses further from the line who are not currently exposed to train noise, and disturbing sleep
No Public Open Space
Open space beneath railway bridges would be limited to car parks at best, due to the narrow rail corridor.
Graffiti & Rubbish would proliferate
Graffiti and is an issue and litter-strewn areas, as seen areas across Melbourne utilizing elevated rail bridges.
Cost burden on countil to maintain
This also creates a future burden cost to ratepayers within council municipalities, which if not able to funded by Council, will likely be fenced off and not create value Opportunities as intended
Hub for Anti-Social Behaviour
Potential for anti-social behaviour in the shadows of an overhead railway bridge.
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

14. … Trench has none of these problems!
Alternatively, the Rail Trench Design offers a number of advantages:
Community Support
Is a feasible technical solution, as shown by the EES outcomes, and which is supported by the Community
Community Urban Design
Allows for some excellent opportunities in Urban Design for community pride
Amenable to local community
At grade entry and new station will insert well into the surrounding area, and become a transport hub for the local area locals will be proud of and serve functionality of commuters
Connection with Beeson Reserve
The station feel should provide a smooth, natural transition from Public transport infrastructure to Beeson Reserve to the beach at Edithvale,
Interchange with Road Network
The station feel should provide a smooth, natural transition from Nepean Highway to the Beach at Bonbeach,
Coastal Village Aesthetic
Incorporating the coastal village feel at both Stations as a vibrant hub the community and commuters alike, will enjoy
Natural materials
Provides opportunities of the use of natural materials and products into the delivered design external to the trench that is in line with the Urban design of the area (vegetation, living gardens)
At Grade transition from Station to local areas (mobility/health impaired, disability considerations)
Removes Level Crossings !!!
Will achieve the Grade Separation aims the Level Crossing Removal Program requires, providing benefits for the Commuter, Motorists and the Community
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission

15. Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A
End of Chapter
No Sky Rail: Frankston Line
Edithvale & Bonbeach EES Submission: Part A