title: goal attainment scaling: a tool for evaluating pipeline...

Goal Attainment Scaling – A tool for evaluating pipeline environmental performance

C:\TEMP\GASpaper.docVersion 101/12/99

1

GOAL ATTAINMENT SCALING: A TOOL FOR EVALUATINGPIPELINE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE.

AUTHORS:Richard McDonough, Petroleum Group, Primary Industries and Resources SADavid Wiltshire, Social & Ecological Assessment Pty LtdMark Watson, Ecos Consulting (Aust) Pty LtdLisien Loan, SA Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs

ABSTRACT:The recently released APIA Code of Environmental Practice identifies the factthat effective environmental management involves (inter alia) theestablishment of environmental objectives, and criteria for measuring theachievement of those objectives.The Petroleum Group of Primary Industries and Resources South Australiahas successfully used a technique known as Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS)to assess environmental performance of petroleum exploration operations (inparticular, the rehabilitation of abandoned wellsites and seismic lines). Thismethod involves clearly identifying environmental objectives and establishingcriteria to measure the extent of achievement of those objectives. PIRSAhave recently begun trialing the technique on pipeline projects. The APIACode of Environmental Practice references the use of the technique.GAS has been utilised for two recent pipeline projects in South Australia. Ithas been found to be a useful tool in all phases of pipeline projects fromenvironmental approval through to post-construction environmental auditing.The requirement to define environmental objectives and measurementobjectives in quantifiable terms in the approval phase is particularly beneficial.GAS is one tool of many that can be used for environmental auditing, andshould only be used where considered appropriate.

INTRODUCTIONThe Australian Pipeline Industry Association (on behalf of the Australianpipeline industry) is dedicated to the continuation and improvement of theindustry’s excellent environmental record. To this end, the APIA haspublished a Code of Environmental Practice to provide minimumenvironmental management standards and thereby assist to maintain aconsistently high level of environmental performance by the industry1.The APIA Code of Environmental Practice promotes the establishment of aneffective Environmental Management System (EMS) as a key step inachieving and maintaining a high standard of environmental performance.One of the key elements of an effective EMS is a framework which setsenvironmental objectives and measurement criteria to assess the



2

achievement of those objectives. These objectives and criteria are mosteffective when established via a consultative process with key stakeholders.The Petroleum Group of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia(PIRSA) has successfully adapted a technique known as Goal AttainmentScaling (GAS) to assess environmental performance of petroleum explorationoperations (in particular, the rehabilitation of abandoned wellsites and seismiclines). This method involves clearly identifying environmental objectives andestablishing measurement criteria. PIRSA have recently begun trialing thetechnique on pipeline projects.

HISTORY OF GOAL ATTAINMENT SCALING FOR ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT EVALUATIONGoal Attainment Scaling (GAS) originated in the United States in the latesixties as a means of evaluating the effectiveness of mental health programs2.GAS was devised to handle the situation where a single program was appliedto a diverse patient base in which treatment needs and outcomes are patient-specific. The technique centres on defining and documenting patient-specificoutcomes which acknowledge that a range of outcomes are possible, andassigning a numeric value to the outcomes in that range. The numericalresults are collated and assessed to determine overall program effectiveness.In 1994 the Petroleum Group of PIRSA (then the Department of Mines andEnergy, South Australia) decided to trial the application of the GAS system toits environmental audit program for petroleum operations in the Cooper Basin.The key features of GAS recognised as valuable in environmental evaluationwere:

• the recognition of a range of possible outcomes

• the requirement to define and document possible outcomes

• the application of a scoring system to assess the outcomesPIRSA first applied GAS to the evaluation of abandoned wellsites. A series ofgoals were identified and expressed in terms of a range of possible outcomesin an expected timeframe. The outcomes were defined on the basis of thefollowing table:

OUTCOME GAS SCOREmuch less than expected -2less than expected -1expected 0more than expected +1much more than expected +2

For example, the goal for revegetation of abandoned wellsites in the CooperBasin after 5 years was expressed as follows3:



3

GAS SCORE CRITERIA-2 (much less than expected) There is no revegetation-1 (less than expected) The revegetation mostly consists of

annuals and biennials; in contrast to thesurroundings there are few perennials

0 (expected) The revegetation consists of annuals,biennials and perennials, but there aresome bare patches which are inconsistentwith the surroundings

+1 (more than expected) The revegetation, mostly perennials, isconsistent with the surroundings but thereis a contrast in the maturity between them

+2 (much more than expected) The revegetation type, density and maturityis indistinguishable from the surroundings

The results of an audit of 45 abandoned wellsites in the Cooper Basin yieldedthe following results4:

02468

101214

-2 -1 0 +1 +2G.A.S Score

Num

ber o

f Site

s

These results show that regeneration of vegetation on abandoned wellsiteswas generally as good or better than expected and that there were only veryfew incidents of unacceptable regeneration outcomes. However, the mainpoint of the example is that the technique has converted the raw data into asimple graphical form that demonstrates the overall effectiveness of therehabilitation program, and highlights instances of unacceptable performance,which can then be rectified.The following general comments are noteworthy:

• Expressing outcomes in terms of “less-than-expected”, “expected”, “more-than-expected”, etc. requires that they be written with sufficient content toallow an auditor to assign a score for a given objective. This requires the

Figure 1: Results of G.A.S assessment for Objective: “Minimiseimpact on vegetation for well sites restored for more than 5

years”; Abandoned wellsites, Cooper Basin 1995-1997



4

use of quantifiable terms. Once this is established and agreed upon, thereshould be no argument after the event as to how any given outcomeshould be assessed. This does not preclude the use of pictures ordiagrams to demonstrate differing outcomes, as has been usedsuccessfully for the well site criteria.5

• The use of quantifiable language and a scale ranging from “much-less-than-expected” though to “much-morethan-expected” provides a basis forconsultation and negotiation between stakeholders, as ambiguities in theuse of broad terms such as “minimise” are reduced.

The Petroleum Group’s success in using the GAS technique on wellsites andseismic lines has resulted in a number of other organisations adopting GASfor their environmental assessment programs. These organisations include:

• Environment Australia, for evaluating the performance of NHT fundedGreen Corp projects.

• Transport SA, for evaluating restoration practices on disused unsealedroads and tracks.

• Electricity Trust of South Australia (now Flinders Power), for evaluating therestoration coal mining operations sites.

• Western Mining Corporation, for evaluating the restoration of mineral drillhole sites in the Olympic Dam area.

• Minerals Group, PIRSA for evaluation of a number of mineral explorationprograms.

• DNRE Vic, for evaluating the restoration of reclaimed pastoral land.6

This success and wide acceptance has provided encouragement to trial thetechnique on the assessment of rehabilitation of pipeline easements.

GAS APPLIED TO PIPELINESThe APIA Code of Environmental Practice identifies a number of typicalenvironmental objectives associated with pipeline construction, encapsulatedby the following:

• minimising disturbance to flora

• minimising impacts to fauna

• minimising impacts to soil and water

• minimising impacts on visual amenity

• minimising impacts on sites of cultural and historic heritage significance

• minimising disruption to landholders (including infrastructure and activities)

• optimising (maximising) rehabilitation successThe difficulty that arises is defining what constitutes “minimisation of visualimpact”, “minimisation of disturbance to flora” etc, and determining what isacceptable to all parties.



5

Terms such as “minimise” need to be expressed in a meaningful (quantifiable)manner, which is readily understood by all stakeholders. This needs to bedone “up-front”, before construction activity commences, so that there are noarguments after the event regarding what constitutes minimisation of impacts.Otherwise, there is the potential to fall foul of the fact that “minimisation”, likebeauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For this reason, the APIA Code ofEnvironmental Practice stipulates that objectives be determined via aconsultative process with relevant stakeholders, and that criteria forassessment of the achievement of the outcomes be established.Environmental rehabilitation is a dynamic process. The efficacy of techniquesemployed before, during and after construction are often only ultimatelyproved by the passage of time. The APIA Code of Environmental Practicesets out a number of best practice techniques which should be employed tomaximise the potential for the best environmental outcomes. These define anumber of “enabling objectives” which facilitate the achievement of theultimate objective.For example, the broad objective of “maximising rehabilitation success” isachieved by:

• Stockpiling topsoil separately and respreading after construction.

• Preserving root stock on the right-of-way

• Ripping the right-of-way to remove compaction.

• Respreading stockpiled vegetation on the right-of-way.These objectives must be assessed as soon as possible after construction toensure that corrective action (if necessary) can be readily undertaken.As described above, GAS provides a framework for achieving definingobjectives and setting measurement criteria, and thereby serves as a usefultool for consultation. Consequently PIRSA, in consultation with theproponents and their environmental advisers, took the opportunity to trial theapproach on some recent pipelines.

The Cuttapirrie to Moorari Raw Gas PipelineThe Cuttapirrie to Moorari Raw Gas Pipeline was constructed in 1998 bySantos Ltd, with environmental advice from Social and Ecological AssessmentPty Ltd.The pipeline is approximately 49 km long and conveys gas and associatedliquids from the Cuttapirrie gas field to the Moorari Gas Satellite, situatedapproximately 70 kms NW of the Moomba Gas Plant in the South AustralianCooper Basin (Figure 2). While the majority of the pipeline traverses thedunefields of the Strzelecki Desert, particular environmental issues are raisedby virtue of the fact that it crosses 4km of the Cooper floodplain which adjoinsthe North West Branch of the Cooper Creek. The Cooper Creek flows into theCoongie Lakes wetland system. The high conservation value of the CooperCreek wetlands has been recognised:



6

• internationally, by protection under the Ramsar Convention for theProtection of Wetlands of International Importance;

• nationally, by inclusion of the lower Cooper floodplain on the Register ofthe National Estate; and

• at a State level by proclamation of the Innamincka Regional Reserve7.The pipeline runs adjacent to the Coongie Lakes Control Zone, an arearecognised as having particular environmental significance within theInnamincka Regional Reserve, and requiring specific environmentalmanagement practices.8

The pipeline also crosses the Coongie Lakes track, which is used byincreasing numbers of tourists visiting the area.These factors combined to require that particular attention be paid to theenvironmental management of the project, and a Declaration of EnvironmentalFactors (DEF) and Code of Environmental Practice were prepared as part ofthe approval process.The DEF identified the potential environmental impacts of the project, theenvironmental objectives of the project, and the criteria for assessment ofthose objectives. A total of 35 different environmental objectives wereestablished. The majority of these related to construction, while a few wereoperational objectives.For each objective, a clear statement of what constituted acceptableperformance was documented. Where possible, percentages were used toprovide more meaning to words such as “some” or “most”. It was recognisedthat this was a first pass, and the appropriateness of these percentages wouldbe subject to review.Equally important were statements of what constituted unacceptableperformance, and statements of better-than-expected performance.Statements of better-than-expected performance are considered important asthey help to ensure that good performance is recognised and reported.For example, in areas of dense vegetation surrounding the Cooper Creek, theright-of-way (ROW) was limited to 9 metres to minimise vegetation clearanceand disturbance to visual amenity. The agreed range of outcomes areexpressed in terms of GAS criteria in the table below:



7

GAS SCORE CRITERIA-2 (much less than expected) ROW width often exceeds 9m in the “dense

vegetation” sections, (>25% of ROW).-1 (less than expected) ROW width sometimes exceeds 9m in the

“dense vegetation” sections, (<25% ofROW).

0 (expected) ROW width does not exceed 9m on the“dense vegetation” sections.

+1 (more than expected) ROW width is less than 9m on parts of the“dense vegetation” sections and neverexceeds 9m.

+2 (much more than expected) ROW width is generally less than 9m onthe “dense vegetation” sections

While it is arguable that there is still a degree of subjectivity in the wording, thecriteria represent a step forward in establishing a framework for assessing theacceptability of the outcome.The complete suite of criteria for the project are shown in Appendix 19. Notethat in many cases there can be no improvement on the expected outcome(“0” score). For example, removal of all rubbish from the right-of-way is theexpected outcome (Goal Ref 17). Since there can be no improvement on thisoutcome, no criteria are written in the “+1” and “+2” columns.The audit of the western edge of the Cooper Floodplain Section is shown inTable 110. This provides a ready visual reference as to the environmentalperformance on this section of the pipeline, and shows that in general theobjectives set have been met. Where the criteria have proved too restrictive,additional comments have been provided to explain the basis for theassessment.No attempt has been made to display the information in a graphical format, asthe tabular format conveys sufficient information. The use of a graphicalpresentation may be useful for the assessment of a single, repeated operationsuch as dune re-profiling, (over 40 dunes were crossed by the pipeline route).

The Berri to Mildura Natural Gas PipelineThe Berri to Mildura Natural Gas Pipeline was constructed in 1999 by BoralEnergy Asset Management, with environmental advice from Ecos Consulting(Aust) Pty Ltd.The pipeline is approximately 148 km long and conveys gas from the existingRiverland Pipeline that terminates as Berri to markets in Mildura (Figure 3).The South Australian portion of the pipeline passes through the outskirts ofthe township of Berri, before crossing the River Murray and then traversingvineyards, cropping and grazing land up to the SA/Vic border. Comments inthis paper are restricted to the SA portion of the pipeline.



8

Areas of particular environmental significance in SA include the Lyrup Forestreserve on the eastern bank of the River Murray, and number of stands ofremnant vegetation containing plant species of State significance.The pipeline is required to be licensed under both South Australian andVictorian legislation. A Declaration of Environmental Factors / EnvironmentEffects Report (DEF/EER)11, which satisfied the legislative requirements ofboth states was prepared and a full public consultation process carried out.Again, environmental objectives and assessment criteria were established inthis process. The consultation process generated a number of responsesfrom public interest groups, which in South Australia were addressed in aSupplement to the DEF12.For this pipeline, the proponents proposed a more comprehensive set ofgoals, covering pre-, during- and post-construction periods (refer to Appendix2). A greater degree of emphasis was placed on the “enabling objectives”,including the development of procedures. The intent was to make a moreholistic assessment of the environmental management system, rather thanconcentrate purely on the site-specific outcomes. A total of 57 sets of criteriawere established, falling into three broad categories:1. Those which cannot be assessed by a post-construction audit, and

therefore required either continual on-site auditing or documentaryevidence to demonstrate compliance. Examples include the developmentand implementation of procedures, stockpiling of topsoil, and washingdown of vehicles to prevent spread of weeds.

2. Those which can be assessed by a site inspection immediately afterconstruction. Examples include right-of-way width, ripping of compactedareas, and visual amenity in sensitive areas.

3. Those which can generally only be assessed after the passage of time.Examples include vegetation regrowth, subsidence over the trench, andweed infestation.

These categories represent the progression through the stages of preparationand restoration of the pipeline easement. Ultimately the project will be judgedby the goals in second and third categories, which address the physicalimpacts of the project. In practice, the regulator and other stakeholders willtend to focus their attention on the achievement of these goals. However, it isimportant for the proponent and contractor to ensure the first categoryoutcomes are achieved, as these deliver the second and third categories.Different audits are undertaken by different parties due to a number of factors:

• The proponent is responsible for, and has greatest control over, theachievement of outcomes. Therefore the proponent needs to regularlyreview practices as construction proceeds to ensure that goals areachieved, and where they are not, prompt corrective action is taken, (whenit is usually most cost effective). In addition, the proponent must be able todemonstrate that it has taken all reasonable steps to achieve theoutcomes. Therefore, documentation of activities and regular systemaudits are required. This is especially pertinent where adverse outcomesmay result in regulatory or legal scrutiny.



9

• A third party (e.g. special interest group, landholder) does not have theresources, technical expertise or legal power to conduct a system audit. Ingeneral, a third party will focus on post-construction outcomes. However,they may regularly review construction activities if they have ready accessto the land and a strong interest in the land (e.g. a farmer can readily keepa close eye on construction proceedings on his land).

• In South Australia, PIRSA endeavours to visit the site at least once duringconstruction and as soon as possible after construction to perform a formalpost-construction audit. The prime focus is on right-of-way preparationand rehabilitation outcomes that can be assessed after construction (i.e.those described by the second category above). An audit of the system isnormally only initiated if there is clear evidence of continued failure toachieve specified outcomes.

The two key parties using the GAS system for this project were EcosConsulting (Aust), on behalf of the proponent (BEAM), and PIRSA as theregulatory authority.Ecos made use of the GAS approach through all phases of the project,beginning at the environmental assessment phase. As previously stated, theGAS criteria were developed by Ecos in consultation with PIRSA on the basisof direct consultation with stakeholders during the preparation of theDEF/EER. The GAS framework forced clear definition of environmental goalsand assessment criteria early in the project, thus providing a focus for theestablishment of the environmental management program, and also for itscommunication to the construction contractors. The use of quantifiablelanguage in the assessment criteria (Appendix 2) assisted to ensure that allparties clearly understood the environmental requirements prior to thecommencement of construction.During the pre-construction/design phase, Ecos established a set ofenvironmental audit checklists for each construction activity. These checklistsincorporated the GAS objectives and other environment management planrequirements. The audit checklists were then completed on a weekly basisduring construction, and forwarded to Ecos for review and incorporation intothe project database to assess the ongoing level of environmental complianceand trigger corrective action as required.From Ecos’ perspective, the GAS system provided an open and transparentmethod for assessing environmental compliance for the project. Thequantifiable criteria were readily accessible to the proponent, the contractorand the regulator. This was evidenced by the successful post-constructionaudit carried out by PIRSA (see below), where only minor input from theEnvironmental Officer was necessary to conduct the audit.PIRSA, accompanied by Ecos, conducted a post-construction audit on the SAsection of the Berri to Mildura Pipeline, based on the approach used for theCuttapirrie to Moorari Pipeline. The pipeline was separated into four sections(see Figure 4):

• the Berri township area

• the Lyrup Forest



10

• the sensitive areas identified by the DEF

• the agricultural areasAudit sheets for each section were prepared. The route of the pipeline wasthen driven. In some places specific measurements were taken, while inothers a general assessment of compliance was made. Where the pipelinetraversed agricultural land, the easement was not driven (so as not to disturbrehabilitation). In these cases, the easement was viewed from ready accesspoints, and in particular, road crossings.The results of the audit are shown on Tables 2 to 5. These demonstrate thatthe overall environmental performance of the project met the expectationsstated in the DEF. The only major shortfall identified was the failure torespread vegetation in the Lyrup Forest section, a situation that has sincebeen remedied.From PIRSA’s perspective, the GAS approach again proved useful:

• It provided a simple template for documenting the audit. The tabularpresentation of results provides a ready visual reference of overallperformance.

• It provided an unambiguous basis for assessment and discussion ofresults with the proponent. In this case, as Ecos accompanied PIRSA onthe audit, they were able to provide additional insight into what hadhappened on the ground and why. This highlighted the fact that an auditmust take into account operational factors which cannot be entirelyforeseen when the assessment criteria are established.

• Many of the goals were readily assessed without specialist environmentalknowledge. This is considered important as it assists the transparencyand openness of the audit, which is possibly subject to public scrutiny. Inother words, a member of the public could conduct a similar audit andthereby assess the integrity of the formal audit. Similarly, personnelinvolved with the construction of the pipeline should readily be able toassess daily performance against stated goals.

• The GAS criteria provided guidance as to where environmental expertisewas critical in the assessment of goals.

Both parties concluded that this project demonstrates that the GAS systemprovides a strong first step towards finding a quantifiable auditing systemacceptable to public, government and pipeline industry. It is an open systemwhere goals are readily recognisable, and highlights the importance ofensuring the criteria are carefully and thoroughly established during theapprovals phase.

GENERAL COMMENTS / THE WAY FORWARDIn light of the experience gained from the application of GAS to the twopipelines mentioned, a number of general comments with regard to the entireprocess of identifying goals, establishing objectives and conducting an auditcan be made:



11

• The application of GAS to pipelines has moved away from the approachapplied by PIRSA to well sites in the Cooper Basin. However, the mostimportant aspects have been preserved, namely: 1) the requirement toclearly define the environmental objectives for a project as part of theapproval process; and, 2) the requirement to clearly specify criteria whichmeasure the attainment of the environmental objectives in quantifiablelanguage. The presentation of results in a checklist format has been foundto be sufficient for conveying information regarding environmentalperformance.

• It is often difficult to establish 5 criteria for some goals, which are bestassessed by use of a simple pass/fail test. The use of GAS criteria is notalways appropriate, and attempts to develop criteria in these cases can befrustrating, unproductive and therefore not recommended, (i.e. one shouldnot try to force-fit the GAS for the sake of the exercise). Rather, GAS ispresented as one tool among many which should be adapted and usedwhere it is indeed useful.

• The audit process is assisted by splitting the pipeline into sections ofsimilar environmental value and characteristics (and consequentlyconstruction techniques). This highlights the fact that most attentionshould be paid to sections of higher environmental significance.

• There are varying degrees of importance that can be attached to differentgoals, (which may be site specific). There is scope for applying heavierweighting to key goals which have greater bearing on the ultimaterecovery, in order to emphasise their importance. This could be includedon the GAS assessment sheet and used as a filter to direct readers to themost important issues.

• From PIRSA’s perspective, regulatory scrutiny of environmentalperformance needs to be concentrated where there is “market-failure”. Forexample, in agricultural lands, the incentive to perform is primarily drivenby easement agreements which involve penalties for non-performance,rather than regulatory scrutiny. Such agreements are generally carefullyenforced by the landowner, who has a direct economic interest in the land.However, in public lands, these strong economic drivers don’t exist or areless readily enforceable. In this case, a diffuse set of stakeholders rely onthe regulator for enforcement of agreed environmental outcomes.

• In the case of the Berri to Mildura Pipeline, goals and GAS criteria weredrafted following direct consultation with relevant stakeholders andincluded in the DEF/EER for public comment. No public comment wasreceived on the goals and criteria, which indicates that they were eitheracceptable to all concerned or that little attention was paid to them incomparison with the rest of the document. Future consultation processesconducted by PIRSA will place greater emphasis on the discussion ofgoals and criteria, as it is considered that agreement on outcomes leavesthe proponent free to employ any technique he/she likes to achieve thoseoutcomes. In other words, agreement on outcomes is the most usefulfocus of consultation.



12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSteve Tunstill of Santos Ltd and Ross Piffl of Boral Energy AssetManagement are acknowledged for their support of the concept of GAS forenvironmental monitoring of their respective pipelines, and their support of thispaper.Mike Malavazos of the Petroleum Group, PIRSA and Susie Smith of EcosConsulting (Aust) Pty Ltd are acknowledged for their editorial comment andcontribution in helping to adapt the GAS concept to its application to pipelineenvironmental audit.Michael Ross of Publications and Displays, PIRSA is thanked for his expertdrafting of the figures in this report.

1 APIA “Code of Environmental Practice – Onshore Pipelines”, The Australian PipelineIndustry Association Inc, 19982 Kiresuk, T.J., & Sherman R.E. 1968 “Goal Attainment Scaling: A General Method forEvaluating Comprehensive Community Mental Health Programs”, Community Mental HealthJournal, vol 4, no 6, pp 443-453.3 PIRSA “Field Guide for the Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Wellsites in theCooper Basin, South Australia” April 1998, http://www.mines.sa.gov.au/petrol/guide.pdf4 Malavazos, M., “Goal Attainment Scaling: Environmental Impact Evaluation in the UpstreamPetroleum Industry”, Proceedings of the Australian Evaluation Society Conference Adelaide,October 1997, http://ww.mines.sa.gov.au/petrol/enviro_gas.htm5 PIRSA “Field Guide for the Environmental Assessment of Abandoned Wellsites in theCooper Basin, South Australia” April 1998, http://www.mines.sa.gov.au/petrol/guide.pdf6 Personal communication with M Malavazos, PIRSA, 1 October 1999.7Santos Ltd; “Cuttapirrie to Moorari Pipeline, Declaration of Environmental Factors”, preparedby Social & Ecological Assessment Pty Ltd, October 1997.8 DEHAA “A Review of Innamincka Regional Reserve 1988-1998” SA Department forEnvironment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, December 1998.9 Santos Ltd; “Environmental Audit, Cuttapirrie to Moorari Pipeline”, prepared by Social &Ecological Assessment Pty Ltd, July 1998.10 Santos Ltd; “Environmental Audit, Cuttapirrie to Moorari Pipeline”, prepared by Social &Ecological Assessment Pty Ltd, July 1998.11 Envestra Limited; “Berri to Mildura Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline – Declaration ofEnvironmental Factors / Environment Effects Report”, prepared by Boral Energy AssetManagement Limited and Ecos Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd, October 1998.12 Envestra Limited; “Berri to Mildura Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline – Supplement to theDeclaration of Environmental Factors”, prepared by Boral Energy Asset Management Limitedand Ecos Consulting (Aust) Pty Ltd, January 1999.

% *

***

*ª

1+

ª

*+**

1*

*k

ª

ª

*

+* +

+ªg

ª

*

g

g ª

ª

*

'

ª*'1 ''

' '1

*

ª+

ª

*

ª

+

ª

'1

#S

#S

#S

#S

Moorari Satellite

�KudriemitchieOutstation�

Kudrieke

Moorari

Cuttapirrie

Moolion

Coonatie

Kudrieke Crossing

Coongie LakesControl Zone

Cooper

Creek

Tallerangie Crossing

Mitchie Crossing

TirrawarraSwamp

#S

Cuttapirrie to MoorariGas Pipeline

LOCATION PLAN

0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometers

MAP PROJECTION : AMG ZONE 54 METRES

AV3 : 200018_001 Figure 2

Moomba

Coongie LakesControl Zone

% Pipeline satellite station

Cuttapirrie gas pipelineLiquids feed line

ª Dry Hole* Gas+ Gas Shows* Gas and CO2g Gas with Oil Shows' Oilk Oil Shows1 Oil and Gasj Oil and Gas Shows

Cuttapirrie Pipeline

North West Branchof Cooper

Ck

COOPER CREEK

FLOODPLAIN

RAMSAR

INNAMINCKAREGIONALRESERVE

410000

410000

420000

420000

430000

430000

440000

440000

6950

000 6950000

6960

000 6960000

6970

000 6970000

6980

000 6980000

6990

000 6990000

Cuttapirrie Pipeline

#S #S

#S

#S

#S#S #S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S #S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#SPyap

Lyrup Yamba

Tunart

WarganMonash

Cal Lal

Kulnine

Curlwaa

MorkallaMeringur

Alawoona

Werrimull

Rufus River

Kulnine East

Cullulleraine

New Residence

Merrinee North

Overland Corner

MILDURA

LOXTON

BERRI

RED CLIFFS

MERBEINRENMARK

BARMERA

WENTWORTHDareton

Existing Berri City Gate

Berri to Mildura Gas Pipeline - PL11LOCATION PLAN

0 5 10 15 20 25 Kilometers

AV3 : 200018_002

#S

#S

#S

#S

#SA b

ADELAIDE

MELBOURNE

Warrnambool

MilduraGriffith

EchucaBendigoHorsham

Berri

Mount Gambier

Figure 3

MAP PROJECTION : AMG ZONE 54 METRES

Proposed Mildura City Gate

SOUT

H A

USTR

ALIA

VICT

ORIA

NEW SOUTH WALES

34°3

0' 34°30'34

°00' 34°00'

140°30'

140°30'

141°00'

141°00'

141°30'

141°30'

142°00'

142°00'

0 100 200 Kilometers

PL 6PL 11

VICTORIA

NEW SOUTH WALESSOUTH AUSTRALIA

Berri to Midura Gas Pipeline

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

#S

BERRI

Lyrup Yamba

Taldra

Karoom

Monash

Ingalta

Glossop

WonuarraCalperum

Bugle Hut

Berri to Mildura Gas Pipeline (South Australia portion)

AV3 : 2000018_003

SOUT

H A

USTR

ALIA

To Mildura

River

Murray

VICT

ORIA

460000

460000

470000

470000

480000

480000

490000

490000

6200

000 6200000

6210

000 6210000

End Riverland pipeline (PL6)Start Berri - Mildura pipeline (PL11)

LOCATION PLAN

#S#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

#S

#S

#S#S

#S

Moomba

Ceduna

Tarcoola

ADELAIDE

Oodnadatta

Coober Pedy

Olympic Dam LeighCreek

Port Augusta

Port Lincoln

Mount Gambier

Marla

South AustraliaPetroleum Pipeline Network

Riverland gas pipeline (PL6)Berri to Mildura gas pipeline (PL11)

Environmentally sensitive areasBerri area

0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometers

Figure 4

MAP PROJECTION : AMG ZONE 54 - METRES

Gas pipeline

Liquids pipeline

Lyrup Forest

Berri to Mildura Gas Pipeline


13

Table 1: CUTTAPIRRIE TO MOORARI PIPELINE: Assessment of Moorari to western edgeof Cooper Floodplain Section.

Ref7 GoalGE1 GA2s MS3 SS4

Comments

+26 +1 0 -1 -2

R.O.W. PREPARATION

1. Minimise R.O.W. width - standard section (15m)

In places 17-19m wide in dunefield.

2. Minimise R.O.W. width - creek crossings (5m))

n.a.5

3. Minimise R.O.W. width - dense vegetation (9m)

n.a.

4. Leave trees on R.O.W. n.a. Very few trees in dunefield.

5. Trim trees

6. Leave rootstock Some regrowth from rootstock noted.

7. Stockpile topsoil ?

R.O.W. REHABILITATION

8. Leave no windrows Some are 30cm high.

9. Follow crown protocol

10. Avoid subsidence

11. Respread vegetation

12. Reprofile dunes

13. Reprofile creeks n.a.

14. Rip compacted areas One access track ripped, one not ripped.

RUBBISH

17. Remove all rubbish Minor – rope, hessian bags, wooden pipe support.

18. Recycle as appropriate n.a.

19. Appropriate sewage disposal n.a.

R.O.W. STABILITY

20. No dune blow-outs

20. No gullying/scouring Small gullies may form into two borrow pits.

PASTORAL

26. Repair pastoral infrastructure

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

31. Sites identified in DEF are notdisturbed

n.a.

1 GE = Goal exceeded2 GA = Goal attained3 MS = Minor shortfall4 SS = Significant shortfall5 n.a. = Not applicable6 +2 etc= GAS scores7 Reference no’s correspond to GAS key (Appendix I)


14

Table 2: BERRI TO MILDURA PIPELINE: Assessment of Berri Area

Goal Parameter GE GE GA MS SS Comment

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

2.6.1 ROW width (15m) ROW measured in 7locations, all much less than15m

2.1.2 Trimming vs Clearing of trees n.a. No significant trees in thissection

2.1.2 Off ROW activity

2.1.4 Vegetation respread

2.1.4,2.2.1

Topsoil Respread Much of pipeline laid underexisting tracks

2.8.2 Line of sight n.a. No visually sensitive areas

2.9.1 Aboriginal sites n.a. No sites identified in this area

3.1.2 Public Access to ROW Much of pipeline laid underexisting tracks. Signposts inaccordance with AS 2885.

3.2.1 Vegetation Regrowth n.a. Too early to assess.

3.2.3,2.1.3

Weeds n.a. Too early to assess. Much ofpipeline laid under existingtracks. In other sections(road verges), land is alreadydegraded.

3.3.1 Windrows

3.3.1 Subsidence

3.3.2,2.2.1

Erosion Minor erosion site oppositemeter station at BerrivaleOrchard Plant which requiresattention, (Figs 5, 6).

3.3.3 Ripping Appropriate rehab in relevantsections.

3.4.1 Drainage

3.6.1 Rubbish


15

Table 3: BERRI TO MILDURA PIPELINE: Assessment of Lyrup Forest


+2 +1 0 -1 -2

2.6.1 ROW width (10m) ROW measured in 7locations, all much less than10m.

2.1.2 Trimming vs Clearing of trees No unnecessary clearance.


2.1.4 Vegetation respread No attempt to respreadvegetation.

2.1.4,2.2.1

Topsoil Respread

2.6.5 Conservation Values High degree of weaving,trimming of trees, minimalROW width, strict adherenceto ROW and minimaldisturbance at river bankcontribute to retention ofconservation values.

2.8.2 Line of sight High degree of weavingthrough Lyrup Forest (Fig 12,14). ROW not evident fromRiver Murray.

2.9.1 Aboriginal sites Assessed on basis of advicefrom Ecos. Potential sitesflagged.

3.1.2 Public Access to ROW


3.2.3,2.1.3

Weeds n.a. Too early to assess. Noevidence of weeds.

3.3.1 Windrows

3.3.1 Subsidence

3.3.2,2.2.1

Erosion

3.3.3 Ripping No ripping of ROW. Ecosadvise that ripping may notbe appropriate.

3.4.1 Drainage Careful attention given tolarge channel near LagoonDrive (Fig 20).

3.6.1 Rubbish Existing rubbish at LagoonDrive disturbed byconstruction operations, (Fig21). However, this isconsistent with surrounds.


16

Table 4: BERRI TO MILDURA PIPELINE: Assessment of Sensitive Areas


+2 +1 0 -1 -2

2.6.1 ROW width (10m) ROW less than 10m at Berridump. In other areas, ROWwidth less than 15m.However, this is notconsidered a problem.

2.1.2 Trimming vs Clearing of trees No significant speciescleared.

2.1.2 Off ROW activity Minor excursions at Berridump (Fig 27).

2.1.4 Vegetation respread No final clean-up at Berridump. No respread at site 7.

2.1.4,2.2.1

Topsoil Respread No final clean-up at Berridump, all other areas OK.

2.6.5 Conservation Values Management plan at Berridump implemented tominimise impacts. Minimaldisturbance at other sites.

2.8.2 Line of sight

2.9.1 Aboriginal sites Monitors on site at Berridump. All other sitesavoided.

3.1.2 Public Access to ROW


3.2.3,2.1.3

Weeds n.a. Too early to assess. Noevidence of weeds. Berridump highly degraded.

3.3.1 Windrows

3.3.1 Subsidence

3.3.2,2.2.1

Erosion

3.3.3 Ripping Berri dump heavilycompacted and requiresripping on final clean-up.

3.4.1 Drainage

3.6.1 Rubbish No construction rubbish atBerri dump site, originalrubbish in topsoil.


17

Table 5: BERRI TO MILDURA PIPELINE: Assessment of Agricultural Lands


+2 +1 0 -1 -2

2.6.1 ROW width (15m)

2.1.2 Trimming vs Clearing of trees n.a. No significant trees


2.1.4 Vegetation respread n.a.

2.1.4,2.2.1

Topsoil Respread

2.6.2 Farmers needs ? Not assessed. It is assumedthat farmers will deal directlywith BEAM if this becomesan issue.

2.6.3 Private assets ? Not assessed. It is assumedthat farmers will deal directlywith BEAM if this becomesan issue.

2.6.5 Conservation Values n.a.

2.8.2 Line of sight n.a.

2.9.1 Aboriginal sites n.a.

3.1.2 Public Access to ROW All sites within fencedpaddocks.

3.2.1 Vegetation Regrowth

3.2.3,2.1.3

Weeds ? Not assessed. It is assumedthat farmers will deal directlywith BEAM if this becomesan issue.

3.3.1 Windrows

3.3.1 Subsidence

3.3.2,2.2.1

Erosion

3.3.3 Ripping

3.4.1 Drainage

3.6.1 Rubbish


Appendix 1 i

APPENDIX I: CUTTAPIRRIE TO MOORARI PIPELINE GAS CRITERIA

Ref GoalGOAL EXCEEDED GOAL ATTAINED MINOR SHORTFALL SIGNIFICANT

SHORTFALL

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

R.O.W. PREPARATION

1. Minimise R.O.W. width−=standard (15m)

R.O.W. never exceeds, andoften is less than 15m on thestandard section(>25% ofR.O.W.).

R.O.W. never exceeds, and issometimes less than 15m onthe standard section(<25% ofR.O.W.).

RO.W. does not exceed 15mon the standard section.

R.O.W. sometimes exceeds15m of the standardsection(<25% of R.O.W.).

R.O.W. often exceeds 15m onthe standard section(>25% ofR.O.W.).

2. Minimise R.O.W. width−=creek crossings (5m)

R.O.W. width does not exceed5m at creek crossings.

R.O.W. width exceeds 5m atcreek crossings.

R.O.W. width exceeds 9m atcreek crossings.

3. Minimise R.O.W. width−=dense vegetation

R.O.W. width is generally lessthan 9m on the "densevegetation” sections.

R.O.W. width is less than 9mon parts of the "densevegetation" sections, andnever exceeds 9m.

R.O.W. width does not exceed9m on the "dense vegetation"sections.

R.O.W. width sometimesexceeds 9m of the "densevegetation" sections (<25% ofR.O.W.).

R.O.W. width often exceeds9m of the "dense vegetation"sections (>25% of R.O.W.).

4. Leave trees on R.O.W. In addition to trees identifiedin Table 4 and flagged trees,there are numerous othertrees left on the R.O.W.

In addition to trees identifiedin Table 4 and flagged trees,there are some other trees lefton the R.O.W.

All trees identified in Table 4remain standing, includingflagged trees.

Some clearance of treesidentified in Table 4.

All trees removed fromR.O.W.

5. Trim (rather than clear) treesin dense woodland

Extensive tree trimming indesignated areas.

Minor tree trimming indesignated areas.Some evidence of treeremoval where trimmingappropriate.

No trimming evident. Obviousevidence of tree removalwhere trimming appropriate.

6. Leave root-stock (ie. minimalgrading of R.O.W.)

No evidence of root-stockremoval on R.O.W. beyond3m of trench line. R.O.W. iseither only lightly graded ornot graded.

Evidence of some root-stockremoval beyond 3m of trenchline (<25% of R.O.W.).

All root-stock removed.R.O.W. generally deeplygraded for full R.O.W. width(>25% of R.O.W.).

7. Stockpile topsoil Topsoil removed to a depth of50mm and stockpiledseparately.

No evidence of topsoil havingbeen stockpiled.


Appendix 1 ii



SHORTFALL

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

R.O.W. REHABILITATION

8. Remove all windrows No windrows associated withthe pipeline evident (excepton dunes where somewindrows are inevitable afterreprofiling, but will quicklydisappear).

Occasional windrows remainon the R.O.W. (<10% ofR.O.W.).

Regular windrows remain onthe R.O.W. (>10% of R.O.W.).

9. Follow crown protocol No crown present, or crownpresent over the trench withperiodic breaches.

Crown over trench butperiodic breaches (whererequired) not evident.

Backfill insufficient to filltrench.

10. Avoid subsidence No subsidence evident onpipe trench.

Minor subsidence (< 50mmevident (<10% of the trench).

Significant subsidence(>50mm) evident, or regularminor subsidence (>10% ofthe trench).

11. Respread cleared vegetation Where vegetation removed ithas been respread over fullwidth of R.O.W., excludingaccess track.

Vegetation respread over theR.O.W., but some areas havebeen missed.

Little evidence of vegetationrespread over the R.O.W.Stockpiled vegetation leftunspread.

12. Reprofile dunes to pre-existing contours

.Dune profiles have beenrestored consistent withsurrounding dune profiles forall dunes crossed.

Dune profiles have generallybeen restored consistent withsurrounding dune profiles withoccasional exceptions (<10%of dunes).

Dune profiles have not beenrestored consistent withsurrounding dune profiles fornumerous dunes crossed(>10% of dunes).

13. Reprofile creek banks to pre-existing contours

Creek/channel banks restoredto original profile.

Creek/channel banks notrestored to original profile.

14. Rip compacted areas(eg. access tracks)

All compacted soil ripped . Some areas of compacted soilhave not been ripped (<25%).

Numerous areas ofcompacted soil have not beenripped (>25%).


Appendix 1 iii



SHORTFALL

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

15. Leave trench open <24 hoursto minimise fauna impacts.

Trench never open for morethan 24 hours.

Trench rarely open for morethan 24 hours (<20% ofpipeline).

Trench occasionally open formore than 24 hours (<20% ofpipeline).

Trench often open for morethan 24 hours (>20% ofpipeline).

CAMPSITE

16. Avoid clearance of trees No evidence that trees havebeen cleared at the campsite.

Evidence that trees have beencleared at the campsite.

WASTE MATERIAL

17. Remove all rubbish No evidence of waste onR.O.W. or at campsites.

Evidence that rubbish hasbeen cleaned up, but somerubbish still on R.O.W.

Little or no evidence thatrubbish has been cleaned up.

18. Recycle waste materialswhere appropriate

All waste pits audited prior tobackfill to ensure recyclablematerial not deposited.No recyclable waste presentin pits.

Evidence/records show thatrecyclable material has beenreturned to Moomba WasteManagement Depot.

No evidence/records thatrecyclable material has beenreturned to Moomba WasteManagement Depot.

Open waste pits containrecyclable materials.

19. Appropriate sewage disposal Evidence/records show thatappropriately designedsewage pits have beenconstructed.

No evidence/records ofappropriately designedsewage pits.

Open pits of waste water andsewage. Pits are not ofapproved design.

R.O.W. STABILITY

20. No erosion of the R.O.W. No evidence of erosion onR.O.W.

Minor rills or deflation formingor likely to form on R.O.W.,but unlikely to be a majorissue (<200mm deep).

Significant gully or blow-outforming or likely to form onR.O.W. (>200mm deep).


Appendix 1 iv



SHORTFALL

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

COONGIE TRACK

21. Reduce R.O.W. width to lessthan 9m

R.O.W. width reduced to 5mat track crossing.

R.O.W. width less than 9m attrack crossing.

R.O.W. width 9m at trackcrossing.

R.O.W. width greater than 9mat track crossing.

R.O.W. width greater than15m at track crossing.

22. Dog-leg R.O.W. to break line-of-sight

R.O.W. cannot be identified,except by signposts (requiredby legislation).

R.O.W. dog-legs at trackcrossing so that less than 50mis visible either side of thetrack.

R.O.W. dog-legs at trackcrossing so that less than100m is visible either side ofthe track.

R.O.W. dog-legs at trackcrossing, but 250m of R.O.W.is visible either side of thetrack.

R.O.W. does not bend attrack crossing and greaterthan 250m of R.O.W. is visibleeither side of the track.

23. Install “no access” signs todiscourage 3rd party use

"No access" signs installed200m beyond intersection.

"No access" signs notinstalled.

24. Leave vegetation on R.O.W.to conceal R.O.W.

Some trees and/or shrubshave been left on the R.O.W.to break the line-of sight.

All vegetation has beencleared from the R.O.W.

25.1 Re-establish the verge of theCoongie Track

Verge has been adequatelyre-established.

Verge has not beenadequately re-established.

25.2 Consult with NPWS regardingCoongie Track crossing

NPWS consulted regardingthe Coongie Track crossing,and satisfied witharrangements.

NPWS consulted regardingthe Coongie Track crossing,but have some concerns.

NPWS not contactedconcerning the Coongie Trackcrossing.

PASTORAL ISSUES

26.1 Repair fences to “as before”standard

Fences repaired to “as before”standard.

Fences repaired, but slightlypoorer than before (but stillstock-proof).

Fences either not repaired, orvery poorly repaired (notstock-proof).

26.2 Consult with pastoralist Pastoralist consulted, andhappy with the Project.

Pastoralist consulted, but hassome concerns.

Pastoralist not contactedconcerning the Project.


Appendix 1 v



SHORTFALL

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

FORMATION WATER

27. No visible oil on surface No visible oil in unlined ponds. Some visible oil in unlinedponds (covers <10% of thepond surface).

Significant amount of visibleoil in unlined ponds covers>25% of pond surface.

28. Achieve ANZECC guidelinesfor stock water

Water analysis does notexceed the limits specified inthe ANZECC Water QualityGuidelines for stock.

Several paramters notincluding PAHs and phenolsexceed the limits specified inthe ANZECC Water QualityGuidelines for stock.

Several parameters includingPAHs and Phenols exceedthe limits specified in theANZECC Water QualityGuidelines for stock.

29. Fence formation water pond Formation water pond isfenced.

Formation water pond is notfenced.

30. Pastoralist is satisfied witharrangements

Written evidence thatpastoralist is satisfied withwater disposal arrangements.

No written evidence thatpastoralist is satisfied withwater disposal arrangements.

Pastoralist provides writtencomplaint as to state of waterdisposal arrangements.

ABORIGINAL HERITAGE

31. Sites identified in DEF are notdisturbed

Sites identified by thearchaeological survey arerecorded, reported and remainundisturbed.

No evidence of disturbance tosites, but some proceduralrecommendations notfollowed.

There is evidence that sitesidentified by thearchaeological survey havebeen disturbed. Keyrecommendation not followed.

32. Correct protocol followed forsites discovered duringconstruction

Either no sites encountered,or records show correctprocedures were followed toavoid damage to additionalsites.

Evidence that additional siteshave been disturbed, andthere are no records ofameliorative measures havingbeen taken to avoid damage.


Appendix 1 vi



SHORTFALL

+2 +1 0 -1 -2

AUDIT

33. Submit audit to PIRSA Audit undertaken on time andsubmitted to PIRSA by duedate.

Audit undertaken andsubmitted to PIRSA weeksafter due date.

Audit undertaken andsubmitted to PIRSA greaterthan 6 weeks after due date.


Appendix 2 i

APPENDIX 2: BERRI TO MILDURA GAS PIPELINE GAS CRITERIA

Introduction

Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) is a system being trialed by Primary Industry and ResourcesSA. GAS provides a system for scoring performance against agreed goals and objectives forenvironmental management, as identified in the DEF/EER. The system is self-assessableand provides Envestra with a measure of their performance and a tool for improvement. Anindependent body, such as PIRSA or DEHAA, can also use the checklist to verify theEnvestra’s findings.

The GAS criteria are defined as follows:♦ (+2) an exceptional outcome;♦ (+1) a better-than-expected outcome;♦ (0) the expected outcome;♦ (-1) a worse-than-expected outcome; and♦ (-2) an unacceptable outcome.

The following sections outline the objectives and goals for the proposed GAS system for theBerri - Mildura Pipeline project, and Tables 1 – 3 provide the checklists and scoring criteria.

Pre - ConstructionOn - site planning

Objective 1.1 To minimise adverse effects by on-site planningGoals 1.1.1 To successfully plan on-site for issues which will be addressed during

the construction phase

ConstructionVegetation

Objective 2.1 To minimise adverse impacts to vegetationGoals 2.1.1 To limit the disturbance to significant vegetation to an accepted level

2.1.2 To contain the clearing of all native vegetation to an accepted extent

2.1.3 Appropriately control the introduction and spread of weeds

2.1.4 Maximise the potential for revegetation success

Soil

Objective 2.2 To minimise adverse impacts to soilGoals 2.2.1 To limit soil erosion to an acceptable standard

2.2.2 To limit soil contamination

2.2.3 To appropriately control soil compaction

Fauna

Objective 2.3 To minimise adverse impacts to faunaGoals 2.3.1 To reduce habitat disturbance to an acceptable level

2.3.2 To adequately protect fauna from physical harm


Appendix 2 ii

2.3.3 To provide appropriate protection against disturbance to the individualanimal

Water (Surface / Subsurface)

Objective 2.4 To minimise adverse impacts to waterGoals 2.4.1 To appropriately protect water quality

2.4.2 To avoid significant effects to the hydrological regimes

Air

Objective 2.5 To minimise adverse impacts on air qualityGoals 2.5.1 To achieve acceptable air emission standards

Landuse

Objective 2.6 To minimise adverse impacts to landuseGoals 2.6.1 To adequately protect farm productivity

2.6.2 To prevent significant adverse effects on stock

2.6.3 To avoid unacceptable disturbances to land owner assets andinfrastructure

2.6.4 To contain disturbance to recreational activities to acceptable levels

2.6.5 To adequately protect conservation issues

2.6.6 To avoid adverse effects to infrastructure

Public Risk

Objective 2.7 To minimise the risks to public health and safetyGoals 2.7.1 To adequately protect public safety

2.7.2 To adequately reduce the likelihood of fire

Public Amenity

Objective 2.8 To minimise impact on public amenityGoals 2.8.1 To contain noise emissions to an acceptable level

2.8.2 To have a limited effect on visual amenity

Cultural Heritage

Objective 2.9 To minimise impact on cultural heritageGoals 2.9.1 To adequately protect sites of Aboriginal significance

2.9.2 To avoid unacceptable adverse effects to cultural heritage values


Appendix 2 iii

Post - Construction and OperationsOperations

Objective 3.1 To minimise the impacts associated with access during operationGoals 3.1.1 To provide appropriate access to monitor the operation of the pipeline

3.1.2 To successfully deter public access using appropriate measures

Vegetation

Objective 3.2 To promote and maintain the regrowth of vegetationGoals 3.2.1 To undertake all appropriate revegetation strategies

3.2.2 To successfully replace all stockpiled vegetation

3.2.3 To ensure that the right-of-way remains free of weeds

Soil

Objective 3.3 To promote and maintain the original state of the soilGoals 3.3.1 To ensure that there is no alteration of the surface soil

3.3.2 To ensure that there is no erosion on the right-of-way

3.3.3 To ensure that ripping has occurred in the appropriate areas

Water

Objective 3.4 To promote and maintain water drainage patternsGoals 3.4.1 To ensure that there is no evidence of altered drainage patterns

Infrastructure

Objective 3.5 To promote and maintain the original state of the infrastructureGoals 3.5.1 To ensure that the landowners are satisfied with the restoration of the

relevant infrastructure

3.5.2 To ensure that the public are satisfied with the restoration of therelevant infrastructure

Waste

Objective 3.6 To manage all Post construction and Operational wastes in anappropriate manner

Goals 3.6.1 To ensure that all wastes are removed from the site and, in order,reused, recycled or appropriately disposed

3.6.2 To conduct all activities in a manner that reduces the production ofwaste


Appendix 2 iv

Table 1: Goal Attainment Scaling - Berri to Mildura Natural Gas Pipeline - Pre Construction‘Most’ means ≥ 75%; ‘Some’ means 25% - 75%Goals Parameter +2 +1 0 -1 -2

1.1.1 Written evidence ofon-site planning

All on-site planningissues have beenconsidered andaddressed anddocumented.

Most on-siteplanning issues havebeen considered andaddressed.

Written evidence thatall critical / highpriority planningissues have beenconsidered andaddressed.

Some on-site planningissues have beenconsidered andaddressed, with verbalrather than writtenevidence available.

No evidence that on-siteplanning has occurred.

Procedures All comprehensiveprocedures aredeveloped andappropriatelydocumented

All critical proceduresand mostcomprehensiveprocedures aredeveloped anddocumented.

No comprehensivedocuments have beendeveloped or documented.

Training . All of the workforcehas beenappropriately trainedand are aware ofissues and procedurerequirements

Some of the workforcehas been trained and areaware of some of theissues and procedurerequirements.

None of the workforce hasbeen trained or are awareof the issues and procedurerequirements.


Appendix 2 v

Table 2: Goal Attainment Scaling - Berri to Mildura Natural Gas Pipeline – Construction‘Most’ or ‘majority’ means ≥ 75%; ‘Some’ or ‘part’ or ‘occasional’ means 25% - 75%Goals Parameter +2 +1 0 -1 -2

2.1.1 Significantvegetation

All significantvegetation avoidedas identified insection 7.3 of theDEF/EER.

Whereverpracticable, areas ofsignificantvegetation have beenavoided

Few key species ofsignificant vegetation areavoided.

Right-of-way Right-of-way doesnot exceed 10m forthe entire section ofsensitive vegetationas adhered to inSection 7.3 of theDEF/EER.

Right-of-way does notexceed 10m for most ofthe section of sensitivevegetation.

Right-of-way does exceed10m of most of the sectionof sensitive vegetation.

2.1.2 Native vegetation No disturbance toany nativevegetation.

Key species andremnant stands ofvegetation, asidentified in section7.3 of the DEF/EERare avoided.

Remnant vegetation andisolated trees are cleared.

Trimming versusclearing

All significant treesare recorded, flaggedand left standing.

All significant treesare recorded, flaggedand trimmed ifessential, no trees arecleared.

Trees of significance,as identified in 7.3 ofthe DEF/EER arerecorded, flaggedand trimmed, andinsignificant trees arecleared.

Some trees are recorded,flagged and trimmed,but most trees ofsignificance have beencleared.

All trees are cleared, norecording, flagging andtrimming has occurred.

Right-of-way All activities arerestricted to theright-of-way, with noevidence of activitiesoff of the right-of-way.

Right-of-way wasadhered to for mostof the route, withminimal evidence ofactivities off of theright-of-way.

Right-of-way wasadhered to for some ofthe route.

Right-of-way was notadhered to for thesignificant sections of theroute.


Appendix 2 vi

Goals Parameter +2 +1 0 -1 -2

2.1.3 Weed control All vehicles andequipment fromareas known to haveweeds are washed /blown down beforeentering or leavingthe site, andappropriate recordsare kept.

Some vehicles andequipment are washed /blown down beforeentering or leaving thesite, and some recordsare kept.

No vehicles or equipmentare washed / blown down,with no evidence of recordskept.

Extent of weeddistribution

Cleared areas aremonitored and thereis no need for weedcontrol methods asinfestation hasn’toccurred due tosuccessfulmanagement.

Cleared areas aremonitored regularlyand weed controlmeasures areimplemented, andrecorded.

Cleared areas areregularly inspectedand appropriateweed controlmeasures areimplemented.

Cleared areas areoccasionally inspected,with limited controlmeasures implemented.

Cleared areas are notinspected.

2.1.4 Respreadvegetation.

The stockpiledvegetation has beenreplaced to thecorrect locationalong the right-of-way.

Stockpiledvegetation wasrespread on themajority of the right-of-way, whereapplicable.

Stockpiled vegetationwas respread on part ofthe right-of-way.

No stockpiling ofvegetation occurred. Noevidence of respreadingvegetation.

Respread topsoil Topsoil has beenrespread in all areas,including the right-of-way and allsensitive areas.

Topsoil has beenrespread for most ofthe right-of-way buthas been respread inall sensitive areas (asper section 7.3 of theDEF/EER).

Topsoil has beenrespread on some of theright-of-way, and onsome sensitive areas.

No topsoil has beenrespread in any area,including no areas ofsensitivity.


Appendix 2 vii


Rootstock All stationaryvehicles remained inthe designated right-of-way boundariesand adhered to alltracks.

Rootstock ispreservedthroughout alldesignated areas.

A limited number ofstationary vehicleslocated outside of thedesignated right-of-way boundaries, andon some tracks. Mostrootstock has beenpreserved in thedesignated areas.

Most stationary vehicleslocated outside of thedesignated right-of-wayboundaries, and off of mostof the tracks. Rootstock hasbeen destroyed in mostareas.

Compaction

(See Soil 2. 2.3)

2.2.1 Topsoil All topsoil has beenstockpiled, andcovered.

All soil is stockpiledand stored in safeareas, away from anysubstances such asoil, fuel etc, withdust appropriatelymanaged.

Most soil has beenstockpiled, and stored insafe areas.

Some soil has beenstockpiled but soil is storedclose to substances such asoil and fuel, withoutcovering. No dustmanagement methods havebeen employed.

Erosion controlstructures

All appropriateerosion controlberms and drainswere installed,inspected andmaintained andrepaired if necessary.

Erosion controlberms and drainswere installed at themajority of the sites,and are monitoredand maintained.Records are keptregarding erosioncontrol structures.

Limited measures weretaken to install arestricted number ofcontrol berms and / ordrains, with minimalinspection ormaintenance. Somerecords were kept.

No measures were taken toinstall any erosion controlberms or drains at any sites.No records were kept.


Appendix 2 viii


Disturbance to soil. All tracks are usedunder anycircumstance, withno unnecessarydisturbance to anysite.

Most tracks areutilised for themajority of the time,with minimaldisturbance at sites.

Tracks are utilisedwhere possible, withonly the requiredamount ofdisturbanceoccurring.

Occasional use of tracks, with occasionaldisturbance which couldhave been avoided.

No tracks have beenutilised, with excessiveamounts of grounddisturbance.

Exposure Soil exposure timeswere minimalbetween clearing andrestoration activities.

The period betweeninitial clearing andrestoration was threeweeks for a givenkilometre.

The period betweeninitial clearing andrestoration was fourweeks for a givenkilometre.

The period between initialclearing and restorationwas six weeks for a givenkilometre.

Clearing

(see vegetation)

2.2.2 Hazardousconsumables suchas cleaningsolvents, primerand toxic goods

Any hazardousconsumables arestored and emptycontainers disposedof appropriately.

Hazardous consumableshave not been storedappropriately and emptycontainers were notdisposed of appropriately.

Hydrostatic testwater

Water quality isacceptable fordisposal.Appropriateapprovals areobtained and recordsare kept.

Water quality isunacceptable. Theappropriate approvals werenot obtained and there areno records kept.

Storage of soil

(see topsoil 2.2.1)


Appendix 2 ix


Vehiclemaintenance

All vehicles areregularly checkedand maintained toavoid contaminationof soil fromsubstances from thevehicles.

Most vehicles arechecked andmaintained whenpossible.

The vehicles are notchecked and have exposedsubstances such as oil,coolant etc, resulting incontamination to the soil.

2.2.3 Tracks All tracks are usedunder anycircumstance.

Most tracks areutilised for themajority of the time.

Tracks are utilisedwhere possible.

Occasional use of tracks. No tracks have beenutilised.

2.3.1 Habitat All measures havebeen taken to avoidevery feeding,roosting andbreeding ground ofsignificance.

No significantfeeding, roosting orbreeding grounds, asidentified in section7.3 of the DEF/EERhave been disturbedor cleared.

Clearance of somesignificant feeding, roostingor breeding grounds hasoccurred.

Vermin Putrescible wastessuch as foodstuffsare transported tothe relevant localauthority.

Putrescible wasteshave beentransported awayfrom the site anddisposed ofadequately.

Putrescible wastes are left atthe site and are attractingvermin.

2.3.2 Physical harm Allocation of asupervisory positionto closely monitorthe filling process atthe pipeline, whilstoccurring.

Duty allocated to astaff member tomonitor the fillingprocess at thepipeline whilstoccurring.

General checking forentrapment ofanimals immediatelyprior to backfill

Sporadic checking of thebackfill at a later periodin time.

No monitoring of thebackfilling process hasoccurred, resulting inentrapment of animals.


Appendix 2 x


2.3.3 Disturbance to theindividual animal

All noise, lights andpeople are restrictedfrom areas withknown significanthabitat value.

There is minimalnoise, lights andpeople in the areas ofknown significantvalue for restrictedperiods of time.

There is limitednoise, lights andpeople in areas ofknown significanthabitat value asidentified in section7.3 of the DEF/EER.

Noise, lights and peopleare unavoidably in areasknown for theirsignificant habitat

Noise lights and people arein areas of knownsignificant habitats forextended periods of time.

2.4.1 Contamination The water qualityhas remainedunaltered during theconstruction phase.

Management of soils,storage of chemicalsand containment ofoils are sufficient tohalt any leachinginto any of the watersources.

There has been somesilt, chemicals and /oroils introduced in thewater supply.

Soils have made their wayinto the water supply in theform of silt; chemicals havebeen introduced into thewater supply, as has oil.

Water quality

See Dust(2.5.1)

2.4.2 Water quantity Watercourses havebeen unaltered.

Some structures havebeen installed whichare not restricting thenatural flow ofwater.

There has been a limitedamount of structuresinstalled to alter thedirectional flow of thewater

The directional flow ofwater has been drasticallychanged with adverseeffects resulting down theflow.

2.5.1 Dust Watering hasoccurred at not onlythe stockpiles, but toany areas’ of threatto wind erosion.

Covering of all soilstockpiles hasoccurred, andwatering of mostareas of threat towind erosion havebeen watered.

Water has beenapplied to exposedsoil, of significantquality, andstockpiled soil hasbeen watered orcovered

Limited water has beenapplied to exposed soil,and stockpiled soil hashad minimal amounts ofwatering or covering,with a limited amountof dust the result.

No water has been appliedto exposed soil, and nostockpiled soil has beenwater or covered, resultingin excessive dust.


Appendix 2 xi


Dust suppressionmethods wereemployed at alltimes and work washalted under adverseweather conditions.

Adequate dustsuppression methodswere employed at alltimes, which resultedin the continuationof constructionduring adverseweather conditions.

No dust suppressionmethods were employed.

Vehicles All vehicles travelledunder theappropriate speedson all of thedesignated trackswith no productionof dust.

All vehicles travelledat the designatedspeeds, with themajority being on thedesignated tracks.

The majority ofvehicles travelled atthe appropriatespeeds, on all of thedesignated tracksresulting in minimaldust. No anecdotalevidence orwarnings issued.

Some vehicles travelledoutside of thedesignated tracks, andabove the designatedspeeds. Some anecdotalevidence and warningsissued to employees.

All of the vehicles travelledoutside of the designatedtracks and above thedesignated speeds resultingin excessive dustproduction. Speedingtickets were issued to one ormore employees

Vehicle emissions(See Vehiclemaintenance 2.2.2)

2.6.1 Width ofdisturbance

The agreed uponwidth of disturbanceto farming land hasbeen abided by forthe majority of theareas

The agreed upon widthof disturbance tofarming land has beenexceeded for some of theright-of-way

The agreed upon width ofdisturbance to farming landhas been exceeded for all ofthe right-of-way.

Erosion No farming land hasbeen eroded due tothe constructionphase.

Most of farming landhas not been erodeddue to theconstruction phase.

Some farming land hasnot been eroded as aresult of theconstruction phase

The majority of farmingland has been eroded as aresult of the constructionphase.


Appendix 2 xii


Topsoil All valuable topsoilhas been stockpiled,covered or water tostop erosion.

Most of the topsoilhas been stockpiled,with some coveringor watering to halterosion.

No topsoil has beenstockpiled, and left todissipate.

2.6.2 Farmers needs The agreed farmersneeds have beenappropriately met,such as opening gateprocedures and themovement of stocketc.

The agreed farmers needshave not been met andthere has been a loss ofstock.

2.6.3 Private assets andinfrastructure

No damage hasoccurred to theassets and / orinfrastructure of thelandowners.

If damage hasoccurred, repairs areconsidered assatisfactory from thelandowner.

Slight damage hasoccurred to the assetsand / or infrastructureof the landowner, butrepairs are madeimmediately.

Damage has occurred to thelandowner assets and / orinfrastructure, with norepairs attempted.

2.6.4 Recreation Recreationalactivities were ableto continue and noreports ofexperiences beingdiminished wererecorded.

Recreationalactivities have notbeen significantlydiminished.

Recreationalactivities may havebeen altered, withminimal experiencesbeing diminished,and one to tworeports recorded.

Recreational experienceswere altered, and theexperiences wereunsatisfactory, with lessthan five reports beingrecorded.

Recreational activities havehad to be abandoned, withmany reports beingrecorded.


Appendix 2 xiii


2.6.5 Conservation Conservation valueshave been increased.

No degradation ofconservation values.

No significantadverse effect onconservation valuesin project area asidentified in section7.3 of the DEF/EERas there has beenlimitedfragmentation ofhabitat, and nodisturbing of wildlifecorridors.

Slight adverse effect onconservation values,with somefragmentation of habitatand some destruction ofwildlife corridors.

Significant adverse effectson conservation values,including fragmentation ofhabitat and destruction ofhabitats.

2.6.6 Publicinfrastructure

All structures areprotected andmaintained, withsome improvementsmade to pre-existinginfrastructure.

All procedures toprotect publicinfrastructure arefollowed, and nodamage hasoccurred.

Some protection hasbeen given to significantinfrastructure only.

No structures have beeninstalled to protect currentinfrastructure.

2.7.1 Public safety The public is wellinformed and able torecognise theconstruction site, andremain completelysafe.

Appropriateprocedures havebeen followed toprotect the safety ofthe public, such assign posting etc, andno injuries to thepublic haveoccurred.

Some key public safetyissues have beenintroduced.

No public safety procedureshave been followed, withreports of injuries to thepublic.

2.7.2 Fires All staff are trainedin fire safetyprocedures and areactively involved inreducing thelikelihood of fire.

All precautions havebeen taken to reducethe likelihood of fireat the site, resultingin no fires.

No precautions have beentaken to protect the publicfrom the treat of fire, withoperations resulting in abushfire.


Appendix 2 xiv


2.8.1 Noise emissions Constructionactivities complywith noiseregulations asreferred to in section7.8 of the DEF/EERand additional noisecontrol measureshave been employed.

Constructionactivities complywith the noiseregulations asaddressed in section7.8 of the DEF/EER.There are no reportsof complaintsreceived.

Some constructionactivities comply withthe noise regulations asaddressed in section 7.8of the DEF/EER, butthere has been one ormore complaints filed.

None of the constructionequipment complies withthe noise regulations andstatutory requirements havenot been met as addressedin section 7.8 of theDEF/EER, with numerouscomplaints filed.

2.8.2 Waste Waste is removedfrom the site on aregular basis, and isrestricted from viewwhilst waiting forremoval.

Structures have beenput in place toinhibit the view ofthe waste stockpiles.

Waste is stockpiledaway from nearbyresidents and majorroads.

Residents have arestricted view of thewaste stockpile fromtheir dwellings and theroadside.

Residents are clearly able tosee the waste stockpilesfrom their dwelling and theroadside.

Vegetation No vegetation wasremoved, and arevegetationprogram is in placefor the site.

Limited vegetationwas removed, withrevegetationprograms in placefor the site.

Most vegetation,which provided asignificant level ofvisual amenity, hasnot been removed,and a revegetationprogram will becommencing.

Some key vegetationwas unavoidablyremoved, and arevegetation programmay begin.

The majority of vegetationproviding a level of visualamenity was removed, andno revegetation programwill be occurring.

Line of site The entire line of siteis reduced to theminimum practicablethrough all visuallysensitive areas asdefined in section 7.9of the DEF/EER.

Most of the line of site isreduced to theminimum practicablethrough all visuallysensitive areas.

Some of the line of site isreduced to the minimumpracticable through mostvisually sensitive areas.


Appendix 2 xv


2.9.1 Aboriginal Sites There has been noimpact to anyAboriginal sites.

Impact to sites isavoided inaccordance withrequirements of theAboriginalcommunity

There has been someimpact to sites, but theAboriginal communityhas been notified.

Impact to sites hasoccurred, and theAboriginal community hasnot been consulted.

2.9.2 Cultural Heritage All listed heritagesites are avoided.

Some listed heritagesites are disturbedunder appropriateapproval.

Most listed heritage sitesare damaged or altered.

Table 3: Goal Attainment Scaling - Berri to Mildura Natural Gas Pipeline - Post Construction‘Most’ or ‘majority’ means ≥ 75%; ‘Some’ or ‘part’ means 25% - 75%Goals Parameter +2 +1 0 -1 -2

3.1.1 Access All access isrestricted toapproved tracks.

Most of the access isrestricted to approvedtracks, and permissionis granted by thelandowners for use ofprivate roads.

Access tracks have not beenused for a significant lengthof the line and / or insensitive areas.

3.1.2 Public access Appropriatedeterrents to accessare in place and publicaccess is appropriatelyrestricted or kept toacceptable levels asreferred to in section4.2 of the EMP).

Some measures havebeen taken to deter thepublic, with minimalaccess.

No appropriate measureshave been taken to deterthe public, and publicaccess is excessive.

3.2.1 Rehabilitation

(In first growingseason)

There is a largeamount of healthynative vegetationand pasture.

There is evidence ofregrowth of mostnative vegetation andof most pasture.

There are signs thatregrowth is occurring ofsome native vegetationand / or of somepasture.

There is no evidence thatnative vegetation orpasture is regrowing.


Appendix 2 xvi


3.2.2 Stockpiledvegetation

(See respreadingvegetation 2.1.4)

3.2.3 Weeds

(2 months after)

No noxious weeds onthe right-of-way.

Noxious weeds areevident on somepatches within theright-of-way.

Noxious weeds are evidenton the majority of the right-of-way.

Weeds

(2 years after)

No noxious weedsevident on right-of-way and the site ofconstruction.

Noxious weeds areevident on some of theright-of-way andthroughout some of thesite of construction.

Excessive amounts ofweeds are evident on theentire site of construction.

3.3.1 Windrows Surface contours areindistinguishable tothe surroundingenvironment.

No windrowsassociated with thepipeline are evident.

There is evidence of anattempt to removewindrows from theedges of the right-of -way.

There is no evidence of anyattempt to remove thewindrows from the edgesof the right-of-way.

Subsidence There is no subsidenceevident on pipe trenchor sensitive areas.

Subsidence is evidenton some sections of thepipe trench or sensitiveareas.

Subsidence is evident onnumerous or extensivesections of the pipe trenchor sensitive areas.

3.3.2 Erosion There is no evidenceof soil erosion in anypreviously disturbedareas.

There is some evidenceof erosion in some of thepreviously disturbedareas.

There is excessive levels oferosion in most previouslydisturbed areas

3.3.3 Ripping All compacted areashave been ripped inan appropriatemanner.

Most compacted areashave been ripped inan appropriatemanner.

No compacted areas havebeen ripped.

3.4.1 Subsidence

(See Soil 3.3.1)


Appendix 2 xvii


Drainage Surface drainage isnot impeded oraltered in anysections.

Surface drainage is notimpeded or altered inthe Lyrup Forest andState Forest west ofKoorlong and to alimited extent in otherareas.

Surface drainage isimpeded or altered in theLyrup Forest and/or StateForest west of Koorlong, ornumerous sections.

3.5.1 Private Written evidencethat the landowneris satisfied with therestoration ofinfrastructure.

Verbal evidence thatthe landowner issatisfied withrestoration ofinfrastructure.

No written or verbalevidence thatlandowner is satisfiedwith the restoration ofthe infrastructure.

Written evidence that thelandowner is unsatisfiedwith the restoration of theinfrastructure.

3.5.2 Public Written evidencethat the public issatisfied with therestoration of theinfrastructure

No complaints fromthe public.

Written public complaintsregarding the restoration ofthe infrastructure.

3.6.1 Waste removal All construction wastehas been removedfrom the site, and isreused, recycled ordisposed of.

Minor constructionwaste is evident on theright-of-way.

A significant amount ofwaste remains on the site orin sensitive areas.

3.6.2 Activities All activities areconducted in such amanner to minimisewaste.

Some activities areconducted are in such amanner to minimisemost waste.

Activities are conducted insuch a manner resulting inwaste.

title: goal attainment scaling: a tool for evaluating pipeline...

Documents