Infrastructure Canberra
Stage2BEIS@act.gov.au

Re. Light Rail to Woden: Stage 2B draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS202400003)

Friends of Grasslands (FOG) is a community group dedicated to the conservation of grassy ecosystems in south-eastern Australia - natural temperate grasslands and grassy woodlands. FOG advocates, educates and advises on matters to do with the conservation of these ecosystems, and carries out surveys and on-ground work. FOG is based in Canberra and its members include professional scientists, landowners, land managers and interested members of the public.

FOG has considered the draft EIS solely within our interest base of avoiding further loss of key biodiversity in the ACT. Attachment A represents our summary of the Project’s avoidance measures, by conservation value, noting the quantum of avoidance of native vegetation.

FOG is concerned about the degree of impact the Project will have on: Superb Parrots’ flight path, and our concern is exacerbated by the small number of breeding birds that are in the ACT; Gang-gang Cockatoos’ nesting habitat; and on the small fragmented populations of Golden Sun Moth in the National Triangle. We support the detailed concern expressed about impacts to birds in the submission of the Conservation Council ACT Region.

If the decision is taken to proceed with this development, then we recommend the following:

1. Further consideration be given to avoid direct impacts to threatened species and important habitat (e.g. mature trees).
2. The two routes are both going to impact biodiversity and FOG, while recognising one option is slightly more destructive, has no opinion on which to follow.
3. If the light rail development is to proceed:

a)       We are very disappointed the ACT Government has elected to prepare a strategy for providing an offset in the future when it could have acted to deliver an offset in advance.

b)      We nevertheless support the proposals in the Biodiversity Offsets Strategy to mitigate and manage direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity.  Development and full adherence to a management plan is key to minimise biodiversity impacts of the Light Rail construction and use, with heavy fines imposed if in breach.

c)       FOG supports the establishment of averted loss offsets in this case. Despite what is written in the report, we believe suitable offsets do occur in the ACT, directly adjacent to the areas to be destroyed. We urge that offsets be established in in ACT as close as possible to this area to provide or improve viable habitat and breeding options for the birds and for Golden Sun Moth. Full consideration should be given to protecting habitat in perpetuity and restoring surrounding woodland and grassland, including on:

• National Land within the State Circle woodland, Gurubung Dhaura (Stirling Park Woodland), Guilfoyle St Grasslands and Yarramundi Grasslands; and
• Territory Land at Bullan Mura (adjacent to Gurubung Dhaura).

d)      If these adjacent areas do not meet the criteria for the metrics, other suitable sites in the ACT may be on other unleased land, for example, historical Travelling Stock Reserves at Hall, Paddys River, or Kowen.

Comments on the deficiencies of the Biodiversity Offset Strategy and its metrics are in Attachment B.

FOG is willing to meet with Umwelt and the ACT Government to discuss our thoughts on potential sites in the ACT that could be used to offset the conservation losses.

Yours sincerely

SIGNED

Professor Jamie Pittock
President, Friends of Grasslands
5 September 2025

---

Attachment A: Summary of Avoidance Measures

FOG’s summary of avoidance measures, by conservation value, including quantum of avoidance of native vegetation follows. Note these are not cumulative areas, as there is overlap of habitat:

• 15.4 ha (72.9%) or 15.98 ha (75.7%) of native vegetation, as defined under the NC Act, in the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options, respectively.
• Natural temperate grassland 0.51 ha (100%) of EPBC Act and NC Act listed natural temperate grassland in the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options.
• Golden sun moth up to 8.11 ha (45.1%) or 8.39 ha (46.6%) of potential golden sun moth habitat in the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options, respectively.
• Gang-gang cockatoo 14.88 ha (72.5%) or 15.46 (75.3%) of potential gang gang cockatoo foraging habitat in the State Circle East and National Triangle Barton alignment options, respectively. Additionally both alignment options would avoid up to 81 suitable breeding trees.
• Superb parrot 14.88 ha (72.5%) or 15.46 (75.3%) of potential superb parrot foraging habitat in the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options, respectively.
• Swift parrot three potential suitable foraging trees in both the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options.
• Diamond firetail 14.88 ha (72.5%) or 15.46 (75.3%) of potential diamond firetail habitat in the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options, respectively.
• Perunga grasshopper 0.51 ha (100%) of potential Perunga grasshopper habitat in both the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options.
• Canberra raspy cricket 0.51 ha (100%) of potential Canberra raspy cricket habitat in both the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options.
• Key’s matchstick grasshopper 0.51 ha (100%) of potential Key’s matchstick grasshopper habitat in both the State Circle East and National Triangle – Barton alignment options.

---

Attachment B: Comments on Appendix E Biodiversity Offset Strategy to the Light Rail Stage 2B, Technical Report 2 – Biodiversity Final May 2025.

1.    The DCCEEW EIS Guidelines gave the ACT Government the option of preparing an Offset Management Strategy or an Offset Management Plan.^[1] The ACT Government has elected to prepare a strategy. As noted in the submission, FOG is very disappointed the ACT Government has elected to prepare a strategy for providing an offset in the future when it could have acted to deliver an offset in advance.^[2]

It is almost certain an approval will be granted for this proposal. With so much known about the impacts of the preferred option, an advanced offset would have avoided a time lag between the loss of habitat for protected matters and the eventual delivery of promised compensation years if not decades later. Acting early would have ensured the proposal would be permitted to commence on or soon after its approval.

Given the ACT Government’s choice, to minimise the time lag, our view is construction should not be allowed to commence until a suitable like for like averted loss offset site(s) has been selected in the ACT, protected and is under active management.

2.    Section 5.1, para 2 states “Establishing offset site(s) in the ACT is contingent on the availability of land that supports the required species’ habitat features (consistent with like for like requirements) …’.

Agreed. Establishing an offset site in NSW should also be contingent on the offset containing foraging and/or breeding habitat values cleared at the impact site, and any offset should be used/highly likely to be used by the relevant MNES. Therefore, suitable offsets for these species may be unable to be co-located.

3.    Section 5.1.1.1 states ‘The offset strategy would also include an indirect offset component, including revegetating with preferred superb parrot foraging and moving species in the Project area and the collection of superb parrot flight altitude data, noting that direct offsets must account for at least 90% of the offset calculations’.

What are ‘moving species’, and how do they differ to foraging species? We question whether these proposed measures are indirect offsets. Revegetating portions of the project area is a direct offset and its contribution to the total direct offset should be assessed by the DCCEEW^[3] using the offset assessment guide (OAG).

Collecting Superb Parrot flight altitude data is not a listed priority project in the national recovery plan, and therefore should not be an indirect offset. Instead, such studies should be undertaken by the ACTG to assess the potential impact of further light rail project stages.

4.    Section 5.2 states ‘This option would include the purchase of species credits to be retired in accordance with the NSW BOS’ and ‘As a contingency measure where offsets cannot be directly retired from a biodiversity stewardship site, the offset package would instead be delivered through payment into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund (BCF)’.

Use of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme should be avoided. The Audit Office of New South Wales reported in August 2022 that:

• the Biodiversity Conservation Trust’s (the Trust) implementation of the Scheme lacked safeguards against potential conflicts, creating risks to credit supply;
• effectiveness of its implementation has also been limited; and
• a number of factors create a risk that biodiversity gains made through the Scheme will not be sufficient to offset losses resulting from development.

Payments should not be made into the Biodiversity Conservation Fund (BCF), as there is little/no evidence those payments will be used to retire credits. Since March 2025, the BC Act requires the Trust to apply money in the BCF to retire a like-for-like biodiversity credit or another type of biodiversity credit provided for in the variation rules or apply an equivalent amount of money to secure other appropriate biodiversity offsets.^[4] The meaning of these options is unclear and, given the Trust’s performance to date, it is highly likely the Trust will fail to secure suitable offsets.

The Trust must apply money in relation to a BCF offset biodiversity credit within three years after the offset amount of the credit was paid into the BCF – however the Trust’s capacity to acquire credits for superb parrot and gang-gang cockatoo breeding and foraging habitat must be first assured by the BCF before this option is acceptable.

We believe full consideration be given to procuring offsets within the ACT, and have confidence that offset sites occur within or adjacent to the National Triangle.

5.    Section 6.1.1 Metrics states ‘The parameters used to determine the habitat quality score for superb parrot habitat are based on three site characteristics as defined in Figure 6.1: site condition, site context and species stocking rate. Parameters selected are discussed in detail below’.

Similar metrics/parameters are made in respect to the gang-gang cockatoo (Section 6.2.1).

We are concerned the metrics proposed for superb parrot and gang-gang cockatoo habitat quality are unsuitable for scoring habitat quality and specifying offset completion criteria based on the future quality with offset. This is because, as presented, they are not quantifiable measurements. Rather, the proposed ‘metrics’ include ambiguous ‘rationale’ for multiple key quality scores, for example a score of:

• 2 is given for ‘Moderate numbers of superb parrots observed and high frequency of use’ (Table 6.5).

This rationale is undefined, with no threshold values for ‘numbers’ or ‘frequency’, or timeframes/circumstances for surveying. Therefore, its interpretation by different assessors, at different times and under different seasonal circumstances, may result in scoring from 1 to 3; and

• 2 is given for ‘Medium species diversity’ (Table 6.3). This rationale is also undefined, with no upper or low thresholds for ‘diversity’, and its interpretation will result in scoring from 1 to 3.

We are also concerned that seasonal variability will mean impact and offset sites are not using the ‘metrics’ assessed under the same circumstances. Seasonal and inter-annual variability means that the ‘scores’ for the paired sites are not comparable if the surveys are conducted in different seasons or years. This could skew the results in a manner that, in relative terms:

• discounts the impact site habitat quality, therefore lowering the offset site quality requirements and reducing the ACTG’s offset obligation; and
• undervalues the offset site, making it easier to demonstrate, in a subsequently more favourable season or following a series of suitable seasons, the claimed raw gain in habitat quality.

Other concerns with the proposed ‘metrics’ include that:

• a 0 score for connectivity, threats or species stocking rate should mean the site is not a suitable offset;
• it is unclear how a total habitat quality score of 0-10, for use in the Offset Assessment Guide by DCCEEW, will be derived from scores for site condition, site context and species stocking rate. For example, does species stocking rate represent 3/10 or 4/10, and will a 1/10 score derived for site condition have the same value to the species as a 1/10 score derived for species stocking rate?
• it is unclear why, in Table 6.1, for the purpose of species conservation, that a patch meeting the definition of the ACT PCT 16 Eucalyptus melliodora – E. blakelyi Tableland Grassy Woodland that do not meet the listing criteria of EPBC Act BGW or NC Act BGW, but which support a canopy that includes native superb parrot foraging and moving species scores less than a patch of EPBC Act BGW and NC Act BGW with mature canopy trees present?
• there is a risk the ‘metrics’ double count key site characteristics, unintentionally skewing the score to realise a lower value to the species. For example, weediness is accounted for in Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.4. Double counting a factor in this way has potential to discount the impact site value, and amplify the raw gain without a proportionate benefit to the species.

Ambiguous rationales for habitat quality parameters potentially prejudice conservation gains, and enable the offset calculator to be controlled and ‘gamed’ to minimise offset obligations by:

• undervaluing the impact site quality and the offset site start quality;
• overstating future quality with offset, and therefore the raw gain; and
• minimising the time to ecological benefit.

An actual case study of known impact and offset sites should be provided to develop and evaluate revised metrics. This way, the proponent must demonstrate how the process is robust, precautionary and can be relied upon to provide a conservation gain for the impacted species.

6.    Section 6.4.2 Offset ‘End Point’. Please commit to the offset completion criteria being derived from the future quality with offset value and constituent ‘metrics’, and that:

• the measurable characteristics of the future quality/metrics will be achieved no later than the proposed time to ecological benefit; and
• the offset monitoring program will be capable of detecting whether those characteristics have been attained by the time to ecological benefit, and maintained for the period of EPBC Act approval of the light rail project.

If the proposal is approved and proceeds, we consider its impact will be permanent, not “in the order of 30+ years”.[5]

Consistent with stated intentions of governments at both the Federal and ACT level, for nature positive outcomes, we consider the offset gains must endure for the period of impacts at the impact site, i.e., permanently.

---

[1] https://epbcpublicportal.environment.gov.au/_entity/sharepointdocumentlocation/494ef89a-744d-ef11-a316-00224810f0ef/2ab10dab-d681-4911-b881-cc99413f07b6?file=2023-09753-Draft-EIS-Guidelines.pdf, p. 24

[2] https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/epbc/publications/policy-statement-advanced-environmental-offsets-under-epbc-act

[3] NB the Offsets Policy states ‘The Offsets assessment guide is a tool that has been developed for expert users in the department to assess the suitability of offset proposal. The guide is also available to proponents to assist with planning for future development proposals and estimating future offset requirements.’

[4] https://www.sparke.com.au/insights/biodiversity-conservation-amendment-biodiversity-offsets-scheme-act-2024-nsw/

[5] Light Rail Stage 2B Technical Report 2 - Biodiversity FINAL, p. 462