DRYSDALE LANDFILL COMMUNITY CONSULTATION GROUP MEETING

Meeting #4

Tuesday 14 March 2017 6.30pm – 8.30pm

Springdale Neighbourhood Centre, High Street, Drysdale

Facilitator: Jen Lilburn

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING:

·  The purpose of the meeting is to reconfirm the Terms of Reference for DLCCG and discuss issues associated with the Drysdale Landfill and Resource Recovery Centre.

OUTLINE OF MEETING

  1. Welcome/Attendance/Apologies

2. DLCCG Terms of Reference

·  Confirmation of Intent, Purpose, Code of Conduct and Membership

  1. Environmental Risk Management and Monitoring

·  EPA Summary (EPA Victoria)

·  Frederick Mason’s Creek Catchment Sediment Analysis: update

·  Partnership Opportunities

  1. Operations Update

·  Stage 2 Cell 6

·  Cell 5

·  Site supervisor

  1. Capital Works Update

·  Leachate to sewer link

·  Stormwater Diversion

  1. Strategic Projects Update

·  Quarry investigation

·  Infrastructure Strategy

·  Future Waste Management Strategy

  1. Outstanding Actions

8. Close

·  Next Meeting

______

PRESENT

Community / Chris Lean (Tuckerberry Hill) , David Lean (Tuckerberry Hill), Fiona Conroy (Victorian Farmers Federation), Tom O’Connor (Committee for Bellarine), Peter Kronborg (Committee for Bellarine), Rosalind Ellinger (Bellarine Landcare and Victorian Famers Federation), Rhonda Briscoe, Kate Lockhart (Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association and Bellarine Landcare), Neil McGuinness (Drysdale Clifton Springs Community Association), Robert Quayle, Helen Woods, Lewis Rowell, Vicki Perrett (Geelong Sustainability Group), David Harris (Geelong Sustainability Group), Patrick Coutin, Ross Gulliver
City of Greater Geelong (CoGG) / David Neil, Shane Middleton, Rod Thomas, Dave McNamara, William Tieppo
Others / EPA Victoria: Ben Poole, Carolyn Francis
Statewide River and Stream Management Pty Ltd: Graeme Christie

APOLOGIES

Callum Beck, Anne Brackley (Springdale Neighbourhood Centre), Ashley Pittard (Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group), Phil Wall (CFA), Ian Beswicke (CFA)

Note that CFA representatives will attend meetings when there are matters of relevance on the agenda.

About these Minutes

Minutes were taken and produced by Sally Chandler-Ford. Presenters were given the opportunity to review the notes relating to their item to ensure the discussion was accurately summarised, and that it details best available knowledge at the time of the meeting. Additional comments received after the meeting have been highlighted as such.

MINUTES FROM THE MEETING

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS FROM THIS MEETING

Note: A comprehensive list of all outstanding actions and their status is contained within the DLCCG Actions Update document which should be read in conjunction with these Minutes

Action Number / Action
Action 170314.1 / Jen to prepare a revised Terms of Reference and circulate to meeting attendees for comment
Action 170314.2 / CoGG to prepare a vegetation screening plan and circulate to meeting attendees within 3 weeks (4 April) (revised timeline of 11 April)*
Action 170314.3 / CoGG to review and circulate current litter management techniques and practices both onsite and offsite (litter management plan) to meeting attendees
Action 170314.4 / CoGG to identify opportunities for community involvement in monitoring water quality leaving the site
Action 170314.5 / CoGG to review site operations against legal requirements, the EPA Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and Ramsar guidelines
Action 170314.6 / Rod to disseminate the Mason’s Creek Restoration Plan and new pipe proposal information to the DLCCG by 21 March (revised timeline of 11 April)*
Action 170314.7 / Rod to disseminate the Frederick Mason’s Creek Catchment Sediment Analysis Report to the DLCCCG
Action 170314.8 / CoGG to provide a site plan, including water flows, current/proposed pipes and rehabilitation, to assist future DLCCG meeting discussions
Action 170314.9 / EPA to provide the 2017 EPA Licence Compliance Inspection Report to the DLCCG at the next meeting
Action 170314.10 / CoGG to explore less visually intrusive colour options for the liner.

1.  Welcome

Jen Lilburn welcomed attendees to the meeting and explained her role as an independent facilitator to ensure that everyone present has the opportunity to freely contribute and be heard by other attendees.

It was agreed that Agenda Items 6 and 7 would be moved up the Agenda.

2.  DLCCG Terms of Reference

The DLCCG’s Terms of Reference was drafted following its first meeting in June 2016. The Purpose, Code of Conduct and Membership sections were revisited to ensure that they remained an accurate reflection of the Group’s raison d’étre. The ensuing discussion covered the following key points:

Purpose: whilst the focus of discussions will be on the current and future operation and management of the Landfill, the past will be acknowledged, considered and learnt from. Discussion will focus on current operational and compliance matters, CoGG’s current waste management strategy as it applies to the Landfill and input into CoGG’s future waste/resource management strategy more broadly. Information requests will be responded to within mutually agreed timeframes. The development of an Objective Statement with clear, measurable targets and a regular reporting process was also suggested. Issues raised at DLCCG meetings that are relevant to Council but beyond the scope of the group will be elevated to an appropriate decision making level within CoGG as required. This may involve DLCCG delegates.

Membership: membership of the meeting will be open to any members of the community at any time. However, newcomers will be encouraged to review the Terms of Reference and previous meeting snapshots available on the CoGG website prior to their attendance.

Code of Conduct: Additional inclusions to the Code are the need to focus on the purpose of the meeting, share information, listen and be responsive in an open, honest and transparent manner and use language, tone of voice and body language that supports open communication.

Action 170314.1: Jen to prepare a revised Terms of Reference and circulate to meeting attendees for comment

Question: Is there another forum for more general waste discussions?

Rod Thomas (Manager Environment and Waste Services, CoGG): When CoGG prepares its Waste Management Strategy covering waste management issues and directions across the whole municipality, community input will be a key part of that process. The DLCCG can also be a key input to the strategy.

After the meeting, Geelong Sustainability Group reiterated the need for discussion to have two streams for community consultations: one with an operational focus for affected landowners, and a second with a strategic waste reduction and management focus (a future focused waste consultative group or reference panel).

Rod Thomas (CoGG) confirmed Council’s intention to form a strategic group at the beginning of the development of the Waste Strategy project, anticipated to be mid-year, following completion of the Barwon Regional Strategy.

3.  Outstanding Actions (Item 7 on Agenda)

Note: Refer to DLCCG Actions Update table in separate document. This document should be read in conjunction with the Minutes.

Rosalind expressed concern at CoGG’s email response dated 7 March 2017 in which it addressed DLCCG ‘Action 160816.4: CoGG to further investigate whether any planning permit conditions have been breached by the landfill’. She pointed out that several conditions have not been met despite CoGG efforts in some areas. Of specific concern were conditions related to visual amenity, screening, waste water management, turbidity, litter management and operating to EPA Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines (BPEM). She cited the example of the original condition about screening which, more than 30 years later, has still not been effectively met. Rod agreed that screening had been substandard and needed vast improvement.

Will Tieppo (General Manager City Services, CoGG) acknowledged that surface water runoff and turbidity downstream have been recurring contentious issues without resolution to date. Community members outlined examples of observed highly turbid water leaving the site.

Carolyn Francis (Manager South West Region, EPA) stressed that, in such instances, community members should contact the EPA immediately so that officers can investigate.

Rosalind reminded the meeting of a graph showing turbidity levels in Frederick Mason’s Creek presented at the November 2016 DLCCG meeting (shown again below as Figure 1) and suggested that CoGG needed to accept, rather than constantly deny, that there is a turbidity issue. Will expressed a desire to give community members confidence that water leaving the landfill site is of high quality.

Figure 1: Turbidity Levels in Frederick Mason’s Creek

Rosalind acknowledged that, whilst CoGG is meeting some of its legal obligations, it is not meeting all of them and that trying is not good enough as it is achievements that count. She pointed out instances where CoGG does not operate to BPEM and has a moral obligation to do so.

Carolyn stated that, in considering the site’s operations against the BPEM, it is important to consider the intent of the Guidelines rather than just the literal meaning as there may be alternative ways of delivering on the intent. It was suggested that Council prepare an explicit response to each of the Guidelines in terms of site objectives and which aspects of the site’s operations meet, don’t meet or will meet the Guidelines by a certain date. Rosalind will email her specific concerns regarding unmet conditions and BPEM to Rod to ensure that consideration of these are included in Council’s response.

In discussing incidences of litter leaving the site and moving onto adjoining properties and roadsides, CoGG encouraged community members to report such incidents to Council for investigation.

Other community members cited the bright blue colour of the existing geotech layer as another example of the landfill not meeting permit conditions. They stated that its colour is very confronting and not at all sympathetic to the environment. It was requested that CoGG not use this colour in any future covering works at the site.

In addressing these concerns, CoGG agreed to the following set of actions:

Action 170314.2: CoGG to prepare a vegetation screening plan and circulate to meeting attendees within 3 weeks (4 April) (revised timeline of 11 April)*
Action 170314.3: CoGG to review and circulate current litter management techniques and practices both onsite and offsite (litter management plan) to meeting attendees
Action 170314.4: CoGG to identify opportunities for community involvement in monitoring water quality leaving the site
Action 170314.5: CoGG to review site operations against legal requirements, the EPA Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines and Ramsar guidelines

*Action 170314.2: After the meeting, Rod indicated that he would need to liaise with managers of the surrounding roads to see if Council can get some plantings on road reserves. Rod also needed further advice regarding species. He indicated a revised timeline of 4 weeks (11 April).

Following the meeting, Rosalind emailed her comments on outstanding actions to Rod to ensure that these are considered in Council’s response under Action 170314.5

In relation to DLCCG Action 160816.14: ‘EPA and CoGG to explain why the Creek has disappeared under the landfill and yet it is stated that there is no impact on the Ramsar values’, disbelief was expressed by several members of the group to Rod’s statement on 9/12/16 that ‘no creek existed at this site prior to the development of the landfill’. Rosalind suggested that, to deny the waterway’s existence is to deny maps, industry experts, geological surveys, local knowledge and observation. She also provided photos of the waterway flowing downstream adjacent to Swan Bay in 2008, 2011 and 2012. There was widespread frustration expressed that this is a perennial, unresolved issue.

Peter Kronborg stated that, at a meeting between Council representatives, Graeme Christie and local community members last year, Council acknowledged the existence of the creek and Rod had instructed Graeme to prepare an interim revegetation and rehabilitation plan for the creek for next meeting. That plan has not materialised. (see item 4 below)

Furthermore, to then see a subsequent Council response to there being no creek was a complete surprise. Peter stated that Council needs to admit the existence of the creek so that everyone can move on. Rod clarified that the term used to define the watercourse was not as important as the need to focus on the future restoration of the creek line, watercourse or drainage line, regardless of its title.

Will confirmed that, as part of the long term rehabilitation of the landfill site, the natural environment, including the watercourse, will be restored. Relief was expressed by members of the meeting to Will’s acknowledgement of the creek’s existence and commitment to its restoration, particularly given earlier Council practices, which some community members believe have shown scant regard for the creek. Will clarified that, given that the landfill is still currently an operating facility, the timelines around that rehabilitation are uncertain as these will be part of a larger closure and long term rehabilitation plan.

There was widespread support amongst the meeting for Council to honour its commitment to the creek’s restoration.

Comment: The community will want to see a long term rehabilitation plan which states what it will look like, what actions are going to be undertaken and their timelines.

Graeme Christie (SRSM Pty Ltd) reminded the meeting that the waterway has been highly modified, not only due to the landfill, but also the farming operations both upstream and downstream of it. Rehabilitation of the whole watercourse, whilst admirable, will be a large challenge as it will need to involve all landowners, not just Council and needs a realistic timeframe.

Will confirmed that Council can’t control activities on private land that may affect the waterway but agreed that Council has an obligation to restore the waterway on Council managed land.

4.  Environmental Risk Management and MonitoringMason’s Creek Restoration Plan

Graeme Christie (SRSM Pty Ltd) was engaged by CoGG as an independent consultant to prepare a Restoration Plan for the waterway component within the landfill site. Graeme clarified that this Restoration Plan only considers restoration of the waterway on CoGG managed land and does include restoration of both the vegetation and water flows. Shane Middleton (Waste Management Coordinator, CoGG) stated that funding has been secured to implement the Restoration Plan.

Question: Is the secured funding to implement the Restoration Plan or is it for the redirection and piping of the Creek underground around the site? Is there still a proposal for a new pipe? Is this included in the Plan?

Shane: No, the funding provides for the relocation of the stockpile that was created during construction of one of the cells to allow for the reshaping of the waterway. There is still a proposal for a new pipe and this was discussed at the last meeting. It is a separate project to the Restoration Plan but we can incorporate it into the information that will be disseminated. Whilst we can begin the restoration process, we can’t fully restore the waterway until the site closes and we can block the pipeline that is diverting water through the site.