1 of 13

Yarralumla Creek Renaturalisation:

Nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk, increase biodiversity, and improve community amenity

6 May 2026

2 of 13

Acknowledgement of Country

3 of 13

What I’m Going To Talk About

Why this matters now
What renaturalisation means
Why Yarralumla Creek?
Limits of the current system
ACT precedent: Tuggeranong Creek
Lessons from outside the ACT
Potential Benefits & Constraints
What Woden Valley Community Council can ask for now
Closing message

4 of 13

Why this matters now

Yarralumla Creek is not just a drain; it is part of Woden’s flood system, transport spine and public realm.

Recent flood damage suggests the current system is vulnerable and costly to keep patching.

Redevelopment and light rail planning mean decisions made now could lock in the future of the corridor for decades.

The draft Strategy has three supplements that help explain its logic

after an explanation of the problem
the climate adaptation supplement outlines how officials plan to respond to the effects of climate change on nature
the plan is to adopt the ‘Resist Accept Direct’ framework
this framework is already in use in Australia and overseas
it’s based on planning scenarios, choosing the one that best fits, watching what happens and adapting management
there’s an emphasis on systematic learning

This is a specialist field and I am no expert … but I can say this … the approach got a big wrap recently by Dr Lis Ashby at the Biodiversity Council, during a webinar titled ‘Preparing for a more volatile future’

The second supplement, on Landscape scale conservation, including by identifying Priority Conservation Areas or PCAs, is the subject of the next slide

I won’t say a lot about restoration practice. I hope it’s enough that I mention I think good thinking has been applied, and there is consistency with the National standards for the practice of ecological restoration in Australia

The things to be delivered during the life of the Strategy are shown in roughly the order we might expect to see them

I believe the few staff involved will make sure implementation is well planned and indicators will work so progress can be measured effectively.

Think of it this way, these officials have flowcharts full of milestones to be met en route to the achievement of each target. In plotting these steps, indicators will be identified, some for outputs like the approval of a policy, others that will be taken to approximate an outcome in nature. To see an example of their work, look at the report on implementation of the last Strategy. It’s a high quality report.

I wish there was more to comment on now, but I understand why there is not.

Amendments to the Nature Conservation Act will come in two tranches. Easy ones will come first as early as this year. More difficult amendments will follow later, to support of the Landscape Plan and policies to be discussed next

5 of 13

What renaturalisation means

Renaturalisation does not mean turning the creek into untouched wilderness.

It means redesigning parts of an engineered drain so they work better ecologically and hydraulically: slower flows, planted banks, flood benches, wetlands, and better stormwater treatment.

Proven benefits include improved biodiversity and water quality, urban cooling, and reduced peak flows.

In urban areas, it is usually staged and combined with broader Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) across the catchment.

It is not a flood risk. If done well, it reduces peak flows, attenuates runoff, and increases system resilience.

Source: https://www.facebook.com/abccanberra/posts/the-cleanup-from-the-weekends-downpour-in-canberra-is-continuing-today-severe-th/1413446343776936/

nature positive is a global push

The Strategy says, for Nature Positive outcomes to be achieved, reform is needed of the ACT’s nature conservation framework

It’s said reform is needed to

1 balance development, conservation and climate change

2 introduce a range of collaborative approaches to planning and decision-making, and

3 achieve financial sustainability for long-term impact.

My mind goes to the recent national environmental law reforms which, among other things, sought to minimise regulatory duplication

The Australian Government now has new known pathways for assessments and approvals

the new pathways come in legal effect on 1 Dec 2026

subject to the states and territories agreeing to meet standards in the process of being made

these pathways will start to be used

The push for reform here can be viewed as the ACT Government preparing for this one-stop future

over the next decade, it’s expected the ACT will see a 17 per cent increase in population,

the scale of houses and jobs needed is another reason why a whole of landscape approach is needed, it’s efficient

each proposal will be for the development of multiple suburbs

it will include the necessary transport corridors

and the provision of services - water power sewage and communication

at the same time, nature will get better consideration

because cumulative impacts will be considered at an early, more appropriate stage in assessment and approval processes

conditions can be attached to approvals requiring - for nature’s benefit - better, appropriate avoidance, protection, repair and reconnection

The Council and FOG have been calling for a Biodiversity Network to be permanently protected outside the ACT’s protected areas for years

So we are pleased a Nature Conservation Network is finally on the drawing board

for nature’s sake, in the urban and peri-urban parts of the northern ACT, we’re looking for the NCN to include:

- high conservation value areas outside reserves

- mildly degraded sites that can be more effectively and efficiently restored

- buffers around all these sites

- connections between them

- and we want the management of these areas to be coordinated and effective.

We are not so pleased the NCN is still years away, to be defined in the Landscape Plan, later

What is to be achieved straight away, in 2026, is the identification of Priority Conservation Areas

The Strategy calls PCAs ‘the backbone’ of the NCN

avoiding these places can and will take a lot of heat out of development conflicts

For the protection of nature outside the ACT’s protected areas, it is clearly a great opportunity, it is welcomed

On identifying PCAs within the ACT’s protected areas, here we’re not so sure

If this channels programs and focuses investment on smaller areas within Reserves, that could be a problem

we say the ACT Government is obliged, under the Nature Conservation Act and regulations,

to support and resource the Parks and Conservation Service so it can conserve all of the ACT’s Reserves.

I’ll say more on resourcing later

The Strategy says one benefit of PCAs is this: “by development avoiding PCAs we reinforce the mitigation hierarchy”

This is a checkpoint, is this right?

it’s great PCAs will be avoided by developers

however, we cannot assume

with PCAs avoided

given the scale of what’s expected to be lost,

that this will be enough avoidance

given the complexity and degree of difficult involved in doing nature repair

every hectare of intact (or relatively intact) nature lost over the decade

regardless of where it occurs

will increase the pressure on nature and make a Nature Positive outcome much harder to deliver

The Council will be asking for some re-wording, for re-emphasis here

for a start, surely development needs to be avoided in the whole NCN

the mitigation hierarchy won’t stop there

it also applies where development is proposed

outside the NCN, wherever possible, it will be better for nature if developers can retain isolated parcels of value

e.g., as many mature aged trees with nesting hollows as possible

after developments are constructed, mitigation continues by operating developments carefully, e.g., by controlling cats, hardening paths or imposing and observing a speed limit on a road to minimise collisions

In the legislation that manages risks in the offshore oil and gas sector, titleholders are asked to mitigate loss to ALARP - to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’, continuously

The criteria for identifying PCAs are in preparation. I know they have been shared with a small group of people

Once they’re settled the Strategy says the process of identifying PCAs will happen within government, behind closed doors:

after values are understood and mapped (this work must be almost complete)

a strategic decision-making process will be undertaken between the Environment and Planning arms of the CED

The Strategy says

currently planned development needs will be overlaid on a map of critical values

decisions will be made around the ecological, cultural and social value of each area

resulting in the mapping of PCAs that QUOTE are effective and acceptable for both ecological and urban planning purposes UNQUOTE (Supp B, pp. 5-6)

Call me a nerd but I would like to be in that room, to hear these discussions.

I will be asking the Council to call for an open process.

The Strategy is strong on measurement.

There is a good focus on identifying values and demonstrating losses and gains

a commitment to maintaining high‑quality ecological datasets

spatial prioritisation tools

species distribution modelling

connectivity modelling (probability of connectedness)

climate‑risk mapping

I want to focus on the protection of the NCN

As I said, the FOG-Council Biodiversity Network proposal calls for permanent protection of what’s to be the NCN

The Strategy says QUOTE PCAs will be protected from inappropriate development, under the Nature Conservation Act, by 2029 UNQUOTE .

How will the PCAs be protected.

Well, from its definition, we know the NCN will consist of protected and conserved areas.

protected areas - for me the protected bit is about its legal status

these are valuable areas for nature and/or culture

they are dedicated to the conservation of that value

and that dedication is permanent and secure

‘conserved areas’ are a relatively new construct

to be sure, they’re now found all around the Earth

elsewhere, they’re known as Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures

so what’s the difference

like protected areas, ‘conserved areas’ are areas recognised as having important values for nature

it’s where the land manager is managing, and has committed to or simply expects to continue managing

to maintain and improve those important nature values for the long term (100 years or more)

if all those pre-conditions are satisfied, they apply and voila, a conserved area is recognised

unlike protected areas, by itself, conserved area recognition provides zero legal protection.

That is because a commitment to manage a conserved area for conservation can be withdrawn at any time.

‘Other measures’ can ‘firm up’ the commitments made by land managers.

The Strategy makes clear land managers making long term commitments will get program support

it suggests to me they will favour when incentives are offered

but again, in and of itself, a conserved area is not protected, they are exposed to a change of mind

the Strategy indicates and I accept right now the commitments and intentions will be genuine

but I end with this

the Strategy also states QUOTE “Proposed development in a PCA would trigger the application of an Environmental Significance Opinion or Environmental Impact Statement.”

The Strategy provides for changes of intention.

Finally on this slide, the Conserved Area Policy

This policy is to be made by 2029.

It will detail the effect of conserved area recognition, outside the ACT’s protected areas, on all the other forms of tenure

it will QUOTE set out appropriate land uses and management dependent on the values present and the tenure they occur on UNQUOTE

6 of 13

Why Yarralumla Creek?

Yarralumla Creek drains a highly urbanised catchment, discharging into the Molonglo River, Lake Burley Griffin, and ultimately the Murrumbidgee River (part of the Murray-Darling Basin).

The existing concrete stormwater network delivers high sediment and nutrient loads downstream: priority works in the catchment could remove ~2.4 million kg/year of suspended solids, 333 kg/year of phosphorus, and 2,018 kg/year of nitrogen (ACT Healthy Waterways).

The creek has been a concrete drain between Mawson and North Curtin since the 1970s, with limited habitat and low amenity value.

Current flood risk is significant - consider the 1971 Woden flood disaster and subsequent recent damaging events.

Community concern is focused not just on environment or aethetics, but on safety, nearby housing, the transport corridor and pinch points around Melrose Drive and Ivy Towers.

Water from the Yarralumla Creek flows quickly past the Ivy apartment building in Phillip during the February 2026 storm.

the Strategy is clear: offsets are central to the achievement of Nature Positive outcomes�

I want to pause and set the scene because, in relation to offsets, the legal environment has changed and is changing. Two things.

- First, from 1 Dec 2026, at the national level, for new referrals, offsets practice will be governed by the amended EPBC Act.

- In short, the existing EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy is being phased out.

- Second, the national reforms provide for the making of national environmental standards and agreements

- It seems clear the ACT’s Strategy is anticipating that, at some time within the decade, the Territory will make an agreement with the Commonwealth in which the ACT Government will confirm its approval decisions, including its offset decisions, will satisfy national standards.

- We know at least two standards are in the process of being made, one relates to offsetting practice and outcomes

- In the absence of that new offset standard, the ACT’s Strategy is no doubt trying to give the Territory flexibility, to avoid being inconsistent with the future offset standard

As a result of all that, there’s a problem right now

- in the absence of an ACT Offsets Policy - the Strategy states the 2015 policy is not in force

- and noting the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy is becoming less and less relevant

- until the ACT policy is revised and the Restoration Contributions Policy is made,

there are no principles that govern the practice of offsetting in the ACT.

at the end I will come to the principles that are needed but missing

I want to look at the sorts of offsets the Strategy says will be the norm�- Averted loss offsets are trending down, they are being replaced by restoration offsets�(IF TIME, IF NOT JUMP TO BIG PICTURE)�to explain, for over two decades, most offsets have followed an ‘averted loss offset’ pattern�approval holders have been required to: �- find an offset site, somewhere other than where the development will proceed�- the offset site must be both ‘like for like’ and under threat �- if needed, acquire that offset site�- legally protect it, and �- manage it for the benefit of the matter that is lost at the impact site

this form of offsetting has been criticised as resulting in the protection of places that were not under threat

e.g., to offset development between Coombs and Whitlam, that started in 2011 and will continue for some time yet west and north of the Arboretum, the banks of the Molonglo River were protected and are now managed for conservation

Were those banks ever going to be developed? If not, then the benefit of protecting this offset for nature is questionable.

in a trend that’s Aust-wide, offsetting is headed toward restoring that which is degraded or in need of connection

- there’s a recognition restoration work is best organised centrally, strategically.

- rather than requiring approval holders to manage offset sites - their focus may be elsewhere and they may be allocating few resources to it

- approval holders will be able to pay to acquit their obligations

BIG PICTURE

In the absence of detail in the Strategy about how this will work …

Recognising we now know what EPBC Act says …

- under the EPBC Act, from 1 Dec 2026, a Restoration Contributions Holder will be responsible to:

- deliver restoration actions

- monitor and evaluate progress and outcomes

- maintain a public register

- prepare reports.

Their spending must be QUOTE directed towards protecting, conserving or restoring the affected matter in the bioregion where the affected matter is located UNQUOTE

in the near future, approval holders will have the option of delivering their own averted loss or restoration offset actions OR paying “restoration contributions”

The Strategy paves the way for the adoption of this approach.

A Restoration Contributions Policy is to be made by 2029

It is defined as QUOTE ‘a policy instrument under the NC Act that governs how financial contributions for biodiversity loss are calculated, collected, and allocated to achieve nature positive outcomes.’ UNQUOTE

7 of 13

Yarralumla Creek Catchment

8 of 13

Limits of the current system

Long, straight concrete channels move water quickly, but they also reduce habitat, disconnect the creek from surrounding landscape and can fail dramatically under intense storm events.

Repeated repair of damaged concrete may amount to maintaining an ageing single‑purpose asset rather than solving the wider problem.

The key question is not "concrete or nature", but whether the present system is still the best option for flood safety and for the biodiversity and ecological values that are fundamentally incompatible with a concrete drain.

WSUD requirements are already embedded in the Territory Plan (the ACT's key statutory planning instrument) yet the level of application in practice varies widely, meaning existing obligations are not consistently translating into catchment-scale outcomes.

9 of 13

ACT precedent: Tuggeranong Creek

The ACT has already replaced concrete sections of Tuggeranong Creek with naturalised creek beds, pools, riffles and native planting.

The Healthy Waterways program demonstrates the ACT already has a tested model for catchment-scale waterway investment, combining science, staged infrastructure delivery, and measurable water quality outcomes

The lesson is not that Yarralumla is identical to Tuggeranong, but that the ACT already has a local model for doing this carefully.