Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology overview of key issues raised, a response to submissions and acts to document proposed changes to the draft methodology resulting

Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology

Director General’s report Section 126T(b) Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

© Copyright State of NSW and the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW

With the exception of photographs, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW and State of NSW are pleased to allow this material to be reproduced in whole or in part for educational and non-commercial use, provided the meaning is unchanged and its source, publisher and authorship are acknowledged. Specific permission is required for the reproduction of photographs.

The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) has compiled this handbook in good faith, exercising all due care and attention. No representation is made about the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information in this publication for any particular purpose. DECCW shall not be liable for any damage which may occur to any person or organisation taking action or not on the basis of this publication. Readers should seek appropriate advice when applying the information to their specific needs.

Published by: Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW 59–61 Goulburn Street PO Box A290 Sydney South 1232 Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected]

See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard) Phone: 131 555 (environment information and publications requests) Phone: 1300 361 967 (national parks, climate change and energy efficiency information and publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au ISBN 978 1 74293 166 1 DECCW 2011/0156 February 2011

Contents

1. Purpose......................................................................................................................................................................................1

2. The consultation process ....................................................................................................................................................2

3. Summary of submissions ....................................................................................................................................................3

4. Response to key issues.........................................................................................................................................................5

5. Recommendation ..................................................................................................................................................................7

Appendix 1: Issues and responses ............................................................................................................................................8

Appendix 2: List of submitters................................................................................................................................................. 44

- 1 -

Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology − Director General’s report

1 Purpose This report summarises the submissions received in response to community consultation on the Draft Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology (hereafter referred to as the methodology). It provides an overview of key issues raised, a response to submissions and acts to document proposed changes to the draft methodology resulting from the consultation process.

The report does not address any comments made that do not relate to the draft methodology.

Background On 15 June 2010, the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Certification) Act 2010 received assent.

The Act established new arrangements for the biodiversity certification of land. Under the new arrangements, the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment may confer biodiversity certification on specified land only if biodiversity values will be improved or maintained.

The Act requires the Minister to make rules with respect to the circumstances in which biodiversity certification is to be regarded as improving or maintaining biodiversity values. In particular, the rules are to establish a methodology for:

(a) assessing the loss of biodiversity values on land proposed for biodiversity certification

(b) calculating the number and type of credits required to offset the impacts of development on land proposed to be biodiversity certified to ensure biodiversity values are improved or maintained.

Section 126T of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 provides that the methodology is not to be made unless:

(a) notice of the proposed methodology has been given in accordance with the public consultation requirements applicable to the methodology

(b) the Director General has provided a report to the Minister on the public consultation, and

(c) the Minister has considered the report.

Section 126V of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 requires the Director General to provide a report to the Minister on the public consultation that:

(a) summarises the main issues raised in any submissions received before the closing date for submissions

(b) makes such recommendations as the Director General considers appropriate in relation to those submissions.

- 2 -


2 The consultation process On 30 June 2010, the Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) released the Draft Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology for public comment. The consultation period closed on 30 July 2010.

The opportunity to make submissions was advertised through print media, with readers directed to visit DECCW’s website or call DECCW’s Information Centre to obtain further information. To complement the release of the methodology, meetings were held with key stakeholders.

- 3 -


3 Summary of submissions

Sectoral representation of respondents Seventeen submissions were received in response to the Draft Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology. Five sectoral representations were identified: 1. Environment groups 2. Government agencies (and advisory bodies) 3. Local council 4. Environmental consultants 5. Development Industry 6. Individuals

Figure 1 Submissions received by sector

Development Industry, 1

Individuals, 1

Government advisory bodies, 1

Environmental non-government

organisations, 4

Government agencies, 2

Local government, 4

Environmental consultants, 4

Analysis of issues Within the submissions, the following themes were raised:

Survey and assessment, including: o survey requirements o adequacy of data.

Red flags, including: o definitions o variation rules.

- 4 -


Offsets, including: o application of like-for-like principle o role of mitigation hierarchy.

Financial contributions, including: o financial contributions in lieu of offset o securing financial contribution.

Use of planning scheme zones, including: o credit value o recognition of existing environment protection lands o application of tree preservation orders.

Assessment of native vegetation condition, including: o definition of low condition native vegetation.

Calculating credits, including: o equations (including scaling factors) o credit discounting.

Credit profile and offset rules, including: o offset rules and credit calculation for species and ecosystems.

Management actions, including: o ensuring management actions are implemented.

Conservation measures, including: o limitations in applying measures.

Assessment of indirect impacts, including: o a list of indirect impacts.

Matters of national environmental significance, including: o relationship with Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act o requirements for strategic assessments.

Social and economic considerations, including: o inclusion of social and economic consideration in decision-making.

A comprehensive summary of submissions is provided in Appendix 1 along with DECCW’s response. All comments relating to the methodology have been considered by DECCW in the course of refining it.

- 5 -


4 Response to key issues This section provides an overview of the key issues raised in response to the Draft Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology (the methodology) and DECCW’s response to the issues.

Offsetting requirements Initially the methodology required adherence to the like-for-like principle (i.e. the direct matching of species lost for species gained). Where this could not be met, substituting different kingdoms (e.g. a plant for an animal) was allowed. Most submitters opposed relaxing the ’like-for-like’ principle of offsetting where strict ’like-for-like’ was not feasible. It was also recommended biodiversity offsets should follow the ‘avoid−mitigate−offset’ hierarchy.

In response, DECCW has amended the methodology as follows:

1. The variation of offset rules for species has been tightened so any species credits generated for conservation measures must be from a species from the same kingdom (e.g. animal for animal). Before varying the ’like-for-like’ rule, the Director General must be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to meeting the ‘like-for-like’ criteria.

2. The ‘avoid−mitigate−offset’ hierarchy is more clearly embedded within the methodology. That is, to ‘improve or maintain’ biodiversity values, impacts on biodiversity values first need to be reduced through avoidance and minimisation measures. Residual impacts can then be addressed by the use of biodiversity offsets.

Financial contributions Using financial contributions in lieu of obtaining biodiversity offsets was identified as an issue. This was because financial contributions could potentially bypass the requirement to follow the ‘avoid−mitigate−offset’ hierarchy. Also, such funds could be directed outside the ’like-for-like’ rules.

In response, DECCW has amended the methodology:

3. To clarify that financial contributions are a mechanism for securing offsets and that the ’like-for-like’ rules apply to the expenditure of such funds. Financial contributions help to secure offset requirements, including management of offset sites in perpetuity.

Survey and assessment A lack of information about survey requirements and the process of making an application for biodiversity certification was repeatedly identified as an issue. In response:

4. Guidance on survey requirements and the process for applying for biodiversity certification will be provided in the Biodiversity Certification Operational Manual (hereafter called the operational manual) and supporting guidelines.

5. Use of the methodology for the purposes of preparing an application for biodiversity certification, must now be made by a person accredited under section 142B of the TSC Act.

- 6 -


Red flags Concern was expressed about the flexibility of the red-flag variation rules.

Variation of the red-flag rules is only possible after appropriate avoidance, minimisation and on-site measures have been considered. Rule variation follows a strict process. This approach enables practical decision-making and recognises the importance of opting for a cost-effective approach to delivering offset requirements.

In response:

6. The red-flag variation rules have been restructured to improve clarity; they are substantially unchanged. Any proposal to vary a red-flag rule must satisfy the following criteria: a) all reasonable measures have been considered to avoid and mitigate adverse impacts on the

red-flag area b) appropriate conservation management arrangements cannot be established over the red-flag

area given its current ownership and zoning and the likely costs of future management c) the viability of the red-flag area must be low or not viable d) the regional conservation status of the red flag concerned must be low.

There are additional criteria for red flags triggered by threatened species and areas of regional and state biodiversity significance such as corridors and SEPP14 Coastal Wetlands.

Use of planning scheme zones Concern was expressed about the workability of the proposed rules for using planning scheme zones to offset impacts. In response:

7. This section of the methodology has been redrafted to clarify the use of conservation measures applied through a planning instrument:

a) reference to clause 5.9 of the standard instrument will be replaced with a requirement for the planning authority to put in place appropriate local provisions

b) requirement for vegetation to be considered protected regrowth under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 will be removed

c) community land under the Local Government Act 1993 will be recognised as a conservation measure receiving 90 percent credit value and is no longer considered as a planning scheme offset

d) options for lot averaging and lot clustering will be able to be explored on an individual basis

e) existing environmental protection-zoned lands may be included as planning instrument conservation measures provided there has been significant improvement in the way the zone and associated development controls work to protect biodiversity.

Assessment of native vegetation condition Many of the submissions identified the definition of low condition vegetation as problematic as it is possible to identify degraded sites as being in moderate to good condition. In response, DECCW has amended the methodology as follows:

8. A new threshold has been added to ensure that substantially degraded areas are not identified as being of moderate to good condition.

- 7 -


5 Recommendation It is recommended that the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment:

1. Consider this report.

2. Approve the Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology.

3. Sign the order making the rules with respect to the circumstances in which biodiversity certification is to be regarded as improving or maintaining biodiversity values under section 126S(1) of the TSC Act.

- 8 -


Appendix 1 Issues and responses

Row Submission number and sector

Issues raised Response from DECCW

Survey and assessment

1 SN_03

Environmental non-government organisation

Minimum mandatory survey requirements should be prepared and exhibited.

Comment

Detailed guidance about threatened species survey requirements will be provided in the operational manual and supporting guidelines. These will be consistent with existing survey guidelines used to support the biobanking assessment process. The methodology provides mandatory survey requirements to determine vegetation type and condition and to determine presence of threatened species.

2 SN_05

Environmental consultant

Vegetation mapping should cover the biodiversity certification assessment area and all areas likely to be indirectly impacted. All mapping should be required to be ground truthed.

Noted

Vegetation mapping of the biodiversity assessment area, including field verification, is a requirement of the methodology along with an assessment of indirect impacts.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify requirements for field verification (section 3.5).

3 SN_05

Environmental consultant

The methodology should incorporate a means by which the adequacy of application of the methodology and accuracy of the data collected can be verified. There should be opportunities for independent review of the assessments undertaken.

Noted

Alternative approaches are available to ensure adequacy of assessment. This includes the adoption of standard survey guidelines and the requirement for accredited assessors to prepare the biodiversity certification application.

Section 142B of the TSC Act allows the Director General to arrange accreditation for suitably qualified and experienced persons to undertake and prepare surveys and assessments for use in connection with biodiversity certification of land under Part 7AA. The use of accredited biobanking assessors will ensure that assessments

- 9 -


undertaken as part of an application for biodiversity certification comply with information and assessment standards and are objective.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to provide that only accredited biobanking assessors can assess the impacts of biodiversity certification and conservation measures in an application for biodiversity certification (section 2.1).

4 SN_06

Environmental consultants

The methodology encourages use of existing maps and aerial photo interpretation to identify vegetation zones. Regional datasets and aerial maps require field truthing.

Comment

The methodology allows a range of data sources to be used, including aerial photography, satellite imagery, existing vegetation maps and records of threatened species. The methodology does not intend that determining the boundaries of vegetation zones can only be done through aerial or satellite imagery. Field inspection is an important part of the process and is a requirement of the assessment methodology. DECCW recognises that the accuracy of such data depends on ground truthing and verification. The methodology has been amended to clarify requirements

Refer to response, row 2

5 SN_06


Need to clarify how sites where access is denied should be treated.

Comment

The methodology makes provision for calculating site value where direct access is not possible. In relation to assessment of vegetation type and condition, areas of similar vegetation type and condition are grouped and a site value score is required for a representative sample of each group – not each and every remnant of that group. This score is then extrapolated across all remnants of that type and condition. Requiring a site value score for every remnant would result in excessive survey costs for minimal impact on the final site values score assigned. In relation to threatened species assessment, survey of suitable habitat is required for species likely to be present and where no existing survey work is available.

Applicants for biodiversity certification will need to resolve any site access issues to allow adequate survey to occur. The operational manual and supporting guidelines will clarify this issue.

- 10 -


6 SN_06


The ‘vegetation type standard’ is appropriate for large regional mapping but does not provide clarity on the number of plots required for site assessment.

Noted

DECCW considers that setting minimum plot densities will increase applicant and assessors confidence that survey design is adequate.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to prescribe minimum plot densities required for site assessment.

7 SN_07

Local government

Requirements for site-specific survey should be included. Refer to response, row 1

8 SN_11


Is it possible to accurately map native groundcover from aerial photographs?

Comment

The methodology requires groundcover scores to be based on field assessment of a representative sample of plots from vegetation of the same type and condition category (section 3.6).

9 SN_11


What triggers a requirement to ground truth a desktop assessment?

Comment

Site assessment occurs through various stages of assessment. This includes sampling for site value score (section 3.6.1), confirming boundaries of vegetation zones where necessary (section 3.5) and surveying for threatened species (sections 4.2 and 4.3).

10 SN_11


There need to be clear survey guidelines. Refer to response, row 1

11 SN_11


Desktop data should be referred to an external expert to assess its adequacy. Where information is inadequate, comprehensive site assessment should be mandatory.

Comment

Such a proposal would significantly add to the cost of assessments.


12 SN_13


The methodology has resulted in an overall reduced level of survey, both general and targeted.

Comment

The methodology ensures strategic land-use planning decisions will be based on a robust and transparent methodology for biodiversity including threatened species. There is no comparable process currently in place at this stage of the land-use planning process.

- 11 -


13 SN_13


The preparation of an expert report should only be allowed where reliable information is available and survey opportunity is very limited. Where there is any uncertainty it should be assumed that the species is present.

Comment

Export reports are a valid part of the assessment process and are particularly useful for cryptic threatened species and where survey techniques are not always reliable to detect presence. Expert reports for a threatened species must only be prepared by a person with specialised experience and knowledge of a species to which the expert report relates.

14 SN_15


Ground truthing to the fullest extent is required. Refer to response, row 2

Red flag definitions and variation

15 SN_01

Industry

Concerned with:

inclusion of all endangered ecological communities

inclusion of alleged ‘state or regional biodiversity links’

definition of low condition.

Comment

All endangered ecological communities that are not in low condition are red flagged by the methodology. It distinguishes between critically endangered and endangered ecological communities in the way red-flag variations are treated.

State and regional biodiversity links are an important part of the landscape and should be acknowledged as part of the assessment process.

Proposed changes

The methodology has been amended to clarify the criteria for red-flag variations of state and regional biodiversity links to allow for minor clearing within the corridor, provided the ecological functioning of the corridor is maintained.

The methodology expands the definition of vegetation in low condition to include a provision based on a site value score of 34 or lower. This will ensure that vegetation in low condition is assessed across 10 condition attributes rather than two (section 2.3).

- 12 -


16 SN_04

Government advisory body

Appendix 1, table 7 provides different riparian buffer distances for the coast and tablelands, western slopes and plains and estuarine areas. These variations depending on location are not reflected in table 3 on page 19 of the methodology.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to ensure consistency of riparian buffer distances.

17 SN_04


The red-flag and credits methodology assumes large amounts of information for which we can see no reliable published source.

Comment

The methodology is largely based on the BioBanking Assessment Methodology and biometric component of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 Environmental Outcomes Assessment Methodology. Both these methodologies were peer-reviewed by a panel of leading Australian scientists. There are numerous journal papers in the scientific literature in relation to the assessment methodologies used by DECCW

The vegetation-types database and threatened-species profile database that underpin the methodology are publicly available and frequently updated as new information becomes available and new threatened species listings are made.

18 SN_04


The methodology fails to fully consider the key elements used in determining the conservation value and status of species and ecological communities.

A high weight is given to decline as the key threat issue for communities, ignoring spatial distribution and loss of ecological function etc.

As threat status is based not only on geographic distribution but, rather, on a combination of either decline, geographic distribution or loss of ecological function, it is not appropriate to single out relative size of remaining area as a sufficient factor to vary a red flag.

Comment

A decision to vary red flags is made on a range of factors relating to the likelihood of a remnant retaining its biodiversity values over time and is not limited to size. These include the threats currently and likely to be operating on the remnant and the options available to manage the remnant over time.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to base the decision to vary red flags on the following:

options to avoid impacts (including sensitive urban design)

regional conservation status of the red flag concerned

specific criteria for threatened species, vegetation types and biodiversity links.

Proposals need to satisfy all variation criteria (refer to section 2.4).

- 13 -


19 SN_05


Migratory birds listed in the EPBC Act are not identified as triggering a red flag.

Noted

Proposed change

The red flag criteria have been amended to include migratory bird habitat.

20 SN_05


The red-flag areas are far too weak to guarantee maintenance or improvement of biodiversity values. All threatened species and their habitats, threatened communities and threatened populations should qualify as red-flag areas.

Comment

Impacts on threatened species that can respond to improvements in habitat may be offset. The rules have been established to ensure that this occurs in suitable locations and under secure management arrangements.

21 SN_05


To not include threatened species and their habitats as red-flags areas until they qualify as species that cannot withstand further loss (defined in the methodology as less than three populations in a catchment management authority (CMA), that is, one or two populations) is far too risky.

Comment

The methodology prescribes a number of criteria to classify species that cannot withstand loss. This is not limited to species that have only three populations within a CMA (refer to section 2.3).

22 SN_05


The amount of discretion given to the Director General in regard to waiving red-flag areas and modifying the nature of any offsets required is concerning. This discretionary approach removes certainty.

Comment

The methodology provides a rules-based approach to biodiversity assessment. The provisions that allow discretion to vary a red flag are essential to provide limited flexibility to maximise biodiversity outcomes where they are tested against other assessment criteria.

23 SN_05


All factors in section 2.3.2 should apply, not just one. Factor c could allow a red-flag area to be cleared simply because there is a lot of non-significant native vegetation in a region.

Factor e disregards the precautionary principle – there is no guarantee that offsets be effective for species conservation.


24 SN_05


Current and future viability should be distinguished. Refer to response, row 18

- 14 -


25 SN_05


Given appropriate management, the condition of communities may well improve and the same areas would qualify as red-flag areas. To automatically exclude areas because they are currently in low condition implies that management actions would not be effective. Management actions applied to areas in low condition elsewhere can be used to offset losses.

Noted


Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify consideration as to whether appropriate conservation management arrangements can be established over the red-flag area given current ownership, zoning and the likely cost of future management.

26 SN_06


Threatened species which cannot withstand loss will be designated as red flags. Under biobanking some ‘negligible loss’ is permitted. Need to clarify whether this will still apply.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to ensure consistency with the biobanking provisions.

27 SN_06


Variation rules do not include rules relating to riparian buffers, state or regional biodiversity links and some World Heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to:

include variation rules for riparian buffers, state and regional biodiversity links

clarify assessment requirements for World Heritage properties and Ramsar wetlands. These two matters of national environmental significance will not be the subject of red flags (as this is beyond legislative scope of TSC Act). Therefore, variation rules are not required. Their inclusion in the methodology is to streamline the assessment process and facilitate strategic assessments under the EPBC Act by ensuring that state and federal issues are addressed in a single process. The Australian Government’s Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will continue to be the approval body under the EPBC Act.

- 15 -


28 SN_06


Defining vegetation ‘region’ as Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia (IBRA) adds complexity as mapping data is not readily available for IBRA regions. Variation rules are unclear under what circumstances red-flag variations will be granted.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to remove IBRA removed from definition of a region. The methodology defines vegetation region as the CMA subregion and adjoining CMA subregions (refer section 2.4.2).

29 SN_06


Section 2.2 does not pick up that ‘a red flag is triggered where the land proposed for certification has a significant direct or indirect impact on any of the relevant matters of NES’. How will ‘significant impact’ be assessed?


30 SN_08

Local government

The nominated riparian buffer widths are only ‘either’ side of the river. Whereas the riparian corridor core riparian zone and vegetation buffer widths applied by the Office of Water are on ‘both’ sides. The two processes should be consistent.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to ensure consistency with the Office of Water guidelines.

31 SN_08

Local government

Limited latitude to approve biodiversity certification strategies where red-flag variation rules cannot be justified.

Comment

Under the TSC Act, applications for biodiversity certification strategies must ‘improve or maintain’ biodiversity values. Red-flag areas cannot be certified unless a red-flag variation has been approved by the Director General.

32 SN_08

Local government

The red-flag variation tests do not provide the latitude for flexibility to decision makers to promote development in logical locations which might be necessary to induce landowners to make conservation commitments.


33 SN_10

Local government

Only 18 of the threatened species in the Southern Rivers region meet the criteria ‘cannot withstand further loss’. Alarmed that all other species are excluded from the definition of red flag.

Comment

The methodology requires the protection of a combination of threatened species and ecosystems. These ecosystems are a surrogate for a large number of species (ecosystem credit species). Consequently, it is not appropriate to just consider how the methodology addresses species that cannot withstand further loss.

- 16 -


34 SN_10

Local government

Concern that an area must be ‘vegetated’ to fit the definition of red flag.

Comment

Red flags can include the habitat of threatened species which does not need to be vegetated, e.g. caves and rocky outcrops.

35 SN_10

Local government

Further consideration needs to be given to determining the contribution to regional biodiversity values.


36 SN_11


Currently any red flag is amenable to variation based on ‘viability’. The methodology (section 2.3.3) currently indicates that all low-viability red-flag sites can be varied, rather than determining if intervention could increase viability. It is essential that the variation rules are tightened to more clearly articulate categories of red flags that cannot be varied.

Refer to responses, rows 18 and 25

37 SN_11


This section would be clearer with a consolidated statement of the factors the Director General must be satisfied are met before make a determination that biodiversity certification of a red-flag area is to be regarded as improving or maintaining biodiversity values.

Suggest 2.3 concludes with the following:

‘The Director General may only make such a determination if satisfied that:

The options and the feasibility of these options, to avoid impacts on red flag area(s) where biodiversity certification is conferred, have been considered (2.3.1);

The native vegetation and threatened species habitat in the red flag area makes a low contribution to regional biodiversity values (2.3.2); and

The viability of biodiversity values in the red flag area is low or not viable (2.3.3).

Criteria for determining each of these factors are provided in sections 2.3.1 – 2.3.3.’

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to provide a summary statement for the factors the Director General must consider when making a determination to vary a red flag (refer to section 2.4).

This includes setting out the factors that the Director General must consider according to whether the red-flag area relates to a vegetation type, a threatened species or areas recognised as having state or regional biodiversity significance.

- 17 -


38 SN_11


In 2.3.1(a), the consideration as to whether it is ‘reasonable or necessary’ to clear red-flag areas to implement government-approved strategic land-use plans or strategies is subjective and has the potential to undermine conservation goals of biocertification.


39 SN_11


2.3.1(b) Including ‘costs of future management’ as a criteria here may be problematic for the most threatened species (where only degraded or small fragments remain) as conservation costs are likely to be high and this should not be used as a justification to override a red flag for the most threatened or vulnerable species.


40 SN_11


2.3.1(c) If current ownership precludes appropriate management arrangements being undertaken, it may be preferable to exclude the land from the area for assessment.

Comment

In such cases, land will be excluded from the assessment area.

41 SN_11


2.3.2 The methodology needs to identify that each of the criteria in 2.3.2 relate to a specific red-flag criterion.


42 SN_11


2.3.2(a, b, c) If data on relative abundance and percent remaining is going to be used to justify a red-flag variation, the data should be made available through the vegetation types database to make decisions transparent; this data is not always easily accessible.

Comment

Data on relative abundance and percent remaining is not available statewide and cannot be presented in a database at this time. The methodology allows applicants to use local data sets in relation to vegetation mapping.

43 SN_11


2.3.3 There should be a note regarding categories of red flag that are not amenable to variation, such as species that are listed as critically endangered or identified as unable to withstand further loss. This safety net is essential as such species would probably fail the current requirements for viability, as by definition they are remaining fragments in disturbed/degraded areas.


- 18 -


44 SN_11


2.3.3 (a, b) The methodology should require identification of red-flag areas as the first step and that every effort is made to maintain the viability and connectivity of red-flag areas through careful placement and design of the area proposed for biodiversity certification. Only current or approved future uses of surrounding land should be able to be considered when determining the viability or connectedness of red-flag areas for the purposes of 2.3.3.


45 SN_11


2.3.3(b) Suggest this paragraph specifically acknowledges that connectedness will vary depending on the species comprising, and associated with, the vegetation type.

Comment

The methodology considers connectivity on three scales, including assessing size of adjacent remnant area, percent native vegetation cover, importance of biodiversity links (e.g. riparian corridors, state and regional links) (section 3.7).

46 SN_11


2.3.3(c) The introduction of the condition level ‘degraded’ is confusing given the wording on page 5, which states that ‘If native vegetation is not in low condition, it is in moderate to good condition.’ Rather than making this vegetation subject to red-flag variation, primary consideration should be given to whether its condition can be improved with appropriate management.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to remove ‘degraded’ in reference to a condition level for native vegetation.

47 SN_13


The criteria are open and subjective.

There should be a further requirement under 2.3 to prevent removal of any critically endangered community.

Contribution to regional values – as discussed under biodiversity values, how can this be assessed when there is limited detail on variability within the region? The percentage remaining, relative abundance, condition etc are not reliable indicators.

Viability assessment – insufficient guidance or science is provided to reliably determine viability.


- 19 -


48 SN_13


Assessment of viability in section 2.3.3 is determined by generic criteria. Small remnant size and connectivity as discussed do not always reflect biodiversity values and viability. Consideration of natural resilience and regeneration potential is not included.


49 SN_14


The requirements that must be met in order to permit biodiversity certification being conferred on a red-flag area appear to be ill-defined and/or lenient.


Offsets

50 SN_03


Endangered ecological communities, threatened species and endangered species should only be able to be offset with ‘like-for-like’ offsets.

Comment

The offset rules require ‘like-for-like’ offsets to be the first considered option. The methodology allows offsetting where a ‘not-for-like’ option will result in better conservation outcomes. Ideally offsets will be ‘like-for-like’ to counterbalance the same type of biodiversity values being impacted. However, where ‘like-for-like’ cannot be achieved due to factors including limited availability of comparable values in the locality, the methodology allows for variation of the offset rules.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify that the use of ‘not-for-like’ offsets is only to be considered where no feasible alternative is possible (refer to sections 10.2.1 and 10.4.1).

51 SN_04


The methodology assumes that loss of vegetation can be balanced by offsets. Issues such as time lags, ongoing impacts of loss on species and community decline, etc are ignored.

Comment

DECCW accepts that further research is required into the risks associated with offsetting. The methodology attempts to address these issues by requiring offsets to be both actively managed for conservation and secured on title.

- 20 -


52 SN_05


The biodiversity values of offsets should equate with the biodiversity values destroyed.


53 SN_05


The methodology should ensure that any losses within a vegetation type are offset by gains within the same vegetation type.


54 SN_05


It is not acceptable to substitute species, particularly at the level of endangered species.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to include rules that limit offsetting.

55 SN_06


It would be rare for land subject to biodiversity certification to have lands within it sign up to biobanking agreements prior to confirmation of development outcomes. Will a commitment by landholders be sufficient to provide certainty on conservation outcomes?

Comment

The new legislative provisions for biodiversity certification introduced stronger enforcement and compliance provisions, to ensure arrangements entered into through the certification process are delivered.

56 SN_07

Local government

There is no workable system of determining and administering the offsets currently available.

Comment

Biodiversity certification is designed to fix this by setting standards for offsets and to provide a framework for their implementation. The TSC Act provides for a range of different offsetting mechanisms (section 126L).

57 SN_11


The methodology must be clearer in its requirement for planning authorities to demonstrate how they have: (1) avoided impacts on biodiversity, (2) minimised impacts on biodiversity, and (3) sought on-site offsets prior to any consideration of off-site offsets or financial contributions in lieu of offsets.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to more clearly embed the mitigation hierarchy of avoid, mitigate, offset (section 2.4).

- 21 -


58 SN_11


Offsetting within a formation is extremely broad and could encompass vastly different vegetation types.


59 SN_11


Permitting trade-offs between kingdoms, i.e. a plant species for an animal species, is clearly not going to ‘improve or maintain’ the impacted biodiversity value.

The option of trading between completely unrelated species must be deleted from the methodology if it is to have any scientific credibility.


60 SN_11


Section 2 should include a reference to offsets only applying where direct impacts cannot be avoided or mitigated by on-site measures.


61 SN_12

Government

Offsetting between ecosystems and species risk projects being inconsistent with the EPBC Act approach.

Comment

DECCW is working with the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to ensure offset requirements are compatible.

62 SN_13


There should be no offsetting of a critically endangered ecological community outside the biodiversity certification assessment area, as with critically endangered species. Why are there two standards?

Comment

The draft methodology does not set two standards. It allows for offsetting of critically endangered ecological communities and critically endangered species outside the biodiversity certification area.

63 SN_13


There is no incentive to offset with the same community in the same local area and thereby protect similar biodiversity.

Comment

Local offsets are preferable. However, local offsets are not always available.

The methodology allows offsets to be located away from the impacted site provided that the offset is found within the same vegetation type or, where there is no alternative, the same vegetation formation in the same IBRA bioregion. This widens the scope of potential offset sites and allows offsets to be directed towards regional consideration priorities.

- 22 -


64 SN_16


Concerned with the approach to offsetting one threatened species with an entirely different species (plant or animal) a long distance from the original disturbed site.


65 SN_16


Urges a return to ‘like-for-like’ principle. Refer to response, row 57

Financial contributions

66 SN_02

Government

Use of levies to secure conservation outcomes should not be seen as the default position but the exception or final option.


Financial contributions will only be considered where all other options to meet offset requirements have been exhausted.

67 SN_02

Government

If appropriate offsets cannot be secured on- or off-site, and it is decided that the shortfall should be made up with levies, the total cost of levies proposed for the site (infrastructure contribution) on the delivery of a development needs to be considered before a levy is imposed.

Comment

Any levy proposed to be collected through the state infrastructure contribution process must be endorsed by government. In setting contribution amounts, the reasonableness of the contribution will be taken into account.

The methodology provides flexibility to select offsets in areas of lower land value, where management costs are likely to be less, thus reducing the overall cost of offsets.

68 SN_03


No financial contributions should be accepted in lieu of biodiversity credits/offsets.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to remove reference that a financial contribution can be made in lieu of obtaining biodiversity offsets.

69 SN_05


The methodology needs to make it clear what will happen if an appropriate offset is not available to buy.

Comment

The methodology provides a hierarchy of offsets. The biodiversity certification agreement will set out how the financial contribution is to be used to acquire appropriate offsets.

- 23 -


70 SN_06


DECCW’s credit pricing spreadsheet provides a template which can be used to price management actions for a particular site, but the price per credit is based on individual variables. Will the spreadsheet be updated to provide new material on converting credits into a monetary value?

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amened to replace the current credit pricing sheet with a simpler approach which can be used to estimate likely costs.

71 SN_07

Local government

Section 8.4 should provide that financial contributions may form part of a package of offset measures, and these contributions can be made to local government.

Comment

Funds received as part of biodiversity certification can only be made via state infrastructure contribution processes or to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment being subject to a biodiversity certification agreement.

72 SN_09

Local government

Confirmation is sought that NSW Treasury and/or NSW Cabinet will approve the use of a state infrastructure contribution as an environmental levy.

Comment

Current arrangements for approving an SIC to fund offsets will continue to apply.

73 SN_11


The methodology sets out the financial option for offsetting, but it is not explicit that other offsets be comprehensively and transparently considered first.


74 SN_11


There is no limit on what percent of an offset requirement can be discharged by financial contribution, and how the contribution will be specifically linked to addressing the impact.

Comment

It is possible for 100 percent of an offset to be delivered through a financial contribution. Any such arrangement will be secured through a biodiversity certification agreement and a range of mechanisms are available to the Minister to ensure compliance.

75 SN_12

Government

It is unclear how risks associated with allowing financial contributions would be managed.


- 24 -


Use of planning scheme zones

76 SN_01

Industry

The restriction on generating credits for planning scheme conservation measures is problematic. Concerned that only 25 percent of the ecosystem credits and species credits are available for planning scheme conservation measures.

Comment

To be considered an offset, conservation management arrangements should be secure. In the absence of a firm management commitment over these lands, planning instrument measures are heavily discounted.

77 SN_02

Government

A higher percentage credit values than the 25 percent currently proposed should be ascribed.


78 SN_02

Government

The proposed rule that land previously zoned E2, E3, E4 (or the equivalent) cannot be used to generate offsets is not supported.

The methodology could provide greater security for existing E zones by incorporating them into the biodiversity agreement with the relevant planning authority.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to allow existing environmental protection zoned lands to be included as a planning instrument conservation measure providing there has been significant improvement in the way the zone and associated development controls work to protect biodiversity.

79 SN_02

Government

The requirement for land in public ownership to be zoned only E2 is not supported. Bushland in public ownership could also be zoned RE1. The more important criteria is that the land be classified as ‘community land’ under the Local Government Act 1993 which then requires a plan of management.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to recognise community land under the LG Act as a conservation measure, receiving 90 percent credit value and is no longer considered a planning instrument offset.

80 SN_02

Government

The requirement that land in private ownership must be zoned either E2 or E3 and be subject of Appendix 4 (equivalent to clause 5.9 of the standard instrument) is unachievable. The Native Vegetation Act 2003 continues to apply to E zones.

Noted

Proposed change

The provisions relating to the use of planning instrument offsets has been amended:

Community land is recognised as a conservation measure, receiving 90 percent credit value.

Options for lot averaging can be explored on an individual basis.

- 25 -


The reference to clause 5.9 of the standard instrument has been replaced with a requirement for the planning authority to put in place appropriate local provisions.

81 SN_02

Government

Clause 5.9 of the standard instrument does not permit councils to apply tree preservation orders or equivalent to land subject of the NV Act.


82 SN_02

Government

Land to be certified should be afforded some biodiversity credits for various conservation measures including tree preservation orders, development standards and other development control plan requirements so long as this does not involve onerous monitoring obligations on the part of planning authorities or developers.


83 SN_03


Offsets credits should not be able to be acquired by rezoning land E3 and E2.

Comment

Offsets credits for these lands are heavily discounted in view of the lack of management and absence of any conservation covenant on title.

84 SN_06


Unclear why credit discounting should be applied to planning scheme conservation lands.


85 SN_06


Clarification required of whether ecosystem credits will be calculated for ‘open space’ (i.e. does it fall within the category of ‘remainder lands’?).

Comment

Existing open space is not counted towards loss and can be counted towards gain if the requirements for planning instrument offset are met, or any other type of offset specified by the methodology

86 SN_07

Local government

Conservation zones are an inappropriate consideration on which to give credits.


87 SN_09

Local government

Clarification is needed on rules for using planning scheme conservation measures:

The Department of Planning is not in favour of public land being zone E2.

Land classified as community land requires a plan of management; this would seem to have a greater level of


- 26 -


protection than an E2 or E3 zoning but is given the same value of biodiversity credit.

Opportunities for lot averaging with the biodiversity certification context should be investigated.

Councils are unable to comply with requirements for development control for the preservation and protection of vegetation as set out in Appendix 4.

88 SN_10

Local government

Use of planning-based conservation measures is not sufficient to achieve permanent improvement or maintenance of biodiversity values.


89 SN_11


Environmental zones (e.g. E2) do not provide security in perpetuity.


Assessment of native vegetation condition

90 SN_01

Industry

The division of vegetation only into two categories – low condition and moderate to good condition is inappropriate.

Comment

For consistency, the approach to native vegetation assessment has been taken from the BioBanking Assessment Methodology and the NV Act Environmental Outcomes Assessment Methodology.

91 SN_01

Industry

Benchmarks and the establishment of what low condition is are highly arbitrary, unrealistic and heavily weighted in favour of encompassing the overwhelming majority of vegetation within the moderate to good condition category.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to include additional criteria to define vegetation in low condition based on an overall site value score of 33 or less.

This means that the definition of vegetation in low condition will be based on 10 condition attributes, providing a more robust assessment of the condition of vegetation.

- 27 -


92 SN_04


Remote sensing approach outlined for assessment of vegetation condition is inappropriate. The approach claims to be adapted from the Native Vegetation Interim Type Standard; however, this standard clearly states that condition can only be assessed through field observation.

Comment

The methodology allows remote sensing to be used to establish vegetation zones. On-ground sampling is used to determine the condition and verify vegetation type. This approach is consistent with the Native Vegetation Interim Type Standard.

93 SN_05


The vegetation types within a vegetation class can be very dissimilar (1,600 vegetation types are combined into only 99 vegetation classes). Combining vegetation types into coarse condition groups could mask important variability. Why not look at each vegetation type individually? The ‘coarse condition’ group is to consist of vegetation types from the same vegetation class where the vegetation zones are in a relatively similar condition class. How will it be determined which zones are in a relatively similar condition state? Is this to be a subjective assessment? What does ‘relatively’ mean and what is meant by ‘condition’?

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to remove the coarse condition category. Vegetation zones are based on vegetation types in homogenous conditions and provide the basis for on ground survey to determine site value.

94 SN_08

Local government

The definition of ‘low condition’ vegetation is very narrow, which means that most areas of EEC will be red flagged. The methodology needs to be modified to generate a broader class of vegetation condition categories.


95 SN_11


Is coarse category zoning sensitive enough to identify a range of conditions in patches of more than one vegetation type?


96 SN_11


Sections 3.1 to 3.5 of the methodology indicate that native vegetation extent, type, condition, zones and coarse condition will be first determined by aerial photography, satellite imagery or ortho-rectified aerial photography. Plot and transect surveys are then discussed in relation to assessing site values in 3.5.2.

Section 3.4 includes requirements where extent of vegetation has changed – how will this be identified based on a desktop assessment?

Comment

It is not the intent of the methodology that interpretation of aerial or satellite imagery would be the only determination for boundaries of vegetation zones. Boundaries of vegetation zones may be amended following site visits and verification of vegetation types. The operational manual and supporting guidelines will provide further guidance.

- 28 -


Sections 3.1 to 3.5 should require that existing data, studies and mapping must be considered in the initial assessment, and that ground-truthing is required to confirm vegetation types, and particularly to confirm boundaries and coarse condition groups.

97 SN_13


The provision in 2.3.3(c) allows a remnant to be assessed as too degraded to be viable even if classified as not in low condition.


98 SN_14


In some cases the less-than 50 percent indigenous ground cover can be easily rectified. It is not logical to clear an area that could be easily salvaged. A more objective measure of percentage of native species to total species recorded may overcome the subjective estimates.

Comment

This approach was explored however, it is considered to be technically difficult across the full range of vegetation types in NSW. However, the methodology has been amended to include additional criteria to determine vegetation in low condition.

Refer to response, row 91.

Calculating credits

99 SN_01

Industry

Cumulative impact of requirements for both threatened species credits and ecosystem credits are unreasonable.

Comment

The methodology is designed to ensure that impacts on ecosystems and specialist threatened species are offset. There is scope within the offset rules to select offsets in areas of lower land value, where management costs are likely to be less, thus reducing the overall cost of offsets.

100 SN_01

Industry

There is no justification for a further multiplier of ×10 in equation 8.

Comment

This provision is consistent with the BioBanking Assessment Methodology and is necessary to ensure integration of the two schemes.

101 SN_01

Industry

Concerned that ‘retained areas’ are excluded from the provision of ecosystem credits or species credits.

Comment

The methodology sets the standard for offset areas (section 8.6). Retained areas are not subject to any conservation measures, therefore they are not included as part of the offset.

- 29 -


102 SN_02

Government

If 100 percent of credit value is to be ascribed to land permanently managed and funded for conservation, it is unclear why [the number of ecosystem credits generated] are to be scaled by a factor of 0.25.


103 SN_02

Government

[In calculating ecosystem credits – determining local area condition] the change in the site value score is the same as the current value score. This is only correct if a zero credit value is ascribed to the certified area. This approach is not supported.

Comment

The methodology allows for the consideration of future condition of vegetation as part of the assessment of site value.

104 SN_02

Government

It is unclear why the change in landscape value (equation 4) must be multiplied by the area if the landscape value applies to the entire area both before and after certification.

Noted

Proposed change

The area calculation has been deleted from the final methodology.

105 SN_04


Land without formal protection will also be retained if its characteristics are unsuitable for development, e.g. flood-prone land or land on steep slopes. To assume that this land will be lost and therefore allowable as a biodiversity credit, discounts the value of red-flagged areas. Such land should be excluded from land available for biodiversity credits.

Comment

Retained areas are not assessed and cannot be used as an offset (refer to section 8.6).

106 SN_05


The basis of calculating ecosystem credits is not explained. Why is there a multiple ‘native over-storey cover × proportion of over-storey species occurring as regeneration’ and why does it have a scaling factor of 5?

Comment

Site value is scored out of 100 and weights various condition attributes to reflect their relative importance in providing habitat.

107 SN_05


When calculating species credits, the methodology assumes that the distribution and habitat requirements of threatened species are well known. What sort of analysis is required to show that habitat value is low and what is meant by ‘low’? All the dot points should be satisfied, not just one.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify the process for assessing threatened species.

108 SN_05


How old do existing records have to be before they can be ignored? If old records are not taken into account then the reasons for not doing so need to be fully explained.

Comment

The methodology requires that an assessor use judgement when determining the likely presence of species based on a range of considerations including historical records.

- 30 -


109 SN_05


The species polygon needs to recognise that some species have very broad habitat requirements and habitat requirements may vary between seasons.

Comment

The methodology requires the inclusion of habitat requirements of a species.

110 SN_05


Why [when calculating number of species credits required where biodiversity certification is conferred] is the scaling factor 10 and not 100 or some other number?

Comment

Site value is scored out of 100 and weights various condition attributes to reflect relative importance in providing habitat.

111 SN_05


The use of scaling factors of 0.25 and 0.9 [when calculating ecosystem and species credits for planning scheme conser-vation measure] predicts the likely success of measures in areas without permanent management and funding and in areas with permanent management but not funding. There is no certainty in this; there are far too many unknowns.

Comment

The scaling factor 0.25 is the relevant factor for planning instrument measures. This significant discounting of credits reflects the lack of management and lack of conservation covenant on title.

112 SN_05


Need to justify why 0.6 is the default when calculating species credits for permanently managed and funded conservation measures and why a scaling factor of 10 is used.

Comment

The use of 0.6 represents an average site value score of 2 for each condition variable; as such, it is considered an appropriate default.

113 SN_06


Need to clarify whether or not credits for multiple vegetation zones will be combined to form a single group of credits.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify offset rules for use of ecosystem credits.

114 SN_08

Local government

Is there any capacity to incorporate a mix of conservation measures when working out credit requirements?

Comment

The methodology allows any combination of permanently managed and funded conservation measures, permanently managed conservation measures and planning instrument conservation measures.

- 31 -


115 SN_08

Local government

Section 9.2 seems to limit the use of ecosystem credits to ‘like-for-like’. This should be expanded to ‘like-for-like and/or better’.

Comment

The offset rules require ‘like-for-like’ in the first instance, and this rule may be varied with the Director General’s approval to cover offsets within the same vegetation formation or, in the case of threatened species, the methodology allows for ‘like-for-like or better’.

116 SN_11


There needs to be a definition of biocertification area and biocertification assessment area, including indicative diagrams.

Although the biodiversity certification assessment area is defined in the glossary, it is difficult to envisage the distinction in the absence of an example and without the definition of biocertification area.

Comment

The operational manual and supporting guidelines will provide further guidance.

117 SN_11


There needs to be a monitoring and review mechanism built into the biocertification framework to ensure that the values informing the future improvements in biodiversity values are based on demonstrated outcomes.

Comment

DECCW acknowledges that monitoring and compliance frameworks are currently focused on outputs rather than outcomes. Future research in this area will be beneficial.

118 SN_11


6.1 The landscape TG value is calculated by taking an average of all the TG values of species predicted to be present in a certain vegetation type. Instead of an average, the TG value of the least responsive species should be used so that its response to condition improvements is captured, otherwise only the most responsive species will be adequately offset.

Comment

A suite of threatened species is used to establish the landscape TG value. These species are predicted to use the site, based on vegetation type and subregion. In some situations, these filters would be over-predicted and under-predicted in others. Using the average Tg value will provide a suitable outcome for offsetting impacts on those threatened species assessed as generalist species.

119 SN_11


7.2.1 Support varying the weighting of credit calculations depending on the security and management of the land proposed for conservation measures. Propose further discounting the credits for the permanently managed conservation measures at 7.1.2 to 0.75.

Comment

DECCW considers 90 percent to be appropriate for these types of conservation measures.

- 32 -


120 SN_11


Equation 13 – oppose the use of the default value of 0.6 for %changeLACgain for situations where direct measurement of site value is not possible, e.g. lack of access.

Comment

It is important that the methodology makes provisions for situations where site access is not possible. The default value of 0.6 is a conservative estimate of the improvement that can be gained from active management where vegetation is in moderate condition.

Obtaining credits outside the proposal area

121 SN_11


Will there be a limit on the percent of offsets that can be off-site?

Comment

The methodology will not limit the amount of offset that can be located from outside the biodiversity certification assessment area.

122 SN_11


8.3 Comparing sections 7 and 8, it appears that credits are calculated differently depending on whether they are on-site or off-site. This needs to be clarified in the methodology.

Comment

The Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology provides a process for calculating losses and gains in large areas that are likely to be the subject of major urban releases. The requirements of the BioBanking Assessment Methodology are not appropriate at these scales. Changes to the methodology have been made in how:

Landscape values have been given greater weight (e.g. through the identification of local and regional biodiversity links)

Landscape-scale site-value scores can now be assessed across larger areas than can be permitted by BioBanking Assessment Methodology.

(refer to section 4.7).

123 SN_11


8.4 There should be a limit on what percent of an offset obligation can be discharged financially – in its current form, 100 percent of an offset could be a payment in lieu of an offset.

Credits obtained by financial contribution should be discounted to provide an incentive for applicants to make every effort to secure offsets directly. There should also be a clear requirement that any financial contribution will be spent on conservation specifically relevant to the


In regards to the timing of funds to purchase and retire credits, the methodology allows for funds to be directed towards purchase and retirement of biodiversity credits that are available on the market after the certification decision.

- 33 -


biodiversity values being impacted.

Any contribution must be detailed in a publicly available agreement. The dot-point regarding ‘funds to purchase and retire biodiversity credits’ implies that there is a third party holder of funds involved and that the biodiversity credits are not currently available for purchase (otherwise the applicant could purchase them directly). If this is the case, this dot-point should be removed, as biodiversity credits for the specific biodiversity value may not be available until significantly after the impact has occurred, and they may never become available; offsets should be secured in a timely manner.

124 SN_11


8.5 This reads as though an environmental levy can only be charged if a financial contribution is made. This would create an incentive for proponents to make financial contributions in preference to undertaking conservation measures themselves as they can then pass this cost onto developers. If this perverse incentive is not the intention, this section needs some clarification.

Comment

An environmental levy is expected to be one of the principle ways a financial contribution will be made. The other main alternative would be developers voluntarily making a financial contribution at the time of making their application.

Financial contributions will only be considered where all other options to meet offset requirements have been exhausted.

125 SN_14


The procedure used to calculate how many biodiversity credits a conservation management action is worth also makes apparently unjustified assumptions. The gain in site condition is defined in Equation 12 of the draft methodology as future local area condition score minus current local area condition score. Future LAC is determined using a completely arbitrary table, assuming that appropriate management of a site will increase attribute scores by a fixed amount. This table does not take into account the type, scope, funding or duration of these management actions and therefore does not provide an accurate assessment of the biodiversity value of a given offset.

Comment

This approach is consistent with the BioBanking Assessment Methodology and the NV Act Environmental Outcomes Assessment Methodology.

The future site value score predicts the level of improvement in condition by implementing a suite of management actions (refer to section 8.3).

- 34 -


Credit profile and offset rules

126 SN_11


Viability of a patch has only been considered at impacted sites but not at offset sites. This means that offsets within the biocertification assessment area won’t necessarily have to meet criteria relating to size, connectivity.

Comment

This approach is consistent with the proposed amendments to the BioBanking Assessment Methodology. The inclusion of additional attributes on the credit profile can make the offset rules overly complex and inhibit the supply of suitable offsets. The majority of offset sites are likely to be on located on sites that are in well-vegetated landscapes.

127 SN_11


9.3 The offset rules for species credit species do not consider patch size, connectivity or condition. Suggest the same criteria used for biobanking are applied such that an offset for a species credit species must have the specific attributes that are associated with the occurrence of the species for which the offset is being secured.

Comment

The offset rules for species credits in the BioBanking Assessment Methodology do not include patch size, connectivity or condition.

Refer to response Row 126 for approach to generalist threatened species.

128 SN_11


9.2 and 9.4 are inconsistent in their conditions and hence their treatment of offsets for ecosystem credits generated within and outside the biodiversity certification assessment area.

The first criterion is the same for both; however, criterion 2 in 9.4 provides for offsetting different vegetation types to those impacted, and criterion 3 in 9.4 (which importantly identifies the required landscape features and vegetation condition) is not replicated in 9.2.

Combine the most specific criteria from each, that is criteria 1 and 2 from 9.2 with criterion 3 from 9.4, in order to achieve offsets which are most closely ‘like-for-like’, a key element of offsets to enable them to ‘maintain or improve’ biodiversity values.

The criteria for offsets for ecosystem credits (either within or outside the biocertification assessment area) should be:

1. The CMA subregion identified in attribute 1 of the credit profile for the offset is the same as the subregion(s) identified in attribute 1 of the credit required for the

Noted

Proposed change


combine section 9.2 and 9.4 to ensure consistency

delete criteria 3 (i.e. landscape features) to simplify the credit profile and offset rules.

Refer to section 10.

- 35 -


land proposed for biodiversity certification, and

2. The vegetation type identified in attribute 2 of the credit profile for the offset area is the same as the vegetation type(s) identified in attribute 2 of the credit required for the land proposed for biodiversity certification, and

3. The landscape features (percent native vegetation cover class, adjacent remnant area size class) and vegetation condition (low or moderate-good) of the proposed conservation measure match the same or higher offset area class identified in attribute 3 of the credit required for the land proposed for biodiversity certification.

129 SN_11


The second dot-point relating to the use of offset rule 2 (ii) allows the applicant to demonstrate that the cost of securing the preferred offset type 2 (i) – the same vegetation type − is disproportionate. Offsets containing the most cleared and under-pressure vegetation types (e.g. those incorporating endangered or critically endangered ecological communities) are likely to be expensive to purchase (e.g. if they are listed because of loss due to development pressure), and are therefore the most likely to be ‘traded off’ on the basis of cost effectiveness. This seems counterintuitive to the intent of their listing, by which they have been judged as requiring the highest level of protection.

Comment

Endangered or critically endangered vegetation types will trigger a red flag and are therefore protected by provisions in the methodology. Only patches of vegetation that are consistent with the rules for a red-flag variation can be certified for clearing with offsets.

The first preference is to match the vegetation type. The secondary options that allow vegetation types from within the same vegetation class or vegetation formation are only allowable when no feasible alternative is available.

130 SN_11


In order to use offset rule 2 (iii), the application for biodiversity certification must ‘identify which threatened species impacted by land proposed for biodiversity certification are predicted to use the proposed offset’. The proponent should then have to demonstrate that the proposed offset (or combination of offsets) supports all the threatened species impacted by the land proposed for biodiversity certification. Otherwise some threatened species can be impacted without the provision of appropriate offsets to protect them elsewhere; this does not achieve the ‘maintain or improve’ standard.

Comment

Threatened species that require ecosystem credits are those that are predicted to occur on land proposed for biodiversity certification and land proposed as an offset. The provision that allows an exact match of the predicted threatened species sets a standard that is difficult to achieve in many circumstances. This may lead to perverse environmental outcomes where good options for offsets cannot be used in an application for biodiversity certification.

The first preference is to fully match the suite of threatened species. However, DECCW considers that it is important to offer limited flexibility that provides alternative options for offsetting in

- 36 -


circumstances where the first preference cannot be achieved.

Proposed change


Include a habitat assessment for threatened species that require ecosystem credits so that the assessment of these species does not solely rely on prediction (refer to section 4.2).

Provide an assessment of the impacts on predicted threatened species where secondary offset options are proposed in the application for biodiversity certification (refer to section 10.2.1).

131 SN_11


How was it determined that, if a species has four remaining populations, then that makes it acceptable to impact one without securing an offset which protects another of the (now) remaining three?

Noted

Proposed amendment

The offset rules for using species credits generated outside the biodiversity certification assessment area have been amended to remove the requirement that the Director General must be satisfied that the land proposed for certification does not contain one of the last three known populations of a species.

Management actions

132 SN_05


The underlying assumption that losses can be compensated for in perpetuity by measures as described in the methodology is false.

Comment

Areas of land that are used as conservation measures are protected in perpetuity by a range of mechanisms including voluntary conservation agreements, biobanking agreements and property vegetation plans. Each of these measures includes a suite of management actions that will improve the condition of vegetation and its habitat value over time.

133 SN_05


There is no guarantee that management actions will lead to an area of native vegetation or species habitat with biodiversity values equivalent to those lost. How long are management actions to be undertaken for? Who will fund these actions in the long-term or in perpetuity? These things need to be stated in the methodology.

Comment

The methodology prescribes conservations measures that require permanent management. Where biobanking or land reservation is used, an ongoing funding source is available. These measures are given 100 percent offset allocation.

- 37 -


134 SN_05


The outcome for biodiversity from a given management action will be the same regardless of whether the action was voluntary or not. The exclusion of voluntary management actions need to be explained and justified.

Comment

Voluntary management actions are referred to in the methodology in the context of the additionality rules (section 8.5). A reduction in the number of credits created for a conservation measure does not apply to voluntary management actions.

Conservation measures

135 SN_08

Local government

Section 7.1.3 does not include conservation land acquisition strategies that will be funded by way of voluntary planning agreements, development contribution plans and state infrastructure contribution programs. These additional mechanisms should be acknowledged in the methodology.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify the role of planning agreements (refer to section 8.1.2).

136 SN_09

Local government

It would seem unlikely that any council undertaking the biodiversity certification process would actively promote voluntary conservation, trust agreements or private land being transferred to national park estate as a part of the proposal due to the potential impacts on rate revenue.

Comment

There are a range of mechanisms to deliver offsets under the methodology.

Assessment of indirect impacts

137 SN_05


It appears that no direct impacts on the red-flag area are permitted but indirect impacts are, provided they are offset. It is likely that red-flag areas with large perimeters, small area and no buffers will degrade over time and the integrity of the red-flag area will be diminished.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to allow for buffer areas around red flags to ensure long-term integrity of the red flag (refer to section 6).

138 SN_05


The list of indirect impacts on biodiversity values should be expanded. What if there are no ‘cost-effective’ measures available? Does this negate the need to undertake anything that might be effective but is too costly?

Comment

It is beyond the scope of the methodology to provide an exhaustive list of indirect impacts. Identifying impacts is the role of the assessor.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clearly articulate how indirect impacts are assessed in an application for biodiversity certification (refer to section 6).

- 38 -


139 SN_11


Include additional examples, such as the introduction of pest species, contribution to climate change and the impact of extraction of raw materials used in the development.

Would like to see more consideration of indirect impacts in the remainder of the methodology; having identified an indirect impact it must then be addressed in some way, and more guidance would be helpful.

Does the fact that no ‘cost-effective’ measures are available negate the need for the applicant to undertake any action to address indirect impacts?


140 SN_11


2.1(1a) Should include both direct and indirect impacts on a red-flag area.

Comment

Indirect impacts are considered under 2.2(d) of the ‘improve or maintain’ biodiversity values assessment.

Assessment and measurement of ecosystem biodiversity values

141 SN_05


Local biodiversity links could be less than 30 m wide and may connect native vegetation in patches < 30 ha and still be very effective; these figures need to be justified.

Comment

This distance is used in the methodology to determine where patches of vegetation are linked to form a single adjacent remnant area. Thirty metres is used as it is appropriate for a wide range of species.

142 SN_05


Section 3.6.1 Why maximum use scores of 22, 18 and 10 for percent native vegetation cover, connectivity value and adjacent remnant area respectively?

Comment

Landscape value is scored out of 50. The scores for these values reflect their relative importance. The values are used to score loss in the extent of native vegetation, habitat and connectivity. Therefore, the factors that contribute to each of these values are not determined in isolation.

143 SN_11


3.3 The link on page 11 is to the VegType Database not the VegBenchmark Database.

Noted

Proposed change

The correct link has been inserted (refer to glossary).

- 39 -


144 SN_11


3.4 The dot-points at the end of the section should list ecological communities (under the TSC Act) rather than just endangered ecological community.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to include all listed critically endangered and endangered ecological communities under TSC Act and EPBC Act.

145 SN_11


3.6.2 The final sentence should begin: ‘The change in percent native vegetation cover score …’. As it reads currently, it is inconsistent with Equation 4 on page 20.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to clarify that the change in percent native vegetation cover score relates to equation 3.

146 SN_11


3.6.3 The dot-point criteria in the text appear inconsistent with the descriptions in table 3 relating to local biodiversity link. This section should make it clear that connectivity could occur in two different ways: via corridors, or via ‘stepping stones’ or distinct patches.

Noted

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to make section 3.7.3 and table 4 consistent.

Assessment and measurement of threatened species

147 SN_01

Industry

The use of CMA subregions as a base for determining the likely presence of certain threatened species is extremely unreliable.

Comment

DECCW considers the use of CMA subregion to determine the presence of species in a CMA subregion is appropriate as it is based on known records.

148 SN_04


The methodology assumes that all species are currently listed at the most appropriate threat status.

Comment

The status of species can only be considered at the time the assessment process is carried out. Threatened species data used in the methodology is periodically updated as new information on species and new listings occur.

149 SN_11


4.1 For new users, it would be helpful to clearly differentiate between biobanking’s Threatened Species Profile Database (TSPD), which contains very specific information to support a biobanking or biocertification assessment and the general

Comment

DECCW manages just one TSPD which contains the data required for assessments using biobanking or biodiversity certification. Data from the TSPD is also presented in the threatened species profiles on the

- 40 -


threatened species database, which is searched by species name to get a description, habitat and ecology etc.

website.

150 SN_11


4.3 Step 3 Excluding vagrants, species should only be able to be culled from the list of species for further assessment where surveys have failed to locate the species or suitable habitat. If additional surveys are not undertaken, the species should be presumed to be present when calculating the credits required.

Comment

The intent of the criteria in Step 3 is to refine the list of species that require further assessment through a targeted survey.

151 SN_11


4.3 Step 7 The second last paragraph on page 25 refers to the unit of measurement used to determine the number of species credits that are generated and directs users to the TSPD to find this unit of measurement.

It is not clear which of the fields in the TSPD this relates to – none is named ‘unit of measurement’ or similar. If the intent is simply that flora are measured by number of individuals and fauna by hectares of habitat, the reference to the TSPD is unnecessary and confusing.

Comment

DECC is currently working to improve the structure of the TSPD by reformatting it in SQL 2008 software. The new structure of the TSPD will enable this data to be added to the threatened species profiles website. This is likely to occur in late 2011.

152 SN_11


4.5 The ability of an expert to identify whether a species is present or absent, and to estimate numbers, without actually undertaking surveys would require extensive experience with that species in that local area, preferably on the site in question.

Concerned about the application of this section delivering accurate information to inform the assessment. Suggest the removal of the section. Should it be kept, there should be a requirement for extra credits where expert reports have been used in lieu of on-site surveys, and expert reports should be made public to ensure transparency.

Comment

An expert report is a valid approach to identifying presence or absence of threatened species, particular for threatened species where surveying methods are unreliable.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to provide clearer criteria around the use of expert reports.

- 41 -


Matters of national environmental significance (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act)

153 SN_05


Need to explain how biodiversity certification can satisfy the information requirements of a strategic assessment.

Noted

The methodology has been developed to maximise the likelihood that NSW and Commonwealth assessment requirements will be collected in a single process.

Proposed change

The methodology has been amended to include a specific chapter on impact assessment of national environmental significance matters and the strategic assessment process.

154 SN_11


This section should include a link to EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines: www.environment.gov.au/ epbc/publications/pubs/nes-guidelines.pdf.

Noted

Proposed change

The link has been included (refer to section 5.1).

155 SN_11


The methodology indicates that a biocertification proposal would satisfy the information requirements for a strategic assessment under the EPBC Act.


156 SN_12

Government

If a red-flag area is a matter protected under the EPBC Act, and the Director General of DECCW allows it to be cleared, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment may require further offset or refuse permission to continue with the development.


- 42 -


Social and economic considerations

157 SN_02

Government

The application of the ‘improve or maintain’ test without adequate discretionary powers and social and economic impacts being considered as part of the decision-making process may make it difficult for regional housing and employment targets to be met. A way to include further social and economic considerations in the methodology would be welcome.

Comment

The methodology sets a transparent and objective standard for environmental protection. Efforts have been made to ensure that assessments can be undertaken as efficiently as possible and that offset sites can be obtained and managed at a lower cost.

158 SN_08

Local government

The methodology does not allow for socioeconomic issues to be given weighting in the certification process.


Miscellaneous

159 SN_04


To assume that the listings and protection measures for the currently listed species can act as a surrogate for those taxa and ecological communities that are not currently listed is not valid.

Comment

Under the methodology, approximately half species are considered habitat generalists whose presence can be predicted by the presence of habitat. The remaining fauna species and all threatened flora species are considered specialist species and are considered on an individual basis without surrogates. There is no surrogate for an endangered ecological community; they are identified and assessed individually.

160 SN_04


The methodology does not consider the effect of the loss of vegetation on the genetic composition or diversity of species or populations.

Comment

The methodology assesses surrogates for biodiversity values, i.e. structure, function and composition (including genetic biodiversity), at a range of scales. It is impossible to directly assess genetic diversity. Instead, threatened species (rare species with limited population sizes cannot be offset) and functional elements of biodiversity such as regeneration are used.

Genetic diversity is preserved by enhancing biodiversity (that can otherwise be lost) on offset sites and by triggering red flags for threatened species that cannot withstand loss (e.g. because of their rarity) and over-cleared vegetation types/ecological communities.

- 43 -


161 SN_05


Biodiversity includes both threatened and non-threatened vegetation and species. The methodology needs to be amended to take proper account of non-threatened species.

Comment

The methodology requires the assessment of non-threatened entities. It assesses the vegetation type of all vegetation communities, and requires offset for non-threatened vegetation types. Native vegetation is the surrogate for protected fauna that is not threatened.

162 SN_06


Questions arise as how biodiversity certification and biobanking integrate. How should credits be treated under a biobanking assessment?

Comment

The credits generated under biobanking can be used to offset the impact of biodiversity certification.

However, ecosystem credits or species credits generated for conservation measures can not be used to retire credit required in relation to a biobanking statement.

163 SN_08

Local government

Was inclusion of SEPP 26 Littoral Rainforest and SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection considered?

Comment

DECCW considers the existing assessment process adequately deals with littoral rainforest and koala habitat. SEPP 26 is not required as littoral rainforest is an endangered ecological community and addressed in the methodology. Likewise habitat for koalas is assessed through assessment of vegetation type and condition.

164 SN_10

Local government

Requests further guidance on the requirements for a Director General approved biodiversity links plan, including whether local biodiversity links are also required to be identified.

Comment

Further guidance will be provided in the operational manual and supporting guidelines.

There is no provision to identify local biodiversity links outside the requirement of the methodology, as defined in table 4, section 3.7.3.

165 SN_13


Absence of conservation targets are a concern. Without targets there are no benchmarks to provide appropriate levels of protection and safeguard ongoing loss of critical biodiversity.

Comment

The approach taken in biodiversity certification does not involve setting of conservation targets. Instead, the approach is taken to identify conservation values and avoid impacts on areas of high biodiversity conservation value and offset unavoidable impacts. This approach is consistent the Biobanking Assessment Methodology and the and the NV Act’s Environmental Outcomes Assessment Methodology.

- 44 -


Appendix 2 List of submitters

Number Submitter name

1 Urban Development Institute of Australia (NSW)

2 Department of Planning

3 Nature Conservation Council of NSW

4 NSW Scientific Committee

5 P&J Smith Ecological Consultants

6 Eco Logical Australia

7 Lake Macquarie City Council

8 Wyong Shire Council

9 Local Government and Shires Associations of NSW

10 Eurobodalla Shire Council

11 Environmental Defender’s Office

12 Australia Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts1

13 Teresa James

14 Anne Clements & Associates Pty Limited

15 Western Sydney Conservation Alliance Inc.

16 Total Environment Centre Inc.

17 Neil Moore

1 Now the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Documents

Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology overview of key issues raised, a response to submissions and acts to document proposed changes to the draft methodology resulting