Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset ... · Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset Analysis, 140 – 204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows 7 Under the Hume Planning

MELBOURNE: 292 Mt Alexander Road Ascot Vale VIC 3056 GEELONG: PO Box 8048 Newtown VIC 3220BRISBANE: Level 22 / 127 Creek Street Brisbane QLD 4000 ADELAIDE: 8 Greenhill Road Wayville SA 5034

www.ehpartners.com.au

Final Report

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset

Analysis, 140 – 204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows

Prepared for

Transpacific Industries Group Limited

October 2014

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset Analysis, 140 – 204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows 2

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Assessment Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset Analysis

Address 140 – 204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows

Project numbers 6116, 5490, 1157

Project manager Chad Browning - Consultant Zoologist

Report reviewer Clio Gates Foale

Other EHP staff Shannon LeBel – Consultant Botanist and Marc Freestone

Mapping Monique Elsley

File name 6116_EHP_NH_Report_160714

Client Transpacific Industries Group Limited

Bioregion Victorian Volcanic Plain

CMA Port Phillip and Western Port

Council Hume City Council

Report versions Comments Comments updated by Date submitted

Draft 1 - 16/07/2014

FinalUpdated based on comments from Commercial

and Industrial Property Pty LtdCSB 16/07/2014

Revised FinalUpdates vegetation mapping of the study area

covered by the ESO.CSB/MF 03/10/2014

AcknowledgementsWe thank the following people for their contribution to the project:

Ian Prudden for site and project information.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries for the use of ecological databases and electronicmapping systems.

Copyright © Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty LtdThis document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. Theuse or copying of this document in whole or part without the permission of Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltdis an infringement of copyright.

DisclaimerAlthough Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd have taken all the necessary steps to ensure that an accuratedocument has been prepared, the company accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result ofreliance placed upon the report and its contents.


GLOSSARY

Acronym Description

AVW Atlas of Victorian Wildlife

BEU Biodiversity Equivalence Unit

BIOR Biodiversity Impact and Offset Requirements Report

CaLP Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DEPI Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries

DoEFederal Department of Environment (former Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities)

DTPLIVictorian Department of Transport, Planning and Local Infrastructure (former

Department of Planning and Community Development)

DTV Degraded Treeless Vegetation

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

FIS Flora Information System

FZ Farming Zone

MTV Modified Treeless Vegetation

NES National Environmental Significance

NVIM Tool Native Vegetation Information Management Tool (DEPI)

OTC Over-the-Counter

PMST Protected Matters Search Tool (DoE)

PUZ Public Use Zone

TRZ Tree Retention Zone

VBA Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DEPI)

WoNS Weed of National Significance


CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1.1 Background and Objectives............................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Study Area ......................................................................................................................................... 6

2 METHODS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1 Nomenclature.................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Desktop Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Field Assessment ............................................................................................................................... 8

2.3.1 Flora Surveys.............................................................................................................................. 9

2.3.2 Fauna Surveys............................................................................................................................ 9

2.4 Permitted Clearing Assessment (The Guidelines) ........................................................................... 10

2.5 Assessment Qualifications and Limitations..................................................................................... 13

3 RESULTS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1 Flora and Fauna ............................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................................... 14

3.2.4 Farm Dams............................................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Threatened Biodiversity and Other Matters of Significance........................................................... 18

3.4 National Significance Assessment ................................................................................................... 18

3.5 State Significance Assessment......................................................................................................... 21

3.6 Regional Significance Assessment ................................................................................................... 21

4 PERMITTED CLEARING ASSESSMENT .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.1 Risk-based Pathway......................................................................................................................... 23

4.2 Offset Targets .................................................................................................................................. 23

5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth)...................... 27

6.1.1 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 27

6.2 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria).............................................................................. 28

6.2.1 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 28

6.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Victoria) ............................................................................... 29

6.3.1 Local Planning Schemes........................................................................................................... 29

6.3.2 The Guidelines ......................................................................................................................... 30


6.4 Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2002 (Victoria) ............................................................ 31

6.4.1 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 31

6.5 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Victoria) ....................................................................... 31

6.5.1 Implications ............................................................................................................................. 32

7 MITIGATION MEASURES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

8 CONCLUSION ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

9 REFERENCES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

FIGURES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

APPENDICES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

APPENDIX A - OFFSETS AND EXEMPTIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

APPENDIX B - FLORA ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Appendix B1 – Flora Results ........................................................................................................................ 48

Appendix B2 – Significant Flora Species ...................................................................................................... 50

Appendix B3 – Habitat Hectare Data........................................................................................................... 53

APPENDIX C - FAUNA ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Appendix C1 – Fauna Results ...................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix C2 – Significant Fauna Species .................................................................................................... 57

APPENDIX D - BIODIVERSITY IMPACT AND OFFSET REPORT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

APPENDIX E - HABITAT ZONE PHOTOGRAPHS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

APPENDIX F - BOX THORN HEDGES .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63


1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Objectives

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd was commissioned by Transpacific Industries Group Limited

(Transpacific) to conduct a Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset Analysis at 140 – 204

Western Avenue, Westmeadows (the ‘study area’). This assessment supplements previous ecological

studies completed to support site development through the proposed rezoning of the study area. This

report incorporates the findings of flora and fauna assessments completed in 2009 and 2013 (Ecology and

Heritage Partners 2009; 2013), recent vegetation mapping within the Environmental Significance Overlay

area, and accounts for subsequent changes in vegetation management policy and the amendment of the

assessed study area to include a proposed stormwater drainage wetland adjacent to Moonee Ponds Creek

(Figure 2 and Section 1.2).The overarching objective of this assessment is to identify key ecological values

and provide advice in relation to any potential impacts and mitigation measures associated with the

rezoning and future development of the study area. Specifically, this assessment aims to:

Present the findings of recent desk-based studies and field surveys;

Identify key ecological values and development opportunities/ constraints within the amended

study area;

Outline project implications under the ’Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity

assessment guidelines’ (The Guidelines) (DEPI 2013a), which replaced the Native Vegetation

Framework (NRE 2002) in late December 2013 (subsequent to previous assessments);

Document the implications of all other relevant environmental legislation and policy;

Specify measures for impact avoidance and minimisation with respect to future development

activities; and,

Support Transpacific’s rezoning application through the provision of detailed and accurate

information in accordance with the expectations of Hume City Council and the Victorian

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI).

1.2 Study Area

The study area is located at 140 – 204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows, Victoria (Lots 2\TP512682 and

2\LP92405), approximately 22 kilometres north-west of the Melbourne CBD (Figure 1). According to the

DEPI Biodiversity Interactive Map (DEPI 2014a) the site lies in the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion, within

the management boundaries of the Port Philip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (CMA)

and Hume City Council. The study area is relatively flat in the south; however, the northern site area slopes

north to Moonee Ponds Creek, which is the northern boundary of the study area.


Under the Hume Planning Scheme, the majority of the study area is zoned as Farming (FZ3), with the area

of the proposed stormwater wetland classified as Public Use Zone (PUZ1). The wetland site is located

within the Melbourne Water-owned Tarnuk Reserve, adjacent to the riparian corridor of Moonee Ponds

Creek. Hume City Council has applied an Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO2) to this area (Figure 2),

based on the following statement of environmental significance:

Moonee Ponds Creek is a major tributary, which extends from the inner suburbs of Melbourne to

Gellibrand Hill. The Creek and its environs provide an important regional open space and habitat link

and contain many Aboriginal cultural heritage sites of significance. Urban development has impacted

upon the landscape character, catchment functions and water quality of parts of the Creek, however

enormous potential exists for the recreational, aesthetic and ecological functions of these areas to be

improved and restored.

Implications relating to the ESO overlay are described in Section 6.3, although it should be noted that the

area covered by the ESO is proposed to be gifted to Melbourne Water by Transpacific Industries Group

Limited.

The significance of the Moonee Ponds Creek corridor is further demonstrated through the application of a

BioSite of Regional significance - Site 5185 - Tullamarine Retarding Basin (Wright St), Westmeadows (Figure

2). BioSites comprise areas containing biological assets that contribute to the conservation of Victoria’s

indigenous flora and fauna. While there are no direct legislative implications associated with the

classification, the identification of BioSites allows for the prioritisation of conservation management and

reservation, and incorporation of these assets into regional and local planning procedures.


2 METHODS

2.1 Nomenclature

Common and scientific names of vascular plants follow the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) (DEPI 2013b)

and the Census of Vascular Plants of Victoria (Walsh and Stajsic 2007). Vegetation community names

follow DEPI’s Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVC) benchmarks (DEPI 2013c). The names of aquatic and

terrestrial vertebrate and invertebrate fauna follow the VBA (DEPI 2013b).

2.2 Desktop Assessment

Relevant literature, online-resources and numerous databases were reviewed to provide an assessment of

flora and fauna values associated with the study area. The following information sources were reviewed:

The DEPI Biodiversity Interactive Map (DEPI 2014a) for:

o Modelled data for location risk, remnant vegetation patches, scattered trees and habitat

for rare or threatened species;

o The extent of historic and current EVCs; and,

o The location of sites of biological significance (BioSites) within the region.

The VBA (DEPI 2013b), Flora Information System (FIS) (Viridans 2013a) and Atlas of Victorian

Wildlife (AVW) (Viridans 2013b) for previously documented flora and fauna records within the

project locality;

The Federal Department of the Environment (DoE) Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) for

matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) protected under the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (DoE 2013a);

The Victorian Department of Transport, Planning and Linear Infrastructure (DTPLI) Planning Maps

Online to ascertain current zoning and environmental overlays (DTPLI 2014);

Aerial photography of the study area;

Relevant environmental legislation and policies; and,

Previous ecological assessments within the study area (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2009; 2013).

2.3 Field Assessment

This assessment, including the calculation of biodiversity offset requirements, is based on the results of

flora and fauna surveys undertaken on the 26 September 2014, 30 June 2014, 4 November 2013, and 5

November 2008, and targeted Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana surveys completed between 11 November

2008 and 13 January 2009. Survey effort is detailed in the following sections.


2.3.1 Flora Surveys

Flora assessments were undertaken on 26 September 2014, 30 June 2014, 4 November 2013 and 5

November 2008 to obtain information on terrestrial flora values within the study area. The study area was

walked, with all observed flora species recorded, any significant records mapped and the overall condition

of vegetation noted. Remnant vegetation in the local area was also investigated to assist in determining

the pre-European vegetation within the study area. EVCs were determined with reference to DEPI pre-

1750 and extant EVC mapping and their published descriptions (DEPI 2013c).

Vegetation within the study area was assessed according to the habitat hectare methodology, which is

described in the Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual (DSE 2004a). Further detail regarding the habitat

hectare assessment is provided in Section 2.4.

2.3.2 Fauna Surveys

Fauna surveys were undertaken concurrently with the detailed flora assessments to identify terrestrial

fauna values within the study area. The site was visually assessed and active searching under and around

ground debris for reptiles, frogs and small mammals was undertaken. Binoculars were also used to scan

the area for birds, and observers listened for calls and searched for other signs of fauna such as nests,

remains of dead animals, droppings and footprints. Potential habitat for fauna was assessed, with a

particular emphasis on habitats that may provide shelter, food or other resources for significant species. In

addition, as fauna species are mobile, a visual assessment of the adjoining areas outside of the study area

was made to determine whether there was suitable habitat (principally for threatened species) in the

immediate area, and to determine the likelihood that any of these species would either reside within the

study area for extended periods of time, or whether the site contributes to a larger home range of a

significant species.

2.3.2.1 Targeted Golden Sun Moth Targeted Surveys

Targeted surveys were undertaken for Golden Sun Moth within the (concept) study area on four separate

events between 11 November 2008 and 13 January 2009. These surveys were undertaken in accordance

with the significant impact guidelines for this species (DEWHA 2009). Surveys were carried out between

11am and 3pm on warm, relatively calm, sunny days with a minimum temperature of 20oC, in weather

conditions considered suitable for detecting the species. Surveys were undertaken by field personnel

experienced in the identification and key habitat requirements of the species. Surveys comprised walking

the entire site and surveying suitable grassland habitat searching for moths. The location of any moth

sightings was recorded on a hand-held GPS unit (with +/- 5 metres accuracy) and later mapped on a site

plan for reporting purposes.

In addition, several other sites in northern Melbourne known to support the species were surveyed on the

same day as the surveys within the study area (i.e. reference sites), and this was undertaken to

demonstrate that weather conditions were conducive to flying males and therefore detection of the

species.


2.4 Permitted Clearing Assessment (The Guidelines)

This assessment has been completed during a phase of vegetation policy reform in Victoria, during which

The Framework (NRE 2003) was replaced by The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a) in late December 2013.

Under The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a), the impacts on biodiversity from clearing proposals are assessed using

a risk-based approach. Two factors – extent risk and location risk – are used to determine the risk

associated with an application for a permit to remove native vegetation (Table 1). The extent risk is

determined by the amount of native vegetation (in hectares) or the number of Scattered Trees that are

proposed to be removed. The location risk (A, B or C) has been determined for all areas in Victoria and is

available on DEPI’s NVIM Tool (DEPI 2014b). The applicable risk-based pathway is determined by

combining the extent risk and the location risk of the vegetation to be removed (Table 1).

Table 1 Risk-based Pathways under The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a)

ExtentLocation

A B C

Remnant Patch

< 0.5 hectares Low Low High

≥ 0.5 hectares and < 1 hectare Low Moderate High

≥ 1 hectare Moderate High High

Scattered Trees< 15 scattered trees Low Moderate High

≥ 15 scattered trees Moderate High High

Owing to the location of the study area and extent of native vegetation present (B [partial] and > one

hectare), development activities requiring the removal of all native vegetation on site would fall under the

High Risk pathway. This worst-case scenario has been adopted by this assessment for the purpose of

identifying potential ecological impacts and determining biodiversity offset obligations. During the

planning of future development proposals, there may be opportunities for impact avoidance and

minimisation through siting and design.

In accordance with The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a), the extent (in hectares) and condition score of native

vegetation within the study area has been calculated based on the results of the habitat hectare

assessment completed in accordance with the Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual (DSE 2004a), with

reference to the classifications provided in Table 2


Table 2 Assessment of Remnant Native Vegetation under the High Risk Pathway (DEPI 2013a)

Category Definition Extent Condition

Remnant Patch ofnative vegetation

An area of native vegetation, with orwithout trees, where at least 25 per centof the total perennial understorey plantcover is native plants.ORAn area with three or more nativecanopy trees1 where the canopy foliagecover is at least 20 per cent of the area.

Measured in hectares.Based on hectare area ofthe Remnant Patch.

Vegetation Quality AssessmentManual (DSE 2004a).

Scattered TreesNative canopy trees over three metres inheight that do not form part of aRemnant Patch of native vegetation.

Measured in hectares.Each Scattered Tree isassigned an extent of0.071 hectares (30mdiameter).

In accordance with theBiodiversity AssessmentGuidelines, Scattered Trees areassigned a default conditionscore of 0.2.

Notes: 1) A canopy tree is a mature tree that is greater than three meters in height and is normally found in the upper layer of therelevant vegetation type.

Under The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a), vegetation formerly classified as Modified Treeless Vegetation (MTV)

under the Framework (NRE 2003) now meets the classification of a Remnant Patch and must be accounted

for in offset calculations. The former MTV classification delineated remnant patches with high native

species diversity from those of very low diversity, characterised by early colonising native grass species (but

still with >25% native understory cover). In the case of removing the latter (DEPI approved MTV),

biodiversity offsets were not required under the Framework. This change in policy effects the offset

obligations applicable to development activities within the study area, as all native vegetation patches

recorded on-site meet the previous definition of MTV (Section 3.2). Sections 4 and 6.3.2 provide further

detail regarding the implications of this policy amendment.

In accordance with the DEPI guideline Transitional Guidance to Support Reforms to Victoria’s Native

Vegetation Permitted Clearing Regulations (DEPI 2013d), the offset obligations reported in Section 4 are

derived from the Biodiversity Impact and Offset Requirements Report (BIOR) provided by DEPI on 4 July

2014 (Appendix D). Table 3 outlines the minimum application requirements for a permit to remove native

vegetation under the High Risk pathway (worst-case scenario) (DEPI 2013a).


Table 3. Application Requirements for High Risk Pathway Projects (DEPI 2013a)

Application Requirement Reference

1. The location of the site of native vegetation to be removed. This includes the address of theproperty.

Section 1.2 and Figure 1

2. A description of the native vegetation to be removed including:

Whether the native vegetation is a remnant patch, or scattered trees, in accordancewith the definitions of the guidelines

The area of any remnant patches of native vegetation

The number of any scattered trees.

Sections 3.2 and 4, and Figure 2

3. Maps or plans containing the following information:

North point and property boundaries

All areas of native vegetation, clearly showing the native vegetation to be removed(including any area that the Country Fire Authority has recommended for removal ormanagement for fire protection purposes)

All scattered trees to be removed

Location where photographs were taken, and the direction from which they were taken.

Figures 1 and 2

4. Recent photographs (dated) of the native vegetation to be removed Appendix E

5. The risk-based pathway of the application to remove native vegetation. Section 4

6. Where the purpose of removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation is to createdefendable space, a statement is required that explains why removal, destruction or loppingof native vegetation is necessary. The statement must have regard to other availablebushfire risk mitigation measures. This requirement does not apply to the creation ofdefendable space in conjunction with an application under the Bushfire ManagementOverlay.

N/A

7. A copy of any property vegetation plan that applies to the site. N/A

8. Details of any other native vegetation that was permitted to be removed on the samecontiguous parcel of land with the same ownership as the native vegetation to be removed,where the removal occurred in the five year period before the application to remove nativevegetation is lodged.

N/A

9. The strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation to be removed. Section 4 and Appendix E

10. The offset requirements should a permit be granted to remove native vegetation.Section 4 and Appendix E (Note:Based on the worst-casescenario)

11. A habitat hectare assessment report of the native vegetation that is to be removed. Appendix B3

12. A statement outlining what steps have been taken to ensure that impacts on biodiversityfrom the removal of native vegetation have been minimised. The steps taken should haveregard to the contribution the native vegetation to be removed and the native vegetation tobe retained makes to biodiversity. The statement should include either:

Details of any strategic planning process the site has been subject to that has minimisedimpacts on biodiversity from the proposed use or development, or

A description of the opportunities taken to locate, design and manage the proposed useor development to minimise impacts on biodiversity from the removal of nativevegetation. If the applicant considers no further opportunities exist to minimise impactson biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation, then provide an explanation ofthe potential impacts on the proposed use or development if further minimisation wasrequired.

N/A - under the high RiskPathway, future developmentproposals will be required todemonstrate measures forimpact avoidance andminimisation

13. An assessment of whether the proposed removal of native vegetation will have a significantimpact on Victoria’s biodiversity, with specific regard to the proportional impact on habitatfor any rare or threatened species.

Section 3

14. An offset strategy that details how a compliant offset will be secured to offset thebiodiversity impacts of the removal of native vegetation.

Section 4


2.5 Assessment Qualifications and Limitations

Data and information held within the ecological databases and mapping programs reviewed in the desktop

assessment (e.g. VBA, PMST, Biodiversity Interactive Maps etc.) are unlikely to represent all flora and fauna

observations within, and surrounding, the study area. It is therefore important to acknowledge that a lack

of documented records does not necessarily indicate that a species or community is absent, but instead

may reflect a lack of survey effort. The ‘snap shot’ nature of a standard flora and fauna assessment reduces

the likelihood of mobile, migratory, seasonal, cryptic, nocturnal or uncommon species being detected.

Therefore, an absence of such species from the results does not necessarily indicate that these species are

not present or do not use the study area. Generally, targeted or repeated surveys, at specific times of the

year, are required to detect such species.

Plant species cover and diversity varies with each season and across years, depending on the amount and

timing of rainfall, on-site grazing pressure etc. This variability is demonstrated by the findings of the three

field survey events completed to date (Section 2.3). At the time of the initial flora assessment in 2008, the

site was subject to intensive grazing. At the time of the second flora survey in 2013, the site had not been

grazed for many months, which enabled more accurate mapping of patches containing native flora species.

The third flora assessment was completed during a sub-optimal season for the identification of flora and

fauna species (mid-winter).

Given the above limitations, all patches/areas of MTV previously mapped in Spring/Summer 2013 (though

no longer recognised under the Guidelines) have been left unaltered, with the exception of allocating a

habitat hectare score (as they contain greater than 25% native vegetation cover). A precautionary

approach has been adopted with regard to remnant patches mapped during the current assessment, as all

areas were considered to be on the cusp of 25% native vegetation cover.

Notwithstanding the above, terrestrial flora and fauna data collected during the field assessments, and

information obtained from relevant sources (e.g. biological databases and relevant literature) are

considered adequate to provide an accurate assessment of the ecological values within the study area.


3 RESULTS

3.1 Flora and Fauna

Fifty-four (54) flora species (19 indigenous and 35 non-indigenous) and 81 fauna species (ten mammals, 65

birds, three reptiles and three frogs) were recorded within the study area during the field assessments. A

consolidated list of flora and fauna species recorded is provided in Appendices B1 and C1.

3.2 Existing Conditions

The study area supports five broad vegetation and habitat types: modified native grassland, stream bank

shrubland, planted trees and shrubs, farm dams and exotic grassland. These are discussed in further detail

below.

3.2.1 Modified Native Grassland (EVCs 55 and 175)

3.2.1.1 Vegetation Condition

The study area supports approximately 11.96 hectares of modified native grassland, comprising four

patches of Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55_61) (10.94 hectares) and three patches of Grassy Woodland

(EVC 175) (1.02 hectares) (Figure 2). Prior to European settlement, these EVCs would have covered the

study area (DEPI 2014a), however due to vegetation clearing and degradation associated with agricultural

activities, only fragmented and highly modified patches remain.

The patches of Plains Grassy Woodland are heavily modified but contain several species common to the

understorey of this EVC. This habitat type is characterised by a sward of indigenous grasses (predominately

Rytidosperma spp.), interspersed with exotic grasses (predominantly Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne

and Soft Brome Bromus hordaceous). Several weeds listed under the Catchment and Land Protection Act

1994 (CaLP Act) and as Weeds of National Significance (WoNS), particularly Chilean Needle-grass Nassella

neesiana and Serrated Tussock Nassella trichotoma, are present.

Highly modified Grassy Woodland vegetation is present within the northern valley of the study area on

approach to Moonee Ponds Creek (Figure 2). Several indigenous canopy trees (Grey Box Eucalyptus

microcarpa) are present within this section of the study area, although all specimens appear to have been

planted. Understorey vegetation is dominated by a range of introduced graminoid species, including

several significant weeds, including Chilean Needle-grass and Serrated Tussock. However, several species

of native Wallaby grass Rytidosperma spp. and Weeping Grass Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides are

present and the cover of remnant vegetation appears to be approximately 25%.

Under the former Framework (NRE 2003) these areas would previously have been assessed as MTV, as they

have been historically disturbed, contain no scattered or embedded rock, have poor species diversity and

the native flora components are typical colonisers of disturbed areas that are not representative of the pre-

1750 flora cohort (Section 2.4).


3.2.1.2 Fauna Habitat

Modified native grassland provides habitat for a diversity of native species including a range of grassland

birds (Australasian Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae) and ground-dwelling fauna. Areas of habitat with a high

percentage cover of native grass also have the potential to support the nationally significant Golden Sun

Moth, although these were not found during targeted surveys completed between 11 November 2008 and

13 January 2009 (Section 3.4).

Plate 1. Plains Grassy Woodland (2013) Plate 2. Grassy Woodland (2013)

3.2.2 Stream Bank Shrubland (EVC 851)


Stream Bank Shrubland, of approximately 0.71 hectares, was dominated by scattered and mature River Red

Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Bulrush Typha spp. in the saturated bed of the creek (Plate 3; Figure 2).

The banks of the creek, which include small escarpments, were dominated by introduced weeds, including

Chilean Needle-grass Nassella neesiana, Serrated Tussock Nassella trichotoma and African Boxthorn Lycium

ferocissimum (Plate 4; Figure 2).


The larger River Red-gum trees provide foraging and breeding habitat for several common native bird

species, and may also be used as roost sites for birds and microbats. Fallen bark and ground debris around

the base of such trees provides habitat for reptiles. The thickets of African Boxthorn on the banks of the

creek, and Dense Bulrush within the creek are an important source of refuge for small bird species such as

thornbills and wrens, and also protect frogs and probably more cryptic waterbirds on occasion.


Plate 3. Stream Bank Shrubland (2014) Plate 4. Stream Bank Shrubland (2014)

3.2.3 Planted Trees and Shrubs


Planted, exotic and indigenous trees and shrubs are present throughout the study area. Dominant species

include Grey Box, Sugar Gum Eucalyptus cladocalyx, African Boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum and Sweet Briar

Rosa rubiginosa. One remnant (not planted) scattered River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis is also

present in the centre of the study area (Figure 2).


Planted trees and shrubs grow in several areas throughout the study area. This habitat provides foraging

and breeding habitat for several common native bird species, while larger trees may also be frequently

used as roost sites for birds and microbats. Fallen bark and ground debris around the base of such trees

provides habitat for reptiles. Along the paddock boundaries in the eastern section of the study area, hedge

rows of African Boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum and patches of Sweet Briar Rosa rubiginosa provide an

important source of refuge for small bird species such as thornbills and wrens.


Plate 5. Planted Grey Box Plate 6. Planted Shrubs (African Boxthorn)

3.2.4 Farm Dams


Several small dams are present in the centre of the study area, and were dominated by Common Swamp

Wallaby-grass Amphibromus nervosus and several weeds common to semi-aquatic habitats (Figure 2).


Dams provide foraging habitat for several waterbirds such as Hardhead Aythya australis (state significant),

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea and Eurasian Coot Fulica atra. Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus was

also observed in the area in 2008, and had not been previously recorded within the local area (10 kilometre

radius) (DEPI 2013b).

3.2.5 Exotic Grassland


Large areas of exotic dominated grassland are common throughout the study area (Figure 2). The

grasslands are composed of exotic plant species commonly associated with urban and rural environments.


Overall, the condition of fauna habitats in these areas was low. Generally, this vegetation provides little

fauna habitat and is suitable for common urban-adapted native birds such as the Willie Wagtail Rhipidura

leucophrys, Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca, Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen, and Noisy Miner

Manorina melanocephala and introduced birds such as the Rock Dove Columba livia, Spotted Dove

Streptopelia chinensis and Common Myna Acridotheres tristis.


3.3 Threatened Biodiversity and Other Matters of Significance

This section outlines biodiversity matters of national and state significance. Table 4 outlines the

significance criteria adopted for this assessment.

Table 4. Criteria for Defining Ecological Significance

National Significance

Flora and Fauna: National conservation status is based on the EPBC Act list of taxa considered threatened in Australia(i.e. Extinct, Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable).

State Significance

Flora: Species listed as threatened under the FFG Act. Species listed on the DSE Advisory List (DSE 2005) asEndangered, Vulnerable, Rare or Poorly Known.

Fauna: Species listed as threatened under the FFG Act. Species listed on the DSE Advisory List (DSE 2013) as CriticallyEndangered, Endangered or Vulnerable.

Regional Significance

Fauna: Species listed on the DSE Advisory List (DSE 2013) as Near Threatened of Data Deficient.

3.4 National Significance Assessment

National significance for flora and fauna is defined in Table 4.

3.4.1 Flora

No nationally significant flora species were recorded within the study area during the field assessments.

The VBA and FIS contain records of 14 EPBC Act listed flora species previously recorded within 10

kilometres of the study area (DEPI 2013b; Viridans 2013a) (Appendix B2 and Figure 3). The PMST

nominates one additional species which has not been recorded in the locality but has the potential to occur

(DoE 2013a).

Based on habitat present within the study area, landscape context and the proximity of previous records,

nationally significant flora species are considered unlikely to occur within the study area (Appendix B2).

3.4.2 Fauna

No nationally significant fauna species were recorded within the study area during the field assessments.

The VBA and AVW contain records of 18 EPBC Act listed fauna species previously recorded within 10

kilometres of the study area (DSE 2013b; Viridans 2013b) (Appendix C2 and Figure 4). The PMST nominates

an additional five nationally significant species which have not been recorded in the locality but have the

potential to occur (DoE 2013a).


Based on the likelihood-of-occurrence assessment, two EPBC Act listed fauna species have the potential to

utilise habitats within the study area and be affected by future development activities - Golden Sun Moth

and Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis. All other nominated species have been discounted from this

assessment based on the lack of suitable habitat, the low likelihood of significant impacts (e.g. Grey-headed

Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus) or where the species is known to be extinct in the locality (e.g. Eastern

Barred Bandicoot Perameles gunnii). The Golden Sun Moth and Growling Grass Frog are discussed further

below.

Golden Sun Moth

Golden Sun Moth generally occurs in native grassland dominated by greater than 40% cover of wallaby

grass, in particular Short Wallaby-grass Rytidosperma carphoides (DSE 2004b) but may also inhabit areas

dominated by Kangaroo Grass Themeda australis and introduced grassland (Endersby and Koehler 2006).

Prior to European settlement, the Golden Sun Moth was widespread and relatively continuous throughout

its range, inhabiting grassy open woodlands and grassland, although it currently inhabits small isolated sites

(DSE 2004b).

The VBA contains 145 records of the Golden Sun Moth within 10 kilometres of the study area, with the

closest to the site being recorded in 2006, approximately four kilometres to the north (Figure 4). Although

suitable habitat is present on site and known populations exist in the locality, the presence of this species

within the study area has been discounted through targeted surveys completed between November 2008

and January 2009.

Targeted surveys were completed on four occasions during suitable weather conditions, and during periods

when the species was known to be flying at other sites in the vicinity of the study area (Greenvale,

Craigieburn and/or Wollert) (Table 5). Despite ideal weather conditions and confirmed activity at the

reference sites, the species was not detected within the study area during surveys. In addition, the species

was not detected immediately adjacent to the study area during recent targeted surveys on Melbourne

Airport land (Hatt et al. 2008). While the proposed area of the stormwater wetland was not assessed in

2008/09, a detailed habitat assessment completed in 2014 identified that this area provides similar habitat

to the remaining site and is unlikely to support this species.

Table 5. Golden Sun Moth Survey Results within the Study Area.

DateGolden Sun Moth

recordedSurvey Times

Temperature (oC) Wind (0-3) Cloud Cover (%)

Start Finish

11/11/08 None 12:30 14:45 30 1 10

11/12/08 None 12:20 14:20 25 2 0

24/12/08 None 12:30 13:30 27 1 113/01/09 None 13:00 14:30 30 1 0


Growling Grass Frog

The Growling Grass Frog is largely associated with permanent or semi-permanent still or slow flowing

waterbodies (i.e. streams, lagoons, farm dams and old quarry sites), supporting an extensive cover of

emergent, submerged and floating vegetation (Robertson et al. 2002; Organ 2003). This species is also

known to inhabit temporarily inundated waterbodies for breeding purposes providing they contain water

over the breeding season (Organ 2003).

This Growling Grass Frog is known to occur throughout the Moonee Ponds Creek system (DEPI 2014a) and

the VBA contains 111 records of the species within 10 kilometres of the study area, with the closest being

recorded in 2009, approximately 80 metres to the north (Figure 4).

The site of the proposed stormwater wetland adjoins the riparian zone of Moonee Ponds Creek, which

provides both breeding and dispersal habitat for the Growling Grass Frog (Figure 2). Based on preliminary

siting information, wetland development will be contained to areas of modified native/ exotic grassland,

which are maintained through slashing and do not contain frog refuge features such as logs and rocks. The

reach of Moonee Ponds Creek within the vicinity of the wetland site is congested with Bulrush Typha sp.,

however small pools containing more diverse assemblages of submergent, emergent and floating

vegetation are distributed along the watercourse (Plates 7 and 8). These areas provide suitable habitat for

the Growling Grass Frog, which is also likely to utilise the revegetated riparian corridor for dispersal

up/downstream of the creek and to other areas of high quality habitat i.e. dams. Given the lack of

significant habitat within the proposed development footprint, the ESO area is proposed to be gifted to

Melbourne Water, and assuming the implementation of measures to avoid and mitigate indirect impacts

(e.g. sedimentation), it is considered unlikely that construction of the stormwater wetland would

significantly impact on this species. Recommended mitigation measures and implications relating to the

Growling Grass Frog are further discussed in Sections 7 and 6.1.1, respectively.

Plate 7. Moonee Ponds Creek Plate 8. Moonee Ponds Creek


3.4.3 Ecological Communities

No nationally listed ecological communities were recorded within the study area during the field

assessments. Four EPBC Act listed ecological communities (Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian

Volcanic Plain; Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Woodland and Derived Native Grasslands of South-

eastern Australia; Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain; White Box – Yellow Box –

Blakely’s Red-gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland) are predicted to occur within 10

kilometres of the study area (DoE 2013a). Vegetation within the study area does not meet the condition

thresholds that define these ecological communities.

3.5 State Significance Assessment

State significance for flora and fauna is defined in Table 4.

3.5.1 Flora

No state significant flora species were recorded within the study area during the field assessments. The

VBA and FIS contain records of 46 state significant flora species within 10 kilometres of the study area (DEPI

2013b; Viridans 2013a) (Appendix B2 and Figure 3). Based on habitat present within the study area,

landscape context and the proximity of previous records, state significant flora species are considered

unlikely to occur on site (Appendix B2).

3.5.2 Fauna

The state significant species Hardhead was recorded in a wetland located outside of the study area during

field assessments completed in November 2008. The small dams within the study area are likely to provide

occasional foraging habitat for this species (Figure 2). The VBA and AVW contain records of 37 State-

significant fauna species within 10 kilometres of the study area (DEPI 2013b; Viridans 2013b) (Appendix C2

and Figure 4). The small dams may also provide foraging habitat for Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis

and Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis. No suitable habitat for other state significant fauna species is

present in the study area (Appendix C2)

Ecological Communities

Vegetation within the study area does not meet the condition thresholds that define any state significant

ecological communities.

3.6 Regional Significance Assessment

Regional significance for fauna is defined in Table 4.

No regionally significant fauna species were recorded within the study area during the field assessments.

The VBA and AVW contain records of 18 regionally significant fauna species within 10 kilometres of the

study area (DEPI 2013b; Viridans 2013b) (Appendix C2 and Figure 3).


Based on habitat present within the study area, landscape context and the proximity of previous records,

regionally significant fauna species are considered unlikely to occur within the study area (Appendix C2).


4 PERMITTED CLEARING ASSESSMENT

4.1 Risk-based Pathway

Assuming that all native vegetation within the study area would be removed, apart from the native

vegetation located along the Moonee Ponds Creek, future development proposals would be assessed

under the High Risk pathway, with a total of 1.748 habitat hectares (11.945 hectares) of remnant

vegetation and one scattered tree proposed for removal (Figure 2). The High Risk pathway will apply to all

proposals involving vegetation removal within areas mapped as ‘Location B’ and a combined vegetation

loss greater than one hectare (Figure 2 and Table 1). A summary of vegetation losses is presented in Table

6 and detailed habitat hectare tables are provided in Appendix B3.

4.2 Offset Targets

When the removal of native vegetation has a significant impact on habitat for a rare or threatened species1,

the offset must compensate for the removal of that species’ habitat. Offsets are divided into two

categories: General and Specific. General offsets are based on the contribution a site makes to biodiversity

overall, while Specific offsets consider the contribution a site makes to the persistence of rare or

threatened species.

General offsets require an offset multiplier (Risk Factor) of 1.5 with restrictions on location (same

Catchment Management Authority boundary or municipal district) and biodiversity value (strategic

biodiversity score at least 80% that of the vegetation to be removed). A Specific offset requires an offset

multiplier of two, with no location or biodiversity value restrictions, and must support habitat for each rare

or threatened species for which an offset is required (currently designated by DEPI).

The offset requirements for native vegetation removal, as prescribed by The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a), have

been calculated by DEPI, based on the habitat hectares scores as assessed during the recent flora survey.

The resulting BIOR produced by DEPI is presented in Appendix D. A summary of offsets for proposed

vegetation losses is presented in Table 6.

Both General and Specific offsets are triggered when proposing the removal of all native vegetation within

the study area. The specific-general offset test found that the removal of all native vegetation would have

a proportional impact on the state significant species Matted Flax-lily Dianella amoena, above the specific

offset threshold and as such, specific offsets are required (Table 6 and Appendix D).

It is noted that these offset targets are based on the worst-case scenario and that while The Guidelines

currently exclude the MTV classification; this may change in the future as the recently enacted policy is put

into practice (Section 8). During preparation of the planning permit application, DEPI should be consulted

to confirm the status of modified native grassland within the study area.

1Only species listed as ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’, ‘vulnerable’ or ‘rare’ on DEPI’s advisory lists (DSE 2005;

DSE 2013) for flora and fauna are considered a rare or threatened species.


Table 6. Permitted Clearing Assessment (The Guidelines)

Risk Pathway High

Vegetation tobe removed

Location B

Remnant Patch (ha) 11.954

Scattered Trees (no) 1

Total Hectares (incl. Scattered Tree buffer) 12.024

Total Habitat Hectares 1.748

Offsets

General Biodiversity Equivalence Units (BEUs) 0.062

General Risk Factor 1.5

General Offsets Required (BEUs) 0.093

Specific BEUs 1.037

Specific Risk Factor 2

Specific Offsets Required (BEUs) 2.074

Offset Criteria Vicinity (catchment / LGA)Port Phillip and Western Port CMA / Hume

City Council

Minimum Strategic Biodiversity Score* 0.243

4.2.1 Offset Criteria

The Guidelines (DEPI 2013b) require offsetting as the final step in considering the impacts of development

on native vegetation. Emphasis is placed on avoiding (High Risk) and minimising impacts, and only after

these steps have been taken should offsets (actions undertaken to achieve commensurate gains) be

considered. Offset targets must be met, as specified in Section 4.2. In determining the appropriate offset

responses for permitted vegetation clearance, The Guidelines set out several criteria which must be

considered for any offset site. These criteria are presented in Table A2, Appendix A.

4.2.2 Offset Management Strategy

Potential offsets may be sourced using the following mechanisms:

BushBroker: BushBroker maintains a register of landowners who are willing to sell offset credits.

Offsets secured by Bushbroker are done so via a Section 69 Agreement under the Conservation,

Forest and Lands Act 1987.

Trust for Nature: Trust for Nature holds a list of landowners who are willing to sell vegetation

offsets. Offsets secured by Trust for Nature are done so under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act

1972.

Local Councils: The proponent may contact local councils to seek availability of offsets.

Over-the-Counter Offsets Scheme: Private Over-the-Counter (OTC) Facilities broker general native

vegetation offsets (credits) between credit owners and permit holders. Under this scheme permit

holders can seek quotes and purchase required offsets directly through private brokers. Following

payment, the permit holder will receive an Allocated Credit Extract as proof that they have satisfied


their offset requirements. Ecology and Heritage Partners is an accredited OTC Facility and can

provide a quote to secure the general offset required. We can also assist to locate suitable specific

offsets, however these must be secured via a negotiated agreement with DEPI and the credit

owner.


5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS

Any loss of ecological values should be viewed in the context of the overall ongoing loss, fragmentation,

and deterioration in the quality of remnant vegetation throughout many areas on the suburban edge of

Melbourne. In the absence of mitigation measures, development activities have the potential to impact

upon ecological values within the study area and surrounding landscape. Potential impacts associated with

development activities include:

Modification of flow regimes and sedimentation levels into Moonee Ponds Creek (Growling Gras

Frog habitat);

Loss of potential habitat for state (Hardhead, Australasian Shoveler and Blue-billed Duck) significant

fauna species;

Loss of habitat and potential mortality for locally common fauna species dependent on wetlands or

inundated areas for foraging, shelter or nesting (e.g. aquatic or wading birds, frogs, microbats);

Land-locking of local populations of Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus through

development in and around the species’ habitat. This can lead to a number of adverse impacts

ranging from animal welfare issues to potential human safety concerns;

Potential for further habitat fragmentation in a fragmented landscape and the associated creation

of barriers to the movement and migration of indigenous fauna;

Potential for an increase to levels of indigenous fauna roadkill along new road alignments;

Potential for the spread of weeds and soil pathogens due to on-site activities;

Disturbance to wildlife from increased human activity and noise during construction; and,

Indirect impacts on adjacent areas if construction activities and drainage are not appropriately

managed.

Given the modified nature of the study area and lack of suitable habitats, it is unlikely that future

development activities will have a significant impact on terrestrial flora, fauna and ecological communities.

Recommended mitigation measures for consideration during the planning and design phase are provided in

Section 7.


6 LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

This section identifies biodiversity policy and legislation relevant to the proposed development, principally:

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Commonwealth);

Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) (Victoria);

Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Victoria);

o Local Planning Schemes;

o The Guidelines.

Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2002 (Victoria); and,

Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CALP Act) (Victoria).

6.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999(Commonwealth)

The EPBC Act establishes a Commonwealth process for the assessment of proposed actions (i.e. project,

development, undertaking, activity, or series of activities) that are likely to have a significant impact on

matters of NES, or on Commonwealth land. An action, unless otherwise exempt, requires approval from

the Commonwealth Environment Minister if it is considered likely to have an impact on any of the following

matters of NES: World Heritage properties, National Heritage places, Ramsar wetlands of international

significance, threatened species and ecological communities, migratory and marine species,

Commonwealth marine areas; nuclear actions (including uranium mining), Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

or water resources impacted by coal seam gas or mining development.

6.1.1 Implications

Based on concept information, activities associated with site development are unlikely to cause a significant

impact on any matter of NES relating to biodiversity, including Ramsar wetlands and listed species/

ecological communities.

The DoE Protected Matters Search Tool does not list any Ramsar wetlands as occurring within the same

catchment as the study area and as such, future development activities are unlikely to impact upon any

Ramsar values.

No EPBC Act listed threatened species of flora or fauna have been recorded within the study area, including

Golden Sun Moth, which was targeted during surveys completed between November 2008 and January

2009. Of the EPBC Act listed species recorded or predicted to occur in the locality, only the Golden Sun

Moth and Growling Grass Frog have the potential to utilise habitats on site and be affected by future


development activities. The presence of Golden Sun Moth within the study area was discounted during

targeted surveys completed in 2008/09.

While the Growling Grass Frog is known to occur within the Moonee Ponds Creek system, the proposed

stormwater wetland site provides limited dispersal habitat, as it is frequently maintained by slashing and

lacks suitable refuge features, such as rocks and logs. It is considered that through appropriate design,

construction of the stormwater wetland has the potential to significantly contribute to habitat resources

for this species in the long-term.

Several migratory species have been previously recorded or are predicted to occur within the study area

(Appendix C2). While Migratory species of bird are likely to utilise habitats within the study area on

occasion, the site is not classed as ‘important habitat’ as defined under the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1

Principal Significant Impact Guidelines (DoE 2013b),

While the concept activity is unlikely to significantly impact upon any matters of NES relating to

biodiversity, it is recommended that this determination is reassessed during preparation of the planning

permit application. Owing to the location of Moonee Ponds Creek within the study area, the proponent

may also consider submitting an EPBC Act referral as a precautionary measure to confirm DoE’s stance and

reduce the risk of project delays and unforeseen compliance issues.

6.2 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (Victoria)

The FFG Act is the primary Victorian legislation providing for the conservation of threatened species and

ecological communities, and for the management of processes that are threatening to Victoria's native

flora and fauna. The FFG Act contains protection procedures such as the listing of threatened species

and/or communities, and the preparation of action statements to protect the long-term viability of these

values.

Proponents are required to apply for an FFG Act Permit to ‘take’ listed and/or protected2 flora species,

listed vegetation communities and listed fish species in areas of public land (i.e. within road reserves,

drainage lines and public reserves). An FFG Act permit is generally not required for removal of species or

communities on private land, or for the removal of habitat for a listed terrestrial fauna species.

6.2.1 Implications

The local planning authority may consider flora, fauna and communities listed under the FFG Act when

making decisions regarding the use and development of land. No ‘listed’ flora species or ecological

communities have been recorded or are considered likely to occur within the study area. One ‘protected’

species under the FFG Act, Jersey Cudweed Helichrysum luteoalbum, has been recorded within the study

area during previous surveys (Appendix B2). Small dams within the site also provide potential (occasional)

habitat for Blue-billed Duck, an FFG Act listed species.

2In addition to ‘listed’ flora species, the FFG Act identifies ‘protected’ flora species. This includes any of the

Asteraceae (Daisies), all orchids, ferns (excluding Pteridium esculentum) and Acacia species (excluding Acaciadealbata, Acacia decurrens, Acacia implexa, Acacia melanoxylon and Acacia paradoxa), as well as any taxa that maybe a component of a listed ecological community. A species may be both listed and protected.


The provisions of the FFG Act apply to the proposed stormwater wetland site as it is located on Melbourne

Water property (i.e. publically owned land). It is noted however, that no protected flora species (including

Jersey Cudweed) are considered likely to occur within this area and as such, an FFG Act permit is unlikely to

be required as part of future development activities.

6.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (Victoria)

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 outlines the legislative framework for planning in Victoria and for

the development and administration of planning schemes. All planning schemes contain native vegetation

provisions at Clause 52.17 which require a planning permit from the relevant local Council to remove,

destroy or lop native vegetation on a site of more than 0.4 hectares, unless an exemption under clause

52.17-7 of the Victorian Planning Schemes applies (Table A3, Appendix A) or a subdivision is proposed with

lots less than 0.4 hectares3. Local planning schemes may contain other provisions in relation to the removal

of native vegetation (Section 6.3.1).

Where the clearing of native vegetation is permitted, the quantity and type of vegetation to be offset is

determined using methodology specified in The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a).

6.3.1 Local Planning Schemes

The study area is located within the Hume City Council municipality. Under the Hume Planning Scheme, an

ESO applies to the proposed wetland site and on land in close proximity to the Moonee Ponds Creek (Figure

2).

6.3.1.1 Implications

A Planning Permit from Hume City Council is required to remove, disturb or lop any native vegetation

within the study area (including scattered native grasses). The ESO classification allows council to apply

stricter decision guidelines to ensure proper assessment of known and potential impacts on Moonee Ponds

Creek.

Within areas subject to the ESO, Council must consider the following points before deciding on an

application:

The Moonee Ponds Creek Concept Plan and any guidelines or local policies for the relevant creek;

The need to assess the impact upon the creek environs and to ensure any impacts are adequately

ameliorated;

The effect of the proposed removal of any native vegetation on the habitat value, wildlife corridor,

and long term viability of remnant and revegetated areas along the creek corridor;

The significance of the native vegetation area, including the significance of plant communities or

significant plant and animal species supported;

3In accordance with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (VCAT) decision Villawood v Greater Bendigo CC

(2005) VCAT 2703 (20 December 2005) all native vegetation is considered lost where proposed lots are less than 0.4hectares in area and must be offset at the time of subdivision.


The reasons for removing the native vegetation and the practicality of alternative options which do

not require the removal of the native vegetation;

The effect of the height, bulk and general appearance of any proposed buildings and works on the

environmental values and visual character of the creek;

The need for landscaping or vegetation screening;

The need to ensure that buildings or works do not disturb known sites of Aboriginal heritage or

areas likely to contain Aboriginal heritage;

The need to protect trees with Aboriginal trunk or branch scars;

The need to retain native vegetation and natural features which contribute to the health and water

quality of the creek and the visual character of the creek corridor;

The extent that buildings or works are designed to enhance or promote the environmental values

of the creek and the visual character of the creek corridor; and,

The views of the Merri Creek Management Committee or the Moonee Ponds Creek Association and

the Aboriginal Affairs Victoria Heritage Services Branch.

In granting a planning permit, Council may specify certain conditions of approval relating to protection of

ecological values, such as the preparation of Weed and Pest Management Plan or Construction

Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Council or DEPI may also request additional information relating

to the biodiversity values contained within the study area, particularly with regard to species listed under

the EPBC Act and FFG Act. This may include targeted Golden Sun Moth (additional) and Growling Grass

Frog surveys.

6.3.2 The Guidelines

In December 2013 the Victorian Government integrated The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a) into the Victorian

Planning Provisions, replacing The Framework (NRE 2002). The primary objective of the regulations is “no

net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity”. The State Planning Policy

Framework and the decision guidelines at Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) of Particular Provisions and

Clause 12.01 require Planning and Responsible Authorities to have regard for The Guidelines.

In addition, a permit must be referred to DEPI if vegetation removal meets one or more of the below

thresholds (Table 7).

Table 7 Permit to remove native vegetation – application referral triggers (Clause 66, Referral and Notice Provisions)

NativeVegetation

Remove, destroy or lop native vegetation where the area to be cleared is 0.5 hectares or more

Remove, destroy or lop native vegetation which is to be considered under the High Risk-basedpathway

OtherCircumstances

Remove, destroy or lop native vegetation if a property vegetation plan applies to the site

Remove, destroy or lop native vegetation on Crown land which is occupied or managed by theresponsible authority (DEPI)


6.3.2.1 Implications

Areas of remnant native vegetation, Scattered Trees and habitat for rare or threatened species must be

offset if they are proposed to be disturbed as part of future development proposals. The results of the

permitted clearing assessment under The Guidelines are presented in Section 4.

Assuming the worst case scenario whereby a development proposal requires that all native vegetation

within the study area is removed, DEPI is likely to be a mandatory referral authority as greater than 0.5

hectares of vegetation is present (Table 7).

6.4 Wildlife Act 1975 and Wildlife Regulations 2002 (Victoria)

The Wildlife Act 1975 (and associated Wildlife Regulations 2002) is the primary legislation in Victoria

providing for protection and management of wildlife. The Act requires people engaged in wildlife research

(e.g. fauna surveys, salvage and translocation activities) to obtain a permit under the Act to ensure that

these activities are undertaken in a manner consistent with the appropriate controls.

The Wildlife Act 1975 has the following objectives:

To establish procedures for the promotion of protection and conservation of wildlife, the

prevention of species extinctions, and the sustainable use and access to wildlife; and,

To prohibit and regulate the conduct of those involved in wildlife related activities.

6.4.1 Implications

Authorisation for habitat removal may be obtained under the Wildlife Act 1975 through a licence granted

under the Forests Act 1958, or under any other Act such as the Planning and Environment Act 1987

(planning permit). In the event that conditions of approval or project activities involve the removal of

native fauna (e.g. salvage and translocation of Growling Grass Frog), all works must be undertaken under a

current Management Authorisation issued under the Wildlife Act 1975.

6.5 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Victoria)

The CaLP Act contains provisions relating to catchment planning, land management, noxious weeds and

pest animals. The Act also provides a legislative framework for the management of private and public land

and sets out the responsibilities of land managers, stating that they must take all reasonable steps to:

Avoid causing or contributing to land degradation which causes or may cause damage to land of

another land owner;

Protect water resources;

Conserve soil;

Eradicate regionally prohibited weeds;

Prevent the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds; and,

Prevent the spread of, and as far as possible eradicate, established pest animals.


6.5.1 Implications

A number of weeds listed as noxious under the CaLP Act were recorded during the assessments (Appendix

B1). Similarly, there is evidence that the study area is currently occupied by several pest fauna species

listed under the CaLP Act (Rabbits and Foxes). Landowners are responsible for the control of any

infestation of noxious weeds and pest fauna species. To meet CaLP Act requirements listed noxious weeds

should be appropriately controlled throughout the study area to minimise their spread and impact on

ecological values, and a Weed/ Pest Management Plan may be required as part of any future development

proposals.


7 MITIGATION MEASURES

Recommended measures to minimise impacts upon terrestrial and aquatic values present within the study

area include:

Appropriate consideration in planning processes and expert input into project design or

management. Design of the stormwater wetland should aim to provide habitat for the Growling

Grass Frog, referencing best practice standards including the Melbourne Water Constructed

Wetlands Guidelines (2010);

Minimise impacts to native vegetation and habitats through construction and micro-siting

techniques, including fencing retained areas of native vegetation. If necessary, trees should be

lopped or trimmed rather than removed. Similarly, soil disturbance and sedimentation within

Moonee Pond Creek should be avoided, to avoid, or minimise impacts to fauna habitats;

All contractors should be aware of ecologically sensitive areas to minimise the likelihood of

inadvertent disturbance to areas marked for retention. Any retained native vegetation should be

included as a mapping overlay on any construction plans;

Tree Retention Zones (TRZs) should be implemented to prevent indirect losses of native vegetation

during construction activities (DSE 2010);

Removal of any habitat trees or shrubs (particularly hollow-bearing trees) should be undertaken

between February and September to avoid the breeding season for the majority of fauna species.

If any habitat trees or shrubs are proposed to be removed, this should be undertaken under the

supervision of an appropriately qualified zoologist to salvage and translocate any displaced fauna.

A Fauna Management Plan may be required to guide the salvage and translocation process;

Where possible, construction stockpiles, machinery, roads, and other infrastructure should be

placed away from areas supporting native vegetation and/or wetlands;

Ensure that best practice sedimentation and pollution control measures are undertaken at all

times, in accordance with Environment Protection Agency guidelines (EPA 1991; EPA 1996;

Victorian Stormwater Committee 1999) to prevent offsite impacts to waterways and wetlands; and,

As indigenous flora provides valuable habitat for indigenous fauna, it is recommended that any

landscape plantings that are undertaken as part of the proposed works are conducted using

indigenous species sourced from a local provenance, rather than exotic deciduous trees and

shrubs.

In addition to these measures, preparation of the following documents may be incorporated into the

conditions of approval:

Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The CEMP should include specific

species/vegetation conservation strategies, daily monitoring, sedimentation management, site

specific rehabilitation plans, weed and pathogen management measures, etc.;

Weed Management Plan. This plan should follow the guidelines set out in the CaLP Act, and clearly

outline any obligations of the project team in relation to minimising the spread of weeds as a result

of this project.


8 CONCLUSION

The study area is representative of many areas within the region as it has been significantly modified, with

vegetation generally limited to low quality maintained grassland, planted trees and shrubs, and fragmented

remnant vegetation. Native vegetation within the study area consists of approximately 11.96 hectares of

modified native grassland, comprising four patches of Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55_61) (10.94 hectares)

and three patches of Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) (1.02 hectares), and 0.71 hectares of Stream Bank

Shrubland along the Moonee Ponds Creek (Figure 2). One remnant Scattered Tree is also present in the

middle section of the site.

Although the study area contained sufficient habitat characteristics to support a moderate diversity of flora

and common urban-adapted fauna species, the general scarcity of structural diversity and density within

most vegetated areas represented limited niche availability for supporting high species diversity. Whilst

much of the study area has been modified through historic land use and edge effects, a number of

ecological values persist. The following points summarise the findings of desk and field based assessments

completed for this project:

The study area contains approximately 11.96 hectares of native vegetation and one remnant

scattered tree. Prior to The Guidelines (DEPI 2013a) replacing The Framework (NRE 2003) in

December 2013, the areas of modified native grassland were previously classified as MTV and

excluded from offset considerations. The MTV classification no longer applies under the

Guidelines, with all vegetation patches containing >25% native understorey cover now considered a

remnant patch (DEPI 2013a) (Sections 2.4 and 4.2).

No species or ecological communities of national significance have been recorded within the study

area (Section 3). Of the EPBC Act listed species recorded or predicted to occur in the locality, only

the Golden Sun Moth and Growling Grass Frog have the potential to utilise habitats on site and be

affected by future development activities. The presence of the Golden Sun Moth within the

(original) study area was discounted during targeted surveys completed in 2008/09 and this species

is not considered to occur within the amended site boundaries. The Growling Grass Frog is known

to occur within Moonee Ponds Creek; however the adjoining proposed wetland site provides

limited dispersal habitat for this species. Based on the lack of direct impacts and assuming the

mitigation of indirect impacts (e.g. sedimentation), construction works associated with the

stormwater wetland are unlikely to significantly impact upon this species. In fact, development of

the wetland is likely to improve habitat resources for the Growling Grass Frog in the long-term.

Assuming that all native vegetation within the study area would be removed, future development

proposals would be assessed under the High Risk pathway, with a total of 1.748 habitat hectares

(11.945 hectares) of remnant vegetation and one scattered tree proposed for removal. This

scenario would trigger the requirement to source a General offset of 0.093 BEUs and a Specific

Offset of 2.074 BEUs for the Matted Flax-lily (Section 4). Offsets would need to be sourced within

the Port Phillip and Western Port CMA / Hume City Council region and meet a Minimum Strategic

Biodiversity Score of 0.243.


No species or ecological communities of state or regional significance have been recorded within

the study area (Section 3). The state significant species Hardhead was recorded outside of the

study area during previous assessments and it is likely that the small dams on site provide

occasional foraging habitat for this species, along with Australasian Shoveler and Blue-billed (FFG

Act listed). It is noted that the removal of these waterbodies would not constitute a significant

impact on these species. A ‘protected’ flora species under the FFG Act (Jersey Cudweed) has been

previously recorded on site, however the sections of the study area subject to the provisions of the

Act (public land) are not considered to support this species (Section 6.2.1).

The proposed stormwater wetland site is subject to an ESO under the Hume City Council Planning

Scheme (Section 1.2 and Figure 2). This area is also covered by a BioSite of regional significance

(Section 1.2 and Figure 2).

A summary of legislative implications associated with development of the study area, is provided in Table 8,

below.

Table 8 Further Requirements Associated with Development of the Study Area

Relevant Legislation Implications Further Action

EnvironmentProtection andBiodiversityConservation Act1999

Based on concept information, site development isunlikely to have a significant impact on any matter ofNES relating to biodiversity. As such, a referral to the

Commonwealth Environment Minister is unlikely to berequired regarding these matters listed under the

EPBC Act.

While the concept activity is unlikely tosignificantly impact upon any matters of

NES relating to biodiversity, it isrecommended that this determination isreassessed during the preparation of the

planning permit application.

Owing to the proximity of the study area toMoonee Ponds Creek, the proponent may

also consider submitting an EPBC Actreferral as a precautionary measure to

confirm DoE’s stance and reduce the risk ofproject delays and unforeseen compliance

issues.

Flora and FaunaGuarantee Act 1988

The provisions of the FFG Act apply to the proposedstormwater wetland site as it is located on MelbourneWater property (i.e. publically owned land). It is noted

however, that no protected flora species (includingJersey Cudweed) are considered likely to occur withinthis area and as such, an FFG Act permit is unlikely tobe required as part of future development activities.

No further action required (based onconcept information).


Relevant Legislation Implications Further Action

Planning andEnvironment Act 1987

Assuming the worst case scenario whereby aredevelopment proposal requires that all native

vegetation within the study area is removed, DEPI islikely to be a mandatory referral authority as greater

than 0.5 hectares of vegetation is present.

The responsible authority may consider thebiodiversity objectives of the Port Phillip and WesternPort Native Vegetation Plan. Any development within

the study area should incorporate these objectives.

The property is covered by an ESO, requiringconsideration of the associated decision guidelines

(Schedule 2).

Following detailed project design, prepareand submit a Planning Permit application.

Planning Permit conditions are likely toinclude a requirement for:

Demonstration of impact avoidanceand minimisation.

Vegetation offsets, as detailed inSection 4.2.

A Construction EnvironmentManagement Plan (CEMP).

And may include:

Targeted surveys for Golden Sun Moth(additional) and Growling Grass Frog);

and,

A Weed/ Pest Management Plan.

Wildlife Act 1975

Any persons engaged to conduct salvage andtranslocation or general handling of terrestrial fauna

species must hold a current ManagementAuthorisation.

Ensure wildlife specialists hold a currentManagement Authorisation.

Catchment and LandProtection Act 1994

Several weed and pest species listed under the CaLPAct are present within the study area. To meetrequirements under the CaLP Act, listed noxious

weeds and pests should be appropriately controlledthroughout the study area.

Planning Permit conditions may require thepreparation of a Weed/ Pest Management

Plan.

In summary, the key ecological constraint associated with site development activities relates to the costs

associated with meeting offset obligations for the removal of modified native grassland. Following

rezoning and during the project design phase, it is recommended that DEPI are contacted to clarify the

status of this vegetation type within the study area.

Final project siting and design should also reference the findings of this report to avoid and minimise

ecological impacts wherever feasible.


9 REFERENCES

DEPI 2013a. Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines: Permitted clearing of native vegetation. Victorian

Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

DEPI 2013b. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Sourced from: “VBA_FLORA25” and “VBA_FLORA100”, August

2013. Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

DEPI 2013d. Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) Benchmarks for each Bioregion [WWW Document].

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/native-vegetation-groups-for-

victoria/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion (accessed 11.07.14). Victorian

Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

DEPI 2013e. Transitional Guidance to Support Reforms to Victoria’s Native Vegetation Permitted Clearing

Regulations. Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

DEPI 2014a. Biodiversity Interactive Map [WWW Document].

http://mapshare2.dse.vic.gov.au/MapShare2EXT/imf.jsp?site=bim.

Accessed 11/07/14. Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

DEPI 2014b. Native Vegetation Information Management System. [WWW Document]. URL

http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment-and-wildlife/biodiversity/native-vegetation/native-

vegetation-information-management (accessed 11.07.14). Department of Environment and Primary

Industries.

DEWHA 2009. Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Golden Sun Moth (Synemon

plana). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

DoE 2013. EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Principal Significant Impact Guidelines: [WWW Document].

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/42f84df4-720b-4dcf-b262-

48679a3aba58/files/nes-guidelines_1.pdf. Accessed 15/01/14. Federal Department of the

Environment, Canberra, ACT.

DoE 2013. Protected Matters Search Tool: Interactive Map [WWW Document]. URL

http://www.environment.gov.au/arcgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf (accessed 04.11.13). Federal

Department of the Environment, Canberra.

DoE 2014. Species Profile and Threats Database. Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana Species Profile. URL

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=25234 (accessed

11.07.14). Federal Department of the Environment, Canberra.

DSE 2004a. Vegetation quality assessment manual: Guidelines for applying the habitat hectares scoring

method. Version 1.3. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.

DSE 2004b. Action Statement No. 106. Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana. Department of Sustainability &

Environment, Victoria.


DSE 2010. Native Vegetation Technical information sheet: Degraded treeless vegetation, Best and

remaining habitat determinations, Tree protection/retainment requirements. Victorian Department

of Sustainability and Environment.DSE, 2013. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in

Victoria. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment.

DTPLI 2014. Planning Maps Online [www Document]. URL

http://services.land.vic.gov.au/landchannel/jsp/map/PlanningMapsIntro.jsp. (accessed 11.07.14).

Victorian Department of Transport, Planning and Linear Infrastructure

Ecology and Heritage Partners 2009. Flora and Fauna Assessment and Targeted Golden Sun Moth Surveys:

Western Avenue, Tullamarine, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared for Transpacific Cleanaway Pty

Ltd.

Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013. Flora and Fauna Assessment and Targeted Golden Sun Moth Surveys:

140 – 204 Western Avenue, Tullamarine, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared for Transpacific

Cleanaway Pty Ltd.

Endersby, I. & Koehler, S. 2006. Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana: discovery of newpopulations around

Melbourne. Victorian Naturalist 123, 362-365.

EPA 1991. Construction Techniques for Sediment Pollution Control. Published document prepared by the

Victorian Environment Protection Authority, Victoria.

EPA 1996. Environmental Guidelines for Major Construction Sites. Published document prepared by the

Victorian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

Melbourne Water Corporation 2010. Constructed Wetland Guidelines. [WWW Document]. URL

http://www.melbournewater.com.au/planning-and-building/standards-and-specifications/design-

general/pages/constructed-wetlands-guidelines.aspx (accessed 11.07.14).

NRE 2002. Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action. Department of Natural Resources

and Environment, Victoria.

Organ, A. 2003. Conservation Management Plan for the Growing Grass Frog Litoria raniformis, Western

Treatment Plant, Werribee, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared for Melbourne Water by Biosis

Research Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Robertson, P., Heard, G. & Scroggie, M. 2002. The Ecology and Conservation Status of the Growling Grass

Frog Litoria raniformis within the Merri Creek Corridor. Interim Report: Distribution, Abundance and

Habitat Requirements. Report produced for the Department of Natural Resources and Environment.

Victorian Urban Stormwater Committee 1999. Urban Stormwater: Best Practice Environmental

Management Guidelines. CSIRO.

Viridans 2013a. Flora Information System. Viridans Biological Databases.

Viridans 2013b. Victorian Fauna Database. Viridans Biological Databases.


Walsh, N.G., Stajsic, V. 2007. A census of the vascular plants of Victoria, 8th ed. ed. Royal Botanic Gardens

Melbourne.


FIGURES

Carrick

Dr

South Centre Rd

Link R

d

Mickleham Rd

Malm

sbur y

Dr

Kirkham Dr

Hartington St

Barrymore Rd

Greenvale Dr

SouthC ircular Rd

Chapman Av

Western Av

Raleigh St Dimboola Rd

Melrose Dr

Mick

leham

Rd

Sunbury Rd

Sharps Rd

Broadmeadows Rd Deviation

Departure Dr

Pasc

oeVa

leRd

Johnstone St

Western

Ring Rd

Tullamarine Fwy

BULLA

GREENVALE

MELBOURNEAIRPORT

ATTWOOD

COOLAROO

GLENROY

GOWANBRAE

KEILORPARK

AIRPORTWEST

STRATHMOREHEIGHTS

TULLAMARINE

OAK PARK

KEILOR

KEILORNORTH

GLADSTONEPARK

JACANA

MEADOWHEIGHTS

WESTMEADOWS

BROADMEADOWS

Broadmeadows

Jacana

Glenroy

Moonee Ponds Creek

Maribyrnong River

WoodlandsHistoric Park

Woodlands H.P.(Swain St)

6116_Fig01_StudyArea 2/10/2014 melsley

¹ 0 1,000500

Metres

Figure 1Location of the study area140-204 Western Avenue,Westmeadows

VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant theaccuracy or completeness of information in this publicationand any person using or relying upon such information doesso on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear noresponsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults,defects or omissions in the information.

!(

_̂

Melbourne

TullamarineHume (C)

LegendStudy AreaFreewayMajor RoadCollector RoadMinor RoadProposed RoadWalking TrackMinor WatercoursePermanent WaterbodyWetland/SwampParks and ReservesMelbourne Water ManagedLand (Moonee Ponds Ck andTarnuk ReserveCrown Land

!

! !

!! Localities

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!!

HZ8

HZ3 HZ4

HZ2

HZ1

HZ5 HZ6

HZ7

Moonee Ponds Creek

Tullamarine Fwy

Trinit

y Bvd

Koala Cr

Parkh

ill Ct

Hillcrest Dr

Threadneedle St

Victor

ia St

Bamford Av

Denham

Ct

Garde

nview

Gr

BaronCt

WeirPl

Sandham Rd

Hornsby Av

Fielders Walk

Hyton Cl

Gunn Ct

Thorn

leigh P

l

Mercer Dr

Gretna Cl

Ashford Cr

Wrigh

t St Copeland Rd

Western Av

6116_Fig02_EcolFeat 10/10/2014 rgiles

¹ 0 10050

Metres

Figure 2Ecological features140-204 Western Avenue,Westmeadows

VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant theaccuracy or completeness of information in this publicationand any person using or relying upon such information doesso on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear noresponsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults,defects or omissions in the information.

!(

_̂

Melbourne

TullamarineHume (C)

LegendStudy AreaEnvironmental SignificanceOverlay (ESO2)

!

! ! !

!! BioSite Boundary'Location B' within the StudyAreaDam

nm Scattered TreeRegrowth Plains GrassyWoodland

Ecological Vegetation ClassesGrassy WoodlandStream Bank Shrubland

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

")

GF

GF

!(

GF

GF

GFGFGFGFGFGF

GF

kj

kj

GF

GF

GF

XW

XW

!

<

!U

!.

!(

!(

_̂

#*#*

#*

$1

RoxburghPark

Coolaroo

Broadmeadows

Jacana

Glenroy

PascoeVale

Oak Park

Somerton

Jackso

nsCre e

k

Moone e Ponds Cre e k

MaribyrnongRive r

De e p Cre e k

Western

Ring Rd

Calder Fwy

Tullamarine Fwy

Taylors Rd

Sunbury Rd

Keilo

r Park

Dr

Somerton Rd

Mick

leham

Rd

Sharps Rd


Departure Dr

Gree

n Gull

y Rd

Johnstone St

Bulla Rd

Melton Hwy

Old Calder Hwy

Camp Rd

Sunshine Av

Pascoe Vale Rd

TaylorsLak e

St ClairRe se rvoir

Gre e nvaleRe se rvoir

BrodieLak e

The Shank landRe se rvoir

West

St

Som e rtonRd

Tullam arine

Park

Rd

Carrick

Dr

North

umbe

rland

Rd

Kyabram St

Mick le ham Rd

SouthCe ntre Rd

Oak la

nds R

d

Link R

d

Fullarton RdLo

ngfor

dCr

Cope rnicusWay

Blair S

t

Barry Rd

Gle nroy Rd

Malm

sbu ry

Dr

Kirk ham Dr

Hartington St

Mascom a St

Donald

Cam e

ronDr

Mcph

e rson

Bvd

De von Rd

Barrymore Rd

Gre e nvale Dr

SouthCircularRd

Ruthe rgle nWay

WillysAv

Cum b

e rlan

dRd

We ste rn Av

Magn

olia Bv

d

Matth

e wsA

v

Roxburg

hPark

Dr

Odes

saAv

HiltonSt

Shank lan

dBvd

Rale ighSt

Chapm an Av

Dim boolaRd

We stfield Dr

Wildw

ood R

d

Cardi

nal R

dWi

dford

St

Me lrose Dr

GreenvaleReservoir Park


MaribyrnongValley

Parklands


2003

2008

2004

2003

1987

2004

1994

20032003

2003

1996

1994

1996

2001

2000

1994

1992

1994

1983

1996

1977

1999

1994

6116_Fig03_SigFlora 2/10/2014 melsley

V BA 2011. V ictorian Biodive rsity Atlas.Source d from : ‘V BA_FLORA25’ and ‘V BA_FLORA100’, August 2011 © The State of V ictoria, De partm e nt ofSustainability and Environm e nt. Re cords prior to 1949 not show n.V icMap Data: The State of V ictoria doe s not w arrant the accuracy or com ple te ne ss of inform ation in this publicationand any pe rson using or re lying upon such inform ation doe s so on the basis that the State of V ictoria shall be ar nore sponsibility or liability w hatsoe ve r for any e rrors, faults, de fe cts or om issions in the inform ation.

!(

_̂

Hume (C)

Melbourne

Tullamarine

0 1.50.75

Kilom e tre s¹

Figure 3Previously documented significantflora within 5km of the study area140-204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows

LegendStudy Are a

Significant species!( Austral Crane 's-bill!U Austral Moonw ortGF Austral Tobacco!( Basalt Pe ppe rcre ss¥¦ Large -flow e r Crane 's-bill#* Matte d Flax-lilyGF Pale Sw am p Eve rlasting") Pale -flow e r Crane 's-billGF Purple Blow n-grass!

< Rough-grain Love -grass

XW Rye Be e tle -grasskj Short-bristle Wallaby-grass!( Spiny Rice -flow e rGF Stick y Wattle

!(

!C

kj

kj

kj

kj

kj

kjkj

c

cc

c

!@

!@

!@

!@

!@

!@

!@

!@

kj

kj

kj

#0

¥¦

¥¦

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

³d

³d

³d

³d

XW

XW

#*

!@

ÛÇ

#V

# V

# V

# V

# V

!@

!<

#*

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

%L

XW

")

")GF

GF

GF

GF

GF GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF

GFGF

GF

GF

GFGFGF

GF

GF

GFGFGFGFGFGFGFGFGF

GF

GFGFGFGF

GFGF

GF

GF

GF

GFGFGFGFGFGFGF

GF

GFGFGFGF

GF

GFGF

GFGFGF

GFGF

GF

GF

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂_̂_̂

_̂

_̂

_̂

!@

!@

!@

!@

!@

!@¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦

¥¦¥¦

¥¦

kj

RoxburghPark

Coolaroo

Broadmeadows

Jacana

Glenroy

PascoeVale

Oak Park

Somerton

Jackso

nsCree

k

Moonee Ponds Creek

Marib yrnong R iver

Deep Creek

Western

Ring Rd

Calder Fwy

Tullamarine Fwy

Taylors Rd

Sunbury Rd

Keilo

r Park

Dr

Somerton Rd

Mick

leham

Rd

Sharps Rd


Departure Dr

Gree

n Gull

y Rd

Johnstone St

Bulla Rd

Melton Hwy

Old Calder Hwy

Camp Rd

Sunshine Av

Pascoe Vale Rd

TaylorsLake

St ClairR eservoir

GreenvaleR eservoir

Brod ieLake

Th e Sh anklandR eservoir

West

St

Som erton R d

Tullam arine

Park

Rd

Carrick

Dr

North

umb e

rland

Rd

Kyab ram St

Mickleham R d

South CentreR d

Oakla

nds R

d

Link R

d

Fullarton R dLo

ngfor

d Cr

Copernic usWay

Blair S

t

Barry R d

Glenroy R d

Malm

sbury

Dr

Kirkh am Dr

Harting ton St

Mascom a St

Donald

Cam e

ronDr

Mcph

erson

Bvd

Devon R d

BarrymoreR d

GreenvaleDr

SouthCircularR d

R uth erg len Way

WillysAv

Cumb

erlan

d Rd

Western Av

Mag n

olia Bv

d

Matth

ewsA

v

R oxburg

h Park

Dr

Odes

saAv

Hilton St

Sh anklan

d Bvd

R aleig h St

Chapm an Av

Dim b oolaR d

Westfield Dr

Wild w

ood R

d

Card i

nal R

dWi

d ford

St

Melrose Dr

GreenvaleReservoir Park


MaribyrnongValley

Parklands


2000

1988

1990

1987

1991 1990

1990

1991

1989

1988

1995

1986

1986

1994

2000

1986

1988

1995

1990

2006

1982

1986

1991

1987

19912000

1991

1998

1986

1987

1986

2000

1990

1990

2007

19992007

1987

1991

2003

2008

2002

2002

2002

1990

1990

1990

1990

1988

2008

1990

1990

20062006

2006

2008

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2006

2008

20082008

2008

2008

2008

20082008

2008

2008

20082008

2008

20082008

20082008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2002

1993

1991

20032003

2003

2003

2003

2003

2003

2000

1990

1991

2000

1990

19931990

1990

1986

1988

1987

1987

2002

2006

1991

2003

1988

20002001

2001

1999

2001

2001

1997

2004

6116_Fig04_SigFauna 2/10/2014 melsley

VBA 2011. Vic torian Biod iversity Atlas.Sourc ed from : ‘VBA_FLOR A25’ and ‘VBA_FLOR A100’, Aug ust 2011 © Th e State of Vic toria, Departm ent ofSustainab ility and Environm ent. R ec ord s prior to 1949 not sh ow n.Vic Map Data: Th e State of Vic toria d oes not w arrant th e ac c urac y or c om pleteness of inform ation in th is pub lic ationand any person using or relying upon suc h inform ation d oes so on th e b asis th at th e State of Vic toria sh all b ear noresponsib ility or liab ility w h atsoever for any errors, faults, d efec ts or om issions in th e inform ation.

!(

_̂

Hume (C)

Melbourne

Tullamarine

0 1.50.75

Kilom etres¹

Figure 4Previously documented significantfauna within 5km of the study area140-204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows

LegendStud y Area

Significant species¥¦

AustralianPratinc ole

") Baillon's Crakec

Blac k-c h innedHoneyeater

!(Blac k-earedCuc koo

ÛÇ Blue-b illed Duc k

# V Brow n Toad let

kj

Brow nTreec reeper(south -easternssp.)

#* Caspian Tern!< Diam ond DoveGF Diam ond Firetail_̂

Eastern BarredBand ic oot

nEastern GreatEg ret

!@ Frec kled Duc k#0 Glossy Ib isGF Gold en Sun Mothkj

Grey-h ead edFlying -fox

¥¦Grow ling GrassFrog

_̂ Hard h ead

XW Lew in's R ail

#* Little Eg ret³d Musk Duc k!@

Nankeen Nig h tHeron

kj Pied Corm orant

XW R oyal Spoonb ill%L Spec kled Warb ler!@ Sw ift Parrot


APPENDICES


APPENDIX A - OFFSETS AND EXEMPTIONS

Table A1 Calculation of Biodiversity Equivalence Scores and General or Specific Offsets (DEPI 2013a)

Pathway Biodiversity Assessment Tools Information Source

Low Risk-basedpathway

Condition Score Modelled data, NVIM Tool (DEPI 2014c)

Habitat Hectares = Condition Score x Extent (ha)

Strategic Biodiversity Score Modelled data, NVIM Tool (DEPI 2014c)

General Biodiversity Equivalence Score = Habitat Hectares x Strategic Biodiversity Score

Moderate or HighRisk-basedpathway

Condition Score Habitat hectare assessment

Habitat Hectares = Condition Score x Extent (ha)

Strategic Biodiversity Score and HabitatImportance Score

Modelled data, determined by DEPI

Specific Biodiversity Equivalence Score (A) = Habitat Hectares x Habitat Importance Score

Sum of Specific Biodiversity EquivalenceScores of remaining habitat (B)

Data gathered during the site assessment is providedto DEPI for analysis and a resulting assessment offsetreport is provided by the Department.

Specific Offset Threshold (C)

General/Specific Threshold Test:

If A ÷ B > C a Specific offset is required

If A ÷ B < C a General offset required

Table A2 Summary of Offset Requirements (DEPI 2013a)

Risk –basedPathway

OffsetType

Offset Amount (Riskadjusted biodiversity

equivalence score)

Offset Attributes

Habitat for Species VicinityStrategic

Biodiversity Score

Low RiskGeneraloffset

1.5 times the generalbiodiversity equivalencescore of the nativevegetation to beremoved.

No restrictions

In the same CatchmentManagement Authorityor Local GovernmentArea boundary as thenative vegetation to beremoved.

At least 80 per centof the strategicbiodiversity score ofthe native vegetationto be removed.

Moderate orHigh Risk

Generaloffset

1.5 times the generalbiodiversity equivalencescore of the nativevegetation to beremoved.

No restrictions

In the same CatchmentManagement Authorityor Local GovernmentArea boundary as thenative vegetation to beremoved.

At least 80 per centof the strategicbiodiversity score ofthe native vegetationto be removed.

Moderate orHigh Risk

Specificoffset

For each speciesimpacted, 2 times thespecific biodiversityequivalence score of thenative vegetation to beremoved.

Likely habitat for eachrare or threatenedspecies that a specificoffset is required for,according to thespecific-general offsettest.

No restrictions No restrictions


Table A3 Permit Exemptions (from Victorian Planning Provisions Clause 52.17 -7)

No permit is required to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation to the minimum extent necessary if any of thefollowing apply:

Property size

A permit is not required for removal of native vegetation if the native vegetation is on landwhich, together with all contiguous land in one ownership, has an area of less than 0.4

hectares. This exemption does not apply to native vegetation within a road reservation, orwhere a subdivision is proposed with lots less than 0.4 hectares4.

Lopping or pruningGenerally, minor lopping or pruning of up to a third of the foliage (not including the trunk)that does not affect the continued health of the tree does not require a permit or attract

an offset requirement.

Regrowth

A permit is not generally not required for removal of native vegetation that is For regrowthwhich has naturally established or regenerated on land lawfully cleared of naturally

established native vegetation and is:

a) Less than 10 years old; or,

b) Bracken (Pteridium esculentum); or,

c) Less than ten years old at the time of a Property Vegetation Plan being signed by theSecretary of the Department of Sustainability and Environment (as constituted under Part 2

of the Conservation, Forest and Lands Act 1987), and is shown on that Plan as being‘certified regrowth’, and is on land that is to be used or maintained for cultivation or

pasture during the term of that Plan; or,

d) Within the boundary of a timber production plantation, as indicated on a PlantationDevelopment Notice or other documented record, and has established after the

plantation.

This exemption does not apply to land on which native vegetation has been cleared orotherwise destroyed or damaged as a result of flood, fire or other natural disaster.

Weeds

A permit is not required for removal of native vegetation to enable the removal ordestruction of a weed listed in the schedule to the clause. The maximum extent of nativevegetation removed, destroyed or lopped under this exemption on contiguous land in the

same ownership in a five year period must not exceed any of the following:

a) 1 hectare of native vegetation which does not include a tree; or,

b) 15 native trees if each tree has a DBH of less than 20.

Planted vegetation

The removal of planted trees does not require a permit or attract an offset requirement,except if public funding was provided to assist in planting or managing the native

vegetation and the terms of the funding did not anticipate removal or harvesting of thevegetation.

Other

Numerous additional exemptions apply to works relating to approvals granted prior to 15September 2008, fencing, mowing, stone exploration / extraction, utility maintenance,

crown land, emergency works, works in Farming Zone and Rural Activity Zone, fireprotection, geothermal energy exploration, grazing, greenhouse gas sequestration,

harvesting timber, mineral exploration / extraction, pest animal burrow removal, roadsafety, stock movement on roads and surveying.

See Clause 52.17 -6 for details.

4In accordance with the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (VCAT) decision Villawood v Greater Bendigo CC

(2005) VCAT 2703 (20 December 2005) all native vegetation is considered lost where proposed lots are less than 0.4hectares in area and must be offset at the time of subdivision.


APPENDIX B - FLORA

Appendix B1 – Flora Results

Table B1 Flora Recorded within the Study Area.

Scientific Name Common Name

Indigenous

Acacia implexa Lightwood

Amphibromus nervosus Common Swamp Wallaby-grass

Atriplex semibaccata Berry Saltbush

Austrostipa scabra Rough Spear-grass

Chloris truncata Windmill Grass

Convolvulus angustissimus subsp.omnigracilis

Slender Bindweed

Einadia nutans subsp. nutans Nodding Saltbush

Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa Ruby Saltbush

Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red-gum

Helichrysum luteoalbum* Jersey Cudweed

Oxalis sp. Wood-sorrel

Juncus subsecundus Finger Rush

Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass

Poa labillardierei Common Tussock-grass

Rytidosperma geniculatum Kneed Wallaby-grass

Rytidosperma laeve Smooth Wallaby-grass

Rytidosperma racemosum var. racemosum Slender Wallaby-grass

Rytidosperma setaceum var. setaceum Bristly Wallaby-grass

Typha spp. Bulrush

Introduced

Arctotheca calendula Cape Weed

Avena sp. Oat

Brassica sp. Turnip

Bromus hordaceous Soft Brome# Cynara cardunculus Artichoke Thistle

Cynodon dactylon var. dactylon Couch

Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot# Echium plantagineum Paterson's Curse

Ehrharta erecta var. erecta Panic Veldt-grass

Ehrharta longiflora Annual Veldt-grass# Foeniculum vulgare Fennel

Galenia pubescens var. pubescens Galenia

Helminthotheca echiodes Ox-tongue

Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog

Hordeum spp. Barley Grass

Hypochaeris radicata Flatweed

Lepidium africanum Common Peppercress

Lolium perenne Perennial Rye-grass

W # Lycium ferocissimum African Box-thorn

Malva spp. Mallow


Scientific Name Common Name

Medicago rugosa Medic

W # Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle-grass

W # Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock

Plantago coronopus Buck's-horn Plantain

Plantago lanceolata Ribwort

Romulea rosea Onion Grass# Rosa rubiginosa Sweet Briar

W # Rubus ulmifolius Blackberry

Schinus molle Pepper Tree

Solanum linnaeanum Apple of Sodom

Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle

Sporobolus africanus Rat-tail Grass

Taraxacum officinale spp. agg. Garden Dandelion

Trifolium sp. Clover

Vicia spp. Vetch

Notes: * FFG Act protected species; W Weed of National Significance;#

Noxious weed.


Appendix B2 – Significant Flora Species

Table B2 Significant Flora Recorded within 10 Kilometres of the Study Area

Scientific name Common nameTotal # of

documentedrecords

Lastdocumented

recordEPBC FFG DEPI

Likelyoccurrence in

study area

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

# Amphibromus fluitans River Swamp Wallaby-grass 1 1989 VU - - 4

# Carex tasmanica Curly Sedge 7 2001 VU L v 4

# Dianella amoena Matted Flax-lily 8 2005 EN L e 3

Diuris basaltica Small Golden Moths 8 1962 EN L v 4

# Diuris fragrantissima Sunshine Diuris 4 1962 EN L e 4

# Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine 1 1995 VU L v 3

# Lepidium hyssopifolium Basalt Peppercress 3 1982 EN L e 3

# Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens Spiny Rice-flower 96 2005 CR L e 4

# Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon Leek-orchid - - EN L e 5

Prasophyllum suaveolens Fragrant Leek-orchid 4 1962 EN L e 5

Pterostylis cucullata Leafy Greenhood 1 1770 VU L v 5

# Rutidosis leptorhynchoides Button Wrinklewort 19 2001 EN L e 4

# Senecio macrocarpus Large-headed Fireweed 1 1906 VU L e 4

Thesium australe Austral Toad-flax 1 1904 VU L v 4

# Xerochrysum palustre Swamp Everlasting 1 2005 VU L v 4

STATE SIGNIFICANCE

Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke 2 1979 - L - 4

Amphibromus pithogastrus Plump Swamp Wallaby-grass 5 2000 - L e 4

Asperula charophyton Elongate Woodruff 1 2008 - - k 4

Botrychium australe Austral Moonwort 1 1983 - L v 4

Callitriche palustris var. palustris Swamp Water-starwort 3 1978 - - k 4

Callitriche umbonata Winged Water-starwort 2 2000 - - r 4



documentedrecords

Lastdocumented

recordEPBC FFG DEPI

Likelyoccurrence in

study area

*Cardamine papillata Forest Bitter-cress 1 1900 - - r 4

*Clematis decipiens Slender Clematis 1 1902 - - k 4

Comesperma polygaloides Small Milkwort 11 2000 - L v 3

Convolvulus angustissimus subsp. omnigracilis Slender Bindweed 6 1984 - - k 3

Cullen parvum Small Scurf-pea 2 1986 - L e 3

Cullen tenax Tough Scurf-pea 13 2000 - L e 3

Desmodium varians Slender Tick-trefoil 14 2002 - - k 3

Dianella sp. aff. longifolia (Benambra) Arching Flax-lily 8 2005 - - v 3

Diuris palustris Swamp Diuris 8 1979 - L v 4

Diuris punctata var. punctata Purple Diuris 4 1982 - L v 4

Eleocharis macbarronii Grey Spike-sedge 1 1986 - - k 4

Eleocharis plana Flat Spike-sedge 1 1986 - - v 4

Eragrostis trachycarpa Rough-grain Love-grass 1 1994 - - r 4

Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. connata Melbourne Yellow-gum 3 2000 - - v 4

Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa Large-fruit Yellow-gum 1 1996 - L e 4

Eucalyptus X studleyensis Studley Park Gum 1 2004 - - e 5

Geranium solanderi var. solanderi s.s. Austral Crane's-bill 2 2006 - - v 3

Geranium sp. 1 Large-flower Crane's-bill 4 2008 - - e 3

Geranium sp. 3 Pale-flower Crane's-bill 3 2003 - - r 3

Goodia medicaginea Western Golden-tip 1 2001 - - r 4

Helichrysum aff. rutidolepis (Lowland Swamps) Pale Swamp Everlasting 16 2005 - - v 4

Hypoxis vaginata var. brevistigmata Yellow Star 1 1901 - - k 4

Lachnagrostis perennis spp. agg. Perennial Blown-grass 9 2000 - - k 4

Lachnagrostis punicea subsp. punicea Purple Blown-grass 13 2001 - - r 4

Leiocarpa leptolepis Pale Plover-daisy 1 1912 - L e 3

Lepidium pseudohyssopifolium Native Peppercress 3 1995 - - k 3

*Lotus australis var. australis Austral Trefoil 2 1904 - - k 3



documentedrecords

Lastdocumented

recordEPBC FFG DEPI

Likelyoccurrence in

study area

Maireana aphylla Leafless Bluebush 2 1982 - - k 3

Nicotiana suaveolens Austral Tobacco 13 2000 - - r 3

*Pellaea calidirupium Inland Sickle-fern 1 2008 - - k 4

*Pleurosorus subglandulosus Glandular Blanket-fern 1 2008 - - k 4

Poa labillardierei var. (Volcanic Plains) Basalt Tussock-grass 1 2003 - - k 4

Rhagodia parabolica Fragrant Saltbush 7 2007 - - r 4

Rytidosperma setacea var. breviseta Short-bristle Wallaby-grass 2 1996 - - r 3

Sclerolaena muricata var. muricata Black Roly-poly 2 1987 - - k 3

*Senecio campylocarpus Floodplain Fireweed 1 1986 - - r 4

Senecio cunninghamii var. cunninghamii Branching Groundsel 3 1981 - - r 4

Thelymitra gregaria Basalt Sun-orchid 1 1929 - L e 4

Tripogon loliiformis Rye Beetle-grass 14 2005 - - r 3

*Verbena officinalis var. gaudichaudii Native Verbena 2 1902 - - k 3

Notes:

1) Listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (E) or Vulnerable (V) under the EPBC Act

2) Listed (L) under the FFG Act.

3) Listed as Endangered (e), Vulnerable (v), Rare (r) or Status Poorly Known (k) on the Victoria Advisory List (DSE 2005)

4) Likelihood of occurrence: 1 Known Occurrence - Recorded within the study area recently (i.e. within ten years), 2 High Likelihood - Previous records of the species in the local vicinity;

and/or, the study area contains areas of high quality habitat, 3 Moderate Likelihood - Limited previous records of the species in the local vicinity; and/or, the study area contains poor or

limited habitat, 4 Low Likelihood - Poor or limited habitat for the species however other evidence (such as a lack of records or environmental factors) indicates there is a very low

likelihood of presence, 5 Unlikely - No suitable habitat and/or outside the species range.

# - Species only nominated by the EPBC Act PMST.


Appendix B3 – Habitat Hectare Data

Table B3 Habitat Hectare Data

Habitat ZonesHZ1, 2, 3, 4 HZ5 HZ6 HZ7

Bioregion Victorian_Volcanic_Plain Central_Victorian_Uplands Central_Victorian_Uplands Central_Victorian_Uplands

EVC / Tree Plains Grassy Woodland Grassy Woodland Grassy Woodland Grassy Woodland

EVC Number 55_61 175 175 175

EVC Conservation Status Endangered Endangered Endangered Endangered

Large Old Trees /10 0 3 5 0

Canopy Cover /5 0 2 2 0

Under storey /25 5 5 5 5

Lack of Weeds /15 2 2 2 2

Patch Recruitment /10 0 0 0 0

Condition Organic Matter /5 4 4 4 4

Logs /5 0 0 0 0

Treeless EVC Multiplier 1 1 1 1

Subtotal = 11 16 18 11

Landscape Value /25 3 3 3 3

Habitat Points /100 14 19 21 14

Habitat Score 0.140 0.19 0.21 0.14

Note: Habitat Hectares for Stream Bank Shrubland (Habitat Zone 8) were not calculated, as this vegetation is within the ESO area, which is proposed to be gifted to Melbourne

Water, and therefore there are no offset implications.


APPENDIX C - FAUNA

Appendix C1 – Fauna Results

Table C1 Fauna Recorded within the Study Area.

Common Name Scientific Name Last Record (AVW) Total # Records (AVW) Hollow Use Mi/ Ma1

Present Survey2

MAMMALS

Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus 2004 17 - - S

Common Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecula 2005 61 Total - I

Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus 2001 27 Partial - I

Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus 2006 50 - - I

*Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus 1992 4 - - I

*House Mouse Mus musculus 2005 45 - - I

*European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus 2005 90 - - S

*European Hare Lepus europeaus 2005 29 - - S

*Red Fox Vulpes vulpes 2006 62 - - S

*Cat Felis catus 1999 14 - - S

BIRDS

Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera 2000 12 - - S

Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes 2006 12 - - S

Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa 2005 65 - - S

Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio 2005 19 - Ma S

Eurasian Coot Fulica atra 2005 37 - - S

Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus novaehollandiae 2005 27 - - S

Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris 2001 17 - - S

Little Pied Cormorant Microcarbo melanoleucos 2005 33 - - S

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus 2002 11 - Ma S

Silver Gull Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae 2004 61 - Ma S

Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles 2006 36 - - S

Black-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopus - - - - S

Australian White Ibis Threskiornis molucca 2005 29 - Ma S



Present Survey2

Straw-necked Ibis Threskiornis spinicollis 2006 30 - Ma S

White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae 2006 73 - - S

Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata 2005 50 Total - S

Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa 2005 85 - - S

Chestnut Teal Anas castanea 2000 5 Total - S

Hardhead Aythya australis 2001 7 - - S

Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus 2006 63 - Ma S

Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus 2005 21 - Ma S

Brown Falcon Falco berigora 2005 71 - - S

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus 2006 21 Total - S

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita 2006 132 Total - S

Long-billed Corella Cacatua tenuirostris 2005 13 Total - S

Galah Eolophus roseicapilla 2006 98 Total - S

Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius 2006 107 Total - S

Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus 2006 116 Total - S

Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae 2002 54 Total - H

Pallid Cuckoo Cuculus pallidus 2000 16 - Ma H

Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx basalis 2005 31 - Ma S

Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena 2006 151 Partial Ma S

Tree Martin Hirundo nigricans 2005 59 Total Ma S

Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys 2006 169 - - S

Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica 2005 51 Partial - S

Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca 2006 134 - Ma S

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae 2006 79 - Ma S

Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana 2006 77 - - S

Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla 2005 54 - - S

Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa 2006 141 - - S

Brown Songlark Cincloramphus cruralis 2000 11 - - S

Clamorous Reed Warbler Acrocephalus stentoreus 2005 23 - Mi/Ma S

Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus 2006 189 - - S

Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus 2006 66 - - S

Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus 2006 82 Partial - S



Present Survey2

Silvereye Zosterops lateralis 2005 98 - Ma S

White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus 2006 217 - - S

New Holland Honeyeater Phylidonyris novaehollandiae 2006 22 - - S

Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala 2001 22 - - S

Little Wattlebird Anthochaera chrysoptera 2006 17 - - S

Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata 2006 142 - - S

Australasian Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae 2006 55 - Ma S

Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis 2006 105 - - S

Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen 2006 219 - - S

Little Raven Corvus mellori 2006 194 - Ma S

*Rock Dove Columba livia 2006 77 - - S

*Spotted Turtle-Dove Streptopelia chinensis 2006 112 - - S

*Common Blackbird Turdus merula 2006 162 - - S

*Song Thrush Turdus philomelos 2005 25 - - S

*European Skylark Alauda arvensis 2000 70 - - S

*House Sparrow Passer domesticus 2006 163 - - S

*European Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis 2006 105 - - S

*European Greenfinch Carduelis chloris 2005 45 - - S

*Common Myna Acridotheres tristis 2006 165 - - S

*Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris 2006 216 Partial - S

FROGS

Southern Bullfrog Limnodynastes dumerilii 2003 28 - - H

Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis 2002 15 - - H

Common Froglet Crinia signifera 2006 101 - - H

REPTILES

Eastern Striped Skink Ctenotus robustus 2002 28 - - S

Garden Skink Lampropholis guichenoti 2002 38 - - S

Common Blue-tongued Lizard Tiliqua scincoides 2003 45 - - SNotes:

* Introduced species

1) Ma - Marine species, Mi - Migratory species2) H- Heard, S - Seen, I - incidental (e.g. scats)


Appendix C2 – Significant Fauna Species

Table C2 Significant Fauna Recorded within 10 Kilometres of the Study Area

Common name Scientific name Last record Total # of records EPBC1

DEPI2

FFG3

Likely use of study area4

NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Spot-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus maculatus 1882 1 EN en L 4

Eastern Barred Bandicoot Perameles gunnii 2003 12 EN rx L 4

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus 2004 2 VU vu L 2

Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus 1950 3 EN en L 4

Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus 1949 9 VU cr L 4

Fairy Tern Sternula nereis nereis 1977 1 VU en L 4

Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii 1846 1 VU en L 4

Red-tailed Black-CockatooCalyptorhynchus banksiigraptogyne 1846 1 EN en L 4

Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor 2000 14 EN en L 2

Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia 1971 2 EN cr L 4

Striped Legless Lizard Delma impar 2001 6 VU en L 3

Grassland Earless Dragon Tympanocryptis pinguicolla 1884 1 EN cr L 4

Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis 2009 111 VU en L 2

Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena 1982 5 VU vu L 4

Bluenose Cod (Trout Cod) Maccullochella macquariensis 1908 1 EN cr L 4

Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica 1970 2 EN en L 4

Eltham Copper Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida 1922 2 - en L 4

Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana 2008 145 CR cr L 2

# Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis - - VU cr L 4

# Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla - - VU vu L 4

# Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata - - VU en L 4

# New Holland Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae - - VU vu L 4

# Pink-tailed Worm-Lizard Aprasia parapulchella - - VU en L 4

STATE SIGNIFICANCE

Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae 2000 2 - vu L 3



DEPI2

FFG3


novaehollandiae

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus flaviventris 1932 1 - dd L 4

Musk Duck Biziura lobata 2007 7 - vu - 3

Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa 2007 2 - en L 3

Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis 2000 5 - vu - 2

Hardhead Aythya australis 2007 51 - vu - 2

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis 2000 3 - en L 2

Diamond Dove Geopelia cuneata 1999 1 - nt L 4

White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus 2000 24 - vu - 3

Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus dubius 1980 1 - en L 4

Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta 2008 43 - vu L 2

Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia 1980 5 - en L 3

Little Egret Egretta garzetta nigripes 1991 3 - en L 4

White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster 1846 1 - vu L 3

Black Falcon Falco subniger 1999 5 - vu - 3

Lewin's Rail Lewinia pectoralis pectoralis 1991 3 - vu L 3

Baillon's Crake Porzana pusilla palustris 2008 5 - vu L 3

Australian Bustard Ardeotis australis 1846 1 - cr L 4

Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius 1846 1 - en L 4

Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus 1978 1 - cr - 4

Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis 1977 1 - vu - 4

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos 1981 4 - vu - 4

Red-chested Button-quail Turnix pyrrhothorax 1991 1 - vu L 4

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia 2007 5 - nt L 4

Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella 2000 1 - nt L 4

Brown Treecreeper (south-eastern ssp.)

Climacteris picumnus victoriae1991 10 - nt - 4

Speckled Warbler Chthonicola sagittatus 1990 7 - vu L 4

Grey-crowned BabblerPomatostomus temporalistemporalis 1846 1 - en L 4

Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata cucullata 1846 1 - nt L 4



DEPI2

FFG3


Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata 1990 7 - nt L 3

Murray Short-necked Turtle Emydura macquarii 1993 1 - vu - 4

Bearded Dragon Pogona barbata 1988 1 - vu - 3

Tussock Skink Pseudemoia pagenstecheri 2002 6 - vu - 4

Brown Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii 1994 29 - en L 3

Southern Toadlet Pseudophryne semimarmorata 1961 3 - vu - 3

Australian Mudfish Neochanna cleaveri 2008 1 - cr L 4

Southern Pygmy Perch Nannoperca australis 2005 3 - vu - 4

REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE

Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata 1991 6 - nt - 4

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius 1995 17 - nt - 4

Nankeen Night Heron Nycticorax caledonicus hillii 2001 67 - nt - 3

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus 2006 1 - nt - 4

Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia 1991 4 - nt - 3

Spotted Harrier Circus assimilis 2002 9 - nt - 2

Sooty Oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus 1950 2 - nt - 4

Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii 2002 9 - nt - 3

Sanderling Calidris alba 1977 1 - nt - 4

Little Button-quail Turnix velox 2001 3 - nt - 4

Australian Pratincole Stiltia isabella 1982 1 - nt - 4

Whiskered Tern Chlidonias hybridus javanicus 1991 3 - nt - 4

Pacific Gull Larus pacificus pacificus 1980 8 - nt - 4

Black-eared Cuckoo Chrysococcyx osculans 2002 4 - nt - 4

Azure Kingfisher Alcedo azurea 2003 4 - nt - 3

Black-chinned Honeyeater Melithripterus gularis gularis 1991 5 - nt - 4

Spotted Quail-thrush Cinclosoma punctatum 1846 1 - nt - 4

Long neck tortoise Chelodina longicollis 2009 8 - dd - 4


Notes:

1) Listed as Critically Endangered (CR), Endangered (E), Vulnerable (V) or Migratory (M) under the EPBC Act

2) Listed (L) under the FFG Act

3) Listed as Critically Endangered (cr), Endangered (e), Vulnerable (v), Near Threatened (nt), Data Deficient (dd) or Regionally Extinct (rx) on the Victoria Advisory List (DSE 2009b, DSE 2013)

4) Likelihood of occurrence:

1HighLikelihood

Known resident in the Study area based on site observations, database records, orexpert advice; and/or,

Recent records (i.e. within five years) of the species in the local area (VBA 2011);and/or,

The Study area contains the species’ preferred habitat.

2ModerateLikelihood

The species is likely to visit the Study area regularly (i.e. at leastseasonally); and/or,

Previous records of the species in the local area (DSE 2011b); and/or,

The Study area contains some characteristics of the species’ preferredhabitat.

3LowLikelihood

The species is likely to visit the Study area occasionally or opportunistically whilsten route to more suitable sites; and/or,

There are only limited or historical records of the species in the local area (i.e.more than 20 years old); and/or,

The Study area contains few or no characteristics of the species’ preferredhabitat.

4 Unlikely

No previous records of the species in the local area; and/or,

The species may fly over the Study area when moving between areas ofmore suitable habitat; and/or,

Out of the species’ range; and/or,

No suitable habitat present.

# - Species only nominated by the EPBC Act PMST.


APPENDIX D - BIODIVERSITY IMPACT AND OFFSET REPORT

This report provides additional biodiversity information for moderate and high risk-based pathway applications for permits to remove native vegetation under clause 52.16 or 52.17 of the planning schemes in Victoria

Date of issue: 14/10/2014 DEPI ref: EHP_0083 Time of issue: 2:20 PM

Project ID EHP_6116_Tullamarine

Summary of marked native vegetation

Risk-based pathway Moderate

Total extent 1.083 ha

Remnant patches 1.013 ha

Scattered trees 1 trees

Location risk A

Offset requirements if a permit is granted If a permit is granted to remove the marked native vegetation, a requirement to obtain a native vegetation offset will be included in the permit conditions. The offset must meet the following requirements: Offset type General offset

General offset amount (general biodiversity equivalence units)

0.108 general units

General offset attributes

Vicinity Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (CMA) or the Local Municipal District where clearing takes place

Minimum strategic biodiversity score

0.2661

See Appendices 1 and 2 for details in how offset requirements were determined.

NB: values presented in tables throughout this document may not add to totals due to rounding

1 Minimum strategic biodiversity score is 80 per cent of the weighted average score across habitat zones where a general offset is required

Biodiversity impact and offset requirements report

Strategic biodiversity score of all marked native vegetation

0.333

Page1


Next steps

This proposal to remove native vegetation must meet the application requirements of the moderate risk-based pathway and it will be assessed under the moderate risk-based pathway. If you wish to remove the marked native vegetation you are required to apply for a permit from your local council. The biodiversity assessment report from NVIM and this biodiversity impact and offset report should be submitted with your application for a permit to remove native vegetation you plan to remove, lop or destroy. The Biodiversity assessment report generated by the tool within NVIM provides the following information: • The location of the site where native vegetation is to be removed. • The area of the patch of native vegetation and/or the number of any scattered trees to be removed. • Maps or plans containing information set out in the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment

guidelines • The risk-based pathway of the application for a permit to remove native vegetation This report provides the following information to meet application requirements for a permit to remove native vegetation: • Confirmation of the risk-based pathway of the application for a permit to remove native vegetation • The strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation to be removed • Information to inform the assessment of whether the proposed removal of native vegetation will have a significant impact on

Victoria’s biodiversity, with specific regard to the proportional impact on habitat for any rare or threatened species. • The offset requirements should a permit be granted to remove native vegetation. Additional application requirements must be provided with an application for a permit to remove native vegetation in the moderate or high risk-based pathways. These include: • A habitat hectare assessment report of the native vegetation that is to be removed • A statement outlining what steps have been taken to ensure that impacts on biodiversity from the removal of native

vegetation have been minimised • An offset strategy that details how a compliant offset will be secured to offset the biodiversity impacts of the removal of

native vegetation. Refer to the Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines and for a full list and details of application requirements.

© The State of Victoria Department of Environment and Primary Industries Melbourne 2014 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. For more information contact the DEPI Customer Service Centre 136 186

Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Obtaining this publication does not guarantee that an application will meet the requirements of clauses 52.16 or 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions or that a permit to remove native vegetation will be granted. Notwithstanding anything else contained in this publication, you must ensure that you comply with all relevant laws, legislation, awards or orders and that you obtain and comply with all permits, approvals and the like that affect, are applicable or are necessary to undertake any action to remove, lop or destroy or otherwise deal with any native vegetation or that apply to matters within the scope of clauses 52.16 or 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions.

www.depi.vic.gov.au Page 2


Appendix 1 – Biodiversity impact of removal of native vegetation

Habitat hectares Habitat hectares are calculated for each habitat zone within your proposal using the extent and condition scores in the GIS data you provided.

Habitat zone Site assessed condition score Extent (ha) Habitat hectares

HZ5 0.190 0.251 0.048

HZ6 0.210 0.685 0.144

HZ7 0.140 0.077 0.011

ST1 0.200 0.070 0.014

TOTAL 0.216 Impacts on rare or threatened species habitat above specific offset threshold The specific-general offset test was applied to your proposal. The test determines if the proposed removal of native vegetation has a proportional impact on any rare or threatened species habitats above the specific offset threshold. The threshold is set at 0.005 per cent of the total habitat for a species. When the proportional impact is above the specific offset threshold a specific offset for that species’ habitat is required. The specific-general offset test found your proposal does not have a proportional impact on any rare or threatened species’ habitats above the specific offset threshold. No specific offsets are required. A general offset is required as set out below. Clearing site biodiversity equivalence score(s) The general biodiversity equivalence score for the habitat zone(s) is calculated by multiplying the habitat hectares by the strategic biodiversity score.

Habitat zone Habitat hectares Strategic biodiversity score

General biodiversity equivalence score (GBES)

HZ5 0.048 0.342 0.016

HZ6 0.144 0.299 0.043

HZ7 0.011 0.229 0.002

ST1 0.014 0.748 0.011

Page 3


Mapped rare or threatened species’ habitats on site This table sets out the list of rare or threatened species’ habitats mapped at the site beyond those species for which the impact is above the specific offset threshold. These species habitats do not require a specific offset according to the specific-general offset test.

Species number Species common name Species scientific name

10045 Lewin's Rail Lewinia pectoralis pectoralis

10050 Baillon's Crake Porzana pusilla palustris

10154 Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola

10170 Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis australis

10186 Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia

10187 Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta

10195 Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus dubius

10197 Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus

10212 Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis

10215 Hardhead Aythya australis

10216 Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis

10217 Musk Duck Biziura lobata

10220 Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae novaehollandiae

10226 White-bellied Sea-Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster

10230 Square-tailed Kite Lophoictinia isura

10238 Black Falcon Falco subniger

10498 Chestnut-rumped Heathwren Calamanthus pyrrhopygius

10598 Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta

12159 Striped Legless Lizard Delma impar

12283 Lace Monitor Varanus varius

13117 Brown Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii

13207 Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis

15021 Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana

501084 Purple Diuris Diuris punctata var. punctata

501456 Clover Glycine Glycine latrobeana

503455 Rye Beetle-grass Tripogon loliiformis

504066 Rosemary Grevillea Grevillea rosmarinifolia subsp. rosmarinifolia

505084 Matted Flax-lily Dianella amoena

505337 Austral Crane's-bill Geranium solanderi var. solanderi s.s.

Page 4


Appendix 2 – Offset requirements detail If a permit is granted to remove the marked native vegetation the permit condition will include the requirement to obtain a native vegetation offset. To calculate the required offset amount required the biodiversity equivalence scores are aggregated to the proposal level and multiplied by the relevant risk multiplier. Offsets also have required attributes:

• General offsets must be located in the same Catchment Management Authority (CMA) boundary or Local Municipal District (local council) as the clearing and must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 80 per cent of the clearing.2

The offset requirements for your proposal are as follows:

Offset type

Clearing site biodiversity equivalence

score

Risk multiplier

Offset requirements

Offset amount (biodiversity

equivalence units) Offset attributes

General 0.072 GBES 1.5 0.108 general units Offset must be within Port Phillip and Westernport CMA or the same Municipal District as the vegetation removal Offset must have a minimum strategic biodiversity score of 0.266

2 Strategic biodiversity score is a weighted average across habitat zones where a general offset is required Page 5


Appendix 3 – Images of marked native vegetation

Image 1. Native vegetation location risk map

Image 2. Strategic biodiversity score map

Page 6


Image 3. Aerial photograph showing marked native vegetation

Page 7


Glossary

Condition score This is the site-assessed condition score for the native vegetation. Each habitat zone in the clearing proposal is assigned a condition score according to the habitat hectare assessment method. This information has been provided by or on behalf of the applicant in the GIS file.

Dispersed habitat A dispersed species habitat is a habitat for a rare or threatened species whose habitat is spread over a relatively broad geographic area greater than 2,000 hectares.

General biodiversity equivalence score

𝑮𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆= 𝒉𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔 × 𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒈𝒊𝒄 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆

The general biodiversity equivalence score quantifies the relative overall contribution that the native vegetation to be removed makes to Victoria’s biodiversity. The general biodiversity equivalence score is calculated as follows:

General offset amount

𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒂𝒅𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 = 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 × 𝟏.𝟓

This is calculated by multiplying the general biodiversity equivalence score of the native vegetation to be removed by the risk factor for general offsets. This number is expressed in general biodiversity equivalence units and is the amount of offset that is required to be provided should the application be approved. This offset requirement will be a condition to the permit for the removal of native vegetation.

General offset attributes General offset must be located in the same Catchment Management Authority boundary or Municipal District (local council) as the clearing site. They must also have a strategic biodiversity score that is at least 80 per cent of the score of the clearing site.

Habitat hectares

𝑯𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔 = 𝒕𝒐𝒕𝒂𝒍 𝒆𝒙𝒕𝒆𝒏𝒕 (𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔) × 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆

Habitat hectares is a site-based measure that combines extent and condition of native vegetation. The habitat hectares of native vegetation is equal to the current condition of the vegetation (condition score) multiplied by the extent of native vegetation. Habitat hectares can be calculated for a remnant patch or for scattered trees or a combination of these two vegetation types. This value is calculated for each habitat zone using the following formula:

Habitat importance score The habitat importance score is a measure of the importance of the habitat located on a site for a particular rare or threatened species. The habitat importance score for a species is a weighted average value calculated from the habitat importance map for that species. The habitat importance score is calculated for each habitat zone where the habitat importace map indicates that species habitat occurs.

Habitat zone Habitat zone is a discrete contiguous area of native vegetation that: • is of a single Ecological Vegetation Class • has the same measured condition.

Page 8


Highly localised habitat A highly localised habitat is habitat for a rare or threatened species that is spread across a very restricted area (less than 2,000 hectares). This can also be applied to a similarly limited sub-habitat that is disproportionately important for a wide-ranging rare or threatened species. Highly localised habitats have the highest habitat importance score (1) for all locations where they are present.

Minimum strategic biodiversity score

The minimum strategic biodiversity score is an attribute for a general offset. The strategic biodiversity score of the offset site must be at least 80 per cent of the strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation to be removed. This is to ensure offsets are located in areas with a strategic value that is comparable to, or better than, the native vegetation to be removed. Where a specific and general offset is required, the minimum strategic biodiversity score relates only to the habitat zones that require the general offset.

Offset risk factor

𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒐𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒆𝒕𝒔 = 𝟏.𝟓

𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒐𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒆𝒕 = 𝟐

There is a risk that the gain from undertaking the offset will not adequately compensate for the loss from the removal of native vegetation. If this were to occur, despite obtaining an offset, the overall impact from removing native vegetation would result in a loss in the contribution that native vegetation makes to Victoria’s biodiversity. To address the risk of offsets failing, an offset risk factor is applied to the calculated loss to biodiversity value from removing native vegetation.

Offset type The specific-general offset test determines the offset type required. When the specific-general offset test determines that the native vegetation removal will have an impact on one or more rare or threatened species habitat above the set threshold of 0.005 per cent, a specific offset is required. This test is done at the permit application level. A general offset is required when a proposal to remove native vegetation is not deemed, by application of the specific-general offset test, to have an impact on any habitat for any rare or threatened species above the set threshold of 0.005 per cent. All habitat zones that do not require a specific offset will require a general offset.

Proportional impact on species

This is the outcome of the specific-general offset test. The specific-general offset test is calculated across the entire proposal for each species on the native vegetation permitted clearing species list. If the proportional impact on a species is above the set threshold of 0.005 per cent then a specific offset is required for that species.

Specific offset amount

𝑹𝒊𝒔𝒌 𝒂𝒅𝒋𝒖𝒔𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 = 𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒊𝒏𝒈 × 𝟐

The specific offset amount is calculated by multiplying the specific biodiversity equivalence score of the native vegetation to be removed by the risk factor for specific offsets. This number is expressed in specific biodiversity equivalence units and is the amount of offset that is required to be provided should the application be approved. This offset requirement will be a condition to the permit for the removal of native vegetation.

Page 9


Specific offset attributes Specific offsets must be located in the modelled habitat for the species that has triggered the specific offset requirement.

Specific biodiversity equivalence score

𝑺𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒇𝒊𝒄 𝒃𝒊𝒐𝒅𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒕𝒚 𝒆𝒒𝒖𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆= 𝒉𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕 𝒉𝒆𝒄𝒕𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔 × 𝒉𝒂𝒃𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒔𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒆

The specific biodiversity equivalence score quantifies the relative overall contribution that the native vegetation to be removed makes to the habitat of the relevant rare or threatened species. It is calculated for each habitat zone where one or more species habitats require a specific offset as a result of the specific-general offset test as follows:

Strategic biodiversity score

This is the weighted average strategic biodiversity score of the marked native vegetation. The strategic biodiversity score has been calculated from the Strategic biodiversity map for each habitat zone. The strategic biodiversity score of native vegetation is a measure of the native vegetation’s importance for Victoria’s biodiversity, relative to other locations across the landscape. The Strategic biodiversity map is a modelled layer that prioritises locations on the basis of rarity and level of depletion of the types of vegetation, species habitats, and condition and connectivity of native vegetation.

Total extent (hectares) for calculating habitat hectares

This is the total area of the marked native vegetation in hectares. The total extent of native vegetation is an input to calculating the habitat hectares of a site and in calculating the general biodiversity equivalence score. Where the marked native vegetation includes scattered trees, each tree is converted to hectares using a standard area calculation of 0.071 hectares per tree. This information has been provided by or on behalf of the applicant in the GIS file.

Vicinity The vicinity is an attribute for a general offset. The offset site must be located within the same Catchment Management Authority boundary or Local Municipal District as the native vegetation to be removed.

Page 10


APPENDIX E - HABITAT ZONE PHOTOGRAPHS

Note: Pictures of Habitat Zone 8 are located within this report at Plates 3 and 4.

Photograph E1 – Habitat Zone 1 (2014) Photograph E2 – Habitat Zone 2 (2014) Photograph E3 - Habitat Zones 3 and 4 (2014)

Photograph E4 – Habitat Zone 5 (foreground) (2014) Photograph E5 – Habitat Zone 6 (2014) Photograph E6 – Habitat Zone 7 (2014)


APPENDIX F - BOX THORN HEDGES

The study area contains a number of African Box-thorn Lycium ferocissimum hedge rows along internal and boundary fence lines (Plate 6). African Box-thorn is a

Weed of National Significance and is also listed as a noxious weed within the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority area where it is classified

as Regionally Controlled. These hedge rows do provide some habitat for local fauna such as Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus, Silvereye Zosterops lateralis and

other small or frugivorous indigenous birds. In addition, rocks within some of the hedge rows also provide habitat for local reptiles, including Common Blue-tongued

Lizard Tiliqua scincoides and Garden Skink Lampropholis guichenoti, which were recorded during the assessment in and around the rock walls. However, the African

Box-thorn hedge rows were also observed to be harbouring a large population of European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, at least one Feral Cat Felis catus and a large

flock of Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris, which were observed feeding on fruits of the African Box-thorn. Overall, it is considered that the African Box-thorn hedges

provide low quality habitat for locally indigenous fauna.

Documents

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset ... · Flora and Fauna Assessment and Biodiversity Offset Analysis, 140 – 204 Western Avenue, Westmeadows 7 Under the Hume Planning