North East Link Project...Bulleen Golf Driving Range at 37-59 Templestowe Road and adjacent Parks Victoria public land at 27-33 Templestowe Road) in Bulleen, collectively described

se

North East Link Project Ecology Impact Assessment

Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities (27-59 Templestowe Road, Bulleen)

Prepared for North East Link

July 2020

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | i

Executive Summary The North East Link has undergone an extensive and robust planning and environmental assessment process, including:

An Environment Effects Statement (EES), which included proposed Environmental Performance Requirements (EPRs) to avoid, manage and mitigate identified risks.

A Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) to facilitate the use and development of the Project.

A Works Approval Application (WAA) for the installation of the road tunnel ventilation system.

Additional approval documents including a Public Environment Report (PER) for works involving matters of national environmental significance (MNES).

This Ecology Impact Assessment has been prepared to inform the North East Link Project’s (NELP) draft Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) C132mann, which seeks to facilitate the proposed Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities (the Project). The relocation of impacted sport and recreation facilities is required as a consequence of their displacement by the construction of North East Link. It is proposed to relocate the existing Bulleen Park Soccer Fields to a new Site at 27 - 59 Templestowe Road, Bulleen. The relocation Site includes two properties (the Bulleen Golf Driving Range at 37-59 Templestowe Road and adjacent Parks Victoria public land at 27-33 Templestowe Road) in Bulleen, collectively described as 27-59 Templestowe Road (The Site).

This report provides the results of flora and fauna assessments of the Site and discusses the relevant legislation and approvals associated with development of the Site. The report findings are presented in two parts:

1. Existing conditions at the Site – flora and fauna

2. Planning and environmental approval implications of the Project – as related to flora and fauna

The purpose of this report is to assess the potential ecological impacts associated with the redevelopment of the Site.

Existing conditions

Flora

The Site occurs within a broad urban setting that has been largely cleared of indigenous native vegetation. Four primary vegetation types occur on Site.

1. Introduced grassland. The majority of the Site supports mown or periodically slashed introduced grassland. Native species are absent from this vegetation type.

2. Planted vegetation. Much of the woody (treed) vegetation that is present has been planted for amenity purposes, and comprises a range of locally indigenous native trees, non-indigenous native trees, and introduced species.

3. Native vegetation patches. Three small patches of native vegetation comprising Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56) occur within the Site. All patches appear to have colonised previously cleared areas in recent decades.

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | ii

4. Scattered native trees. A number of scattered native trees (both large and small) occur within the broader matrix of introduced grassland vegetation.

Fauna

The Site abuts the Yarra River and therefore is within an area of relatively high ecological value. Forests and woodlands along the Yarra River attract and support a range of common, uncommon and rare fauna, including threatened species, and provide a wildlife corridor for fauna, linking otherwise isolated areas of habitat. The riparian habitat along this section of the Yarra River supports the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), which is listed as threatened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) and is reported to nest in the area regularly.

Away from the river, the scattered tree habitat within this Site is typical of golf courses, and provides more fragmented habitat of varying value, depending on the size and condition of the trees or tree patches and connectivity to other patches. While mowed grassy areas with scattered trees tend to be of lower value to native fauna, all non-developed green space in this area contributes to the value of the corridor and habitat for fauna. All trees within the Yarra River floodplain in the area provide important foraging habitat for Powerful Owls.

Impact assessment

Flora

The construction footprint would result in the loss of:

0.015 ha of native vegetation (Floodplain Riparian Woodland, EVC 56)

6 Small Scattered Trees

No species or communities listed under the EPBC or FFG Acts would be impacted by the proposed works. No flora listed as protected were identified and a permit under the FFG Act would not be required.

Offsets for the proposed impacts would be accounted for under the PSA for the North East Link Project.

Fauna

Potential impacts on fauna associated with the construction phase of the Project include:

Clearing of vegetation during construction resulting in the loss or degradation of habitat supporting threatened or non-threatened fauna

Clearing of vegetation during construction resulting in reduced viability of non-threatened native fauna populations

Construction activities resulting in erosion/sedimentation, litter or release of contaminants into wetlands and waterways leading to degradation of fauna habitat

Introduction or spread of weeds, pest species, or pathogens that degrade habitat for fauna

Death or injury of native fauna

Construction noise and/or lighting resulting in disturbance of threatened or non-threatened fauna

Habitat fragmentation resulting in reduced effectiveness of terrestrial wildlife corridors and creation of barriers to fauna movement

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | iii

Potential impacts on fauna associated with the operation phase of the Project include:

Operational noise and/or lighting resulting in elevated disturbance to threatened or non-threatened fauna

Planning and environmental approval considerations

Table 1 below summarises the on-site findings within the Site with respect to relevant environmental legislation and policy that would be relevant based on the current proposed design.

Table 1 Summary of flora and fauna assessment results in relation to key approval requirements for Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities

Legislation / Policy Relevant on-Site finding Permit requirement Recommendation

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

No EPBC-listed flora species or ecological communities are present in the Site, nor are they expected to occur due to the highly modified nature of the Site.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Vulnerable) is likely to forage frequently within the Site. Small numbers of other threatened fauna (e.g., Swift Parrot; Critically Endangered) may visit the Site occasionally or rarely. No species listed as threatened or migratory under the EPBC Act is expected to be impacted significantly by the Project design.

No MNES are considered likely to be significantly impacted by the Project.

No further action required

Environment Effects Act 1978 (EE Act)

Under the EE Act, projects that could have a ‘significant effect’ on Victoria’s environment can require an Environment Effects Statement (EES) to be prepared and assessed.

The EES referral criteria for impacts to ecological values (DSE 2006) were considered as part of this assessment to determine whether or not an EES is likely to be required.

Unlikely to trigger ecological requirements for an EES.


Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

No flora or communities listed as threatened under the FFG Act were recorded, nor are they expected to occur due to the highly modified nature of the Site.

No flora listed as protected under the FFG Act were recorded.

At least one species of fauna listed as threatened under the FFG Act is likely to use (and possibly nest in) the treed habitats within and around the Site (Powerful Owl Ninox strenua). Removal of trees and shrubs, and noise and light pollution have a real chance of impacting on this species and should be avoided.

No permit required to remove protected flora under the FFG Act.

No permit is required with respect to fauna. However, the Project will need to satisfy DELWP that impacts on FFG listed fauna (including the Powerful Owl) have been minimised or avoided.

Flora – N/A

Fauna – Minimising the removal of trees and shrubs, and minimising noise and light pollution will reduce the likelihood of project impacts on fauna.

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | iv


Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act)

Native vegetation was identified within the Site. Much of the native vegetation present in the Site has been planted for amenity and does not require a permit to remove. However, one patch of native vegetation, as well as six scattered native trees are proposed to be removed.

Any proposed impacts to remnant native vegetation or vegetation planted for conservation purposes will require a permit under the P&E Act, and offsets will be required.

Permit to remove native vegetation (patches of vegetation and scattered native flora) required.

Requirements under the P & E Act will be met under the PSA.

Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017) – the Guidelines.

The location mapping identifies that the Site is classified as Location 2.

Based on the design option for this Site, 0.186 ha of native vegetation will be removed (inclusive of scattered trees). Consequently, the Project needs to be assessed via the ‘Intermediate’ assessment pathway.

Planning permit and offsets required under P&E Act.

A permit application will need to be referred to Manningham City Council.


Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)

Declared Noxious Weeds (Restricted and Regionally Controlled within the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA) were recorded within the Site during the field assessment.

The Project has the potential to spread and/or introduce weeds during proposed works.

No permit required. NELP must comply with requirements to limit the spread of declared noxious weeds within and off site, via vehicle hygiene procedures listed in an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

Wildlife Act 1975 Some of the larger trees within the Site, particularly along the Yarra River, may have hollows and may house arboreal fauna such as possums or nesting birds.

A Management Authorisation (a permit under the Wildlife Act 1975) would be required for the purposes of capturing, handling or relocating fauna, and will be required if any tree/limb removal is proposed.

If large trees require removal (or limb lopping), then a Management Authorisation should be obtained so that an ecologist can be present during works to help fauna to safety, as required.

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | v

Table of contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. i

Existing conditions .......................................................................................................................... i Impact assessment ........................................................................................................................ ii

Planning and environmental approval considerations .................................................................. iii

Abbreviations .......................................................................................................................................... vii

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project background .............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Purpose of this report........................................................................................................... 1

2. Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidelines .................................................................................. 2

2.1 Commonwealth legislation ................................................................................................... 2

2.2 State legislation .................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 State policy and guidelines .................................................................................................. 2

3. Methods.......................................................................................................................................... 3

3.1 Site and study area .............................................................................................................. 3

3.2 Existing conditions assessment ........................................................................................... 3

3.3 Impact assessment .............................................................................................................. 4 3.4 Nomenclature ....................................................................................................................... 5

3.5 Assumptions and limitations ................................................................................................ 6

4. Project description .......................................................................................................................... 8

5. Existing conditions ....................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Site description .................................................................................................................. 10

5.2 Existing conditions – Flora ................................................................................................. 10

5.3 Existing conditions – Fauna ............................................................................................... 19

6. Impact assessment ...................................................................................................................... 22 6.1 Impact Assessment - Flora ................................................................................................ 22

6.2 Impact Assessment - Fauna .............................................................................................. 25

7. Recommendations for mitigation ................................................................................................. 35

8. Matters of national environmental significance ............................................................................ 38

9. Policy and legislative implications ................................................................................................ 39

10. Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 41

11. References ................................................................................................................................... 42

Table index Table 1 Summary of flora and fauna assessment results in relation to key approval

requirements for Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities ...................................................... iii

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | vi

Table 2 Vegetation types and habitat zones identified and mapped in the Site ............................. 13

Table 3 Vegetation quality assessment results .............................................................................. 15

Table 4 Species exempt from a permit requirement under ESO2 .................................................. 16

Table 5 Species exempt from a permit requirement under ESO3 .................................................. 17

Table 6 Species exempt from a permit requirement under SLO2 .................................................. 18

Table 7 Risk matrix for determining the assessment pathway that an application to remove native vegetation will take ..................................................................................... 24

Table 8 Impacts to native vegetation .............................................................................................. 25

Table 9 MNES considered for North East Link – Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities ................ 38

Table 10 Likely legislative and policy requirements for the Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities ............................................................................................................................. 39

Figure index Figure 1 Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities - site boundary .......................................................... 9

Figure 2 Proposed Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities Master Plan .............................................. 9

Figure 3 Ecological values identified at Bulleen Driving Range ....................................................... 14

Appendices Appendix A – Incidental flora observations

Appendix B – Likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora known or predicted within 5 km of the Site

Appendix C – Fauna species observed during the field assessment

Appendix D – Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna known or predicted within 5 km of the Site

Appendix E – Likelihood of occurrence of Migratory fauna known or predicted within 5 km of the Site

Appendix F – Canopy Trees and Scattered Trees recorded during the field assessment

Appendix G – EnSym Report

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | vii

Abbreviations Term Definition

CaLP Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DAWE Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (formerly DOEE)

DBH Diameter at Breast Height (measured 1.3 m from the ground)

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (formerly DEPI and DSE)

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries (now DELWP)

DOEE Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (now DAWE)

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (now DELWP)

EES Environment Effects Statement (for assessment under the EE Act)

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

FFG Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

GHD GHD Pty Ltd

ha hectare

Hha Habitat Hectare

HZ Habitat Zone

km Kilometres

LGA Local Government Authority

m Metres

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

MTIA Major Transport Infrastructure Authority

NELP North East Link Project

PER Public Environment Report (for assessment under the EPBC Act)

PMST Protected Matters Search Tool

PSA Planning Scheme Amendment

sp. Species (one species)

spp. Species (more than one species)

subsp. Subspecies

TPZ Tree Protection Zone

var. Variety of a species

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | viii

Term Definition

VBA Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

VROTS Species listed on DELWP’s Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria

WAA Works Approval Application

WoNS Weed of National Significance

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment | 1

1. Introduction 1.1 Project background

The North East Link has undergone an extensive and robust planning and environmental assessment process. As part of this original approvals phase, North East Link Project (NELP) published and received public comment on:

An Environment Effects Statement (EES) that presented an integrated assessment of the potential environmental, social, economic and planning impacts of the Project, and the proposed approach to managing these impacts. The EES included an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) containing proposed Environmental Performance Requirements (EPRs) to avoid, manage and mitigate identified risks as part of the EES.

A Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA) to facilitate the use and development of the Project, as well as, establishing a mechanism to protect the tunnels and associated infrastructure from potential adverse effects of development in their vicinity.

A Works Approval Application (WAA) for the installation of a the road tunnel ventilation system under Victoria’s Environment Protection Act 1970 that considers the relevant environmental aspects of the tunnel ventilation system and provides a detailed discussion to demonstrate that the proposed project reflects best practice.

Additional documents for approval including a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) (not exhibited publicly) and a Public Environment Report (PER) for works involving matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and works on Commonwealth land.

The relocation of impacted sport and recreation facilities is required as a consequence of the North East Link Project. It is proposed to relocate the existing Bulleen Park Soccer facilities to a new Site at 27 - 59 Templestowe Road Bulleen. The relocation Site includes two properties (the Bulleen Golf Driving Range at 37-59 Templestowe Road and adjacent Parks Victoria public land at 27-33 Templestowe Road) in Bulleen, collectively described as 27-59 Templestowe Road (The Site).

To provide planning approval for the redevelopment, NELP will request the Minister for Planning prepare, adopt and approve a Planning Scheme Amendment (PSA), under section 20(4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987, in the Manningham Planning Scheme. The PSA would apply the Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities Incorporated Document, April 2020 (the Incorporated Document) and associated Specific Controls Overlay Schedule to the Site. NELP will also request the Minister for Planning vary the designated Project area under the Major Transport Project Facilitation Act 2009 to apply to the Site.

1.2 Purpose of this report

The purpose of this report is to assess the potential ecological impacts associated with the redevelopment of the Site to support the proposed PSA to apply to this Site. This report also provides recommendations for the redevelopment that will inform the conditions to be prescribed in the Incorporated Document for the Site.


2. Relevant Legislation, Policy and Guidelines The following legislation, policy and guidelines apply to terrestrial ecology included in this report.

2.1 Commonwealth legislation

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

2.2 State legislation

• Environment Effects Act 1978

• Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act)

• Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

• Wildlife Act 1975

• Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)

2.3 State policy and guidelines

• Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP, 2017)

• Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria (DEPI 2014)

• Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DEPI 2013)

• Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE 2009)


3. Methods 3.1 Site and study area

Two terms for the Site are used: Site and study area. Site refers to the specific Site (27-59 Templestowe Road, Bulleen) proposed for development. Study area refers to a broader region surrounding the particular Site (i.e. includes areas that are outside the proposed impact area). The study area for this assessment includes all land and waterways within 5 kilometres (km) of the Site. This description covers a much broader area than the expected zone of impact, and the additional information captured has been used to provide context to assess the significance of ecological features identified within the Site (for example, whether they are part of a larger area, or whether there are potential impacts on ecological features outside the Site). The broader study area was only assessed at a desktop level.

3.2 Existing conditions assessment

3.2.1 Desktop assessment

The following subsections describe the information that was reviewed to provide an understanding of the ecological values and condition of those values within the Site.

Database Searches The following databases were searched:

Protected Matters Search Tool0F

1 (PMST) (maintained by Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE)) to identify Matters of National Environmental Significance listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 (5-km buffer of the Site)

Victorian Biodiversity Atlas1F

2 (VBA) administered by the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (5-km buffer of the Site)

Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) mapping (2005 and pre-1750) (maintained by DELWP)

Location Map2F

3 (maintained by DELWP)

Native Vegetation Extent Map (maintained by DELWP)

NatureKit3F

4 (maintained by DELWP)

Aerial imagery of the Site.

1 http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool (accessed October 2019) 2 https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba/#/ (accessed October 2019) 3 https://nvim.delwp.vic.gov.au/TermsAndConditions?comeFrom=%2fBiodiversity (accessed October 2019) 4 http://maps.biodiversity.vic.gov.au/viewer/?viewer=NatureKit (accessed October 2019)

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/protected-matters-search-tool

https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba/#/

https://nvim.delwp.vic.gov.au/TermsAndConditions?comeFrom=%2fBiodiversity

http://maps.biodiversity.vic.gov.au/viewer/?viewer=NatureKit


3.2.2 Field assessment – existing conditions

A field assessment of the Site was conducted by a botanist and a zoologist on 18 October 2019.

The field assessment included:

Identification and mapping of patches of remnant or planted native vegetation

A Habitat-hectares assessment of all patches of native vegetation within the Site, in accordance with the current method available on the DELWP website

Assessment of the condition of all native vegetation patches

Assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of rare or threatened flora and communities (based on known or predicted occurrence within 5 km of the Site, and the presence of suitable habitat)

Assessment of the condition of fauna habitat and identification of the potential for threatened and migratory fauna to occur within the Site

Collection of inventory of incidental observations of both native and non-native flora and fauna encountered during the field assessment, together with conservation status, origin and weed status

Identification of the presence of significant weed species including those declared under relevant state and national legislation, policy or strategy, e.g. Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CALP Act) and National Weeds Strategy

3.3 Impact assessment

This study has assessed the potential impacts of construction and operation associated with the relocation of sporting and recreation facilities on ecological assets and values to be protected. The impact assessment approach for the Site included:

Establishing the Project context

Determining the existing conditions by using the desktop assessment and field assessment to establish the likelihood of threatened species presence

Assessing impacts with consideration of:

– The extent and quality of native vegetation that would be impacted during construction and the quantum of offsets that may be necessary

– The impact to threatened flora and fauna – Impacts to known and potential fauna habitat (terrestrial and aquatic) within the

study area

– The construction and operation of the Project Providing mitigation and/or management measures required to avoid, minimise

and/or offset ecological impacts such as the removal of native vegetation.

The loss of native vegetation was determined by overlaying the proposed design, including temporary laydown and works areas, against the mapped existing conditions, and identifying any overlap.


For fauna, the impact assessment only considers impacts above and beyond the current impacts, as this is already an active public site, with vehicle movements, people, some noise, lighting including floodlighting, etc. Impacts are considered if they change the status quo (e.g., increased traffic causing increased death, increased disturbance, etc.).

3.4 Nomenclature

3.4.1 Flora

Common and scientific names for flora follow the VBA (version 3.2.6).

Conservation significance was determined in accordance with the EPBC Act, FFG Act, and DELWP’s Advisory List of rare or threatened plants in Victoria (DEPI 2014).

The field investigation for flora was undertaken in accordance with GHD’s FFG Act Permit to take Protected Flora (#10008653; Expires 28 February 2021).

3.4.2 Vegetation communities

Native vegetation in Victoria is classified into units known as EVCs, which are described according to a combination of floristic, life form and ecological characteristics, and through an inferred fidelity to particular environmental attributes. Each EVC occurs under a common regime of ecological processes within a given biogeographic range, and may contain multiple floristic communities.

Other vegetation types that may occur in Victoria include vegetation communities listed as threatened under the Commonwealth EPBC Act and/or the Victorian FFG Act. These two Acts both have vegetation classification systems that are separate to each other and separate to the EVC classification system. As such, any single patch of native vegetation would be classifiable as a particular EVC, and it may also be separately classified as a different vegetation community under the EPBC Act, and/or as another vegetation community under the FFG Act.

3.4.3 Native vegetation

Native vegetation in this report is defined in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017):

Remnant patch – an area of vegetation where at least 25% of total perennial understorey plant cover is native, or where three or more native canopy trees occur with an overlapping canopy

Scattered tree – a native canopy tree that does not form part of a patch

Scattered native individuals – native species which do not form a remnant patch, due to having less than 25% cover in a particular area

3.4.4 Vegetation Quality Assessment

During the field assessment, the quality and quantity of native vegetation within the Site were assessed in accordance with the ‘Habitat Hectares’ approach, as outlined in the Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – guidelines for applying the habitat hectare scoring method (DSE 2004a). Native vegetation was assessed using version 1.3 of the ‘Vegetation Quality Field Assessment Sheet’ provided by DELWP and EVC benchmarks for the Gippsland Plain.


3.4.5 Declared noxious weeds and weeds of national significance

During the field assessment, a list of all flora observed within the Site was created (Appendix A). This includes environmental weeds, which are noxious weeds4F

5 listed under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 and Weeds of National Significance5F

6 (WoNS).

3.4.6 Fauna

Unless otherwise noted, common and scientific names for fauna follow the VBA database (version 3.2.6).

Fauna conservation significance was determined in accordance with the EPBC Act, FFG Act, and DELWP’s Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria or Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE 2013; DSE 2009 respectively).

The field investigation for fauna was undertaken in accordance with GHD’s Wildlife Act Research Permit and Management Authorisation (#10008401; Expires 31 July 2020).

3.4.7 Fauna communities

Unlike flora and the use of EVCs, there is no official widespread classification system for fauna communities in Victoria. Both the EPBC Act and the FFG Act list a small number of fauna communities that are considered to be threatened, at a national or state scale, respectively. Fauna communities known, or potentially occurring within the Site or surrounds, are only considered in this report if they are listed under either of these two Acts.

3.5 Assumptions and limitations

This assessment works under the assumption that no impacts on native vegetation or fauna habitat will occur outside the Site boundary.

The following assumptions were also applied when undertaking the ecological assessment:

Ecological limitations

This ecological assessment is restricted to terrestrial vascular plant species (ferns, conifers and flowering plants) and terrestrial vertebrate fauna (mammals, birds, reptiles and frogs). Non-vascular flora (e.g. mosses, liverworts, lichens), fungi and terrestrial invertebrates have not been considered as part of this assessment, except where listed threatened species are known or suspected to occur, or where bryophytes comprise part of the EVC benchmark used for the habitat hectare assessment (e.g. cover of bryophytes). Fish and aquatic invertebrates were not considered as part of this assessment.

It was beyond the scope of this assessment to undertake detailed flora or fauna survey methods, such as flora quadrat surveys or fauna trapping. No targeted surveys were deemed to be required.

5 http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/weeds/invasive-plant-classifications [accessed

October 2019] 6 http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html [accessed October 2019]

http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/pests-diseases-and-weeds/weeds/invasive-plant-classifications

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/weeds/weeds/lists/wons.html


This ecological assessment is restricted to the 27-59 Templestowe Road Bulleen, and does not include assessment of ecological values present on adjoining land, including residential and commercial properties.

The fieldwork used the Collector for ArcGIS mapping application to record Site information. This mapping tool should be considered to be accurate to within ten metres on Site.

Use of databases

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) can be used to search a defined geographical area to produce species lists of flora and fauna that have been recorded historically within the searched area. The database lists are only as accurate as the quality and quantity of data that have been recorded and documented from the area. The use of the database in a desktop assessment has the following limitations:

Location details for many records (typically older records) have a relatively low degree of accuracy (e.g., within 1 km). Thus, the database search may not pick up some records of species that were made within the Site historically.

These datasets are not exhaustive. Many locations locally and across Victoria have a low level of documented survey effort for one or more groups of flora and fauna. During field assessments, it is not uncommon to find species at locations for which there are few or no previous nearby database records; however, this is less common in the greater Melbourne area.


4. Project description The Site includes two properties (the Bulleen Golf Driving Range at 37-59 Templestowe Road and adjacent Parks Victoria public land at 27-33 Templestowe Road) in Bulleen, collectively described as 27-59 Templestowe Road (The Site). A Master Plan has been developed for the Site that proposes the redevelopment of the Site into a multi-purpose sporting facility to provide alternative sport and recreation facilities for the current users of Bulleen Park, described as the ‘Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities Master Plan’ or ‘the Project’.

The new facilities proposed to be developed on Site will comprise three soccer fields, a pavilion, club rooms, new shared use paths, bicycle parking facilities, and car parking.

Figure 1 shows the existing conditions and the Site boundary for 27 - 59 Templestowe Road Bulleen. Figure 2 shows the proposed Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities Master Plan.


Figure 1 Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities - site boundary

Figure 2 Proposed Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities Master Plan


5. Existing conditions 5.1 Site description

The Site includes two properties (the Bulleen Golf Driving Range at 37-59 Templestowe Road and adjacent Parks Victoria public land at 27-33 Templestowe Road) in Bulleen, collectively described as 27-59 Templestowe Road (The Site).

The Site is associated with the southern flood plain of the Yarra River (the northern boundary of the Site meets the river), and lies immediately north of a residential part of the suburb of Bulleen, characterised by housing, roads, landscaped verges, parks and gardens. The area lies within the Manningham City Council area, Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (CMA) area and the Gippsland Plain (GipP) bioregion.

5.2 Existing conditions – Flora

5.2.1 Site overview

The Site occurs within a broad urban setting that has been largely cleared of indigenous native vegetation. Four primary vegetation types occur on the Site.

1. Introduced grassland. The majority of the Site supports mown (golf driving range) or periodically slashed (adjacent title to the west of the driving range) introduced grassland, characterised by a range of common weedy grasses and forbs. Native species are absent from this vegetation type.

2. Planted vegetation. Much of the woody (treed) vegetation that is present in the Site has been planted for amenity purposes, and comprises a range of locally indigenous native trees, non-indigenous native trees, and introduced species.

3. Native vegetation patches. Three small patches of native vegetation comprising Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56) occur within the Site. All patches appear to have colonised previously cleared areas in recent decades, as indicated by Plate 1.

4. Scattered native trees. A number of scattered native trees (both large and small) occur within the broader matrix of introduced grassland vegetation. While the majority of the scattered trees on the block of land to the west of the driving range are small trees, it is possible that these have colonised naturally (i.e. there is no evidence that they have been planted); therefore, they are regarded as not being exempt from requiring a permit for removal under the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

Aerial photography from 19456 F

7 provides evidence of past clearing and subsequent replacement of most of the native vegetation, except for a narrow strip along the Yarra River (Plate 1).

7 https://1945.melbourne/ (accessed October 2019)

https://1945.melbourne/


Plate 1 The Site - imagery from 1945 (left) and current (right)

5.2.2 Species summary

The VBA has records of 1,124 flora within 5 km of the Site. These include 587 native species, 517 introduced species, and 20 non-indigenous natives. During the field assessment, 56 species were recorded, including seven native and 49 introduced species (Appendix A).

5.2.3 Weeds

Five noxious weeds were identified within the Site that are listed as either Restricted or Regionally Controlled in the Port Phillip and Westernport region under the CALP Act. Two weeds are also listed as WoNS (Appendix A).

Allium triquetrum (Angled Onion) – Restricted

Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle) – Controlled

Hypericum perforatum subsp. veronense (St John’s Wort) – Controlled

Lycium ferocissimum (African Box-thorn) – WoNS

Rubus fruticosus spp. agg. (Blackberry) – Controlled, WoNS

5.2.4 Threatened flora and vegetation

EPBC Act Threatened Ecological Communities Four threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act are known, likely or may occur within the broader study area (PMST):

Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (listed as Critically Endangered)

Natural Damp Grassland of the Victorian Coastal Plains (listed as Critically Endangered)

Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (listed as Critically Endangered)

White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely's Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grassland (listed as Critically Endangered)


None of these ecological communities were identified in the Site during the field assessment, nor are they considered likely to occur, owing to a lack of suitable habitat.

Rare, threatened or protected flora In total, 28 species of rare or threatened flora have been recorded (VBA) or are predicted (PMST) to occur within 5 km of the Site (Appendix B):

10 species listed under the EPBC Act

10 species listed as threatened under the FFG Act

27 species recognised as rare or threatened in Victoria (DEPI 2014)

No species listed as rare or threatened under the EPBC Act, FFG Act or DELWP Advisory List were recorded in the Site.

No species protected under the FFG Act were recorded in the Site (Appendix A).

Owing to its high degree of modification, and weedy understorey, it is unlikely that any rare or threatened flora occur in the Site.

5.2.5 Vegetation Quality Assessment

Ecological Vegetation Classes Remnant native vegetation in the study area has been mapped by DELWP at a scale of 1:25,000. Two EVCs are modelled in the Site under the 2005 mapping:

• Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55)

• Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56)

The field assessment identified areas of native vegetation consistent with one EVC (Table 2): Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56).

Habitat Zones In total, 0.208 ha of remnant patches of native vegetation consisting of one Habitat Zone was recorded and mapped in the Site. The Habitat Zone is described in Table 2 and the results of the habitat hectare assessment are presented in Table 3. Habitat zone descriptions are based on representative patches; however, conditions may vary slightly between different patches. EVCs and their habitat zones are mapped in Figure 3.

Scattered trees A total of 23 scattered trees (one large; 22 small) occur within the Site (Appendix F).

Large trees in patches No large trees occur within patches of native vegetation within the Site.


Table 2 Vegetation types and habitat zones identified and mapped in the Site

HZ No.

EVC EVC NO.

Description Photo

HZ1 Floodplain Riparian Woodland

56 Habitat Zone 1 comprises modified Floodplain Riparian Woodland, which has colonised small areas around the margin of the Site. The canopy, where present, consists of Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River Red-gum) to 18 m high, with most individuals appearing to have naturally colonised, while some have been planted. The midstorey (where present – only in the patch on the eastern boundary) comprises Acacia dealbata (Silver Wattle), Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood) and Melicytus dentatus (Tree Violet). Apart from scattered Juncus sp. (Rush), the ground layer is dominated by introduced species including Avena sp. (Oat), Cenchrus clandestinus (Kikuyu), Dactylis glomerata (Cocksfoot), Ehrharta erecta (Panic Veldt-grass), Ehrharta longifolia (Annual Veldt-grass) and Rubus fruticosus spp. agg. (Blackberry).


Figure 3 Ecological values identified at Bulleen Driving Range

\\ghdnet\ghd\AU\Melbourne\Projects\31\35006\GIS\Maps\PDF\Operational\Ecology\Sports_and_Recreation_Ecology\3135006_Sports_Rec_Ecology_Bulleen_Driving_Range_A4L_RevC_20200626.pdf


Table 3 Vegetation quality assessment results

Habitat Zone 1

Bioregion Gippsland Plain

EVC Floodplain Riparian Woodland

(EVC 56)

Bioregional Conservation Status (BCS) Endangered

Large old trees 0

Tree canopy cover 5

Lack of weeds 0

Understorey 5

Recruitment 10

Organic litter 2

Logs 0

Total Site score 22

Patch size 8

Neighbourhood 0

Distance to Core Area 4

Landscape context score 12

Habitat score 34

Habitat Condition Score 0.34

5.2.6 Council Overlays

A number of environmental overlays are present within or immediately adjacent to the Site under the Manningham Planning Scheme.

ESO2 – Sites of Biological Significance (immediately adjacent to northern end of Site, along the Yarra River)

The ESO2 requires a permit to remove, destroy or lop:

Victorian native vegetation

A dead eucalypt tree that is both:

– More than 20 m from a building (excluding fences) to the base of the trunk – More than 1 m in circumference, measured at a height of 1.3 m above natural ground

level

A permit is not required for:

Dead vegetation except for dead eucalypt trees as specified above

Any species listed as exempt from a permit requirement in the Table to this Schedule (Table 4)

16 | GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment

Table 4 Species exempt from a permit requirement under ESO2

No vegetation within the Site occurs within this overlay. However, it should be noted that this overlay is situated immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the Site, and any tree pruning on the northern boundary (unlikely to be required) may need to have regard to the conditions of this overlay.

ESO3 – Buffer Conservation Areas Supporting Sites of Biological Significance (entire Site)

The ESO3 requires a permit to remove, destroy or lop:

Victorian native vegetation

An Australian native tree that has either:

– A trunk circumference of more than 0.35 m measured at a height of 1.3 m above natural ground level

– A height of more than 6 m

A dead eucalypt tree that is both:

– More than 20 m from a building (excluding fences) to the base of the trunk – Greater than 1 m in circumference, measured at a height of 1.3 m above natural

ground level

A permit is not required for:

Dead vegetation except for dead eucalypt trees as specified above.

Any species listed as exempt from a permit requirement in the Table to this Schedule (Table 5)


Table 5 Species exempt from a permit requirement under ESO3

The implications of this overlay are that any tree native to Australia, but not locally indigenous, requires a permit for removal if it is >6 m in height or >35 cm in diameter. This will apply to many of the areas mapped as planted native vegetation.

A description of vegetation in the Site that is within the ESO3 is provided in Table 2 under Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56).

SLO2 – Yarra (Birrarung) River Corridor Environs (entire Site)

The SLO2 requires a permit to remove, destroy or lop vegetation, except for:

Non-native vegetation which has all of the following:

– A trunk circumference of less than 0.35 m at 1 m above ground level

– A height of less than 6 m – A branch spread of less than 4 m

Vegetation listed in Table 1 to this schedule (Table 6)


Table 6 Species exempt from a permit requirement under SLO2

All patches of native vegetation and scattered native trees on the Site meet the definition of a significant tree under this overlay.


5.3 Existing conditions – Fauna

5.3.1 Species overview

A total of 326 terrestrial fauna species (304 native and 22 non-native) are known (VBA) to occur within the study area (i.e., within 5 km of the Site), or are predicted to occur within the study area (PMST).

Of the native species, 55 are listed as threatened, including 22 listed under the EPBC Act, 43 listed under the FFG Act, and 47 listed under the DELWP Advisory lists of threatened vertebrate or invertebrate fauna in Victoria (DSE 2013, 2009 respectively).

A total of 18 species (all birds) identified for the study area are listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act. The Marine status of fauna species (as indicated under the EPBC Act) was not considered because the Site is not in or near a Commonwealth marine area.

Thirty-three species (four mammals, 27 birds, one reptile and one frog) were recorded during the field assessment (Appendix C). No threatened or migratory fauna were observed during the field assessment.

5.3.2 Habitat value

At a broad scale, the Melbourne area is considerably urbanised and fragmented as a result of historical land clearance. However, the Site itself is within an area of relatively high ecological value. It abuts the Yarra River within an area that is not urbanised. Forests and woodlands along the Yarra River are the most extensive areas of vegetation that remain within this part of Melbourne. These areas of high-value habitat attract and support a range of common, uncommon and rare fauna, including threatened species (Plate 2). These areas tend to be subject to fewer ongoing disturbances than more urbanised areas so often retain habitat features that other habitat types have now lost, such as leaf-litter, coarse woody debris, hollow-bearing trees and large trees. One of the main values of this habitat is as a wildlife corridor which facilitates landscape-scale movement of fauna, linking otherwise isolated areas of habitat.

The Yarra River habitats support fauna such as Macropods (Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus and Black Wallaby Wallabia bicolor), Common Wombat Vombatus ursinus, Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus and Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps. This habitat also tends to have a greater diversity of bird fauna (beyond the common, adaptable and often aggressive parrots and honeyeaters), including thornbills (Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla, Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa), kingfishers (Azure Kingfisher Alcedo azurea, Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus), Superb-fairy Wren Malurus cyaneus, smaller honeyeaters (such as the Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris, White-plumed Honeyeater Lichenostomus penicillatus) and waterbirds such as crakes, rails and waterfowl. Frogs (such as the Common Froglet Crinia signifera, Southern Brown Tree Frog Litoria ewingi and Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis) and reptiles (such as the Tiger Snake Notechis scutatus) are also likely to be found in these areas.

Away from the river, the habitat within this Site more closely resembles fragmented forest/woodland and scattered tree habitat commonly associated with golf courses (Plate 3). The value of this habitat varies, depending on the size and quality of the tree patches (for example, the presence of hollow-bearing trees, vegetation layers, leaf litter and fallen limbs and logs) and connectivity to other patches. Golf course habitat along the Yarra River provides some habitat for native fauna, but is often dominated by common and aggressive bird species such as Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala and Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haemotodus. Occasionally or rarely, larger flowering trees may attract foraging threatened fauna such as Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying-fox. Mowed grassy areas tend to be of low value to native fauna. That said, all non-developed green space in this area contributes to the value of the corridor and habitat for fauna.


Plate 2 High value riparian habitat along the Yarra River at the north of the Site

Plate 3 Scattered trees and fragmented habitat associated with the golf driving range

5.3.3 Fauna of conservation significance

Fauna of conservation significance include species that are:

Listed as threatened or Migratory under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Listed as threatened under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

Listed as threatened on the DELWP Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE 2013) or the DSE Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE 2009) (excluding species listed as ‘near-threatened’ or ‘data deficient’ that are not included on the FFG or EPBC Act lists)

EPBC Act 1999 - Threatened species Of the species recorded within the study area (VBA data), 11 are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act. The PMST identifies a further 11 species that might occur within the study area, but for which there are no historical records. Thus, in total, 22 species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act were considered for the Project. These include seven mammals, 11 birds, one reptile, one frog and two invertebrates. Given the habitats favoured by these species, and the type, extent and condition of habitats represented within the Site, most of these species are considered unlikely to occur within or visit the Site. An account of all threatened species, with a likelihood of occurrence evaluation, is provided in Appendix D. Four species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act may use habitats within or above the Site:

Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia (Critically Endangered): This species visits open forests and woodlands, particularly dry woodlands and forests dominated by Box Ironbark eucalypts. It is generally absent from very wet and very dry areas. May now be restricted to the Chiltern-Mt Pilot National Park (NE Victoria) following population decline and range contraction. There are numerous historical records across Melbourne’s suburbs, including along the Yarra River, all prior to 1998. This species may be a rare foraging visitor to large flowering trees within the Site.

Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor (Critically Endangered): This species is a winter migrant to Victoria and other parts of SE Australia from breeding areas in Tasmania. In Victoria, it prefers dry, open eucalypt forests and woodlands, especially Box Ironbark Forest in north-central Victoria. Each year, Swift Parrots migrate through the Melbourne area, occasionally stopping to forage in suitable flowering trees, usually eucalypts. The species is occasionally recorded in urban parks, gardens, street trees and golf courses with flowering ornamental trees and shrubs. The VBA contains 29 historical records of this


species within the study area, most recently in 2018. It is considered possible that this species may opportunistically forage within some of the larger scattered eucalypt trees within the Site occasionally or rarely. However, there is no evidence to suggest that individuals favour any patches of trees in this immediate area.

White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus (Vulnerable): This species is reportedly almost exclusively aerial within Australia, occurring in the airspace over most types of habitat, particularly wooded areas. The VBA contains 82 historical records of this species within the study area, most recently in 2019. This species is likely to be a regular foraging visitor to the airspace above Site.

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (Vulnerable): This species uses a wide range of habitats in Victoria, from lowland rainforest and coastal stringybark forests to agricultural land and suburban gardens. It favours densely vegetated flowering and fruiting trees, including trees across Melbourne’s suburbs. There is a large established colony in Yarra Bend Park in Melbourne, downstream of the Site. The VBA contains 22 historical records of this species within the study area, most recently in 2018. This species is likely to be a regular foraging visitor to large flowering trees within the Site. However, habitat of a similar quality and extent is present and common in the surrounding area, so it is unlikely that this species depends on trees within the Site.

EPBC Act 1999 –Migratory Fauna Of the species recorded within the study area (VBA data), ten are listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act. The PMST identifies a further eight species that might occur within the study area, but for which there are no historical records. Thus, in total, 18 species listed as Migratory under the EPBC Act were considered for the Project, all birds. Most of these species favour wetlands or coastal habitats and are considered unlikely to occur within or visit the Site. An account of all Migratory species, with a likelihood of occurrence evaluation, is provided in Appendix E.

Four Migratory species may occur within the Site. Two aerial species (Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus and White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus) may forage in the airspace above the Site occasionally or rarely, but are very unlikely to use terrestrial habitats within the Site. Two species of fantail/flycatcher (Satin Flycatcher Myiagra cyanoleuca and Rufous Fantail Rhipidura rufifrons) may visit the dense vegetation associated with the Yarra River in the warmer months of the year.

In terms of the EPBC Act, an action is likely to have a significant impact on a Migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species

Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species

Work within this Site would not be expected to have a significant impact on any Migratory species, population or important habitat with respect to these criteria.

FFG Act 1988 – threatened species Forty-three species identified for the study area are listed as threatened fauna under the FFG Act, and 33 of those have been previously recorded within the study area (VBA). Twenty-one species are also listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and were considered above. Of the


remaining 22 species (Appendix D), most are rarely seen in Melbourne, or rely on habitats that do not occur within the Site. Four species of bird (Little Egret Egretta garzetta; Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta; Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae and Powerful Owl Ninox strenua) may use habitats along the Yarra River. The two egrets may forage along the Yarra River occasionally, and the goshawk may use tall riparian forests along the Yarra River. The Powerful Owl potentially nests and fledges young regularly in the northern part of the Site along the Yarra River.

FFG Act 1988 – threatened fauna communities No fauna communities listed as threatened under the FFG Act are expected to occur within the Site.

DELWP Advisory Lists - Threatened species Forty-seven species identified for the study area are listed as threatened fauna on the DELWP Advisory Lists of threatened vertebrate (DSE 2013) or invertebrate (DSE 2009) fauna in Victoria. These numbers do not include species listed as Near Threatened or Data Deficient. Thirty-six of the species have been previously recorded within the study area (VBA).

Thirty-six species are also listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and/or FFG Act and were considered above. Of the remaining 11 species (six birds, four reptiles and one frog), 10 are considered unlikely to occur within the Site, due to unsuitable habitat or rarity of the species (Appendix D). One species (Murray River Turtle Emydura macquarii) does or may occur in the Yarra River.

6. Impact assessment 6.1 Impact Assessment - Flora

6.1.1 Construction

A summary of impacts on flora associated with the construction phase of the Project is outlined below:

Impacts on non-threatened species and communities (including areas classified as native vegetation, and large trees within patches)

Impacts on scattered trees

Soil compaction that leads to the loss or degradation of species or communities, including TPZs of trees outside Site

Indirect impacts: erosion/sedimentation, dust, litter or release of contaminants, leading to loss or degradation of species or communities

Introduction or spread of weeds, pest species, or pathogens.

Details on the impacts to flora (patches of vegetation, canopy trees and scattered trees) is detailed in Section 6.1.2.

6.1.2 Native Vegetation Removal

Native Vegetation Removal Guidelines The Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (the Guidelines) were incorporated into the Victorian Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria in December 2017 (DELWP 2017).


Objective of the Guidelines The purpose of the Guidelines is to guide how impacts on biodiversity should be considered when assessing an application for a permit to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation. The Guidelines set out the rules and tools for how the responsible authority (i.e. Manningham City Council) and referral authority (i.e. DELWP) should consider biodiversity when assessing an application. They aim to ensure that the proposed removal of native vegetation is appropriately assessed, that opportunities to avoid and minimise removal are considered, and that appropriate offsets are secured (DELWP 2017).

When native vegetation removal is permitted, an offset must be secured that achieves a no net loss outcome for biodiversity. To achieve this, the offset needs to make a contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native vegetation that was removed. Therefore, the type and amount of offset required depends on the native vegetation being removed and the contribution it makes to Victoria’s biodiversity. An Offset statement that explains that an offset has been identified (and how it will be secured) will need to be included in the permit application for the removal of native vegetation under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 for this project.

Assessment pathway Applications to remove native vegetation are categorised into one of three assessment pathways with corresponding application requirements and decision guidelines. The assessment pathway for an application to remove native vegetation reflects its potential impact on biodiversity and is determined from the location and extent of the native vegetation to be removed (DELWP 2017).


The three assessment pathways recognised by DELWP are:

Basic: limited impacts on biodiversity

Intermediate: could impact on large trees, endangered EVCs, sensitive wetlands or coastal areas

Detailed: could impact on large trees, endangered EVCs, sensitive wetlands or coastal areas, and could significantly impact on habitat for rare or threatened species

The assessment pathway determines the information that is required to accompany an application to remove, lop or destroy native vegetation. There are three location categories that indicate the potential risk to biodiversity from removing a small amount of native vegetation − Location 1, 2 and 3 that play a role in determining the assessment pathway. The higher category is used if native vegetation proposed to be removed includes more than one location category. The process for determining the assessment pathway is demonstrated in Table 7.

The extent of impacts for the Project includes the potential overall clearance of up to 0.186 ha of native vegetation. As some of the Site is classified as Location 2 by DELWP the Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities needs to be assessed via the ‘Intermediate’ assessment pathway (Table 7).

Table 7 Risk matrix for determining the assessment pathway that an application to remove native vegetation will take

Extent of native vegetation Location Category

Location 1 Location 2 Location 3

< 0.5 hectares (ha) and not including any Large Trees Basic Intermediate Detailed

< 0.5 hectares (ha) and including one or more Large Trees Intermediate Intermediate Detailed

0.5 hectares (ha) or more Detailed Detailed Detailed

Note: the assessment pathway that this project would follow is highlighted in bold.

Avoid and minimise statement Prior to the development of the Master Plan for Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities, this Site was subject to an options assessment, where a number of options for the relocation of the Bulleen Park Soccer Fields were considered. These are described in EES Technical Report I – Social, Appendix F, Appendix 2 – Bulleen Area Sports and Recreation Options Assessment. The option to redevelop the Site as a relocated soccer facility was also highlighted in Manningham Council’s Yarra River Corridor Concept Plan (26/02/2019). The selection of this Site aligns with the strategic planning in the area and avoids and minimises impacts on native vegetation, as the majority of the existing Site where the redevelopment is proposed, is cleared for an existing driving range.

At a Site level, the proposed master plan avoids any development in areas on the Site that are in close proximity to the Yarra River, which contains significant native vegetation value. The proposed walking path along the Yarra River has also been relocated around a significant area of vegetation in the north-west corner of the Site. Along the eastern side of the Site the proposal has reduced impacts on existing Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56) by avoiding these areas with the design. Within the proposed car park, the master plan avoids an existing spotted gum, which is considered to have high retention value.


Further avoidance and minimisation of impacts is required as an outcome of this project, as described in the conditions of the Incorporated Document for this Site.

Unavoidable losses to native vegetation A summary of the proposed impacts to native vegetation based on the construction footprint is outlined in Table 8.

Table 8 Impacts to native vegetation

Value Proposed impacts

Native Vegetation 0.015 hectares of Floodplain Riparian Woodland (EVC 56) (Location 1 and 2)

Large Trees in Patches 0 large native canopy trees

Scattered Trees 6 scattered native canopy trees (0 large, 6 small)

Offset requirements The scenario test for native vegetation removal (Appendix G) states that the following offsets are required for the Project.

General offsets must be located in the same CMA boundary or Local Municipal District as the clearing. The general offsets required for project are as follows:

0.040 general habitat units, secured from the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority or Manningham City Council

The minimum strategic biodiversity value score required for these offsets is 0.283

0 large trees

No species offsets are required for the Project.

Offsets for any impacts to native vegetation in the Site will be incorporated in to the overall offsets for the broader North East Link Project, in accordance with the PSA.

6.1.3 Operation

Impacts on flora during operation of the Project are not expected.

6.2 Impact Assessment - Fauna

6.2.1 Construction

Potential impacts on fauna associated with the construction phase of the Project include:



Construction activities resulting in erosion/sedimentation, litter or release of contaminants into wetlands and waterways leading to degradation of fauna habitat





Habitat fragmentation resulting in reduced effectiveness of terrestrial wildlife corridors and creation of barriers to fauna movement

More information on these impacts is described below.


Construction of new facilities would require small areas of land to be cleared of its vegetation and fauna habitat. Mostly, loss would be permanent, although it is acknowledged that other areas will be used for creation of habitat (planting of trees and shrubs). Given that the Site already has extensive areas of cleared land, there should not be a need to clear additional land temporarily for the construction process (such as access, laydown, spoil storage, parking, offices).

Loss and degradation of habitat reduces foraging, nesting and dispersal opportunities for fauna in the local area, and confines fauna to the extent of suitable habitat that remains, often increasing con-specific and inter-specific competition. Loss of too much habitat, relative to the original contiguous habitat patch, can threaten the viability of some populations that currently rely on the extent of habitat present. Small proportional losses are less detrimental than large proportional losses. Animals that are unable to seek and obtain resources from alternative sources (closed population) are more disadvantaged by habitat loss than those that can freely move to and use other areas (open population).

Loss or degradation of habitat affects species differently. Mobile and adaptable species are typically able to use remaining habitats or even a degraded form of the same habitat. Others are more sensitive to habitat extent and condition, and may decline or disappear as habitat patches get too small or too degraded. Most of the fauna that persist in the Melbourne area are adaptable fauna, already coping with a fragmented and degraded habitat landscape. This applies to common non-threatened fauna and rarer threatened fauna alike.

Land clearing during construction may also result in indirect loss or degradation of adjacent habitat that is not cleared, but which becomes exposed to new detrimental influences (edge effects). Depending on the severity of the effect, weed invasion, dust, noise, lighting, shading and surface water changes can all contribute to habitat degradation, or even habitat loss.

At this Site, the proposed loss of habitat is minimal. Small patches of marginal habitat and scattered trees will be lost from the southern section of the Site, south of the existing power lines. The vegetation patches within the Site that provide the most favourable habitat for fauna (including threatened species) are within the northern section (north of the existing powerlines) near the river, and to a lesser extent along the south-eastern boundary (south of the power lines), and those areas are to be protected rather than removed. Therefore, the impacts of habitat removal associated with the proposed development at this Site are expected to be no more than minor for native fauna.

Most habitats within the Site are likely to support non-threatened terrestrial fauna (e.g., Red Wattlebird, Rainbow Lorikeet, Noisy Miner, Crested Pigeon, Common Brushtail Possum, Common Ringtail Possum), and land clearing would impact on those species. Most of these fauna are mobile and/or adaptable, and are persisting within a fragmented and degraded habitat landscape. These species are able to use remaining habitats or even a degraded form of the same habitat.

Loss of any trees across the suburban area may result in minor and localised loss of occasional foraging habitat for Swift Parrot, Grey-headed Flying-fox and Powerful Owl. Loss of small areas of habitat that is used occasionally by threatened species, but that is well represented in the surrounding area, would have a minor impact on those species.



Project construction would result in the direct loss of vegetation (habitat) that supports non-threatened terrestrial fauna. Loss of too much habitat, relative to the original contiguous habitat patch, can threaten the viability of some populations that currently rely on the extent of habitat present.

At this Site, habitat loss would be localised and comprised of small discrete patches. It is unlikely to jeopardise the viability of any fauna populations that use those habitats.

Construction activities resulting in erosion/sedimentation, litter or release of contaminants into wetlands and waterways leading to degradation of fauna habitat Construction activities involving excavation, transport and stockpiling of soils, create environments that are prone to mobilising contaminants, especially during rainfall events where runoff can transport contaminants. Without appropriate mitigation preventing transport into waterways, construction activities can create the risk of water pollution from suspended sediments and chemical contaminants bound within the sediments (e.g., toxicants and nutrients).

The operation of machinery and use of various construction materials also introduces risk that fuels or other chemicals on Site may accidentally spill or be inundated during flooding, potentially entering the waterways. Disturbed soils are especially prone to erosion, due to the lack of vegetation or protective ground covering. Eroded soils that enter the drainage network alter the quantity and type of sediment entering waterways, which can change physical habitat and alter geomorphological processes. Similarly, litter from construction and associated activities is also susceptible to being transported into the drainage.

Aquatic habitats are directly connected to the stormwater network and runoff drainage, which places habitat for aquatic fauna in the direct path of sediments and contaminants that are mobilised and enter the drainage network. Aquatic habitats are the sink for most mobilised contamination, which is generally only removed by transport further downstream to another aquatic habitat. The impacts of pollutant runoff on the aquatic fauna can be significant, with both water and sediment contamination potentially causing toxicity, physical stress and behavioural effects on aquatic fauna. The impacts on aquatic fauna habitat can have greater severity than semi-aquatic or terrestrial fauna, as aquatic species are restricted in capacity to relocate to more suitable habitat in the event of degradation from runoff from construction activities.

This Site is immediately adjacent to the Yarra River which provides habitat for a range of threatened and non-threatened terrestrial and aquatic fauna, including ducks, egrets, crakes and rails, water rats, platypus, turtles, fish and invertebrates. The Yarra River already receives stormwater from urbanised catchments, so tends to be relatively degraded already, however, construction could result in unplanned sedimentation and/or erosion that further degrade the river habitat. The likelihood of this is occurring considered to be low. The major excavation works will be within the central and southern sections of the Site, beneath and south of the existing power lines. The northern section beside the river is not planned to be disturbed as part of this project. Therefore, the impacts of erosion/sedimentation, litter or release of contaminants into waterways associated with the proposed development at this Site are considered unlikely to occur, and expected to be no more than minor for native fauna.



Weeds Construction may spread weeds listed under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (Vic) (‘CALP Act’) or Weeds of National Significance (WoNS), resulting in the decline in quality of native vegetation (fauna habitat) within the Site and adjacent areas. The seeds of weed species and other pathogens can become lodged in plant and equipment (e.g., in mud in tyre tread) when driven through infested areas. The seeds and/or pathogens may then be carried some distance before being unintentionally deposited in areas free from previous infestations of the species or pathogens. Conversely, plant and/or equipment moving from the Site could result in off-site infestations of those species.

Cinnamon Fungus Cinnamon Fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi) is a microscopic, soil-borne pathogen that attacks and destroys plant root systems causing plants to die through lack of water and nutrients. The disease is also known as die back, root rot, PC or Phytophthora. It is listed as one of the world’s most invasive species and is Victoria’s most significant plant pathogen affecting both native ecosystems and the horticultural industry. The presence of Cinnamon Fungus threatens not only vegetation communities – it can alter the ecology of entire ecosystems. There is no known treatment or cure.

While the pathogen can spread locally through soil or water via tiny swimming spores, it is more commonly spread through the movement of contaminated soil and gravel carried by vehicle or foot traffic. It can also be spread through infected plant material and potting mix. Without proper soil testing, this microscopic pathogen is difficult to detect. It is more actively spread in moist soils during warm weather and can survive drought. It can be present even if vegetation appears healthy as not all plants are susceptible.

Pest fauna species Some non-native terrestrial and aquatic fauna species in the broader study area are considered pest species, and are likely to be having a detrimental impact on the natural ecology of the Melbourne area. Given that the study area surrounding this Site is already highly urbanised and disturbed, this project is considered unlikely to exacerbate the impact of any pest animal or fish species.

Amphibian Chytrid Fungus One known pathogen that affects fauna is the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus, which causes the disease chytridiomycosis, which can result in high mortality of frogs. Worldwide, the impact of this fungus has been catastrophic – in numerous locations (including Australia), many species have become extinct or endangered as a result of its inadvertent introduction (such as Schloegel et al., 2006; Skerratt et al., 2007) and it is likely the decline of the Growling Grass Frog across its range is linked to introduction of the fungus into new areas.

Chytridiomycosis due to the amphibian chytrid fungus was included on the List of Key Threatening Processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth) (‘EPBC Act’) on 23 July 2002.

This fungus is highly infectious and can be spread via zoospores on frogs and tadpoles, and potentially in water, on wet equipment and within moist soils (such as on boots, tyres, vehicles, equipment) (Murray et al., 2011). There is evidence that different strains of the fungus vary in their impact; some strains are more lethal to frogs than others (Berger et al., 2005).


Locations where the fungus has had the most catastrophic impacts have been mostly remote locations (such as rugged mountainous areas) where humans rarely visit, rather than urbanised areas that have sustained a high level of human and other disturbance historically. While little is known of the status or distribution of the fungus in the Melbourne area and across most of Victoria, the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus is known to have been in Australia since 1978 and in Victoria since 1998 (Murray et al., 2010). Recent research has identified the abundant and ubitquitous Common Froglet (Crinia signifera) as a likely reservoir host, spreading chytrid spores among frog populations without succumbing greatly to the disease itself (Brannelly et al., 2018).

Given the highly infectious nature of the fungus, the long history of disturbance to waterways and landforms in the Melbourne area, the enormous volume of animal and human movements (foot and vehicular) across the area, and the ubiquity of Crinia signifera in Melbourne’s waterbodies, it is highly unlikely that any wetlands or waterways (habitats for frogs) in the Melbourne area have remained free of chytrid infection to this point. It is likely to be present within the Site already.

Therefore, the likelihood of introducing the fungus to this Site (such as through transport of soil, wet or muddy equipment) is low, as is the likelihood of a catastrophic epidemic occurring within the Site as a result of this project. However, different strains of the fungus may vary in how lethal they are to frogs, so avoiding continued spread of the fungus is critical to management of this pathogen. If a new strain of the chytrid fungus is introduced to the Site, then a larger impact is possible. If infected materials (such as soil, equipment, vehicles) are brought in from elsewhere, there is a chance of a novel and more pathogenic strain becoming established.

The risk to amphibians from the Amphibian Chytrid Fungus as a result of the Project is expected to be low.


Project construction may result in the injuring or killing of fauna, mainly through land clearing (habitat removal) or fauna straying into a construction area. Animals most at risk are those that reside in the habitats to be removed and that have limited mobility (such as frogs, small reptiles, possums), and/or dependent young (such as young birds in a nest), or fauna that stray into a construction area during a quiet time (e.g., overnight).

This Site lies within a busy urban landscape that has a history of disturbance. Fauna most likely to be encountered in the Site are common and adaptable species. The presence of uncommon or threatened species is expected to be rare, and death or injury of those species is expected to be extremely rare.

Death or injury of some fauna may occur, but is expected to be infrequent and localised and most likely to affect individuals rather than populations or species. Death or injury of common species is not expected to have a long-lasting effect on any of the populations of fauna within the Site or the broader area.


Construction at this Site may be during daylight hours only, or at night only, or during both the day and at night. Construction noise has the potential to disturb fauna day or night, while lighting would disturb fauna only at night.


For both noise and lighting, the potential severity of disturbance varies with species and location. Disturbing a threatened species (e.g., Powerful Owl) to the point that it abandoned its breeding habitat would be a severe impact, while localised and temporary disturbance of small numbers of individuals of common species (such as the Red Wattlebird, Noisy Miner) from marginal foraging habitat would be relatively inconsequential ecologically.

Lighting Construction at night would require adequate lighting, which may disturb or displace native or non-native fauna. Lighting during construction would be temporary, and potentially moving with the work front. Lighting may be required for weeks or months.

Artificial light can reduce the success of some nocturnal predators. For animals susceptible to predators, light may expose them more, so those animals may avoid light. Animals avoiding light may make foraging more difficult for predators. Artificial light may also reduce the success of predators by giving the potential prey an advantage or by favouring more tolerant nocturnal predators, potentially changing the composition of both predator and prey species. Artificial light at night can disrupt the typical nocturnal behaviour of fauna (diurnal birds may not roost, nocturnal frogs may not call, insects may be fatally attracted to lights). The effects of lighting may result in some fauna no longer occurring in habitats nearest to the lit areas.

If construction occurs at night, then disturbance of some fauna by light is expected to be unavoidable, but is expected to be minor and localised. Disturbance of fauna is most likely to affect individuals rather than populations or species, and is not expected to have a long-lasting effect on the populations of fauna in or around this area. Fauna in the urbanised Melbourne area already cope with an environment that is awash with artificial light at night. It is likely, therefore, that the fauna that still occur within the area, or visit the area, have coping mechanisms for persisting in well-lit environments.

The area of primary concern for lighting disturbance on fauna is along the Yarra River within the northern section of the Site, particularly the north-west. It is highly likely that this area is used regularly and successfully by a breeding pair of Powerful Owls. Disturbance by lighting has the potential to cause the pair to abandon an otherwise successful breeding location.

Lighting used during construction should follow the new National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife (DoEE 2020) as closely as practicable. These Guidelines are intended for EPBC Act species, which the Powerful Owl is not, but they are transferrable to non-EPBC Act species to some degree. The Guidelines are also about protecting true natural darkness, which Melbourne no longer has, but they recommend using Best Practice Lighting Design to reduce light pollution and minimise the effect on wildlife, and offer an ‘Artificial Light Management Checklist’, which should be considered for this project as far as practicable, to minimise the impacts on the Powerful Owl and other fauna along the Yarra River.

Noise Construction involves increased noise, which has the potential to disturb or displace native or non-native fauna. Displacement of fauna into sub-optimal habitats could increase their susceptibility to predation and competition, or other source of harm in the urban environment. Noisy environments may make it harder for fauna to hear each other and to hear predators moving around.

Fauna can become habituated to predictable noises, even if those noises are very loud (for example, birds that use airfields as habitat). Noise generated by this project is expected to vary in intensity and may or may not be accompanied by vibrations that affect terrestrial and aquatic fauna.


During daylight hours, construction noise has the potential to impact on terrestrial fauna in a few ways. It could result in temporary displacement of active diurnal birds – individual birds may choose to forage and roost further from the Site than they normally do, for the period of disturbance. It could also result in displacement of roosting nocturnal fauna – birds or mammals (such as possums) when disturbed may flee from the Site and seek a quieter location. Because this would be during daylight hours, it could make the nocturnal fauna more susceptible to predators, competitors and/or temporary harassment (such as mobbing of owls by birds such as noisy miners).

At night, construction noise has the potential to impact on terrestrial fauna through temporary displacement of nocturnal birds and mammals – owls and possums that might forage or roost occasionally in or near the Site may abandon a disturbed area for a period of time. It could also result in displacement of roosting diurnal fauna – birds when disturbed may flee from the corridor and seek a quieter location. Because this would be at night, it could make them more susceptible to predators.

Construction noise at night could result in temporary silencing of frogs – frogs may not call during the period of disturbance, or may call but have lower reproductive success due to not being heard. If the construction period lasts longer than the frogs’ breeding/calling season, then there is a risk of losing an entire breeding cohort from that location.

Persistent noise (such as loud traffic noise near a busy road) has the potential to disrupt acoustic communication by some fauna (such as frogs, birds). The noise may jam frequencies used by some fauna, so those fauna are no longer audible to their conspecifics. There is evidence that some fauna have changed their acoustic signals in response to loud urban noises (Parris et al., 2009; Parris, 2013; Parris, 2015). For species that call at a certain time of year, or at a certain time of day (including frogs that call mainly at dusk during their preferred season and birds that call in Spring), this may be only an occasional problem, but it may reduce their success to the extent that those fauna no longer occur in the habitats nearest to the disturbance source.

Disturbance of some terrestrial fauna is unavoidable, but is expected to be minor, localised and short term (in that fauna would most likely return to the habitat when the noise disturbance subsides). Disturbance of fauna is most likely to affect individuals rather than populations or species, and is not expected to have a long-lasting effect on the populations of fauna in the broader area. This project would be constructed in an already disturbed and urbanised area. Threatened and non-threatened fauna that live in or visit habitats within the Site already tolerate substantial disturbance from noise, vibrations and lighting. Construction work similar in nature to that proposed (such as earth moving works with associated noise and lighting) already occurs within the broader area on a daily basis. It is likely that fauna that still occur within the area, or visit the area, have coping mechanisms for persisting in noisy environments. However, the impact of construction noise may have a disproportionate impact on non-resident or migratory species that have little exposure or are already impacted by the existing acoustic environment.

Vibrations are considered less likely than noise to disturb terrestrial fauna. Vibrations as a disturbance were considered for the NELP EES, but are not considered relevant to proposed works at this Site. It is understood that no high-impact works (e.g., blasting or jack-hammering) will occur within or near the Yarra River as part of this project.

The potential impacts of noise and lighting during the operational phase of this project is discussed in section 6.2.2.


Habitat fragmentation resulting in reduced effectiveness of terrestrial wildlife corridors and creation of barriers to fauna movement Construction would involve removal of vegetation (habitat), which may result in localised fragmentation of some fauna habitats. Fragmentation and isolation of habitat patches reduces the ability of some fauna to disperse across the landscape, and may threaten the viability of some populations that rely on habitat connectivity. Generally, the worst ecological consequences for habitat fragmentation or isolation result when disruption to connectivity is large (such as a broad area of habitat clearing across a wildlife corridor), and/or the habitat fragmented is highly functioning ecologically (such as the Yarra River floodplain).

Habitat fragmentation can affect common non-threatened fauna and rarer threatened fauna alike. Common, mobile and adaptable species (such as the Red Wattlebird, Rainbow Lorikeet) tend to be least affected by fragmentation, as habitat gaps tend not to create barriers to their movement. These species tend to be the ones that persist in the Melbourne area currently. Some mobile threatened species also are able to cope with Melbourne’s already fragmented landscape (such as the Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying-fox), as determined by their continued use of trees in metropolitan areas. Some common but less mobile fauna appear less inclined or able to bridge habitat gaps (such as the Superb Fairy-wren, White-browed Scrubwren and Sugar Glider) and some of the threatened species tend to be restricted by large habitat barriers (such as the Powerful Owl).

Losing habitat connectivity tends to be long-term or permanent. Permanent loss of connectivity can be at least partially offset by creating or encouraging adjacent habitat patches that can serve the purpose of connecting habitats.

The most important habitat and wildlife corridor within the area surrounding and including the Site is the riparian forests and wetlands associated with the Yarra River floodplain, particularly around the Kew, Bulleen and Banyule area. Threatened wetland and forest fauna, including Powerful Owl, are known to use this area for movement across the landscape. With most of the planned work at this Site proposed for the southern section (south of the power line), thereby avoiding the Yarra River habitats, this project is not expected to disrupt this area as fauna habitat and as a wildlife corridor. The southern area of this Site is extensively cleared of high value fauna habitat already.

Any additional fragmentation that could result from this project is not expected to alter the ecological effectiveness of existing habitat or wildlife corridors, or to create new barriers to fauna movement.

6.2.2 Operation

Potential impacts on fauna associated with the operation phase of the Project include:

Operational noise and/or lighting resulting in elevated disturbance to threatened or non-threatened fauna

More information on this impact is described below.

Impacts from lighting and noise are also possible during the construction phase, and these were discussed above in section 6.2.1.

The operation phase at this Site would involve noises associated with the playing of soccer (e.g., players calling out and shouting, referees blowing whistles) and would require strong field lighting for night games and training. These may disturb or displace native or non-native fauna.

Where the noise and lighting sources abut fauna habitat (e.g., beside the Yarra River habitats in the northern section of this Site), operational noise may establish a ‘noise impact zone’, particularly during noisy periods. In this zone, fauna may not be able to hear each other (or potential predators) due to the noise, which could result in a number of responses. Vocal fauna


that cannot hear each other may alter their vocal behaviour – they may abandon calling in that zone and focus on other aspects of life (such as foraging), or with time some species may alter the characteristics of their calls to be more audible to others with the background noise (Parris et al., 2009; Parris 2013; Parris, 2015). Alternatively, they may abandon the area and seek a habitat patch where they can call and hear each other. Other fauna (such as the Eastern Grey Kangaroo) may move away from the Site during noisy periods, to better hear their surroundings (for potential predators).

The width of this zone would likely vary with location and time, depending on the prevailing noise levels. At times of less noise, fauna would be expected to re-enter the impact zones and use them as normal habitat.

Noise impacts on individuals or on species (such as impacts on their social structure) in already noisy environments is poorly known. For common and adaptable species that reside in or regularly visit urbanised areas, the impact is expected to be minor. It may lead to gradual changes in fauna composition (in noisy areas, bolder species less susceptible to noise may dominate over species more sensitive to noise), but that type of change is likely to have occurred already across much of the Melbourne area, including this Site.

Lighting at this Site would increase light levels in the southern section of the Site while soccer is being played at night, and should be designed and directed to avoid light spillage at all times into the riparian habitats in the northern section, where threatened nocturnal fauna are most likely to be. As for noise, fauna in the urbanised Melbourne area already live with and cope with an artificially lit environment at night. Nocturnal and diurnal fauna that occur within or visit the area are likely to have coping mechanisms for light. However, the northern section of this Site, near the Yarra River, is a relatively unlit part of the broader area, and may serve as a valuable light-free refuge for nocturnal fauna that are disadvantaged by increased light.

Given the design for the Site (all soccer fields to be located in the southern half of the Site), light and noise sources are expected to be more than 100 m from sensitive fauna habitat along the Yarra River (i.e., critical habitat for the Powerful Owl). There are existing similar situations where ovals or playing fields with night lighting occur near the Yarra River and near Powerful Owl habitat; e.g., Veneto Club soccer field, which is approximately130 m from Bolin Bolin Billabong (known habitat for Powerful Owl) and 85 m from Yarra River (to west); and Beverley Road Oval, where directioned baffles are installed on the lighting for the purpose of reducing light spill into sensitive fauna habitat. It should also be noted that the existing Bulleen Golf Driving Range at this site has floodlights directly facing the Yarra River habitats (~210 m away).

Lights may require baffles to shield fauna habitat from light, and depending on the results of a noise spill map, sound barriers, vegetation screening, or both may be required along the north side of the playing fields to minimise the escape of loud sounds (e.g., referee’s whistles) into sensitive fauna habitat. The FFG Action Statement for the Powerful Owl (DSE 2004b) states: ‘avoid the development of intensive recreational facilities near known nesting and roosting trees and discourage access to breeding areas’. The proposed project is being as consistent with the Action Statement (DSE 2004b) as it can be for this site by proposing playing fields in the southern half of the site only - as far away from owl habitat as possible. This Site is already an existing sporting field, with floodlights shining directly into the owls' habitat. Also, access to the owls' habitat is being discouraged - the proposed shared-use path courses around the habitat for that exact purpose.

Highlighting the potential for impacts here and in section 6.2.1 is intended specifically to raise awareness of this issue for this project - it is important that these potential impacts are considered and avoided as far as possible. It is expected that mitigation can and will reduce the extent and severity of impacts, to the degree that the resulting impact is minor, short-lived, and localised, and not significantly greater than existing impacts across this already urbanised area.


Despite the constraints and disturbances of a large city, owls are increasingly returning to the urban area, particularly along the Yarra River, as forest vegetation regenerates and re-establishes. Owls have chosen to live and breed near and in this Site because there are suitable breeding trees and a reliable supply of possums to eat. Breeding habitat will not be removed at this Site, and the new lighting, if done appropriately with directional lighting as recommended, may even result in less light being cast into the owls' habitat.

Lighting used for operation of the soccer fields should follow the new National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife (DoEE 2020) as closely as practicable. These Guidelines recommend using Best Practice Lighting Design and offer an ‘Artificial Light Management Checklist’, which should be considered for this project to reduce light pollution and minimise the impacts on the Powerful Owl and other fauna along the Yarra River.


7. Recommendations for mitigation The following mitigation efforts are expected to cope adequately with avoiding, minimising and mitigating against construction-based and operation-based impacts on flora and fauna at and around this Site:

Prepare and implement a Site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the Project in consultation with relevant stakeholders (e.g., councils, Melbourne Water, EPA Victoria and other authorities) as required by NELP or under any statutory approvals.

Ensure that the CEMP includes requirements for protection of native vegetation and listed species. Project design has already avoided clearing as far as possible, but loss of some vegetation and fauna habitat will be unavoidable.

Implement measures, such as fencing, to protect native vegetation to be retained, so that work exclusion zones are clearly delineated for construction workers to minimise any accidental damage to native vegetation during construction, beyond the approved project footprint.

Retain as many trees as possible to preserve existing habitat, habitat linkages and wildlife corridors.

Reinstate vegetation along fauna corridors (e.g., Yarra River) as early as possible to allow continued passage of fauna and help to reduce the long-term effect of additional habitat fragmentation that does occur.

Do not clear additional land temporarily for the construction process (such as access, laydown, spoil storage, parking, offices). The Site already has extensive areas of cleared land; those areas should be used.

Minimise the storage of chemicals, fuel and hazardous materials and dangerous goods on Site. If it is required, storage must only be done in accordance with the relevant guidelines and requirements. This would include development and implementation of management measures for dangerous substances, including appropriate disposing of hazardous materials, installation of bunds and precautions to reduce the risk of spills, and developing contingency and emergency response plans to handle fuel and chemical spills.

Use best-practice mitigation against erosion, sedimentation and contamination. Design for discharge and run-off from the construction area will meet legislated standards for environmental protection, including best-practice erosion protection, sediment and erosion control and monitoring, in accordance with EPA Victoria requirements. Small and localised incidents of erosion, sedimentation or contamination during construction may still occur due to unexpected events (such as particularly heavy rain). However, the likelihood of those localised incidents causing further ecological degradation of wetland habitats or the Yarra River is considered very low.

Commence a baseline surface water monitoring program before construction to assess background water quality in all receiving waters. The monitoring and management of surface water quality and flow will include consideration of changed risks due to changes in rainfall and riverflow during wet periods with greater rainfall runoff.

No plant or equipment is to enter the Site if muddy or used previously at another Site where weeds and pathogens could occur. Plant and equipment will only enter the Site if clean.


Apply management measures to reduce the risk of spreading weeds, pathogens and pest animals. These would be employed by the implementation of a CEMP which would detail and raise awareness of, and compliance with, pathogen management, and enable management measures for waste (including litter, which may attract pest animals) minimisation during construction and operation in accordance with the Environment Protection Act 1970 and the EP Amendment Act 2018, which will come into effect on 1 July 2020. Waste excludes soils, but includes litter management, construction and demolition wastes, washing residues, slurries and contaminated water, organic wastes and inert solid wastes.

Manage potentially contaminated construction spoil in such a way to reduce the risk of spreading weeds and pathogens to this or other Sites.

No one is to handle frogs (or other fauna) without a Management Authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975. If handling of frogs is required, then disposable gloves will be used, a one-frog-one-bag policy applies, and handling will be minimised.

Undertake measures to avoid harming fauna during construction, and to deal with injured fauna if found. Measures would be clearly specified in the CEMP. Pre-clearing surveys and inspections will be done to confirm the on-Site location of fauna immediately prior to habitat removal, and to assist fauna to safety as necessary. This would also enable the reporting of incidental threatened fauna finds, with any clearing works in the vicinity stopped until an evaluation and approval response could be established. This would enable management of fauna displaced or harmed due to habitat removal to be done in compliance with the Wildlife Act 1975.

Monitor Site for fauna straying inadvertently into an active construction Site. Stop work if an animal is seen to be in harm’s way. Engage a wildlife handler with an appropriate Management Authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975 to assist the animal to safety, before work at the Site re-commences.

Minimise the escape of light during construction and operation into significant areas of native fauna habitat to the extent practicable (for example, strong lights for playing soccer at night would be directed downwards and away from habitat patches as far as possible, rather than upwards and towards the habitat, where threatened nocturnal fauna may occur). The type of lighting installed permanently for night soccer is likely to require baffles/shields to direct light away from sensitive areas. Consult the new National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife (DoEE 2020), which recommend using Best Practice Lighting Design to reduce light pollution and minimise the effect on wildlife.

Minimise the use of lights near fauna habitat, and turn lights off when not in use. This is especially important for the strong field lighting that will be required – light escaping into adjacent habitat must be avoided or minimised. Consult the new National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife (DoEE 2020), which offer an ‘Artificial Light Management Checklist’, which should be considered for this project to minimise the impacts on the Powerful Owl and other fauna along the Yarra River.

If a noise-spill map shows that the level of construction or operation noise reaching sensitive fauna habitats along the Yarra River (critical habitat for Powerful Owl) is unacceptably high/loud, install sound barriers (or vegetation screening, or both) along the north side of the playing fields to minimise the escape of loud sounds (e.g., referee’s whistles) into that sensitive fauna habitat.

As a part of the PSA process, DELWP / Minister for Planning will need to approve the detailed design through the assessment of the Development Plan. Through the Development Plan, the Project will need to satisfy DELWP / Minister for Planning that


impacts to vegetation and FFG listed fauna (including the Powerful Owl) have been minimised or avoided, including avoidance of habitat and consideration of noise and lighting impacts.


8. Matters of national environmental significance Matters of national environmental significance (MNES) have been considered for the Site at 27-59 Templestowe Road Bulleen as specified in the North East Link Public Environment Report (PER) Guidelines. The MNES assessed are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 MNES considered for North East Link – Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities

MNES Potential impact of the works

Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

No impact expected. Community does not occur within the Site.

Matted Flax-lily Dianella amoena No impact expected. Species unlikely to occur within the Site.

River Swamp Wallaby-grass Amphibromus fluitans

No impact expected. Species unlikely to occur within the Site.

Clover Glycine Glycine latrobeana No impact expected. Species unlikely to occur within the Site.

Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor No impact expected. Species expected to be rare foraging visitor to trees at the Site.

Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis No impact expected. Species not expected to use the Site currently. May visit the Site when the newly-created wetland becomes established.

Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus No impact expected. Species not expected to use the Site.

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus Minimal impacts expected. Species likely to forage in trees at the Site. Small numbers of foraging trees would be removed, but adequate trees will be retained within the Site, and foraging trees for this species are abundant across the broader area. This species is unlikely to be impacted at all by habitat loss. Poorly-directed lighting from the playing fields into higher value fauna habitats may cause disturbance of this species, such that it temporarily abandons suitable foraging habitat during the period of lighting.

Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis No impact expected. Species not known to be present at the Site.

Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica No impact expected. Development of the Site is not expected to impact on aquatic habitats.

Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena No impact expected. Development of the Site is not expected to impact on aquatic habitats.

Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii. No impact expected. Species not expected to use the Site currently. May visit the Site when the newly-created wetland becomes established.

More information is provided in section 5.2.4 (flora) and section 5.3.3 (fauna).


9. Policy and legislative implications This section provides information with regard to ecological and planning policy and legislation, and its relevance to the Project. This information is not intended to provide an exhaustive list, but rather a summary of the key requirements.

The information below is based upon GHD’s understanding of the legislation and policy, and our experience with their implementation. There is a possibility that regulatory authorities may interpret and/or implement the legislation and policy differently.

A summary of the likely legislative requirements, with regard to potential impacts on ecological and heritage values protected under State and/or Commonwealth legislation, is provided in Table 10. If any changes are required to the area or extent of impacts, then this table should be reviewed and updated.

Table 10 Likely legislative and policy requirements for the Templestowe Road Soccer Facilities


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

No EPBC-listed flora species or ecological communities are present in the Site, nor are they expected to occur due to the highly modified nature of the Site.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Vulnerable) is likely to forage frequently within the Site. Small numbers of other threatened fauna (e.g., Swift Parrot; Critically Endangered) may visit the Site occasionally or rarely. No species listed as threatened or migratory under the EPBC Act is expected to be impacted significantly by the Project.

No MNES are considered likely to be significantly impacted by the Project.


Environment Effects Act 1978 (EE Act) Under the EE Act, projects that

could have a ‘significant effect’ on Victoria’s environment can require an Environment Effects Statement (EES) to be prepared and assessed.

The EES referral criteria for impacts to ecological values (DSE 2006) were considered as part of this assessment to determine whether or not an EES is likely to be required.

Unlikely to trigger ecological requirements for an EES.


Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

No flora or communities listed as threatened under the FFG Act were recorded, nor are they expected to occur due to the highly modified nature of the Site.

No flora listed as protected under the FFG Act were recorded.

At least one species of fauna listed as threatened under the FFG Act is likely to use (and possibly nest in) the treed habitats

No permit required to remove protected flora under the FFG Act.

No permit is required for FFG Act-listed fauna.

Flora – N/A

Fauna – Minimising the removal of trees and shrubs, and minimising noise and light pollution will reduce the likelihood of project impacts on fauna.



within and around the Site (Powerful Owl Ninox strenua). Removal of trees and shrubs, and noise and light pollution have a real chance of impacting on this species and should be avoided.

Planning and Environment Act 1987 (P&E Act)

Native vegetation was identified within the Site. Much of the native vegetation present in the Site has been planted for amenity and does not require a permit to remove. However, one patch of native vegetation, as well as six scattered native trees are proposed to be removed.

Any proposed impacts to remnant native vegetation or vegetation planted for conservation purposes will require a permit under the P&E Act, and offsets will be required.

Permit to remove native vegetation (patches of vegetation and scattered native flora) required.


Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017) – the Guidelines.

The location mapping identifies that the Site is classified as Location 2.

Based on the design option for this Site, 0.186 ha of native vegetation will be removed (inclusive of scattered trees). Consequently, the Project needs to be assessed via the ‘Intermediate’ assessment pathway.

Planning permit and offsets required under P&E Act.

A permit application will need to be referred to Manningham City Council.


Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)

Declared Noxious Weeds (Restricted and Regionally Controlled within the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA) were recorded within the Site during the field assessment.

The Project has the potential to spread and/or introduce weeds during proposed works.

No permit required. NELP must comply with requirements to limit the spread of declared noxious weeds within and off Site, via vehicle hygiene procedures listed in an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

Wildlife Act 1975 Some of the larger trees within the Site, particularly along the Yarra River, may have hollows and may house arboreal fauna such as possums or nesting birds.

A Management Authorisation (a permit under the Wildlife Act 1975) would be required for the purposes of capturing, handling or relocating fauna, and will be required if any tree/limb removal is proposed.

If large trees require removal (or limb lopping), then a Management Authorisation should be obtained so that an ecologist can be present during works to help fauna to safety, as required.


10. Conclusion The following are recommended with respect to the current project design:

Confirm offsets required under the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017). Offsets will be obtained in accordance with the PSA for the North East Link Project and secured via an accredited offset broker for an application for a planning permit to be submitted.

Avoid all impacts on the water and riparian habitats along the Yarra River.

Prepare a Construction Environment Management Plan for the Project that addresses other environmental management aspects as required pre, during and after construction (e.g. weed management, fencing of vegetation to be retained, management of tree or limb removal).

Prior to any construction, obtain a Management Authorisation under the Wildlife Act 1975 to carry out mitigation measures identified in the Construction Environment Management Plan, including salvage and relocation of fauna, as required. Pre-clearance fauna surveys of vegetation/habitat proposed to be removed are likely to be required to inform the salvage work.

If any trees are removed as part of this design, then replacement trees and shrubs should be added to areas within the Site that are currently treeless, particularly along and near the Yarra River, to enhance the existing riparian habitat along the river in the long term. This will benefit numerous threatened and non-threatened fauna, including species such as the Powerful Owl.

Disturbance, noise and light pollution near the Yarra River should be avoided. If shared-use paths or walking tracks are proposed, then they should go around riparian habitat patches rather than through, and should be set back from the river to avoid disturbing the area which provides nesting and fledging habitat for Powerful Owls. Consult the new National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife (DoEE 2020) for Best Practice Lighting Design and an ‘Artificial Light Management Checklist’, to reduce light pollution and minimise the effect on wildlife.

Monitoring of the Powerful Owl near the site is already undertaken by researchers at Deakin University. Rather than commencing a new monitoring program, which might disturb the birds even further, NELP should stay in touch with Deakin Uni researchers about the owls’ use of this location during and post-construction, and consider additional mitigation (such as further screening) if concerns are raised or feared significant.


11. References DELWP 2017. Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Victorian Government

DEPI (2014) Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014, Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne

DoEE 2020. National Light Pollution Guidelines for Wildlife; Including marine turtles, seabirds and migratory shorebirds. Commonwealth of Australia.

DSE 2004a. Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – guidelines for applying the habitat hectare scoring method. Department of Sustainability and Environment. East Melbourne, Victoria

DSE (2004b) Powerful Owl, Ninox strenua. Action Statement No. 92; Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.

DSE 2006. Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978. Victorian Government Department Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne

DSE 2009. Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2009. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria

DSE 2013. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria

VicFlora 2016. Flora of Victoria. Available on-line at: https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/ [accessed October 2019]

Walsh, N.G. and Entwisle, T.J. 1996. Flora of Victoria Vols 1 − 4. Inkata Press, Melbourne

https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesment

Appendices


Appendix A – Incidental flora observations


EE

Key to tables

P Protected in Victoria under the FFG Act

v listed as vulnerable in Victoria (VROTS)

r listed as rare in Victoria (VROTS)

R Restricted under the CALP Act

C Regionally Controlled under the CALP Act

WoNS Weed of National Significance

# Non-indigenous native species outside its natural range in Victoria (likely to be planted)

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Native

Acacia dealbata Silver Wattle

Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood

Clematis microphylla s.l. Small-leaved Clematis

Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red-gum

Eucalyptus ovata Swamp Gum

Juncus sp. Rush

Melicytus dentatus s.l. Tree Violet

Introduced

Acetosella vulgaris Sheep Sorrel

Agrostis capillaris s.l. Brown-top Bent

Allium triquetrum Angled Onion R

Arctotheca calendula Cape weed

Avena sp. Oat

Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass

Bromus diandrus Great Brome

Bromus hordeaceus Soft Brome

Capsella bursa-pastoris Shepherd's Purse

Cenchrus clandestinus Kikuyu

Cerastium glomeratum s.l. Common Mouse-ear Chickweed

Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle C

Dactylis glomerata Cocksfoot

Ehrharta erecta Panic Veldt-grass

Ehrharta longiflora Annual Veldt-grass

Erodium botrys Big Heron's-bill

Festuca arundinacea Tall Fescue

Fumaria capreolata White Fumitory

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assessment

Scientific Name Common Name Status

Fumaria muralis subsp. muralis Wall Fumitory

Galium aparine Cleavers

Geranium dissectum Cut-leaf Crane's-bill

Holcus lanatus Yorkshire Fog

Hordeum sp. Barley Grass

Hypericum perforatum subsp. veronense St John's Wort C

Hypochaeris radicata Flatweed

Lepidium sp. Peppercress

Lolium sp. Rye Grass

Lycium ferocissimum African Box-thorn WoNS, C

Lysimachia arvensis Pimpernel

Malva sp. Mallow

Medicago arabica Spotted Medic

Modiola caroliniana Red-flower Mallow

Oxalis sp. (naturalised) Wood Sorrel

Plantago coronopus Buck's-horn Plantain

Plantago lanceolata Ribwort

Poa annua s.l. Annual Meadow-grass

Polygonum aviculare s.l. Prostrate Knotweed

Prunus sp. Prunus

Raphanus raphanistrum Wild Radish

Rubus fruticosus spp. agg. Blackberry WoNS, C

Rumex conglomeratus Clustered Dock

Rumex sp. (naturalised) Dock (naturalised)

Sonchus oleraceus Common Sow-thistle

Stellaria media Chickweed

Taraxacum officinale spp. agg. Garden Dandelion

Trifolium repens var. repens White Clover

Verbena officinalis s.l. Common Verbena

Vicia sativa Common Vetch

Vulpia sp. Fescue

Note: only naturalised species were recorded. Planted trees are recorded in the Arboriculture assessment.


Appendix B – Likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora known or predicted within 5 km of the Site


Key to table

KNOWN - species was recorded within the assessed area during the current project, or has a recent confirmed record from the Site (within two years);

POSSIBLE – suitable habitat occurs within the Site and species’ known range encompasses the Site. Generally, there are historical records within the study area, and generally within the last 20 years, though there may be exceptions to this with explanation.

UNLIKELY – species’ known range encompasses the Site, but suitable habitat does not occur within Site, or occurs within the Site but with generally low quality and quantity. Unless otherwise specified, the species may have been recorded historically within the study area, but generally not within the last 20 years.

EPBC Act Codes: CR (Critically Endangered), EN (Endangered), VU (Vulnerable)

FFG Act Codes: L (listed as Threatened)

Conservation Status in Victoria: e (Endangered in Victoria), v (Vulnerable in Victoria), r (Rare in Victoria)

# Non-indigenous native species outside its natural range (likely to be planted)

Likelihood of occurrence is derived from VicFlora (2016) 7F

8

Scientific Name Common Name EPBC FFG VICADV VBA recs

VBA last Source Likelihood

Acacia boormanii Snowy River Wattle

r 1 2017 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Acacia howittii Sticky Wattle

r# 1 2002 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Amphibromus fluitans River Swamp Wallaby-grass VU

5 2011 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Austrostipa rudis subsp. australis

Veined Spear-grass


8 VicFlora (2016). Flora of Victoria, Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria, <https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au>, last accessed October 2019.




Billardiera scandens s.s. Velvet Apple-berry

r 1 03/12/1886 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Callitriche brachycarpa Short Water-starwort

L vu 1 2013 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Callitriche umbonata Winged Water-starwort

r 2 01/01/1770 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Corybas fimbriatus Fringed Helmet-orchid

r 1 1992 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum

vu# 6 2012 VBA Present; however, the species is only indigenous to far-east Gippsland, planted extensively throughout Melbourne, and all individuals on Site are planted for amenity purposes.

Dianella amoena Matted Flax-lily EN L en 21 2013 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Eucalyptus fulgens Green Scentbark


Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa

Large-fruit Yellow-gum

L en# 2 2010 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Eucalyptus X studleyensis Studley Park Gum

en 15 2006 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Eucalyptus yarraensis Yarra Gum


Fimbristylis velata Veiled Fringe-rush


Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine VU L vu 5 2011 VBA/PMST

Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Goodia medicaginea Western Golden-tip


Lepidium hyssopifolium s.s. Basalt Peppercress EN L en 2 1990 VBA/PMST

Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Melaleuca armillaris subsp. armillaris

Giant Honey-myrtle

r# 6 2017 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Pomaderris vacciniifolia Round-leaf Pomaderris CR L en

PMST Unlikely - No suitable habitat




Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon Leek-orchid EN L en


Prostanthera nivea var. nivea Snowy Mint-bush

r# 2 2010 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat

Pterostylis chlorogramma Green-striped Greenhood VU L vu


Pterostylis cucullata Leafy Greenhood VU L P


Senecio campylocarpus Floodplain Fireweed


Senecio psilocarpus Swamp Fireweed VU

vu 2 2014 VBA/PMST

Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Utricularia gibba Floating Bladderwort

vu# 2 2005 VBA Unlikely - No suitable habitat.

Xerochrysum palustre Swamp Everlasting VU L vu 1 2014 VBA/PMST

Unlikely - No suitable habitat.


Appendix C – Fauna species observed during the field assessment


Common name Scientific Name Threatened/ Migratory?

Observation VBA recs VBA last

Mammals

Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps no One found dead 9 29/04/1996

Common Wombat Vombatus ursinus no Borrows seen 10 17/02/2018

Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus no Observed 19 31/07/2017

European Rabbit** Oryctolagus cuniculus no Scat seen 27 4/06/2010

Birds

Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes no Observed 126 25/04/2019

Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata no Observed 463 22/03/2019

Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa no Observed 905 25/04/2019

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus no Observed 1046 25/04/2019

Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum no Observed 190 25/04/2019

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita no Observed 641 22/04/2019

Galah Eolophus roseicapilla no Observed 612 25/04/2019

Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius no Observed 796 25/04/2019

Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus no Observed 485 1/01/2019

Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae no Observed 660 22/04/2019

Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus no Heard 158 1/01/2019

Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis no Heard 158 22/10/2018

Shining Bronze-Cuckoo Chrysococcyx lucidus no Heard 77 4/10/2017

Grey Fantail Rhipidura fuliginosa no Observed 486 1/01/2019

Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca no Observed 1077 25/04/2019

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae no Observed 451 1/01/2019

White-browed Scrubwren Sericornis frontalis no Observed 504 1/01/2019

Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus no Observed 629 1/01/2019

Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus no Heard 360 15/06/2010

Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala no Observed 829 25/04/2019

Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata no Observed 1163 25/04/2019

Little Raven Corvus mellori no Observed 948 25/04/2019

Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus no Observed 777 25/04/2019

Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen no Observed 1417 25/04/2019

Common Blackbird** Turdus merula no Observed 1113 1/01/2019

Common Myna** Acridotheres tristis no Observed 1224 20/04/2019

Common Starling** Sturnus vulgaris no Observed 824 21/11/2018

Reptiles

Garden Skink Lampropholis guichenoti no Observed 30 14/04/2016

Frogs

Common Froglet Crinia signifera no Heard 87 21/11/2017 ** Non-native species


Appendix D – Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna known or predicted within 5 km of the Site


Key to Table: EPBC Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 FFG Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 DELWP Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate or Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria (2013, 2009) PMST Protected Matters Search Tool, for the EPBC Act


Recs/last Number of records and most recent year of records of that species in the VBA

CR/cr Critically Endangered EN/en Endangered VU/vu Vulnerable rx/nt/ew/dd Regionally extinct / Near Threatened / Extinct in the Wild / Data Deficient L Listed as threatened under the FFG Act

For the likelihood of occurrence evaluation, one category of likelihood is assigned to each threatened species according to the following criteria: LIKELY - species known to use habitats within or near the assessed area; POSSIBLE – suitable habitat occurs within the Site and species’ known range encompasses the Site. Generally, there are historical records within the study area, and generally within the last 20 years, though there may be exceptions to this with explanation. UNLIKELY – species’ known range encompasses the Site, but suitable habitat does not occur within Site, or occurs within the Site but with generally low quality and quantity. Unless otherwise specified, the species may have been recorded historically within the study area, but generally not within the last 20 years.


Common name Scientific Name EPBC FFG DELWP Source VBA recs VBA last Likelihood of Occurrence

Mammals

Spot-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus maculatus EN L en PMST 0 NA Unlikely - species extirpated from the Melbourne area

Swamp Antechinus Antechinus minimus maritimus VU L nt PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus EN L nt PMST, VBA 1 1/02/1949 Unlikely - species extirpated from this part of the Melbourne area

Greater Glider Petauroides volans VU

vu PMST 0 NA Unlikely - no historical records within 5 km

Long-nosed Potoroo Potorous tridactylus VU L nt PMST 0 NA Unlikely - species does not occur in the Melbourne area

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus VU L vu PMST, VBA 22 16/02/2018 Likely. Species known to forage in flowering trees along and beside the Yarra River

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat

Saccolaimus flaviventris

L dd VBA 1 1/04/1990 Unlikely - rare in the Melbourne area

Smoky Mouse Pseudomys fumeus EN L en PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Birds

King Quail Coturnix chinensis

L en VBA 1 1/01/1970 Unlikely - rare in the Melbourne area

Plains-wanderer Pedionomus torquatus CR L cr PMST, VBA 1 1/09/1980 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Lewin's Rail Rallus pectoralis

L vu VBA 3 1/11/1999 Unlikely - mostly unsuitable habitat. May move through the dense vegetation along the Yarra River.

Baillon's Crake Porzana pusilla

L vu VBA 13 18/11/2006 Unlikely - mostly unsuitable habitat. May move through the dense vegetation along the Yarra River.

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia

L nt VBA 1 1/08/1980 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Hooded Plover Thinornis rubricollis VU L vu PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis CR L vu PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos

vu PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia

vu PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis

vu VBA 3 12/05/2004 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea CR L en PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis (=benghalensis)

EN L cr PMST, VBA 3 10/11/2001 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Brolga Grus rubicunda

L vu VBA 1 2/02/1991 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Little Egret Egretta garzetta

L en VBA 10 7/04/2018 Possible - mostly unsuitable habitat, but may forage along the Yarra River occasionally

Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia

L en VBA 3 6/07/2008 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta (=alba)

L vu VBA 188 19/01/2013 Possible - mostly unsuitable habitat, but likely to forage along the Yarra River occasionally

Little Bittern Ixobrychus minutus


Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus EN L en PMST, VBA 7 5/08/2007 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Magpie Goose Anseranas semipalmata

L nt VBA 1 1/01/1908 Unlikely - rare in the Melbourne area

Australasian Shoveler Anas rhynchotis


Hardhead Aythya australis

vu VBA 55 21/01/2019 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat. May use the Yarra River occasionally.

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis


Musk Duck Biziura lobata


Grey Goshawk Accipiter novaehollandiae

L vu VBA 12 4/02/2018 Possible - may use tall riprian forests along the Yarra River

Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos


Black Falcon Falco subniger

L vu VBA 6 28/01/1987 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Barking Owl Ninox connivens



Common name Scientific Name EPBC FFG DELWP Source VBA recs VBA last Likelihood of Occurrence

Powerful Owl Ninox strenua

L vu VBA 17 22/04/2019 Likely - suitable habitat in the northern part of the Site along the Yarra River. Potentially nests and fledges young in the area regularly

Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae


Major Mitchell's Cockatoo Cacatua leadbeateri

L vu VBA 2 20/07/2006 Unlikely - rare in the Melbourne area

Superb Parrot Polytelis swainsonii VU L en VBA 2 28/06/1999 Unlikely - generally found further north of Melbourne

Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella

L nt VBA 1 13/10/1999 Unlikely - rare in the Melbourne area

Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor CR L en PMST, VBA 29 19/04/2018 Possible, as rare foraging visitor to larger trees when flowering

White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus VU L vu PMST, VBA 82 18/01/2019 Possible as foraging visitor to airspace above Site

Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata

L nt VBA 3 2/04/1992 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta VU L vu PMST 0 NA Unlikely - rare in Melbourne area and no historical records within 5 km

Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera (Xanthomyza) phrygia

CR L cr PMST, VBA 21 15/01/1998 Possible, as rare foraging visitor

Reptiles

Murray River Turtle Emydura macquarii

vu VBA 2 11/01/2012 Possible in the Yarra River

Striped Legless Lizard Delma impar VU L en PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Lace Monitor Varanus varius

en VBA 1 19/01/2016 Unlikely - probably extirpated from the lower and middle Yarra River

Glossy Grass Skink Pseudemoia rawlinsoni


Tussock Skink Pseudemoia pagenstecheri


Frogs

Brown Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii


Southern Toadlet Pseudophryne semimarmorata


Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis VU L en PMST, VBA 18 28/12/1991 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat and species not detected in this part of Melbourne since the early 1990s

Invertebrates

Eltham Copper Butterfly Paralucia pyrodiscus lucida EN L en PMST, VBA 10 2/02/1988 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana CR L cr PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat


Appendix E – Likelihood of occurrence of Migratory fauna known or predicted within 5 km of the Site


Key to Table: PMST Protected Matters Search Tool, for the EPBC Act


Recs/last Number of records and most recent year of records of that species in the VBA

For the likelihood of occurrence evaluation, one category of likelihood is assigned to each threatened species according to the following criteria: LIKELY - species known to use habitats within or near the assessed area; POSSIBLE – suitable habitat occurs within the Site and species’ known range encompasses the Site. Generally, there are historical records within the study area, and generally within the last 20 years, though there may be exceptions to this with explanation. UNLIKELY – species’ known range encompasses the Site, but suitable habitat does not occur within Site, or occurs within the Site but with generally low quality and quantity. Unless otherwise specified, the species may have been recorded historically within the study area, but generally not within the last 20 years.


Common name Scientific Name Source VBA recs VBA last Likelihood of Occurrence

Birds

Caspian Tern Sterna caspia VBA 1 1/08/1980 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Crested Tern Sterna bergii VBA 1 1/02/1979 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis VBA 3 12/05/2004 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata PMST, VBA 3 2/11/1999 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos PMST 0 NA Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii PMST, VBA 84 19/01/2013 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Glossy Ibis Plegadis falcinellus VBA 3 15/04/2007 Unlikely - unsuitable habitat

Osprey Pandion haliaetus PMST 0 NA Unlikely - no records of this species in this part of Melbourne

White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus PMST, VBA 82 18/01/2019 Possible as foraging visitor to airspace above Site

Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus PMST, VBA 5 27/01/1995 Possible as foraging visitor to airspace above Site

Rufous Fantail Rhipidura rufifrons PMST, VBA 12 4/11/2009 Possible as seasonal (summer) visitor to the Yarra River habitats

Satin Flycatcher Myiagra cyanoleuca PMST, VBA 5 21/11/1985 Possible as seasonal (summer) visitor to the Yarra River habitats

Black-faced Monarch Monarcha melanopsis PMST 0 NA Unlikely - no records of this species in this part of Melbourne

Yellow Wagtail Motacilla flava PMST 0 NA Unlikely - rarely occurs in the Melbourne area


Appendix F – Canopy Trees and Scattered Trees recorded during the field assessment


Tree ID Tree Category

Species Name

Common Name

Size Class

DBH (cm)

Hollows? Impacted?

1 Scattered Tree

Eucalyptus camaldulensis

River Red-gum Small 20 No Retained

2 Scattered Tree



3 Scattered Tree



4 Scattered Tree



5 Scattered Tree



6 Scattered Tree



7 Scattered Tree



8 Scattered Tree



9 Scattered Tree



10 Scattered Tree



11 Scattered Tree



12 Scattered Tree


River Red-gum Small 14 No Removed

13 Scattered Tree



14 Scattered Tree



15 Scattered Tree



16 Scattered Tree



17 Scattered Tree



18 Scattered Tree



19 Scattered Tree



20 Scattered Tree



21 Scattered Tree



22 Scattered Tree



23 Scattered Tree


River Red-gum Large 129 No Retained

It is noted that in some cases the DBH measurements of the scattered trees are slightly different to the measurements described in the Arboriculture Assessment. This is due to the fact that ecologists measure trees at 1.3 m above ground level and arborists measure trees at 1.4 m, however this does not impact the consistency or accuracy of the assessments.

GHD | Report for North East Link Project – Ecology Impact Assesmen

Appendix G – EnSym Report

Scenario test – native vegetation removal

Page 1

This report provides offset requirements for internal testing of different proposals to remove native vegetation. This

report DOES NOT support an application to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation under Clause 52.16 or

52.17 of planning schemes in Victoria. A report must be obtained from the Department of Environment, Land,

Water and Planning (DELWP).

Date of issue: 10/02/2020 Report ID: Scenario Testing

Time of issue: 4:46 pm

Project ID DELWP_NVR_Template_BulleenDR

Assessment pathway

Assessment pathway Intermediate Assessment Pathway

Extent including past and proposed 0.186 ha

Extent of past removal 0.000 ha

Extent of proposed removal 0.186 ha

No. Large trees proposed to be removed 0

Location category of proposed removal Location 2

The native vegetation is in an area mapped as an endangered Ecological Vegetation Class (as per the statewide EVC map). Removal of less than 0.5 hectares of native vegetation in this location will not have a significant impact on any habitat for a rare or threatened species.

1. Location map


Page 2

Offset requirements if a permit is granted

Any approval granted will include a condition to obtain an offset that meets the following requirements:

NB: values within tables in this document may not add to the totals shown above due to rounding

Appendix 1 includes information about the native vegetation to be removed

Appendix 2 includes information about the rare or threatened species mapped at the site.

Appendix 3 includes maps showing native vegetation to be removed and extracts of relevant species habitat importance maps

1 The general offset amount required is the sum of all general habitat units in Appendix 1.

2 Minimum strategic biodiversity score is 80 per cent of the weighted average score across habitat zones where a general offset is required

General offset amount1 0.040 general habitat units

Vicinity Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (CMA) or

Manningham City Council

Minimum strategic biodiversity value

score2

0.283

Large trees 0 large trees


Page 3

Next steps

Any proposal to remove native vegetation must meet the application requirements of the Intermediate Assessment Pathway and

it will be assessed under the Intermediate Assessment Pathway.

This report DOES NOT support an application to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation under Clause 52.16 or 52.17

of planning schemes in Victoria.

If you wish to remove the mapped native vegetation you must submit the related shapefiles to the Department of Environment,

Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) for processing, by email to [email protected]. DELWP will provide a

Native vegetation removal report that is required to meet the permit application requirements in accordance with Guidelines for

the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (Guidelines).

Page 4

Appendix 1: Description of native vegetation to be removed

All zones require a general offset, the general habitat units each zone is calculated by the following equation in accordance with the Guidelines:

General habitat units = extent x condition x general landscape factor x 1.5, where the general landscape factor = 0.5 + (strategic biodiversity value score/2)

The general offset amount required is the sum of all general habitat units per zone.

Native vegetation to be removed

Information provided by or on behalf of the applicant in a GIS file Information calculated by EnSym

Zone Type BioEVC BioEVC

conservation status

Large tree(s)

Partial removal

Condition score

Polygon Extent

Extent without overlap

SBV score

HI score

Habitat units

Offset type

1-B Scattered

Tree gipp0056 Endangered 0 no 0.200 0.031 0.031 0.920 0.009 General

2-A Scattered


3-A Scattered


4-A Scattered


5-A Scattered


6-A Scattered


7-A Patch gipp0056 Endangered 0 no 0.340 0.015 0.015 0.239 0.005 General

Page 5

Appendix 2: Information about impacts to rare or threatened species’ habitats on site

This is not applicable in the Intermediate Assessment Pathway.

Page 6

Appendix 3 – Images of mapped native vegetation 2. Strategic biodiversity values map

GHD

180 Lonsdale Street Melbourne Victoria 3000 T: 61 3 8687 8000 F: 61 3 8732 7046 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2020

This report has been prepared for North East Link Project, a division of the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority, for the Minister of Planning to address the requirements of the North East Link Project Incorporated Document (Dec 2019). It is not intended to be used for, and should not be relied on, for any other purpose.

www.ghd.com

Documents

North East Link Project...Bulleen Golf Driving Range at 37-59 Templestowe Road and adjacent Parks Victoria public land at 27-33 Templestowe Road) in Bulleen, collectively described