Biodiversity Assessment: 92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West

© Biosis September 2012 – Leading ecology and heritage consultants 1

Biodiversity Assessment:

92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West Final Report

Prepared for Beveridge Williams

28 April 2014

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting www.biosis.com.au II

Biosis Pty Ltd

This document is and shall remain the property of Biosis Pty Ltd. The document may only be used

for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of the

Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is

prohibited.

Disclaimer:

Biosis Pty Ltd has completed this assessment in accordance with the relevant federal, state

and local legislation and current industry best practice. The company accepts no liability for

any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report content or for

any purpose other than that for which it was intended.

Biosis offices

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Canberra

Floor 1, Unit 3, 38 Essington Street

Mitchell ACT 2911

Phone: (02) 6241 2333

Fax: (03) 9646 9242

Email: [email protected]

NEW SOUTH WALES

Sydney

Unit 14 17-27 Power Avenue

Alexandria NSW 2015

Phone: (02) 9690 2777

Fax: (02) 9690 2577


Wollongong

8 Tate Street

Wollongong NSW 2500

Phone: (02) 4229 5222

Fax: (02) 4229 5500


QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

Suite 4 First Floor, 72 Wickham Street

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Phone: (07) 3831 7400

Fax: (07) 3831 7411


VICTORIA

Ballarat

506 Macarthur Street

Ballarat VIC 3350

Phone: (03) 5331 7000

Fax: (03) 5331 7033


Melbourne (Head Office)

38 Bertie Street

Port Melbourne VIC 3207

Phone: (03) 9646 9499

Fax: (03) 9646 9242


Wangaratta

16 Templeton Street

Wangaratta VIC 3677

Phone: (03) 5721 9453

Fax: (03) 5721 9454


Document information

Report to: Beveridge Williams

Prepared by: Steve Mueck

Daniel Gilmore

Biosis project no.: 16893

File name: 16893ElizabethDrF&Ffinalreport16042014 .docx

Citation: Biosis 2014. Biodiversity Assessment: 92 Elizabeth Avenue,

Rosebud West. Report for Beveridge Williams. Authors: Mueck, S. &

Gilmore, D. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 16893.

Document control

Version Internal review Date issued

Draft version 01 JY 21/03/14

Final version 01 SGM 28/04/14

Acknowledgements

Biosis acknowledges the contribution of the following people and

organisations in undertaking this study:

• Beveridge Williams: Bernard Stewart

• Department of Environment & Primary Industries for

access to the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

The following Biosis staff were involved in this project:

• Clare McCutcheon & Tony Steelcable, assistance in the field

• Sally Mitchell, mapping

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting III

Contents

Summary ................................................................................................................................................................. V

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 1

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

1.2 Scope of assessment ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Location of study area .................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Literature and database review ................................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Definitions of significance .............................................................................................................................................. 3

2.2.1 Species and ecological communities............................................................................................................ 3

2.2.2 NaturePrint areas ............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3 Likelihood of presence for significant species .......................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Site investigation.............................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4.1 Flora assessment .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.4.2 Fauna assessment ............................................................................................................................................ 5

2.4.3 Permits ................................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.5 Qualifications .................................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6 Legislation and policy ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.7 Mapping............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

3. Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

3.1 Vegetation & fauna habitat ........................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Landscape context ....................................................................................................................................................... 11

3.3 Significant species and ecological communities ................................................................................................... 11

3.3.1 EPBC Act, FFG Act & DSE Advisory listed species .................................................................................... 11

3.3.2 Significant ecological communities ............................................................................................................ 12

3.4 Other ecological values ............................................................................................................................................... 13

3.5 Further survey recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 13

4. Biodiversity Legislation and Government Policy ................................................................................... 14

4.1 Commonwealth ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ..................................................... 14

4.2 State ................................................................................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.1 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) ...................................................................................... 15

4.2.2 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act) ............................................................................ 15

4.2.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (incl. Planning Schemes) ........................................................... 15

4.2.4 Wildlife Act 1975 and associated Regulations ......................................................................................... 17

4.2.5 Environmental Effects Act ............................................................................................................................ 17

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting IV

4.2.6 Water Act 1989 ............................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.7 Environment Protection Act 1970: State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) 2003

........................................................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.8 Revegetation Plan Enforcement Order ..................................................................................................... 18

5. Victoria's Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines ....................................................................................... 21

5.1 Site based information ................................................................................................................................................ 21

5.1.1 Habitat Hectares ............................................................................................................................................ 22

5.2 Landscape scale information ..................................................................................................................................... 23

5.2.2 Strategic biodiversity score .......................................................................................................................... 23

5.2.3 Habitat importance score ............................................................................................................................ 23

5.3 Proposed removal of native vegetation .................................................................................................................. 23

5.3.2 Determining the risk-based pathway ........................................................................................................ 23

5.4 Offsetting the loss of native vegetation ................................................................................................................... 25

5.4.2 Specific-general offset test .......................................................................................................................... 25

5.4.3 General offsets ............................................................................................................................................... 25

5.4.4 Suitability for On-site offsets ....................................................................................................................... 27

5.4.5 Offset Potential .............................................................................................................................................. 28

6. Key Ecological Values and Recommendations........................................................................................ 29

References ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................ 32

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the Elizabeth Avenue study area, Rosebud West, Victoria ........................................... 2

Figure 2: Ecological features of the study area, 92 Elizabeth Ave, Rosebud West, Victoria .......................... 9

Figure 3: Impact on native vegetation by the proposed development footprint, Elizabeth Avenue,

Rosebud West. ....................................................................................................................................................... 26

List of Tables

Table 1: Criteria for determining significance of species & ecological communities ..................................... 3

Table 2: Summary of significant species most likely to occur in the study area .......................................... 12

Table 3: Assessment of project in relation to the EPBC Act ............................................................................ 14

Table 4: Habitat hectares of native vegetation within the study area ........................................................... 22

Table 5: Strategic biodiversity scores of habitat zones proposed for clearing within the study area ....... 23

Table 6: Habitat importance scores of Biodiversity Class Areas within the study area* ............................ 24

Table 7: Summary of habitat hectares to be removed .................................................................................... 24

Table 8: Summary of key ecological values, potential implications of developing the study area and

recommendations to minimise ecological impacts during the design phase .............................................. 30

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting V

Summary

Biosis Pty Ltd was commissioned by Beveridge Williams, acting on behalf of Watermark Village Pty Ltd, to

undertake a flora and fauna assessment of an area of land proposed for residential development at 92

Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West. The study area is located approximately 65 km south of the Melbourne

CBD. It encompasses approximately 29.84 ha of private land currently zoned Residential 1 in the north with

the balance zoned Special Use Zone 4 and Public Use Zone 4.

Ecological values

Key ecological values identified within the study area are as follows:

• 23.98 ha of native vegetation. While the vegetation closest to Elizabeth Avenue is the most modified

all of the wetland vegetation present is generally in good to excellent condition.

• Three Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) were recorded:

Tall Marsh (EVC 821), Brackish Wetland (EVC 656) and Aquatic Herbland (EVC 653).

• All three EVCs recorded are considered to be endangered within the Gippsland Plain bioregion.

• The site supports habitat for two wetland birds listed under the EPBC Act and 10 birds listed as

threatened in Victoria, and also provides habitat for 39 migratory species listed under the EPBC Act.

• NaturePrint identifies part of the site as providing high contribution of natural values with other parts

providing lower contribution although still at the high end of the scale.

• The native vegetation within the study area is contiguous with broader areas of native wetland

vegetation to the south and east and forms part of the broader Tootgarook Swamp.

Government legislation and policy

An assessment of the project in relation to key biodiversity legislation and policy is provided and summarised

below.

Legislation /

Policy

Relevant ecological

feature on site

Permit / Approval

required

Notes

EPBC Act Habitat for threatened

species and migratory

species

Referral

recommended

Referral provides a risk mitigation

measure for the project

FFG Act Site provides habitat

for numerous FFG

listed species

Protected Flora

Permit not required

Site is private land

Planning &

Environment

Act

Indigenous vegetation

to be cleared

Planning permit

required, including

permission to lop or

remove native

vegetation.

Permit application needs to outline

requirements identified in the Biodiversity

Assessment Guidelines and Handbook

Permit application needs to address

provisions of ESO 19.

Permitted clearing of native vegetation will

require prescribed offsets to be secured

prior to project commencement

CaLP Act Eight noxious weeds

recorded

Not applicable

Comply with any requirements to

control/eradicate noxious weeds

Note: Guidance provided in this report does not constitute legal advice.

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting VI

Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity assessment guidelines (the Guidelines)

An assessment of the project against the Guidelines is provided below*:

Guidelines Outcome Notes

Location risk Location A Entire site is Location A

Native vegetation removal

extent 2.629 ha Four sections of two habitat Zones

Risk-based pathway Moderate Based on more than 1 ha of clearing

Habitat hectares to be

removed 1.720

1.125 of Brackish Wetland and 0.595 of Tall

Marsh

Strategic Biodiversity Score 0.722 – 0.832 Four separate areas from two patches impacted

Modelled habitat for rare or

threatened species

Important habitat

present for 30 species

modelled

15 wetland birds, 4 raptors, 4 plants, 2 frogs, 2

skinks, 1 fish, Orange-bellied Parrot and Grey

Headed Flying-fox

Specific-general offset test

result General

No habitat loss exceeds the specific offset

threshold

General/Specific

Biodiversity Equivalence

Scores

0.002 – 0.812 The largest patch has the highest General

Biodiversity Equivalence Scores (GBES)

Offset type General

The onsite offset area is capable of generating

both general and specific offsets

Offset risk factor 1.5

Offset amount: General

Biodiversity Equivalence

Units (GBEU)

1.909 The onsite offset site can generate 6.325 GBEU,

providing an excess of 4.416 GBEU

Offset habitat for species Numerous species with

dispersed

Proposed first party offset area can provide both

general and specific offsets

Offset Vicinity Port Phillip &

Westernport CMA

(PPWCMA)

The proposed offset site is within the PPWCMA

Offset minimum Strategic

Biodiversity Score (SBS) 0.589

The proposed on-site offset supports native

vegetation with a SBS between 0.742 and 0.892

* outputs provided by DEPI native vegetation support team

The required general offset could be generated through management of native vegetation retained within

the study area. This would provide a 'first party' offset and would require the appropriate vegetation security

agreements and a 10 year offset management plan. Alternatively, the applicant may seek to purchase 'third

party' specific offset credits via an accredited trading scheme.

A total of 6.325 General Biodiversity Equivalence Units could be generated through management of

vegetation on site. This is well in excess of the 1.909 Biodiversity Equivalence Units required for the proposed

clearing.

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting VII

The proponent is responsible for sourcing and legal protection of offset sites in perpetuity and funding

management of those sites for the initial 10 years.

Recommendations and Discussion

The results of this assessment should be incorporated into the project design, by adding the flora and fauna

mapping information into the planning maps and investigating options to retain as much of the mapped

vegetation/habitats as possible.

Future requirements for infrastructure and services must be forecast as much as possible at this time and

allowance made outside any nominated reserves for all construction works. This includes road batters,

footpaths, drainage and services (including optic fibre). All areas of vegetation/habitat nominated in the

design plan as 'retained' are to be treated as no-go zones and are not to be encroached upon as

development progresses.

Development design has incorporated a single fronted road as an interface between residential lots and

retained native vegetation. This is considered an essential design component for the ongoing management

of any retained native vegetation.

Establishing stormwater treatment areas within land not mapped as native vegetation to the south of the

proposed development footprint is considered appropriate. These areas are dominated by exotic vegetation

and support both a low cover and low diversity of native plant species.

Vegetation losses are unavoidable for the development as proposed and offsets are required under the

Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (as summarised above).

The proposed offset area has the potential to generate significantly more Biodiversity Equivalence Units than

required to satisfy the requirements of the proposed clearing. These offset can be sold to other developers

to satisfy both general and specific offset requirements.

It is unlikely that the area of Public Use Zone 4, and the property to the south east of this zone, in the south

eastern corner of the property (about 1.4 ha) would be eligible for classification as an offset site. This would

result in a small decrease in the offset potential of the proposed offset area (i.e. the balance of the property

outside the proposed development footprint).

A VCAT Enforcement Order was issued in 2011for illegal vegetation clearance at the site. This Enforcement

Order requires the preparation of a Re-vegetation Plan.

Given the extent and duration of inundation observed in association with the Biosis assessments, it is

considered unlikely that any recent clearing activities (i.e. within the last 5 years) have had a significant impact

on the species composition of these wetlands. The wetland vegetation present appears to occupy all areas

typically subject to periodic inundation. As a result no direct revegetation works are considered necessary as

the site has regenerated naturally. However the disturbance may exacerbate weed invasion and therefore

Biosis would recommend weed control works targeting invasive exotic species. Any weed control works

within the wetland vegetation would only need to be limited in extent as these wetland communities support

quite low weed levels when inundated. However, the control of invasive exotic wetland species such as

Jointed Rush Juncus articulatus and Spiny Rush Juncus acutus, which are currently relative rare on site would be

ecologically beneficial as these species have the potential to dominated parts of the site and otherwise

exclude indigenous wetland species.

The site has the potential to provide a first party offset for the proposed development.

© Biosis 2012 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project background

Biosis Pty Ltd was commissioned by Beveridge Williams, acting on behalf of Watermark Village Pty

Ltd, to undertake a flora and fauna assessment of land proposed for residential subdivision at

92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West.

1.2 Scope of assessment

The objectives of this investigation are to:

• Describe the vascular flora (ferns, conifers, flowering plants) and vertebrate fauna (mammals,

birds, reptiles, frogs, fishes)

• Map native vegetation and other habitat features

• Conduct a vegetation quality assessment

• Assess the potential for the site to support threatened species

• Review the implications of relevant biodiversity legislation and policy, including Victoria’s

Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity assessment guidelines, 2013

• Identify potential implications of the proposed development and provide recommendations

to assist with development design

• Recommend any further assessments of the site that may be required (such as targeted

searches for significant species).

1.3 Location of study area

The study area is located in Rosebud West approximately 65 km south of the Melbourne CBD

(Figure 1). It encompasses approximately 29.84 ha of private land known as 92 Elizabeth Avenue,

Rosebud West. It is currently zoned Residential 1 in the north with the balance zoned Special Use

Zone 4 and Public use Zone 4.

The study area is within the:

• Gippsland Plain Bioregion

• Bunyip River Basin

• Management area of Melbourne Water and/or the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment

Management Authority (CMA)

• Shire of Mornington Peninsula.

!

!

RosebudWest

Rosebud

MORNINGTONMORNINGTONPENINSULAPENINSULA

SHIRESHIREChina

man s

C reek

Dr umDrum Alloc Creek

Port Phillip Bay

Third

Av

Colchester Rd

Bank

sia Pl

John St

Mccombe St

Besgrove St

Cain St

Allambi AvDenholm St

Ibis Gr

Cairns Av

Guest St

Darva

ll St

Kuringai Rd

Morri

s St

Hiscock Rd

Johnson St

White

head

Gr Seco

nd Av

Clematis Av

Tarwarri AvMaine St

Kevin

St

Brendel St

Wynne St

Balak

a Ct

Melville St

Four

th Av

Swans Way

Hakea Av

Park Av

Jennin

gs Ct

Clubhouse Dr

Iris Cl

Bay Trl

Highbury Rd

Ella Cr

Hinton

St

Dullard St

Coleman CrKeith

St

Mawarra Av

Innes Ct

Teal St

Tern Av

Grenfell Way

WindellaAv

Yolland St

Kingfisher Av

Kareela Dr

Hillcre

stDr

Hope St

Bone

o Rd

Grenville Gr

Williamson St

Woyna Av

Alma StVincent St

Bella Vista DrDavid Ct

Balak

a St

Doig

Av

Eleventh Av

Vale

St

Peter Thomson Dr

Wyuna St

Tham

er St

Whyte StTerry St

Monic a St

Point Nepean Rd Capel Av

Mcalpin St

Wilkinson St

Bona St

Kolinda Cr

Panorama Dr

Marks Av

Barry St

Tom Maw Memorial Dr

Eliza

beth

Av

Booran Pde

Howqua Dr

Curlew Dr

Warranilla Av

Plain

St

Barra

gowa

Dr

Belar Rd

Lockhart Dr

Chatfield Av

Fifth

Av

Thom

as St

Ruyton Dr

Fleur AvOl

dCap

eSch

anck

Rd

Ashenden

Sq

Flamingo Rd

Point Nepean Rd

Bone

o Rd

Point Nepean Rd

Eastbourne Rd

Bone

o Rd

Elizab

eth Av

Broadway

Browns RdBrowns Rd

Old Ca

pe Sc

hanc

k Rd

Truemans Rd

Tr uem

a ns R

d

Bone

o Rd

Mornington Peninsula Fwy

Acknowledgement:VicMap© State of Victoria,

Matter: 16893,Date: 26 February 2014,Checked by: SGM, Drawn by: SKM, Last edited by: smitchellLocation:P:\16800s\16893\Mapping\16893_Fig1_Locality.mxd

LegendStudy Area

Scale 1:25,000 @ A4, GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

0 240 480 720 960

Metres ±Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Figure 1: Location of the Study Area -92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West, Victoria

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

Melbourne

Dandenong

MelbourneWerribee

Frankston

Lilydale

Pakenham


2. Methods

2.1 Literature and database review

In order to provide a context for the study site, information about flora and fauna from within 5 km

of the study area (the ‘local area’) was obtained from relevant public databases. Aquatic fauna

records were searched for the Bunyip basin/catchment. Records from the following databases were

collated and reviewed:

• Flora Information System which includes records from the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

‘VBA_FLORA25, FLORA100 & FLORA Restricted’ August 2012 © The State of Victoria,

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI). The contribution of the Royal

Botanical Gardens Melbourne to the database is acknowledged

• Victorian Biodiversity Atlas ‘VBA_FAUNA25, FAUNA100 & FAUNA Restricted’ August 2012 ©

The State of Victoria

• DEPI Biodiversity Interactive Map (BIM)

• BirdLife Australia, the New Atlas of Australian Birds 1998-2012 (BA)

• Protected Matters Search Tool of the Australian Department of the Environment for matters

protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

• Melbourne Water Fish database (MWF)

Other sources of biodiversity information:

• DEPI NaturePrint; accessed through the Biodiversity Interactive Map

• Biosis records that have been submitted to DSE and Melbourne Water but do not yet appear

on the VBA, FIS or MWF)

2.2 Definitions of significance

2.2.1 Species and ecological communities

The significance of a species or community is determined by its listing as rare or threatened under

Commonwealth or State legislation / policy. The sources used to categorise significance of species

and communities in this report are summarised below in Table 1.

Table 1: Criteria for determining significance of species & ecological communities

Significance

National Listed as threatened (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable or conservation

dependent) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999

State Listed as threatened (critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable) or rare for flora

species, in Victoria on a DEPI Advisory List (DSE 2005, 2013a)

Listed as threatened under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988


Flora species recorded from a small percentage of sites in the bioregion are considered to be

significant in the bioregion and are identified in the list of flora species recorded in the study area

provided in Appendix 1. These species are not discussed further in this report.

Fauna species listed as near threatened or data deficient are listed in Appendix 2, however in

accordance with advice from DSE these fauna species are not considered to be at the same level of

risk as higher categories of threat. These species are generally not discussed in detail in this report.

2.2.2 NaturePrint areas

Areas of conservation significance were formerly documented in the DSE Biodiversity Interactive Map

as Biosites ranked as significant at national, state and regional levels. DEPI have advised that the

Biosite reports are obsolete and their replacement layer on the Biodiversity Interactive Map is now

NaturePrint which identifies the relative contribution of sites to protecting the full range of

biodiversity values in Victoria.

2.3 Likelihood of presence for significant species

The models of advisory listed species (DEPI 2005, 2013) distribution produced by DEPI provide the

basis for assessment of biodiversity importance when quantifying native vegetation that is proposed

to be removed. The models are constructed using state-level explanatory variables and limitations

with accuracy should be considered as such for site-level assessments.

The likelihood of species which are identified by the Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (i.e. EPBC

Act listed species) or other EPBC Act listings either recorded or considered as having a high likelihood

of presence within the site, is ranked as negligible, low, medium or high. The likelihood of occurrence

is a broad categorisation used by Biosis to indicate the potential for a species to occur within the

study area. It is based on expert opinion and implies the relative value of a site for a particular

species. The rationale for the rank assigned is provided for each species in Appendix 1 (flora) and

Appendix 2 (fauna).

Species which have at least medium likelihood of occurrence are given further consideration in this

report. The need for targeted survey for these species is also considered.

Only those species listed under the EPBC Act or listed as threatened under the FFG Act (hereafter

referred to as 'listed species') are assessed to determine their likelihood of occurrence. The habitat

value for species listed on the DEPI Advisory Lists is calculated by the Habitat Importance Modelling

produced by DEPI (DEPI 2013a). Where DEPI Advisory list species are recorded in the study area this

is noted.

2.4 Site investigation

2.4.1 Flora assessment

The flora assessment was undertaken on 23 December 2013 and 21 January 2014 and a list of flora

species was collected (# T25391). This list will be submitted to DEPI for incorporation into the

Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Planted species have not been recorded unless they are naturalised.

Native vegetation is defined in the Victoria Planning Provisions as 'plants that are indigenous to

Victoria, including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses' (Clause 72).


Victoria’s Permitted clearing of native vegetation: Biodiversity assessment guidelines classify native

vegetation into two categories (DEPI 2013a):

• A remnant patch of native vegetation (measured in hectares) is either:

– An area of native vegetation, with or without trees, where at least 25 percent of the total

perennial understorey cover is native plants.

– An area with three or more indigenous canopy trees where the tree canopy cover is at least

20 percent.

Remnant patch vegetation is classified into ecological vegetation classes (EVCs). An EVC contains one

or more floristic (plant) communities, and represents a grouping of broadly similar environments.

Definitions of EVCs and benchmarks (condition against which vegetation quality at the site can be

compared) are determined by DEPI.

• A scattered tree is defined as (extent measured by number of trees):

– An indigenous canopy tree that does not form part of a remnant patch of native

vegetation.

A canopy tree is a mature tree that is greater than three metres in height and is normally found in the

upper layer of a vegetation type. Ecological vegetation class descriptions provide a list of the typical

canopy species. A condition score and extent is applied to each scattered tree based on information

provided by DEPI's NVIM.

A Vegetation Quality Assessment was undertaken for all remnant patch native vegetation identified in

the study area. This assessment is consistent with DEPI's Habitat Hectare method (DSE 2004) and the

Guidelines (DEPI 2013a). For the purposes of this assessment the limit of the resolution for the

habitat hectare assessment process is taken to be 0.001 habitat hectares (Hha). That is, if native

vegetation is present with sufficient cover but its condition and extent would not result in the

identification of at least 0.001 habitat hectare then that vegetation will not be mapped or assessed as

a separate habitat zone.

Where relevant, notes were made on specific issues such as noxious weed infestations, evidence of

management works, current grazing impacts and the regeneration capacity of the vegetation.

Species nomenclature for flora follows the Flora Information System (FIS). Classification of native

vegetation is based on ecological vegetation classes (EVCs). An EVC contains one or more floristic

(plant) communities, and represents a grouping of broadly similar environments. Definitions of EVCs

and benchmarks (condition against which vegetation quality at the site can be compared) are as

determined by DEPI.

2.4.2 Fauna assessment

The study area was investigated on 9 October and 24 December 2013 to determine its values for

fauna. These were determined primarily on the basis of the types and qualities of habitat(s) present.

All species of fauna observed during the assessment were noted and active searching for fauna was

undertaken. This included direct observation, searching under rocks and logs, examination of tracks

and scats and identifying calls. Particular attention was given to searching for significant species and

their habitats. Fauna species were recorded with a view to characterising the values of the site and

the investigation was not intended to provide a comprehensive survey of all fauna that has potential

to utilise the site over time.


The investigation of fauna incorporated surveys for aquatic fauna although these aquatic surveys are

documented separately (Biosis 2014). The survey results are outlined in Appendix 2. Fauna records

will be submitted to DSE for incorporation into the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas.

2.4.3 Permits

Biosis undertakes flora and fauna assessments under the following permits and approvals:

• Research Permit/Management Authorisation and Permit to Take Protected Flora & Protected

Fish issued by the Department of Environment and Primary Industries under the Wildlife Act

1975, Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and National Parks Act 1975 (Permit number

10006240, expiry date 9 May 2015)

• Approvals 04.12 and 14.12 from the Wildlife and Small Institutions Animal Ethics Committee

2.5 Qualifications

Ecological surveys provide a sampling of flora and fauna at a given time and season. There are a

number of reasons why not all species will be detected at a site during survey, such as low

abundance, patchy distribution, species dormancy, seasonal conditions, and migration and breeding

behaviours. In many cases these factors do not present a significant limitation to assessing the

overall biodiversity values of a site.

The current flora and fauna assessment was conducted in spring and summer, which is an optimal

time for such surveys. However the site is relatively large and access was made difficult due to

extensive levels of site inundation and the presence of dense vegetation.

Biodiversity Assessment Reports (BAR) and Biodiversity Impact Offset Requirement (BIOR) reports are

prepared through DEPI's NVIM system or requested through DEPI's Native Vegetation Transitional

Support team. Biosis supplies relevant site-based spatial information as inputs to DEPI. We are

entirely reliant on DEPI's output reports for moderate and high risk pathway applications, and for low

risk pathway applications with complex mapping requirements. Biosis makes every effort to ensure

site and spatial information entered into the NVIM, or supplied to DEPI, is an accurate reflection of

proposed native vegetation removal. The DEPI BOIR can be viewed in Appendix 2.

2.6 Legislation and policy

The implications for the project were assessed in relation to key biodiversity legislation and policy

including:

• Matters listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC

Act); associated policy statements, significant impacts guidelines, listing advice and key

threatening processes

• Threatened taxa, communities and threatening processes listed under Section 10 of the Flora

& Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act); associated action statements and listing advice

• Victoria’s Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (DEPI 2013)

• Planning and Environment Act 1987 – specifically Clauses 12.01-2, 52.17 and 66.02 and

Overlays in the relevant Planning Scheme

• Noxious weeds and pest animals lists under the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP

Act)


• Wildlife Act 1975 and associated Regulations

• Water Act 1989

• Environment Protection Act 1970: State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)

2003.

2.7 Mapping

Mapping was conducted using hand-held (uncorrected) GPS units (WGS84) and aerial photo

interpretation. The accuracy of this mapping is therefore subject to the accuracy of the GPS units

(generally ± 7 metres) and dependent on the limitations of aerial photo rectification and registration.

Mapping has been produced using a Geographic Information System (GIS). Electronic GIS files which

contain our flora and fauna spatial data are available to incorporate into design concept plans.

However this mapping may not be sufficiently precise for detailed design purposes.


3. Results

The ecological features of the study area are described below and mapped in Figure 2.

Species recorded during the flora and fauna assessment are listed in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix

2 (fauna). Unless of particular note, these species are not discussed further.

Significant species recorded or predicted to occur in the local area are also listed in the appendices,

along with an assessment of the likelihood of each species occurring within the study area.

For this site DEPI has stated that impacts would be below the specific-general offset test threshold for

rare or threatened species habitat (Appendix 3).

3.1 Vegetation & fauna habitat

The terrestrial vegetation and fauna habitat throughout the study area has been highly modified by

past disturbances which have included clearing, development for agriculture and weed invasion.

Terrestrial environments within the study area have been significantly degraded and support

predominantly introduced vegetation that is of limited value for native fauna. Very few indigenous

species were recorded from non-wetland environments within the study area.

The study area supports a range of ecological features including a significant wetland (supporting

three EVCs), including both ephemeral and semi-permanent wetlands. When inundated the wetland

is dominated by native vegetation including areas of Tall Marsh (EVC 821), Aquatic Herbland (EVC 653)

and Brackish Wetland (EVC 656). These ecological vegetation classes are described below:

Tall Marsh EVC 821 (endangered within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion)

This EVC occupies most of the study area (Figure 2, Plate 1). It is dominated by Common Reed

Phragmites australis to about two metres in height with smaller areas of Narrow-leaf Cumbungi Typha

domingensis. During January 2014 water levels had either recently subsided or were typically less

than 50 cm in depth. Other common ground cover species included Red Water-milfoil Myriophyllum

verrucosum, Small River Buttercup Ranunculus amphitrichus, Swamp Raspwort Haloragis brownii,

Common Water-ribbons Triglochin procera, Common Blown-grass Lachnagrostis filiformis, Swamp

Sedge Carex gunniana and Common Spike-sedge Eleocharis acuta.

Brackish Wetland EVC 656 (Endangered within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion)

This EVC occupies relatively small sections in the north and south of the study area (Figure 2, Plate 2).

It is dominated by Salt Club-sedge Bolboschoenus caldwellii to about one metre in height with smaller

areas dominated by Common Spike-sedge Eleocharis acuta and Streaked Arrowgrass Triglochin striata.

A few tussocks of Coast Saw-sedge Gahnia trifida are present. During January 2014 much of this

environment did not support any surface water but the ground was still relatively moist. Other

common ground cover species included Small River Buttercup Ranunculus amphitrichus, Swamp

Raspwort Haloragis brownii, Common Blown-grass Lachnagrostis filiformis, Large Bindweed Calystegia

sepium and Small Loosestrife Lythrum hyssopifolia.

Aquatic Herbland EVC 653 (Endangered within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion)

This EVC occupies an area in close proximity to Chinamans Creek which forms the eastern boundary

of the study area. It is dominated by Common Water-ribbons Triglochin procera with areas of open

water supporting floating mats of Floating Pondweed Potamogeton tricarinatus (Figure 2, Plate 3).

_̂

_̂

RosebudWest

Shea

rwate

r Pl

Twen

tieth

Av Twenty First Av

Golf Links Dr

Hiscock Rd

Sanctuary Park Dr

Howqua Dr

Lyme Ct

Fortie

th Av

Clubhouse Dr

Silver Wattle Cl

StE lm os Cl

Thirty

Seve

nthAv

Elizabeth Av

Thirty

Eigh

th Av

Corsa

ir Rdg

e

Gannett Av

Ruyton Dr

Chinamans Creek

HZ2

HZ5

HZ1

HZ4

HZ3

0 30 60 90 120 150

Metres

±Matter: 16893, Date: 05 March 2014, Checked by: SGM, Drawn by: SKM, Last edited by: smitchellLocation:P:\16800s\16893\Mapping\16893_Fig2_EVC

Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne,

Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Scale: 1:3,000 @ A3

Figure 2: Ecological featuresof the study area, ElizabethAvenue, Rosebud West,Victoria

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Acknowledgements: Vicmap© State of Victoria

Legend

_̂ Spring RushEcological Vegetation Class (EVC)

653 Aquatic Herbland656 Brackish Wetland821 Tall MarshStudyArea


Plate 1: Extensive area of Tall Marsh looking north from Hiscock Road

Plate 2: Brackish Wetland, 92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West


Plate 3: Aquatic Herbland, 92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West

Exotic Vegetation (Pasture)

This terrestrial vegetation is prominent in the northern half of the site and is dominated by pasture

grasses and introduced shrubs (Figure 2). Common pasture grasses include Cocksfoot Dactylis

glomerata, Yorkshire Fog Holcus lanatus, and Perennial Rye-grass Lolium perenne. Other common

exotic species include African Box-thorn Lycium ferocissimum, Prairie Grass Bromus catharticus, Fennel

Foeniculum vulgare and Cleavers Galium aparine. This vegetation supports a very low cover of

indigenous species.

3.2 Landscape context

The wetland within the study area is contiguous with the broader Tootgarook Swamp (otherwise

known as the Boneo Swamp – Wetland 70250 as defined by the DEPI Wetland Index) which extend to

the south and east of the study area.

3.3 Significant species and ecological communities

3.3.1 EPBC Act, FFG Act & DSE Advisory listed species

Lists of significant species recorded or predicted to occur within 5 km of the study area or from the

relevant catchment (aquatic species) are provided in Appendix 1 (flora) and Appendix 2 (fauna). An

assessment of the likelihood of these species occurring in the study area and an indication of where

within the site (i.e. which habitats or features of relevance to the species) is included. A summary of


species recorded or with a medium or higher likelihood of occurring in the study area is provided in

Table 2.

The Biodiversity impact and offset requirement (BI0R) report and the specific-general offset test

conducted by DEPI found the proposed native vegetation removal does not have a proportional

impact on any rare or threatened species’ habitats above the specific offset threshold.

Table 2: Summary of significant species most likely to occur in the study area

Species name Area of value within the study area

EPBC Act listed species

Australasian Bittern Areas of Tall Marsh provide shelter and feeding habitat

for this species. Recorded from the local area, it is

highly likely to utilise the study area.

Australian Painted Snipe All wetland environments present

Listed Migratory Birds: Latham's Snipe,

White-bellied Sea-Eagle, Eastern Great

Egret, Marsh Sandpiper

Various listed migratory species would utilise all of the

wetland habitat present.

Four individuals of Latham's Snipe were recorded at the

site. However no targeted survey for Snipe was

conducted.

FFG Act / DSE Advisory List species

Glossy Grass Skink Margins of wetland habitats present

Swamp Skink Margins of wetland habitats present

Hardhead Areas of Aquatic Herbland

Intermediate Egret All wetland environments present

Australasian Shoveler Areas of Aquatic Herbland

Musk Duck Areas of Aquatic Herbland

Baillon's Crake All wetland environments present

Lewin's Rail All wetland environments present

3.3.2 Significant ecological communities

All of the vegetation communities (EVCs) present are rated by DEPI as endangered within the

Gippsland Plain Bioregion.

The PMST does not identify any EPBC Act listed communities which could potentially occur within the

study area. Also, the composition of the native vegetation present does not correspond to the EPBC

Act listed communities of Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh or Seasonal Herbaceous

Wetlands (Freshwater) of the Temperate Lowland Plains.


3.4 Other ecological values

DEPI mapping of strategic natural values (NaturePrint) identifies part of the site as providing high

contribution of natural values with other areas providing lower contribution although still at the high

end of the scale.

DEPI models describing the habitat for rare or threatened species identify parts of the site as high

contribution habitat for many of the species identified in Table 2, particularly the wetland birds such

as Australasian Bittern and Australian Painted Snipe.

3.5 Further survey recommendations

As the current survey was conducted when the wetlands present were both full and soon after water

had receded, most of the plant species present are likely to have been detected. While additional

fauna surveys could detect a number of the significant species identified in Table 2, records of these

species from the broader area suggests it is highly likely that these species would utilise the study

area, at least on some occasion. As such it is not considered that additional targeted surveys would

provide a greater understanding of the ecological values present or likely to be present.


4. Biodiversity Legislation and Government Policy

This section provides an assessment of the project in relation to key biodiversity legislation and government

policy.

Where available, links to further information are provided. This section does not describe the legislation and

policy in detail and guidance provided here does not constitute legal advice.

4.1 Commonwealth

4.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act applies to developments and associated activities that have the potential to significantly impact

on Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) protected under the Act.

Link for further information including a guide to the referral process is available at: http://www.environment.

gov.au/epbc/index.html

Matters of National Environmental Significance relevant to the project are summarised in Table 3. It includes

an assessment against the EPBC Act policy statements published by the Australian Government which

provide guidance on the practical application of EPBC Act.

Table 3: Assessment of project in relation to the EPBC Act

Matter of NES Project specifics Assessment against Guidelines

Threatened

species and

ecological

communities

41 species have been recorded or predicted

to occur in the project search area. The

likelihood of these species occurring in the

study area is assessed in Appendix 1 (flora)

and Appendix 2 (fauna).

Most of these species are not likely to

occur and development is unlikely to

constitute a significant impact.

However, Australasian Bittern has been

recorded within the broader Tootgarook

Swamp (10 records) mostly dating from

the 1980s with the most recent record

from 1995.

Migratory

species

36 migratory bird species have been

recorded or are listed on the PMST as having

potential to occur in the project search area

(Appendix 2).

While some of these species would be

expected to use the study area on

occasions, and some of them may do so

regularly or may be resident, the study

area (including the proposed

development site) does not provide

important habitat for an ecologically

significant proportion of any of these

species.

Wetlands of

international

importance

(Ramsar sites)

The study area is identified as being within

the catchment of one Ramsar site: Port

Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine

Peninsula.

The study area is within the catchment of

this Ramsar site however the

development is not likely to result in a

significant impact on it


On the basis of potential for significant impacts on NES, the EPBC Act is likely to be triggered and referral of

the proposed action to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment is recommended.

4.2 State

4.2.1 Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act)

The FFG Act is Victorian legislation aimed at the conservation of threatened species and communities and for

the management of potentially threatening processes. Under the FFG Act a permit is required from DSE to

'take' protected flora species from public land. A permit is generally not required for removal of protected

flora from private land. Authorisation under the FFG Act is required to collect, kill, injure or disturb listed fish.

Link for further information: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment-and-wildlife/threatened-species-and-

communities/flora-and-fauna-guarantee-act-1988

Native vegetation on site is not a listed community, and does not contain any listed threatened flora species

or habitat for them (Appendix 1). However the site does provide habitat for listed fauna species.

The land is privately owned, is not declared ‘critical habitat’ for the purposes of the FFG Act, and the flora

species are not being taken for the purpose of commercial sale. Therefore a protected flora permit is not

required. However the presence of habitat for threatened fauna will be considered by the Responsible

Authority in determining its response to an application for vegetation clearance under Clause 52.17 (see

below).

4.2.2 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act)

The CaLP Act identifies and classifies certain species as noxious weeds or pest animals, and provides a system

of controls on noxious species.

Eight declared noxious weeds were identified in the study area and are listed in Appendix 1.

The proponent/land owner must take all reasonable steps to eradicate regionally prohibited weeds, prevent

the growth and spread of regionally controlled weeds, and prevent the spread of and as far as possible

eradicate established pest animals. The State is responsible for eradicating State prohibited weeds from all

land in Victoria.

Link for further information: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/pests-diseases-and-weeds

4.2.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987 (incl. Planning Schemes)

The Planning and Environment Act 1987 controls the planning and development of land in Victoria, and

provides for the development of planning schemes for all municipalities.

Reforms to the native vegetation permitted clearing regulations were gazetted on 20 December 2013 through

planning scheme amendment VC105. The reforms made changes to the Victoria Planning Provisions

including the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF), Clause 52.16 and 52.17 of all planning schemes within

Victoria.

Of particular relevance to the development proposed are controls relating to the removal, destruction or

lopping of native vegetation contained within the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme (the Scheme),

including permit requirements. The Scheme (Clause 72) defines ‘native vegetation’ as 'Plants that are

indigenous to Victoria, including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses'. It is an objective of Clause 12.01-2 of the

SPPF (Native Vegetation Management) that permitted clearing of native vegetation results in no net loss in the

contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity. For more information on these reforms


refer to www.depi.vic.gov.au/nativevegetation. An assessment of the proposed development in relation to

the Guidelines is provided in Section 5.

Clause 52.17 (Native Vegetation) requires a planning permit to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation

including some dead native vegetation. None of the exemptions identified in the relevant table of

exemptions (Clause 52.17-6) apply to this site. Clause 52.17 does not apply if a Native Vegetation Precinct

Plan corresponding to the land is incorporated in the Planning Scheme. This does not appear to be the case

for this property.

Clause 65.02 requires consideration of native vegetation retention in a subdivision application and siting of

open space areas.

Under Clause 66.02 a permit application to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation is required to be referred

to DEPI as a recommending referral authority if the area of native vegetation to be removed is greater than 5

hectares, or the class of application is in the high risk-based pathway, or where a property vegetation precinct

plan applies to the site, or the native vegetation is on Crown land occupied or managed by the Responsible

Authority.

The need for a permit to remove native vegetation may also be triggered by the Environmental Significance

Overlay within the Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme. The location of overlays in relation to the study

area can be determined via the following link: http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/index.html. The

provisions of the following overlays apply to the study area:

Environmental Significance Overlay 19 (ESO19) covers the entire study area. The schedule states the

environmental significance of areas covered by ESO 19 as follows:

"The areas of alluvial plain and reclaimed swamp on the Mornington Peninsula, which support characteristic

vegetation communities, are an integral element of the environmental systems that support biodiversity. These areas

may have limited drainage capacity."

While no additional permit requirements apply the objectives of the overlay are to:

• protect the stability and environmental values of alluvial plains and reclaimed swamp with

characteristic vegetation communities.

• avoid contamination of ground water and the degradation of significant habitat areas.

• limit development within environmentally sensitive areas.

Relevant decision guidelines include:

• The environmental objectives of this schedule.

• Whether there is any reasonable alternative site for the proposed buildings and works outside of the

overlay area, or any alternative land management or construction practices, that would better meet

the objectives of this schedule.

• Whether substantial change or detriment will be caused to the stability, vegetation, water quality or

habitat values of the area.

• The protection of alluvial plains and reclaimed swamps for their environmental and scientific value.

• The potential for flooding to occur, and whether the proposed development will impose any

additional flooding or drainage risk or constraints over land in the vicinity.

While the proposed subdivision is consistent with the underlying zone (RZ1) some of the native vegetation

within the property would need to be cleared to produce the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is

restricted to the area zoned residential and would limit clearing to 2.629 ha of native vegetation or about 11%


of the native vegetation within the property. The balance of the native vegetation is proposed to be protected

for conservation and vested with council to be managed as an offset area. This would protect a high

proportion of that vegetation in line with the objectives of the ESO. This could be assessed as a substantial

positive outcome for the protection of the native vegetation present and result in significant protection for

this wetland area.

Victoria's Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines

The Guidelines are incorporated into the Victoria Planning Provisions and all planning schemes in Victoria

(DEPI 2013). These Guidelines replace the Victoria's Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action

(NRE 2002).

The purpose of the Guidelines is to guide how impacts on biodiversity should be considered when assessing a

permit application to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation. The objective for permitted clearing of native

vegetation in Victoria is 'No net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria's biodiversity'.

A detailed assessment of the implications for the project under the Guidelines is provided in Section 5 of this

report. Under the Guidelines, there are three risk-based pathways for assessing an application for a permit to

remove native vegetation:

• low risk

• moderate risk

• high risk

A detailed determination of the risk-based pathway for the planning application relevant to the proposed

development is provided in Section 5.3.2. In summary, the planning application for removal of native

vegetation must meet the requirements of, and be assessed in, the moderate risk based pathway. A

biodiversity assessment report identifying the approximate area of native vegetation to be lost and the

relevant details associated with the assessment pathway is provided in Appendix 3.

4.2.4 Wildlife Act 1975 and associated Regulations

The Wildlife Act 1975 (Wildlife Act) is the primary piece of legislation in Victoria providing for protection and

management of wildlife. The Wildlife Act does not apply to fish, as defined under the Fisheries Act 1995.

The Wildlife Regulations 2002 prescribe penalties for persons who wilfully damage, disturb or destroy any

wildlife habitat without appropriate authorisation. DEPI advises that a planning permit (under the planning

scheme) constitutes appropriate authorisation and therefore the habitat protection provisions under the

Wildlife Regulations 2002 are not applicable once a planning permit has been granted for this project.

4.2.5 Environmental Effects Act

The Environment Effects Act 1978 establishes a process to assess the environmental impacts of a project. If

applicable, the Act requires that an Environment Effects Statement (EES) be prepared by the proponent. The

EES is submitted to the Minister for Planning to enable assessment of the potential environmental effects of

the proposed development.

The general objective of the assessment process is to provide for the transparent, integrated and timely

assessment of the environmental effects of projects capable of having a significant effect on the environment (DSE

2006).

The ‘Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978’

(DSE 2006a) provide a range of criteria that can be used to determine whether an EES may be required for a

project. These criteria relate to individual potential environmental effects and a combination of (two or more)


potential environmental effects. As the proposed loss of native vegetation is less than 10 ha it is considered

unlikely that the proposed development would be subject to an EES.

However, the guidelines are not binding, and the decision as to whether an EES is required is ultimately at the

discretion of the Minister for Planning.

4.2.6 Water Act 1989

The primary purpose of the Water Act 1989 is to provide a framework for the allocation and management of

surface water and groundwater throughout Victoria. It provides a principal mechanism for maintenance of

ecosystem functions including those of aquatic ecosystems. Under By-Laws created by the relevant Authority

under the Act, the authorities regulate the works within and in the vicinity of waterways. In Melbourne

Water's management area this applies to all waterways with a catchment area of 60 ha or more. These

waterways are deemed to be Melbourne Water assets, while all smaller watercourses are deemed the

responsibility of the local government.

The proposed development will involve construction or maintenance activities that may affect waterways

through increased or decreased surface run off. Development within the study area will require a permit

from Melbourne Water. Guidelines and application forms can be obtained from Melbourne Water's Asset

Service team.

For developments within Melbourne Water's management area that entail the provision of new drainage

infrastructure, approval for works on waterways is covered under the Agreement process set out in the Land

Development Manual (http://ldm.melbournewater.com.au/content/introduction/introduction.asp.

4.2.7 Environment Protection Act 1970: State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria)

2003

The Environment Protection Act underpins the State Environmental Protection Policy (SEPP) – Waters of

Victoria which provides a legal framework for the protection and rehabilitation of Victoria’s surface water

environments.

The project may directly and/or indirectly impact upon a river and its aquatic ecosystems. The SEPP requires

that aquatic ecosystem values be protected. Environmental quality objectives and indicators are defined to

protect beneficial uses (i.e. the uses and values of the water environment) and an attainment program

provides guidance on protection of the beneficial uses.

Impacts to surface water quality must not result in changes that exceed background levels and/or the water

quality objectives specified for the Cleared Hills and Coastal Plains segment to protect surface water uses and

values. The proponent needs to ensure that direct and indirect (e.g. runoff) impacts to surface water quality

do not exceed the background levels and/or water quality objectives.

Link to further information: http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/water/epa/wov.asp.

4.2.8 Revegetation Plan Enforcement Order

A VCAT Enforcement Order was issued in 2011for illegal vegetation clearance at the site (VCAT Reference No.

P2811/2010). The reported clearing included broad area slashing of the vegetation present resulting in the

cutting of large areas dominated by Common Reed and subsequent pasture improvement, including the

sowing of rye grass Lolium spp. and application of fertilizer (Mornington Peninsula Shire Council 2012).

Council also indicated that indigenous shrubs had been removed from the Chinamans Creek environs.

The Enforcement Order requires the preparation of a Re-vegetation Plan. The VCAT Order requires a specific

re-vegetation area to be nominated within the site although the order does not specify that the entire site


must be revegetated. However, Council has advised that while the VCAT Order allows for a designated Re-

vegetation area, a weed management schedule must be prepared for the entire site.

A draft revegetation plan was prepared by Water Technology (2011) but was never finalised after comments

were made by Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (2012).

The illegal clearing and pasture improvements were only possible when much of the site was dry. However

while the slashing, herbicide application and pasture improvements clearly had an impact on the sites

vegetation this impact appears to have been largely temporary.

Observations in association with the Biosis assessments Indicate the site was largely inundated between

September 2013 and January 2014. The extent of inundation in September 2013 suggests that the site had

already been inundated for a prolonged period. Given the extent and condition of native vegetation

observed, it is considered unlikely that clearing activities have had a significant impact on the species

composition of these wetlands.

Wetland vegetation is relatively resilient to superficial disturbance such as slashing and shallow soil

disturbance. The recent inundation has allowed the dominant species normally associated with all the

wetland vegetation types present to regenerate and develop to their full stature. It is most likely that only any

clearing of larger shrubs such as Swamp Paperbark Melaleuca ericifolia and Woolly Tea-tree Leptospermum

lanigerum or large perennial tussocks such as Coast Saw-sedge Gahnia trifida would have resulted in a lasting

loss of native species and vegetation structure. The extent of any such losses, if any is not well documented.

The vegetation mapping provided by Water Technology (2011) compares the vegetation observed with

mapping prepared by Practical Ecology (2006). Comparison with the current mapping suggests there has

been some reduction in the extent of the area Biosis has identified as Habitat Zone 5.

Practical Ecology (2006) also identified an area of Plains Grassland (their patch 3, coloured red). Reports

prepared by Practical Ecology (2006) and Water Technology (2011) were not provided to Biosis before our

field inspection and therefore the impact of the reported clearing on this area of Plains Grassland was not

determined. At the time of the Biosis assessment this area had been slashed and the dominant species

identified for this community (Common Tussock-grass Poa labillardierei) was not identified as a patch of native

grassland. As the patch of grassland was recorded both pre and post clearing, the clearing presumably did

not remove this area of native vegetation. It may once again regenerate as this dry-land area regenerates

from slashing. However the Water Technology assessment is problematic as it allocated the understorey

component of the habitat score as zero, which suggests a patch was not present. The available photos of this

vegetation, the lists of species recorded and Practical Ecology (2006) suggests this vegetation was of low

species richness and in poor condition.

With the filling of the wetland prior to this assessment, the great majority (80% or 23.98 ha of the 29.84 ha

property) of the site is covered by vigorous native vegetation, generally with a low cover of exotic species.

This suggests that any clearing conducted on the site did not involve any significant soil disturbance which

would otherwise be required to result in the permanent loss of at least some of the native species present.

The wetland vegetation present appears to occupy all areas typically subject to periodic inundation. As a

result no direct revegetation works are considered necessary as the site has regenerated naturally. Biosis

would therefore recommend that no actions are required to allow the vegetation to return to its pre-

disturbance condition other than weed control works targeting invasive exotic species. Any weed control

works within the wetland vegetation would only need to be limited in extent as these wetland communities

support quite low weed levels when inundated. Flooding is therefore an efficient weed control mechanism.

When dry these wetland communities are likely to support a high cover of exotic primary colonisers such as

pasture grasses, thistles and other wind dispersed exotics such as Aster-weed Aster subulatus and Ox-tongue

Helminthotheca echioides. The control of such species is unlikely to influence the species composition of these


wetlands when they are inundated. However, the control of invasive exotic wetland species such as Jointed

Rush Juncus articulatus and Spiny Rush Juncus acutus, which are currently relative rare on site would be

ecologically beneficial as these species have the potential to dominated parts of the site and otherwise

exclude indigenous wetland species.

Other noxious species present within the site, such as Blackberry Rubus fruticosus spp. agg., African Box-thorn

Lycium ferocissimum, Fennel Foeniculum vulgare and Paterson's Curse Echium plantagineum, are terrestrial

species and typically restricted to elevated areas which are dominated by non-native vegetation. A

reasonable effort to control the spread of these species is already a requirement of the CaLP Act.

Any weed control works would be conducted in a rigorous and systematic manner if the site is managed as

an offset area.


5. Victoria's Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines

The Guidelines describe three strategies for ensuring the objective for permitted clearing of native vegetation

is achieved at the permit level. These are:

• avoiding the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria's

biodiversity

• minimising impacts to Victoria's biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation

• where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensuring it is offset in a manner that makes a

contribution to Victoria's biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native

vegetation to be removed.

DEPI has provided biodiversity information tools to assist with determining the contribution that the native

vegetation within the study area makes to Victoria's biodiversity.

The biodiversity information tools have two components:

• site based-information which is observable at a particular site

• landscape scale information which requires consideration of information beyond the site.

The following section assesses the contribution that the native vegetation within the study area makes to

Victoria's biodiversity.

Note: a glossary of terms used in relation to the Guidelines and the DEPI output reports is provided in

Appendix 3. In addition, any offset prescription identified in association with a permit that approves the

clearing of native vegetation must be secured prior to the start of that development.

5.1 Site based information

The extent of native vegetation patches were mapped within the study area (Figure 2) and the condition was

assessed in relation to standard methods (DSE 2004). The condition of native vegetation was assessed using

the DSE Vegetation Quality Assessment Sheet (DSE 2004) and pre-determined EVC benchmarks:

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-

bioregion. The condition score of the patch is multiplied by the extent of the patch to give a value in habitat

hectares.

For practicality, a standard condition score and extent is applied to each scattered tree based on the habitat

hectares method. Scattered trees are defined as mature indigenous canopy trees that are in a location with

little or no native understorey. A canopy tree is a mature tree that is greater than three metres in height and

is normally found in the upper layer of a vegetation type. Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) descriptions

provide a list of the typical canopy species.

As no scattered trees are present within the study area this component of the assessment process is not

considered further.

For the purposes of this assessment the limit of the resolution for the habitat hectare assessment process is

taken to be 0.01 habitat hectares (Hha). That is, if native vegetation is present with sufficient cover but its

condition and extent would not result in the identification of at least 0.01 habitat hectares then that

vegetation will not be mapped or assessed as a separate habitat zone. Areas of uniform quality for each EVC

within the patches are termed ‘habitat zones’ and assessed separately.


5.1.1 Habitat Hectares

A total of four habitat zones are identified (Figure 2). The results of the condition assessment are provided in

Table 4, with the number of habitat hectares in each habitat zone.

Table 4: Habitat hectares of native vegetation within the study area

Habitat Zone 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL

Bioregion Gippsland Plain

EVC Name Tall

Marsh

Aquatic

Herbland

Brackish

Wetland

Brackish

Wetland

Brackish

Wetland

EVC Number 821 653 656 656 656

EVC Bioregional Conservation Status Endangered

Max Score Score Score Score Score Score

Co

nd

itio

n S

co

re

Large Old Trees 10 NA NA NA NA NA

Canopy Cover 5 NA NA NA NA NA

Lack of Weeds 15 13 15 11 7 4

Understorey 25 20 20 15 15 15

Recruitment 10 10 10 10 10 10

Organic Matter 5 3 5 3 3 3

Logs 5 NA NA NA NA NA

Total Site Score 46 50 39 35 32

EVC standardiser (x 75/55) 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36

Adjusted Condition Score 62.7 68.2 53.2 47.7 43.6

Landscape Score 25 16 16 16 16 16

Habitat points = #/100 100 78.7 84.2 69.2 63.7 59.6

HABITAT SCORE 1 0.79 0.84 0.69 0.64 0.60

Habitat Zone extent (ha) 18.14 2.52 0.141 1.249 1.927 23.98

Habitat Hectares (Hha) 14.33 2.17 0.10 0.80 1.16 18.56

Summary of habitat hectares within study area

In summary, the study area supports 23.98 land hectares of native vegetation comprising 18.56 habitat

hectares.


5.2 Landscape scale information

5.2.2 Strategic biodiversity score

The strategic biodiversity score is derived using a spatial prioritization tool that ranks locations in Victoria for

their conservation priority on the basis of rarity and level of depletion of the Ecological Vegetation Class and

species habitats, and the condition and connectivity of vegetation. Strategic biodiversity scores for the native

vegetation within the study area are derived from the NVIM and are provided in Table 5 and otherwise

detailed in Appendix 3.

Table 5: Strategic biodiversity scores of habitat zones proposed for clearing within the study area

DEPI Habitat Zone Strategic Biodiversity Score

1 (HZ 5 in this report) 0.722

2 (Part of HZ 1 in this

report)

0.832


report)

0.729


report)

0.798

Minimum requirement for offset: 0.589

5.2.3 Habitat importance score

Habitat importance score is a measure of the importance of a location in the landscape as habitat for a

particular rare or threatened species in relation to other suitable habitat for that species (DEPI 2013). Only

species listed as threatened or rare under the DEPI Advisory lists (DSE 2005, 2007) are considered. The term

'threatened' is used to describe species that are classified as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered.

Species classified as data deficient or near threatened are not considered to be 'threatened' (DSE 2013). The

term 'rare' has application for flora species only (DSE 2005).

Only native vegetation that is habitat for rare or threatened species is assigned a habitat importance score.

The habitat is divided into two categories depending on area of occupancy: dispersed habitat, or highly

localised habitat. The habitat importance score is calculated differently for each of these groups.

The score is generated by DEPI's Habitat importance mapping of the study area. No habitat importance

scores were generated by DEPI for the proposed clearing as only a general offset is required. However the

proposed offset area does provided habitat for rare or threatened species and the habitat importance scores

for this area are presented in Table 6.

5.3 Proposed removal of native vegetation

The proposed removal of native vegetation is assessed in accordance with the concept design provided. It is

proposed to remove 1.720 habitat hectares as shown in Table 7.

5.3.2 Determining the risk-based pathway

To determine the risk based pathway for the permit application, two factors are considered: location risk

and extent risk.


Table 6: Habitat importance scores of Biodiversity Class Areas within the study area*

Biodiversity

Class Area

Dispersed

habitat

Overall habitat

importance

score

Strategic

Biodiversity

score

1 All Species 0.666-0.778 0.748

2 All Species 0.668-0.796 0.742

3 All Species 0.673-0.823 0.780

4 All Species 0.700-0.830 0.776

5 All Species 0.719-0.850 0.892

6 All Species 0.684-08.00 0.855

7 All Species 0.677-0.814 0.783

8 All Species 0.734-0.840 0.831

9 All Species 0.735-0.838 0.783

* outputs provided by DEPI native vegetation support team

Table 7: Summary of habitat hectares to be removed

Source Ecological Vegetation Class Habitat hectares (Hha) to

be removed

Habitat Zone 1 Tall Marsh 0.594

Habitat Zone 2 Aquatic Herbland 0.00

Habitat Zone 3 Brackish Wetland 0.00



TOTAL 1.720

Location risk has been pre-determined by DEPI for all locations in Victoria. The location of a particular site is

determined using the Native vegetation location risk map available in the Native Vegetation Information

Management (NVIM) system (http://nvim.depi.vic.gov.au).

Extent risk is based on the extent of native vegetation proposed to be removed and is determined with

reference to:

• the area of any remnant patches of native vegetation proposed to be removed

• the number of any scattered trees proposed to be removed.


Subject to final design, the proposed development will require the removal of approximately 2.628 ha of

native vegetation, with the associated retention of 21.351 ha of native vegetation. The study area is in

Location A (Appendix 3), and because of the extent of vegetation proposed for removal, the application for

removal of this native vegetation is likely to be assessed using the moderate risk-based pathway. These

requirements are provided in Appendix 3.

The proposed removal of native vegetation is assessed in detail in Section 0 and summarised below.

5.4 Offsetting the loss of native vegetation

In order to ensure a gain to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the loss resulting from permitted

clearing of native vegetation, compensatory offsets are required. Losses and gains are measured in

biodiversity equivalence scores or units.

Under the Guidelines any losses of vegetation within sites that are assessed under the low risk-based

pathway can be offset by the provision of a 'general offset'. The specific-general offset test will determine if a

general offset, specific offset or combination of both is required for moderate and high risk-based pathway

applications.

Note that at this point in time offset prescriptions required under the moderate and high risk assessment

pathways can only be provided by DEPI. The proposed development footprint submitted to DEPI for

assessment is outlined in Figure 3.

5.4.2 Specific-general offset test

As the risk-based pathway is moderate, and the vegetation to be removed provides habitat for rare or

threatened species, the specific-general offset test must be applied. Where a site is habitat for a particular

rare or threatened species, the specific-general offset test measures the proportion of a species habitat that

will be lost if the removal of native vegetation is permitted.

The specific-general offset test is undertaken for each relevant species. First the specific biodiversity

equivalence score for each rare or threatened species that the native vegetation is habitat for is determined.

The specific biodiversity equivalence score for a particular species is then divided by the sum of the specific

biodiversity equivalence scores across all remaining habitat for that species. This gives the proportion of the

remaining habitat for the species that is to be to removed, weighted by its importance for that species.

When the native vegetation to be removed is a proportion of habitat for a rare or threatened species that is

greater than the specific offset threshold, a specific offset is required for that species. A specific offset is

required for a rare or threatened species when the proposed clearing exceeds the DEPI nominated impact

threshold (nominally 0.005% of habitat).

For the proposed clearing at Elizabeth Avenue the specific-general offset test determined that the proposed

removal of native vegetation will not have a proportional impact on any rare or threatened species habitats

above the specific offset threshold (0.005%). No specific offsets are identified and therefore no discussion

relating to such offsets is provided by this report.

5.4.3 General offsets

The size of the general offset is determined by calculating the general biodiversity equivalence score of the

vegetation to be removed.

RosebudWest

Shea

rwate

r Pl

Twen

tieth

Av Twenty First Av

Golf Links Dr

Hiscock Rd

Sanctuary Park Dr

Howqua Dr

Lyme Ct

Fortie

th Av

Clubhouse Dr

Silver Wattle Cl

StE lm os Cl

Thirty

Seve

nthAv

Elizabeth Av

Thirty

Eigh

th Av

Corsa

ir Rdg

e

Gannett Av

Ruyton Dr

Chinamans Creek

HZ51.875 ha

HZ10.003 ha

HZ10.266 ha

HZ10.483 ha

0 30 60 90 120 150

Metres

±Matter: 16893, Date: 05 March 2014, Checked by: SGM, Drawn by: SKM, Last edited by: smitchellLocation:P:\16800s\16893\Mapping\16893_Fig3_EVC_impacts

Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Melbourne,

Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

Scale: 1:3,000 @ A3

Figure 3: Impact on nativevegetation by the proposeddevelopment footprint,Elizabeth Avenue, RosebudWest, Victoria.

Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Acknowledgements: Vicmap© State of Victoria

LegendProposed development footprint

Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC)653 Aquatic Herbland656 Brackish Wetland821 Tall MarshStudyArea


The general biodiversity equivalence score is calculated as the product of two characteristics of the native

vegetation to be cleared:

• site based condition and extent measured in habitat hectares

• the 'strategic biodiversity score' of the vegetation which provides a landscape scale assessment of the

vegetation's' importance to Victoria's biodiversity; the strategic biodiversity score is provided via the

NVIM.

These characteristics are combined to obtain an overall measure of the contribution to biodiversity that is lost

from removing native vegetation. The same units are used to quantity vegetation offset requirements where

the biodiversity equivalence score provides a measure of the contribution to biodiversity that is gained from

securing and managing an offset.

The NVIM was used to calculate a general biodiversity equivalence score ranging between 0.002 and 0.812 for

the native vegetation proposed to be removed. The NVIM generated report is included in Appendix 3.

General offset requirements are calculated as the product of the general biodiversity equivalence score and

an 'offset risk factor'. The offset risk factor adjusts the offset to adequately accommodate the risk that an

offset may fail to make the required contribution to Victoria's biodiversity. For low risk-based pathway

assessments the offset risk factor is set at 1.5.

Therefore the general offset requirement for the proposed removal of native vegetation is 1.909 biodiversity

equivalence units.

The offset must have the required attributes:

• a strategic biodiversity score of at least 80 per cent of the strategic biodiversity score of the clearing

site

• be located in the same Catchment Management Authority (CMA) boundary or municipal district as

the native vegetation to be removed.

• Summary of general offset requirements

• Should a permit be granted to remove the native vegetation within the proposed development

footprint (Figure 3), the offset requirement is 1.909 general biodiversity equivalence units. The

strategic biodiversity score of the offset should be at least 0.589. The offset must be located in the

Port Phillip and Westernport CMA boundary or the Mornington Peninsula municipal district (if that

district extends outside of the CMA).

5.4.4 Suitability for On-site offsets

The ability for the 21.356 ha of retained native vegetation to provide some or all of the offset prescription is

governed by a set of site eligibility criteria (DEPI 2013). For all first party offsets (i.e. property within the same

ownership as the development resulting in the offset prescription) the Responsible Authority will check and

confirm a site's eligibility.

An area of native vegetation is eligible to be an offset if there are no current or future land use(s) identified

that are incompatible with managing native vegetation for conservation. This includes requirements for

bushfire suppression, infrastructure easements, road reserves, extractive industries works approvals etc.

(DEPI 2013). Land must also not have already been used to offset the clearance of native vegetation or

species habitat required by Victorian regulations. Any other significant threats beyond the landowners

control may also exclude a site from being eligible including dieback, erosion, salinity, significant infestations

of pest animals etc. (DEPI 2013: Section 3). Any offset area must be able to be secured for conservation by a

legally enforceable agreement.


Given an appropriate development design acceptable to the Responsible Authority, Biosis considers that the

majority of the native vegetation proposed to be retained within an area of about 20 ha not proposed for

development at 92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West, would be eligible to provide for the offset prescription

associated with the development approval. A small section of the property zoned Public Use Zone 4 (1.4 ha),

which appears to be allocated for the potential development of an extension to the Mornington Peninsula

Freeway, is unlikely to be acceptable as a contribution to an offset site. The total offset potential of the

proposed offset area would need to be recalculated based on any determination by the responsible authority

as to the acceptability of the extent of the proposed on-site offset area.

5.4.5 Offset Potential

Land outside of the proposed development footprint (about 24 ha identified in Figure 3) could be protected

and legally secured as an offset area (with the exclusion of potential stormwater treatment areas within exotic

vegetation south of the development footprint and the potential exclusion of the area of 1.4 ha of PUZ4 in the

south eastern corner of the site). The extent and condition of the 21.356 ha of native vegetation within the

entire proposed offset site was supplied to DEPI and the offset site report is provided in Appendix 3.

The native vegetation present within the proposed offset site has the potential to generate the following

offsets:

• 6.325 general biodiversity equivalence units

• 6.425 specific units* of habitat for Eastern Curlew

• 6.393 specific units* of habitat for Dwarf Galaxias

• 6.204 specific units* of habitat for Swamp Skink

• 5.877 specific units* of habitat for White-bellied Sea-Eagle

• 5.802 specific units* of habitat for Wood Sandpiper

• 5.549 specific units* of habitat for Freckled Duck

• 5.524 specific units* of habitat for Little Egret

• 5.335 specific units* of habitat for Leafy Twig-sedge

• 5.242 specific units* of habitat for Glossy Grass Skink

• 5.099 specific units* of habitat for Orange-bellied Parrot

• 4.900 specific units* of habitat for Salt Lawrencia

• 3.160 specific units* of habitat for Black-tailed Godwit

• 1.530 specific units* of habitat for Marsh Saltbush

*Note that some biodiversity equivalence units may be alternates. The use of any biodiversity equivalence

units of one type within a BCA will result in a proportional reduction in biodiversity equivalence units of other

types within that BCA.

Note that any storm water infrastructure confined to areas of non-native vegetation in the north of the offset

site would need to be excluded from any formally defined offset area. However this would not impact on the

offset potential of the retained native vegetation. The exclusion of about 1.4 ha of native vegetation (about

6.6%) associated with the south eastern corner of the property would be expected to proportionally reduce

the total GBEU available (6.325 GBEU) as determined by DEPI. This equates to a decrease of 0.415 GBEU.


6. Key Ecological Values and Recommendations

This section identifies the key ecological features of the study area, provides an outline of potential

implications of proposed development on those values and includes recommendations to assist Beveridge

Williams, acting on behalf of Watermark Village Pty Ltd, to finalise a development design to minimise impacts

on biodiversity.

The primary measure to reduce impacts to biodiversity values within the study area is to minimise removal of

native vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic habitats. It is critical that this be considered during the design

phase of the project, when key decisions are made about the location of major roads and services, parks and

housing areas. The results of this assessment should therefore be incorporated into the project design, by

adding the flora and fauna mapping information into the planning maps and investigating options to retain as

much of the mapped vegetation/habitats as possible. Priority should be given to highest value areas and

retaining larger areas in preference to numerous smaller ones.

The design phase is also the time during which future requirements for infrastructure and services must be

forecast and allowance made outside any nominated reserves for all construction works, such as road

batters, footpaths, drainage and services (including optic fibre). All areas of vegetation/habitat nominated in

the design plan as 'retained' are to be treated as no-go zones and are not to be encroached upon as

development progresses.

A summary of potential implications of development within the study area and recommendations to

minimise impacts during the design phase of the project is provided in Table 8.

Construction and post-construction management

Specific detail relating to preventing impacts to retained native vegetation and aquatic and terrestrial habitat

should be addressed in a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan. This will include issues

relating to contractors such as environmental inductions, installation of temporary fencing/signage, drainage

and sediment control.

An Ecological Management Plan should be prepared by an ecological consultant to provide detailed advice on

the ongoing protection and long-term management of retained vegetation/ habitat, creation of linkages and

other habitat features such as wetlands, if proposed.

Retained native vegetation will be subject to permanent legal protection and the implementation of an

ecological management plan consistent with the requirements of DEPI (2013 – gain scoring manual).


Table 8: Summary of key ecological values, potential implications of developing the study area

and recommendations to minimise ecological impacts during the design phase

Ecological feature

(Figure 2)

Implications of development Recommendations

Native vegetation Permanent removal of up to 1.719 habitat

hectares of vegetation.

Removal of habitat for EPBC Act listed

significant species including:

Australasian Bittern

Latham's Snipe

Avoid and minimise removal of native

vegetation, in accordance with the

Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines.

Identify and implement appropriate

offsets for vegetation losses as outlined in

Section 5.4. There is an opportunity to

provide all offsets on site.

Areas of retained native vegetation in the

south of the property would require

permanent reservation and the

preparation of an offset management plan

for this vegetation to function as a first

party offset site.

Other habitat

features

Removal of known/potential habitat for

significant fauna species (as identified in

Table 2).

Loss of, or alterations to, wetland habitat

within the study area via: direct removal,

potential hydrological changes,

deterioration in water quality (including

pollution event) and sedimentation.

Avoid/minimise removal of wetland habitat

by designing to avoid or minimise impacts

on areas of native vegetation identified in

Figure 2.

Place any stormwater treatment/retention

wetlands outside areas of retained

vegetation.

Protect key values (including waterways)

by retaining features and including

appropriate buffers into design.

Design the development with a road

interface to retained vegetation rather

than rear lot boundaries to provide an

additional buffer from adjacent land uses.

Habitat

connectivity

Removal of vegetation / habitat that

forms part of a broader area of native

vegetation.

The vegetation proposed for clearing is on

the margin of a broader area of wetland

habitat. The overall habitat connectivity of

the broader wetland would therefore not

be impacted although smaller areas of

native vegetation may have reduced

longer term viability.


References

Biosis 2014. Addendum to flora and fauna assessment report for 92 Elizabeth Avenue Rosebud West: Aquatic

fauna assessment. Report to Beveridge and Williams. Author: Anthony Steelcable. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne.

Project no. 16893.

DEPI 2013a. Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity assessment guidelines. Victorian Government

Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne.

DEPI 2013b. Native vegetation gain scoring manual – Version 1. Victorian Government Department of

Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne.

DNRE 2002. Victoria's Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action. Victorian Government

Department of Natural Resources & Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE 2004. Native Vegetation: Sustaining a living landscape. Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – Guidelines for

applying the habitat hectares scoring method. Version 1.3. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability &

Environment, Melbourne.

DSE 2005. Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2005. Victorian Government Department of

Sustainability & Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE 2006. Ministerial Guidelines for Assessment of Environmental Effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978.

Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

DSE 2013. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013. Victorian Government Department of

Environment & Primary Industries, Melbourne.

DSE 2007. Native Vegetation – Guide for assessment of referred planning permit applications. Victorian

Government Department of Sustainability & Environment, East Melbourne.

Practical Ecology 2006. Flora and Fauna Assessment Elizabeth Avenue Rosebud West.

Water Technology 2011. Revegetation Plan Elizabeth Avenue Rosebud West. Report for Watermark Village Pty.

Ltd. Author S. Hamilton, Water Technology, Wangaratta. Project J1143-03.

Date post:	07-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Biodiversity Assessment: 92 Elizabeth Avenue, Rosebud West

Documents