AMENDMENT GC28 TO THE WHITTLESEA AND MITCHELL SHIRE ... · Monteleone Family Suite 5 61–63...

Monteleone Family

Suite 5 61–63 Camberwell Road, Hawthorn, VIC 3123

P.O. Box 337, Camberwell, VIC 3124 Ph. (03) 9815 2111

Fax. (03) 9815 2685

May 2016

Report No. 16038 (1.1)

AMENDMENT GC28 TO THE WHITTLESEA

AND MITCHELL SHIRE PLANNING SCHEMES

EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT OF

MALCOLM WRIGHT

Amendment GC28 – Whittlesea/Mitchell Planning Schemes – M Wright Expert Evidence Report No. 16038 (1.1)

Page | i

CONTENTS

1. WITNESS INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 1

1.1. Expert witness information ...................................................................................... 1

1.2. Declaration ............................................................................................................... 1

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2

2.1. Scope of work ........................................................................................................... 2

2.2. Work undertaken ..................................................................................................... 2

3. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................... 4

3.1. Natural waterways – Monteleone land................................................................... 4

3.2. Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area 34 ........................................................... 5

3.2.1. Existing information and conditions ............................................................... 5

3.2.2. Growling Grass Frog habitat draft design and construction standards ....... 7

3.2.3. Proposed Growling Grass Frog habitat ........................................................... 9

4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 11

5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 13


Page | 1

1. WITNESS INFORMATION

1.1. Expert witness information

Malcolm David Wright

Brett Lane & Associates Pty Ltd

Suite 5, 61-63 Camberwell Road

Hawthorn East VIC 3123

Mal Wright has extensive expertise in terrestrial ecology and related legislation and

policies. His qualifications and experience are summarised in Appendix 1.

1.2. Declaration

I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters

of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the

Panel.

Signed:

Malcolm David Wright

Senior Ecologist

Brett Lane & Associates Pty Ltd

Suite 5, 61–63 Camberwell Road

Hawthorn East VIC 3123

9th May 2016


Page | 2

2. INTRODUCTION

Brett Lane & Associates Pty Ltd undertook an investigation of elements identified in the

Donnybrook Woodstock Precinct Structure Plan (PSP) which relate to Growling Grass Frog

habitat and water management on land owned by the Monteleone Family at 895 & 915

Donnybrook Road, Donnybrook.

This investigation was undertaken at the request of Rigby Cooke Lawyers on behalf of the

Monteleone Family, the Proponent. The property is covered by proposed Amendment

GC28 to the Whittlesea and Mitchell Planning Scheme which relates to the Donnybrook

Woodstock PSP.

2.1. Scope of work

Brett Lane and Associates were engaged to review a proposed alternative Lockerbie East

Development Services Scheme (DSS) prepared by Engeny Water Management, contained

in their expert evidence Donnybrook Springs – Drainage Infrastructure Report (Engeny

2016) and investigate the following aspects of this alternative proposal:

The replacement of open channels identified in the Donnybrook Woodstock PSP and

draft Melbourne Water DSS with underground pipes; and

The co-location of an additional retarding basin with Growling Grass Frog habitat

ponds in a section of Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area 34 on adjacent land at

855 & 875 Donnybrook Road, Donnybrook.

The work undertaken to prepare this evidence is described in the next section.

2.2. Work undertaken

Existing information was reviewed, including:

Donnybrook Woodstock Precinct Structure Plan (November 2015);

Draft Development Services Strategy (DSS) for the Donnybrook Woodstock PSP

prepared by Melbourne Water;

Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP 2016) – a database administered by DELWP

containing records of flora and fauna species throughout Victoria;

Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis) Habitat Assessment and Targeted Surveys

across Melbourne’s Extended Urban Growth and Precinct Structure Plan Areas,

Victoria (EHP 2011);

Review of habitat corridors for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis within

Melbourne’s Urban Growth Areas (Biosis 2012);

Design and construction standards for Growling Grass Frog habitat (August 2015

working document for comment) prepared by Biosis;

Design and construction standards for Growling Grass Frog passage structures

(August 2015 working document for comment) prepared by Biosis; and

Expert evidence: Donnybrook Springs – Drainage Infrastructure Report (Engeny

2016).


Page | 3

A site overview from the property boundary of adjacent land at 855 & 875 Donnybrook

Road, Donnybrook was undertaken in April 2016 to gain an appreciation of the existing

conditions and topography of the land in and adjacent to the Growling Grass Frog

conservation area.

A site survey of Monteleone land was undertaken in April 2016 to determine whether any

‘natural waterways’ identified in the Donnybrook Woodstock PSP (Plan 14) on the

Monteleone land in fact exhibited the ecological characteristics of a natural waterway.


Page | 4

3. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION

3.1. Natural waterways – Monteleone land

Design standards contained in Melbourne Water’s Principles for Provision of Waterway

and Drainage Services for Urban Growth (Melbourne Water 2007) for the design and

implementation of Development Services Schemes identifies the “protection of the

environmental [...] values of waterways” as a performance criterion.

Plan 14 of the PSP (Integrated Water Management) identifies a natural waterway

corridor running east–west from SB-1 to RBWL-1 (circled in the extract below) and

Melbourne Water’s draft drainage scheme layout shows this as an open drainage asset.

Therefore, it could be inferred from these plans that this drainage asset contains

environmental values as described in Melbourne Water (2007).

PSP Plan 14 extract – Integrated Water Management

This alignment was surveyed by the author. Whilst it appears that the alignment contains

a shallow gully which would channel a percentage of overland flows, this gully was found

to contain no existing native vegetation, particularly vegetation normally associated with

a natural waterway (see image below).


Page | 5

Existing condition of the ‘natural waterway’ identified in PSP Plan 14

The gully was dominated by introduced pasture grasses, as well as the weed species:

Artichoke Thistle (Cynara cardunculus); clover (Trifolium spp.); medic (Medicago spp.)

and dandelion (Taraxacum spp.). No native species were recorded.

Given the absence of native vegetation normally associated with a natural waterway, it is

considered from an ecological standpoint that this gully is not functioning as a natural

waterway.

Plan 14 of the PSP and Melbourne Water’s draft drainage scheme layout also shows

stormwater flows being delivered from the retarding basin in the east to the southwest

via an open drainage asset. Parts of this alignment were also surveyed by the author and

found not to exhibit any native vegetation or landforms suggestive of a natural waterway.

The Engeny report proposes pipes to convey stormwater in this drainage scheme. As

discussed in the previous section, proposed open channels would not provide habitat for

the Growling Grass Frog, and there is no known habitat to the east that requires linking

to the Merri Creek metapopulation nodes. Therefore, the replacement of open channels

with pipes will not reduce the overall area available for habitat for the frog in this south-

western section of the PSP.

3.2. Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area 34

3.2.1. Existing information and conditions

The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS)(DEPI 2013) in place under the Melbourne

Strategic Assessment agreement which governs impacts in Melbourne’s growth areas on

Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) under the Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) identifies areas of land to

be protected from urban development in conservation areas.


Page | 6

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area 34 (CA34), which primarily occurs along Merri

Creek west of the Melbourne-Sydney rail line, also extends across this rail line to

encompass an area of land approximately 15 hectares in size at 855 & 875 Donnybrook

Road, Donnybrook – land to the west and south of Monteleone land.

This part of the conservation area is identified in background documentation for the

Melbourne Strategic Assessment as a ‘metapopulation node’, along with a large section

of the conservation area on Merri Creek west of the rail line (Biosis 2012).

Plan 10 of the PSP – Conservation Area Concept Plan - Conservation Area 34 (south) –

shows an area of overlap between a ‘proposed water management area’ (likely to be a

stormwater treatment wetland) and the northern edge of CA34 (see image extract

below). It is understood that DELWP see this is an acceptable outcome, given the large

area of CA34 and the relatively small area of overlap.

PSP Plan 10 extract – Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area Concept Plan (south)

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) (DELWP 2016) contains no records of Growling

Grass Frog at this location, with several records from the Merri Creek immediately west

of the rail line dating back almost 30 years. A 900 millimetre pipe is the only passage

underneath the rail line at this location. The nearest VBA record of the species to the

east is from 1993, approximately two kilometres away (DELWP 2016). No habitat

connectivity exists between the location of this record to the east and CA34.

The final report on targeted surveys between 2009 and 2011 undertaken as part of the

Melbourne Strategic Assessment state that Growling Grass Frog was “not detected within

the Northern Growth Area” across the two-year period of the surveys (EHP 2011, p.14);

however, mapping in this final report (EHP 2011, Figure 2c) shows one record of


Page | 7

Growling Grass Frog at this location, described as a ‘recent record’. The provenance and

reliability of the record at this location is therefore unclear.

The BCS states that the key rationale for CA34 is to “protect important populations of

Growling Grass Frog and ensure connectivity between populations within the northern

growth corridor” (p. 116). During a site overview by the author on 12th April 2016 a large

failed dam was observed at the location of the conservation area east of the rail line; no

standing water or fringing vegetation vital for Growling Grass Frog habitat was observed.

Given the current poor condition of this section of Conservation Area 34, it is considered

that the only habitat for the Growling Grass Frog likely to occur at this location in the

future is ‘constructed habitat’, including habitat ponds.

3.2.2. Growling Grass Frog habitat draft design and construction standards

Habitat construction standards

In August 2015 the draft Design and construction standards for Growling Grass Frog

habitat was released for comment. These standards (Biosis 2015a), prepared in

partnership with DELWP, aim to ensure that constructed habitat is designed to

incorporate habitat features of known high value for the species. These draft standards

contain the following principles:

Maintaining a ‘semi-natural’ character to wetland and habitat design;

Ensuring water quality is of a high standard to promote the viability of populations in

constructed habitat;

Ensuring wetlands and other habitat features are located in close proximity to each

other; and

Supporting a variety of vegetation communities and wetland types required by the

species.

These standards will apply to wetlands constructed to provide breeding habitat for

Growling Grass Frog and terrestrial habitat up to 100 metres from such wetlands. They

point to the fact that “one of the most common types of wetlands that will be constructed

for Growling Grass Frogs is a ‘semi-natural’ permanent design” (p.8).

The draft standards identify that these permanent wetlands created for Growling Grass

Frogs should incorporate the following attributes:

Wetland size standards:

o The surface area of most wetlands in a node must be at least 0.3 – 0.4

hectares (taking into consideration constraints of space).

o At least one wetland in a metapopulation node must be greater than 0.7

hectares.

o Several wetlands in each node, and wetlands in internodal corridors may be

0.2 hectares.

o Where space is limited, the surface area of wetlands can be reduced but not

below 0.15 hectares in total and in all cases the submergent zone (the area of

at least 1 metre deep supporting submerged and floating aquatic plants) must

be at least 0.1 hectares.

Wetland shape standards:


Page | 8

o Although not critical, wetlands should be constructed to have a moderate edge

to surface area ratio (e.g. rectangular in shape).

o Islands must not be incorporated into the wetland design.

Wetland depth and gradient standards:

o All wetlands must incorporate a deep water submergent vegetation zone,

constituting a minimum of 60%–70% of the total wetland surface area at

normal water level (NWL).

o A shallow, emergent vegetation zone must be incorporated and occupy 30%–

40% of the wetland area.

o The water depth in the submergent zone must be maintained at greater than

1.5 metres.

o Wetlands with greater maximum depths are desirable and should be

constructed if feasible.

o A variety of slopes must be incorporated into the design of the banks,

including steep drop offs.

o The slope on approximately 70% of a wetland margin leading into the deep

water zone must be gradual (maximum 12% with a preference for 5% grades).

Wetland hydroperiod standards:

o Wherever possible, wetlands should have a permanent hydroperiod (the

length of time or season in which a wetland holds standing water) but draw

down naturally over late summer and autumn.

o Semi-permanent and ephemeral wetlands are acceptable where there is

limited capacity to provide a permanent wetland or if DELWP specifically

request this wetland type, but they must not be the predominant wetland type

in metapopulation nodes.

o Where possible, wetlands should be designed to allow them to be periodically

dried out by intervention, for management and maintenance purposes (e.g.

suppression of predatory fish).

Adequate treatment of stormwater is required before delivery to Growling Grass Frog

wetlands. This treatment needs to satisfy the following attributes (with reference to

Melbourne Water guidelines):

Filter out gross pollutants using gross pollutant traps;

Remove suspended solids, which reduce the access of submerged vegetation to light,

using sediment ponds;

Filter out heavy metals and chemical pollutants; and

Accommodate fluctuations in levels of nutrients and pollutants so as to avoid algal

blooms or the proliferation of undesirable plants.

These draft standards identify the major predators of Growling Grass Frog eggs and

tadpoles as being Eastern Gambusia (Gambusia holbrooki) and yabbies. The standards

recommend that habitat ponds for Growling Grass Frog are located such that they don’t

receive inundation from nearby streams which may be a source of fish.


Page | 9

The proposed Growling Grass Frog habitat concept prepared by Engeny is considered

against these standards in the following section.

Passage structure construction standards

The draft Design and construction standards for Growling Grass Frog passage structures

(Biosis 2015b), prepared in partnership with DELWP, provide guidelines for the

construction of effective frog passages under linear infrastructure such as roads and rail

lines in order to maintain habitat connectivity between populations – the key criteria of

Growling Grass Frog conservation areas as outlined in the BCS.

Where culverts are utilised under road or rail, these draft standards specify the minimum

dimensions as 2.4 metres wide by 1.2 metres high, to maintain climatic equilibrium

between the culvert and the outside environments and maintain “openness” (p.9–10).

These dimensions have been informed, in part, by a passage structure constructed on

the Edgars Creek, Wollert (Biosis 2014) found to be successful in facilitating the

movement of Growling Grass Frog beneath a road crossing.

It is noteworthy that, at present, the only passage structure underneath the rail line

connecting this section of CA34 with the Merri Creek populations is a 900 millimetre

pipe, considered to be ineffective as habitat connectivity according to these draft

standards. Growling Grass Frogs are unlikely to pass voluntarily through this structure,

therefore potentially ‘cutting off’ any individuals or populations east of the rail line from

the core metapopulation to the west.

3.2.3. Proposed Growling Grass Frog habitat

The Engeny Drainage Infrastructure Report (Engeny 2016) proposes the delivery of

treated stormwater from a retarding basin in the northeast via a pipe to a high-flow

bypass channel within CA34, as well as delivery of stormwater from a smaller catchment

to the east to a stormwater treatment wetland located on the eastern edge of CA34. The

stormwater treatment wetland shown in Plan 10 of the PSP on the northern edge of

CA34 would not be required.

The proposed delivery of stormwater from the retarding basin in the northeast via a pipe

would replace the existing proposal for an open channel. From the author’s discussions

with DELWP and Melbourne Water it is recognised that the proposed open channels

would not provide habitat for the Growling Grass Frog. Therefore, the replacement of

these structures with pipes will not reduce the overall area available for habitat for the

species in this south-western section of the PSP.

Stormwater from both the retarding basin to the northeast and this stormwater

treatment wetland will be treated to the quality required for delivery to a series of

Growling Grass Frog habitat ponds, a possible configuration for which is shown in

Appendix 2 and described below, considering the response to the draft standards

outlined in the previous section.

Six (6) Growling Grass Frog habitat ponds ranging in water surface area between

0.36 hectares and 0.93 hectares and comprising a total area of 3.4 hectares –

meeting and exceeding the required pond size standard in a node of at least 0.3

hectares (including one pond exceeding 0.7 hectares) and representing almost 25%

of the node.

All habitat ponds located at least 50 metres from development which will occur

beyond the conservation area as required.


Page | 10

Ponds are roughly rectangular in shape with a moderate edge to surface ratio, as

recommended.

Each pond has a submergent zone ranging in percentage of pond area between 60%

and 67% (within the required 60–70% range) allowing for a shallow zone in each

pond within the required 30–40% range.

The Engeny report identifies that existing modelling shows the conservation area is in a

natural low point in the landscape and would be subject to flooding in a 100-year flood

event. However, given the importance of avoiding inundation of Growling Grass Frog

habitat ponds from the high-flow bypass channel, these ponds have been designed such

that:

Only two of six ponds are inundated during a 10 or 20-year flood event; and

Only four of six ponds are inundated during a 50-year flood event.

Given the location of the conservation area in the landscape, it is not possible to prevent

inundation of all six ponds during a 100-year flood event. However, the location of

between two and four ponds above the 20 to 50-year flood event will ensure that

predatory fish will not be able to access these ponds regularly, providing a refuge from

predators.

The Engeny proposal would enable regular flows of high quality treated stormwater to the

Growling Grass Frog ponds. It also enables these ponds to be kept at normal water level

except during prolonged periods of drought with a maximum drawdown of no more than

30 centimetres in ponds of at least 1.5 metres depth at their deepest point.


Page | 11

4. CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions are provided from the work undertaken to address the two key

elements of a proposed alternative Development Services Scheme prepared by Engeny

Water Management.

Natural waterways

A waterway marked in Plan 14 of the PSP (Integrated Water Management) as a ‘natural

waterway corridor’ was surveyed and comprised a gully dominated by introduced pasture

grasses and weeds – no native species were recorded. Given the absence of native

vegetation normally associated with a natural waterway, it is considered from an

ecological standpoint that this gully is not functioning as a natural waterway corridor.

Similarly, additional open channels proposed in the Melbourne Water’s draft drainage

scheme layout were found not to exhibit any native vegetation or landforms suggestive of

a natural waterway.

Proposed open channels would not provide habitat for the Growling Grass Frog, and

there is no known habitat to the east that requires linking to the Merri Creek

metapopulation nodes. Therefore, the Engeny proposal to pipe stormwater in this

drainage scheme will not reduce the overall area available for habitat for the frog in this

south-western section of the PSP.

Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area 34

Only one informal record of Growling Grass Frog exists at this section of Conservation

Area 34 and the provenance and reliability of this record is unknown. A large failed dam

was observed at this location during a site overview in April; no standing water or fringing

vegetation vital for Growling Grass Frog habitat was observed. It is considered that the

only habitat for the Growling Grass Frog likely to occur at this location in the future is

‘constructed habitat’, including habitat ponds.

The Engeny proposal to use high quality treated stormwater for constructed Growling

Grass Frog ponds in Conservation Area 34 was found to meet or exceed DELWP’s draft

standards for constructed habitat in the following ways:

Six (6) ponds could be accommodated, comprising a total area of 3.4 hectares –

each pond exceeding the required pond size standard in a metapoulation node;

All six ponds meet the standards relating to:

o Distance from development outside the conservation area;

o Moderate edge to surface ratio;

o Depth of submergent zone;

o Percentage of submergent zone and shallow zone in each pond; and

o Having a permanent hydroperiod.

Engeny have identified that the conservation area is in a natural low point in the

landscape and propose to use this location as a retarding basin. However, four of the six

ponds proposed will be located above the 20-year flood event and two ponds located

above the 50-year flood event. This will ensure that predatory fish will not be able to

access these ponds regularly, providing a refuge from predators for the frog.


Page | 12

It is considered that in light of these findings, the Engeny proposal will allow for the

creation of constructed Growling Grass Frog habitat which meets or exceeds current

construction standards.


Page | 13

5. REFERENCES

Biosis 2012, Review of habitat corridors for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis within

Melbourne’s Urban Growth Areas, prepared by Biosis Research for the Department

of Sustainability and Environment.

Biosis 2014, Use of underpass culverts by the Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis,

presentation by Daniel Gilmore and Sally Koehler.

Biosis 2015a, Design and construction standards for Growling Grass Frog habitat

(DRAFT), prepared for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning,

East Melbourne.

Biosis 2015b, Design and construction standards for Growling Grass Frog passage

structures (DRAFT), prepared for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and

Planning, East Melbourne.

Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) 2013, Biodiversity

Conservation Strategy for Melbourne’s Growth Corridors, Victorian Government

Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne.

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2016, Victorian

Biodiversity Atlas 3.1.0, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning,

East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 11th April 2016, < https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au>.

Ecology & Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2011, Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Habitat

Assessment and Targeted Surveys across Melbourne’s Extended Urban Growth

and Precinct Structure Plan Areas, Victoria, prepared for the Department of

Sustainability and Environment, November 2011.

Melbourne Water 2007, Principles for Provision of Waterway and Drainage Services for

Urban Growth, Melbourne Water, 100 Wellington Parade, East Melbourne, Victoria.

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


Page | 14

Appendix 1: Qualifications and experience of Mal Wright

Biography Working in industry since 2005

Qualifications

BHort (Dux), University of Melbourne

Certificates and Licenses

DSE Certificate of Competency (Vegetation Quality Assessments)

Construction Induction ‘White Card’

Employment History

2012 – Present Senior Ecologist & Project Manager, BL&A,

Melbourne 2009 – 2012 Conservation Officer, Trust for Nature, Victoria 2005 – 2009 Senior Ecologist & Project Manager, BL&A,

Melbourne

Profile Mal is an experienced terrestrial ecologist, project manager and conservation officer specialising in the assessment and

management of native vegetation and the application of permitted clearing regulations in Victoria, in particular within

Melbourne’s Growth Areas. He has extensive experience managing a range of projects for the private and government

sectors, including impact assessments, monitoring and research, offset planning, peer review and regulatory facilitation.

His work to date also includes advising landholders on how to manage land for conservation.

Mal Wright Senior Ecologist and Project Manager

Key Skills

Project Manager including budgeting, staffing, client liaison, production of high quality technical reports

Negotiation with regulators, and referral authorities including local councils, the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and CFA

Flora assessments

Terrestrial fauna assessments

Habitat hectare and net gain assessment

Targeted surveys for listed flora and fauna species

Desktop assessments

Management plan preparation for listed fauna and flora values and offset sites

Salvage protocol preparation and implementation

Project design recommendation

Preparation of mitigation measures

EPBC Act Referrals

EPBC Act Referral external training

Offset site selection

Offset Plan preparation

Project Examples

Property Development The Grove, Tarneit: Facilitation and management of investigations and reporting required under the Melbourne Strategic Assessment regulatory framework

Riverdale Precinct Structure Plan, Tarneit, Victoria: Preparation of background reporting and witness statement for a planning panel hearing

Westbrook Estate, Victoria: Facilitation and management of investigations and reporting required under the Melbourne Strategic Assessment regulatory framework

Modeina Estate, Victoria: Preparation of EPBC Act Preliminary Documentation, offset facilitation (2013 to present)

Truganina Industrial Development, Victoria: Flora and fauna assessments, threatened flora targeted surveys, Striped Legless Lizard salvage (2012 to present)

Eynesbury Residential Development, Victoria: Flora and fauna assessments, targeted surveys (2006 to present)

Laurimar Estate, Doreen, Victoria: Flora and fauna assessments, Net Gain analysis (2007 to 2009)

Renewable Energy Ararat Wind Farm, Ararat, Victoria: Flora and Fauna Assessment of the Wind Farm and Transmission Line, Offset Plan, Native Vegetation and Pest Plans (2007 – present)

Stockyard Hill Wind Farm, Stockyard Hill, Victoria: Infrastructure micrositing, Flora and Fauna Assessment, habitat hectare assessment and Net Gain analysis (2008)

Crowlands Wind Farm, Crowlands, Victoria: Flora and Fauna Assessment, including targeted flora surveys, habitat hectare assessment and Net Gain analysis (2008)

Mortlake Wind Farm, Mortlake, Victoria: Flora and Fauna Assessment (2009)

Dundonnell Wind Farm, Dundonnell, Victoria: Flora and Fauna Assessment, EES and EPBC Act Referral (2010 – present)

Cherry Tree Wind Farm, Seymour, Victoria: Flora and Fauna Assessment (2010 – present)

Road and Rail Infrastructure Murray River Crossing – Swan Hill, Victoria (and New South Wales): Flora and Fauna Assessment, including targeted flora and fauna surveys, habitat hectare assessment and Net Gain analysis (2007)

Gheringhap to Mildura Rail Freight Upgrade – John Holland Group. Assessment and mapping of ‘go’ areas for construction ‘laydown’ and ‘no‐go’ areas (2008).

Melbourne to Albury Railway Passing Lanes Project – South Improvement Alliance. Flora and native vegetation assessment and mapping (2006)

Lang Lang Bypass – Cardinia Shire Council. Native vegetation mapping and assessment, threatened flora and fauna targeted surveys, offset plan preparation (2006—present)

Water and Pipeline Infrastructure Proposed Gas Pipeline, Golden Beach, Gippsland Lakes, Victoria: Native vegetation mapping and assessment, Net Gain reporting (2003)

Mining Sector Bowen Basin Coal Project, Glenden, Queensland: Terrestrial Ecology Environmental Impact Assessment (2012 to present)

Ecosystem Monitoring and Management Wimmera River Monitoring Project, Wimmera River, Horsham Region, Victoria: Monitoring of River Red‐gum and River health (2008 – 2009).


Page | 1

Appendix 2: Possible Growling Grass Frog Conservation Area Pond Configuration (Engeny 2016)

AMENDMENT GC28 TO THE WHITTLESEA AND MITCHELL SHIRE ... · Monteleone Family Suite 5 61–63...

Documents

Transcript of AMENDMENT GC28 TO THE WHITTLESEA AND MITCHELL SHIRE ... · Monteleone Family Suite 5 61–63...