Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment final final...Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment –...

Expert witness report – flora and fauna considerations

Camerons Road, Coimadai

Dr Melanie Birtchnell

19 January 2015

Appendix 1

Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment – Camerons Road Coimadai

Oekologie i

Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment

Rezoning Investigation of Camerons Road, Coimadai

Prepared for Terramatrix Pty Ltd and the

Camerons Road Group

November 2012

Oekologie Ecology.Botany.Assessment.Advice.

www.oekologie.com.au [email protected] +61412119949 PO Box 1120 Upwey VICTORIA 3158


Oekologie ii

! 2012 Oekologie

This publication is copyright. It may only be used in accordance with the agreed terms of the

commission. Except as provided for by the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may

be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, without

prior written permission of Oekologie.

Document control

This is a controlled document. Details of the document ownership, status and revision are

provided below. All comments or requests for changes should be addressed to the document

owner.

Bioregion: Central Victorian Uplands

Owner Oekologie

Author Dr Melanie Birtchnell

Distributor Hamish Allan – Terramatrix Pty Ltd

Document history:

Version Status Authored Date

Draft Draft M. Birtchnell 8 November 2012

Final Completed M. Birtchnell 14 November 2012


Oekologie iii

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................................................................................................................... V

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 1

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 STUDY AREA................................................................................................................................... 2

2. METHOD............................................................................................................................................ 3

2.1 LITERATURE AND DATABASE REVIEW........................................................................................... 3

2.1.1 Likelihood of occurrence ........................................................................................................... 3

2.2 SITE INVESTIGATION ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.1 Flora assessment ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Fauna assessment..................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 MAPPING ........................................................................................................................................ 5

2.4 LIMITATIONS AND QUALIFICATIONS............................................................................................ 5

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 6

3.1 SITE CONTEXT................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 FLORA ............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2.1 Ecological Vegetation Classes .................................................................................................. 6

3.2.2 Vegetation Quality Assessment............................................................................................. 10

3.2.3 State and Federal significant vegetation communities .......................................................... 20

3.2.4 State and Federal significant flora species ............................................................................. 22

3.3 FAUNA .......................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3.1 Habitats.................................................................................................................................. 23

3.3.2 Habitat connectivity .............................................................................................................. 24

3.3.3 State and Federal significant fauna communities.................................................................. 24

3.3.4 State and Federal significant fauna species ........................................................................... 24

3.4 FURTHER SURVEY – BIODIVERSITY .............................................................................................. 25

3.5 OTHER BIODIVERSITY ATTRIBUTES .............................................................................................. 25

3.6 SUMMARY OF BIODIVERSITY VALUES OF THE STUDY AREA ...................................................... 25

4. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS ...................................................................... 25

4.1 COMMONWEALTH ....................................................................................................................... 26

4.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...................................... 26

4.2 STATE ............................................................................................................................................ 27

4.2.1 Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act). ................................................................... 27


Oekologie iv

4.2.2 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 ............................................................................ 27

4.2.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987 ................................................................................... 27

4.2.4 Native Vegetation Management Framework......................................................................... 28

4.2.5 Wildlife Act 1975 and associated Regulations ...................................................................... 29

4.2.6 Water Act 1989...................................................................................................................... 29

4.2.7 Environment Protection Act 1970: State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) 2003. ................................................................................................................................... 30

4.2.8 Regional Catchment Strategy and River Health Strategy .................................................... 30

5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION .......................................................................... 31

6. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 32

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 34

APPENDIX 1. SIGNIFICANT SPECIES LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN 5KM OF THE STUDY AREA. ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

APPENDIX 2. CONSIDERATION OF EPBC GREY BOX (E. MICROCARPA) GRASSY WOODLANDS AND DERIVED NATIVE GRASSLANDS OF SE AUSTRALIA. ................... 38

Tables and Figures

TABLE 1. CLASSIFICATION, CONDITION AND CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE OF NATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSED

WITHIN THE STUDY AREA.................................................................................................................................. 16

FIGURE 1. EXTENT OF ECOLOGICAL VEGETATION CLASSES ASSESSED DURING THE CURRENT STUDY. ..................... 8

FIGURE 2. NATIVE VEGETATION POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED ON PROPERTIES L AND K......................... 11

FIGURE 3. NATIVE VEGETATION POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED ON PROPERTIES I, M, H, Q AND J............ 12

FIGURE 4. NATIVE VEGETATION POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED ON PROPERTIES A1, A2 AND A3............. 13

FIGURE 5. NATIVE VEGETATION POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED ON PROPERTIES C, P AND B. ................... 14

FIGURE 6. NATIVE VEGETATION POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED ON PROPERTY E. ...................................... 15


Oekologie v

Acknowledgments

Gratitude is extended to:

• the Camerons Road Group, particularly Bob Mundy, for providing contact details for

Camerons Road residents and access to properties.

• Moorabool Shire Council officers, namely: Gavin Alford, Lisa Gervasoni, Satwinder

Sandhu, Sean Greer and Justin Horne for providing clear expectations of what Council

require to assess the rezoning application.

• Hamish Allan (Program Manager – Bushfire Planning and Design), Terramatrix.

• Clare McCutcheon (Zoologist), Biosis.

• Charles Dickie (Ranger), Parks Victoria.

• Angela Robb (Project Officer – Native Vegetation Technical), DSE; Suriya Vij

(Biodiversity Officer), DSE; and Dr Randall Robinson (Lecturer), Victoria University:

for advice relating to Ecological Vegetation Classes/Classifications.

• Drew McLean, DSEWPaC and Steffen Schultz, DSE for clarifying issues around EPBC-

listed Ecological Communities.

• John Eastwood (Analyst) and Michael Hansby (Analyst), Julian Black (GIS Analyst),

Terramatrix for assistance with fieldwork and/or mapping.

• David Merrett, Isis Planning.


Oekologie 1

Summary

Oekologie was commissioned by Terramatrix Pty. Ltd. and the Camerons Road Group to

undertake a preliminary flora and fauna assessment of a number of properties along Camerons

Road, Darley - Coimadai to assist an investigation into potential rezoning of the land. Currently,

the subject properties are zoned Farming Zone in the Moorabool Shire – it is proposed that the

properties be rezoned Rural Living Zone. The aim of the assessment was to identify biodiversity

values within the Study Area that can inform planning processes and address concerns raised

during historical assessments of the rezoning proposal.

Flora and fauna assessments were conducted. Native vegetation that was potentially likely to be

impacted by future works associated with the rezoning was mapped and the condition of the

vegetation was determined. Habitat values were investigated.

The Study Area supported significant areas of Degraded Treeless Vegetation (that is, essentially,

areas of no native vegetation). Also, the Study Area supported native vegetation that is of High –

Very High Conservation Significance. Two Ecological Vegetation Classes were present: EVC64

Rocky Chenopod Woodland and EVC175_1 Grassy Woodland. Some areas mapped as ‘Grassy

Woodland’ were likely to be secondary, recolonising vegetation and therefore may be deemed to

be Degraded Treeless Vegetation by Victoria’s Department of Sustainability and Environment.

The Grey Box-dominated Rocky Chenopod Woodland may be nationally significant and may be

protected under the Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A

range of significant flora and fauna have been recorded within proximity to the Study Area;

several of these species may use habitat within the Study Area.

Nonetheless, additional dwelling(s) could be sited on many properties within the Study Area

whilst avoiding removal of native vegetation. On other properties, vegetation losses can be

minimised by placing building envelopes in cleared areas, and where vegetation condition is

lowest. Additional surveys (namely targeted surveys) of building envelopes and fuel

management zones may be justified at subdivision stage if dwellings are proposed to be

constructed in areas where native vegetation of sufficiently high quality persists and/or where

there is potential habitat for significant species. If the proposed dwellings and their defendable

space will not result in the removal of native vegetation and/or habitat for significant species

then further survey may not be required.

Importantly, the proposed rezoning offers a unique opportunity to introduce on-title Land

Management Plans at subdivision stage that would improve the condition of significant

vegetation and achieve improved biodiversity outcomes. Such plans would be designed

specifically for each property, whilst working to achieve common objectives across the Study

Area.


Oekologie 2

1. Introduction

1.1 Project background

Oekologie was commissioned by Terramatrix Pty. Ltd. and the Camerons Road Group to

undertake a preliminary flora and fauna assessment of a number of properties along

Camerons Road, Darley - Coimadai to assist an investigation into potential rezoning of the

land. Currently, the subject properties are zoned Farming Zone in the Moorabool Shire – it is

proposed that the properties be rezoned Rural Living Zone. The aim of the assessment was to

identify biodiversity values within the Study Area that can inform planning processes and

address concerns raised during historical assessments of the rezoning proposal.

1.2 Scope of assessment

The objectives of the assessment were to:

- Review databases relating to flora and fauna issues relevant to the study area and

Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) likely to have been present pre-1750.

- Identify significant flora and fauna species, noting significant habitat and the likelihood

of significant species being present.

- Map native vegetation where native vegetation was outside exclusion areas and/or where

native vegetation was potentially likely to be impacted by the proposal.

- Conduct a Vegetation Quality Assessment where native vegetation was potentially likely

to be impacted by the proposal.

- Review the implications of relevant biodiversity legislation and policy.

- Assess the potential impacts of the proposed development.

- Identify potential mitigation measures.

- Recommend any further assessments of the site that may be required (such as a Net

Gain/offset assessment or targeted searches for significant species).

1.3 Study Area

The Study Area is located in the Central Victorian Uplands bioregion approximately 6km

north of Bacchus Marsh, Victoria. The Study Area is a corridor of land east and west of

Camerons Road between Darley and Coimadai encompassing approximately 470 hectares of

private property and adjacent road reserves. The Study Area is bound to the east by

Goodman Creek and an extractive industry area, to the north by Seereys Road and Camerons

Road, and to the south and west by the Lerderderg Gorge Road. The Lerderderg State Park is

located to the west of the Study Area; a sand mining area of State significance lies to the east

of the Study Area.

Camerons Road functions as a spine to the Study Area; the road follows the main ridge

between the Lerderderg River (west) and Goodman Creek (east). Properties on the east side

of Camerons Road are undulating to a generally sharp drop to the narrow valley of Goodman

Creek. Properties on the west side also are undulating; they support a north-south gully that

intersects the properties before a sharp escarpment falls to the wide valley of the Lerderderg

River. Generally, properties east of Camerons Road are less timbered than those to the west

and support highly modified exotic vegetation over most of their area.


Oekologie 3

The study area is within the:

• Central Victorian Uplands bioregion;

• Werribee River Basin;

• Port Phillip and Westernport CMA; and

• Moorabool Shire.

2. Method

2.1 Literature and database review

Information about flora and fauna of the local area was obtained from relevant databases.

Database searches encompassed an area within 5 kilometres of the study site. Records from

the following databases were collated and reviewed:

• Victorian Biodiversity Atlas ‘VBA_FLORA25, FLORA100 & FLORARestricted’

August 2012 © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and

Environment.

• Victorian Biodiversity Atlas ‘VBA_FAUNA25, FAUNA100 & FAUNARestricted’

August 2012 © The State of Victoria, Department of Sustainability and

Environment.

• Birds Australia database (BA).

• a search for flora and fauna species listed under the Federal Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act) using the EPBC Protected

Matters Search Tool (PMST) for species potentially occurring (or potential habitat

occurring) within a 5km radius of the Study Area.

Other sources of biodiversity information included:

• ecological reports.

• personal communications with local experts.

• DSE Biosites Register.

• DSE Biodiversity Interactive Map 3.1 (Modelled 1750 and 2005 EVCs).

• A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria (Walsh and Stajsic, 2007).

• Aerial photography.

2.1.1 Likelihood of occurrence

Database searches provide lists of species that have potential to occur on the site. If

database records of state and nationally significant species exist from the local area but the

species were not observed during field survey, the likelihood that they occur on site must

be considered. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities (DSEWPaC) PMST may nominate EPBC Act-listed species and

communities where the site lies within their broad geographic range.


Oekologie 4

Likelihood of particular species occurring at a site is determined by assessing factors

including the quality of potential habitat present for the species. For fauna species that

occur at low density across their ranges, are highly mobile, or are adapted to exploit rare or

episodic resources, the history of past occurrence in the local area also may assist in

evaluating the potential for future occurrence.

Species listed as rare or threatened on the DSE Advisory Lists (DSE 2005; DSE 2007a)

and which have at least medium likelihood of occurrence usually are given further

consideration. These species are addressed in the assessment of Conservation Significance

for Net Gain (DSE 2007b), which is outside the scope of the current assessment and will

need to be considered at the planning permit stage when it is established what vegetation

(i.e. potential habitat), if any, is proposed for removal. The need for targeted survey for

these species is considered herein.

2.2 Site investigation

The flora assessments were undertaken between 3 July and 30 October 2012. General fauna

assessments were undertaken on 31 August 2012.

2.2.1 Flora assessment

The Study Area was traversed on foot and by vehicle in areas outside extractive and State

Park buffers that were likely to be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed

rezoning. Areas within buffers also were assessed if direct and/or indirect impacts on the

rezoning were likely to impact these areas. The general condition of native vegetation was

observed as well as the influence of current seasonal conditions. Notes were made on

specific issues.

Patches of native vegetation that were likely to be impacted directly and/or indirectly by

the proposed rezoning were mapped and assessed according to standard methods provided

by NRE (2004). The Victorian Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action

(the ‘Framework’) (NRE 2002) defines ‘patches’ as an area of vegetation where

indigenous flora account for !25% of total vegetation cover. Vegetation quality of

identified patches was assessed using the DSE Vegetation Quality Assessment Sheet (DSE

2004) and entered into HabitAs. The extent of patches was recorded using a GPS/PDA

unit.

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. 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.

Assessment of Conservation Significance

Conservation significance of areas of native vegetation usually is calculated as per the

Framework (NRE 2002) and incorporates:

• the conservation status of the EVC within the relevant Victorian bioregion;

• the quality of the vegetation (habitat score).

• habitat for threatened species; and

• other attributes (e.g. Ramsar sites, sites with National Estate values).


Oekologie 5

The current assessment determined the minimum Conservation Significance for patches of

native vegetation within the Study Area that are likely (or potentially likely) to be impacted

The assessment of habitat value for rare and threatened species involves determining if the

habitat represents the ‘best 50%’ or ‘remaining 50%’ of habitat for each species. The

method for this determination is outlined in the DSE referral guide for planning permit

applications (DSE 2007b; Table 2).

2.2.2 Fauna assessment

The Study Area was traversed on foot and by vehicle to determine the value of the area for

terrestrial fauna, particularly significant species. Values primarily were determined based

on the types and qualities of habitat(s) in the Study Area. All species of fauna observed

during the assessment were noted. Active searching was undertaken including direct

observation, searching under rocks, logs and debris, examination of tracks and scats, and

identifying calls.

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

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

site over time.

2.3 Mapping

Mapping is conducted using a hand-held (uncorrected) GPS/PDA unit and aerial photo

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

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

registration. Mapping is produced using a Geographic Information System (GIS).

2.4 Limitations and Qualifications

Ecological surveys and assessments provide a sampling of the flora and fauna at a given

time, season and prevailing climatic conditions. Generally, not all species at a site will be

detected during survey; this is for a range of reasons including species dormancy, seasonal

conditions, ephemeral status of waterbodies, migration, and breeding behaviours of some

fauna. In most cases, these factors do not limit assessment of the overall biodiversity values

of a site. Further, it is worth reiterating that the entire Study Area was not assessed; only

areas within the study area that were deemed likely to be impacted by the proposed rezoning

were assessed.

The current flora and fauna assessment was conducted in winter/early Spring. Whilst this is

not the optimal time for assessing some spring emergent flora, the vegetation quality of the

Study Area is influenced by perennial species more than by annual species. Further, the

degraded, highly grazed nature of the understorey across much of the Study Area means it is

unlikely that many (if any) annual species of significance persist.

As the current study is a preliminary flora and fauna assessment, additional surveys (e.g.

targeted surveys) of building envelopes and fuel management zones are likely to be required

at a more detailed planning stage, and may be justified in areas where extant native

vegetation is of sufficiently high quality.

The seasonality of the assessment did not adversely impact assessment of the Study Area’s

overall biodiversity values and the survey effort was sufficient to assess the general values of

the site and determine the potential impacts of the proposed rezoning.

Not all native vegetation within the Study Area was assessed – only areas that were outside

exclusion buffers and/or were potentially likely to be impacted by the rezoning proposal (and


Oekologie 6

presumed subsequent planning applications) were assessed. Some properties had scope to

locate building envelopes outside patches of native vegetation whilst still considering factors

such as amenity, proximity to neighbours, slope, hydrology – thus, it was deemed

unnecessary to assess vegetation on these properties. However, other properties supported a

higher cover of native vegetation; on these properties, the precautionary approach was

applied and any vegetation that was potentially likely to be impacted by subsequent planning

applications was considered. It is expected that more detailed assessments will be required

when planning applications for additional dwellings are being assessed – when any proposed

vegetation losses are more accurately quantified. The approach taken in the current

assessment is appropriate for broad-scale planning and demonstrates the biodiversity values

that may be affected by the proposed rezoning and potentially consequent development.

Further, consideration of the likelihood of species occurring in patches of native vegetation

has been undertaken to a rudimentary level, as such information is most useful at the

planning application stage when it is known whether any native vegetation is likely to be

impacted.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Site context

The Study Area is surrounded by a mix of landscapes: to the east, the Study Area is bounded

mostly by highly modified landscapes; to the west, the Area is bounded mostly by relatively

intact, native vegetation within the Lerderderg State Park, although disturbed agricultural

landscapes lie in the valley between the State Park and the Study Area. Within the Study

Area, the state of vegetation largely mirrors patterns beyond: areas in the east of the Study

Area primarily support degraded vegetation whilst areas to the west are generally more intact

where woodland is extant.

3.2 Flora

3.2.1 Ecological Vegetation Classes

Classification of native vegetation in Victoria is based on Ecological Vegetation Classes

(EVCs). An EVC contains one or more floristic (plant) communities and represents a

groups of broadly similar environments. Definitions of EVCs and benchmarks are provided

by DSE (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/native-vegetation-

groups-for-victoria/ecological-vegetation-class-evc-benchmarks-by-bioregion).

The review of DSE’s pre-1750 mapping revealed that the Study Area once was entirely

covered by EVC 175 Grassy Woodland in the south, EVC 21 Shrubby Dry Forest in the

north and EVC 851 Stream Bank Shrubland fringing Goodman Creek. In contrast, 2005

EVC mapping indicated that the extent of native vegetation has decreased across the Study

Area with extensive areas (particularly east of Camerons Road) modelled as being devoid

of native vegetation.

It is difficult to determine whether Grassy Woodland and Shrubby Dry Forest actually

were present pre-1750, however current field investigations revealed that areas of

woodland mapped across the Study Area did not match either Grassy Woodland nor

Shrubby Dry Forest and were in fact EVC64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland (Figure 1).

However, some patches were mapped as EVC175_1 Grassy Woodland (Figure 1); mainly,

these were derived ‘grasslands’ that met patch thresholds (>25% cover of native species) at


Oekologie 7

the time of survey and comprised opportunistic species typical of areas that have

recolonised following agricultural land use.

Whilst it is normal practice to use pre-1750 EVCs as a basis for scoring vegetation that no

longer resembles an EVC, in this case no areas in the Study Area showed elements of

Shrubby Dry Forest so it is possible that the community did not actually occur within the

Study Area. Further, vegetation structure and composition of secondary patches most

closely resembled Grassy Woodland more or less sans canopy. Thus, these patches of

secondary vegetation were assessed as Grassy Woodland. It is recommended that these

patches of ‘Grassy Woodland’ be reviewed by DSE and considered as DTV; the decision

to consider ‘secondary’ patches of native vegetation as DTV can be made only by DSE and

is at the Department’s discretion (DSE 2007b).


Oekologie 8

Figure 1. Extent of Ecological Vegetation Classes assessed during the current study.


Oekologie 9

EVC64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland

Rocky Chenopod Woodland within the Study Area mainly was found west of Camerons

Road. Where it was relevant to assess the woodland (i.e. where the proposal may impact

the woodland), the structure of woodland was typical of Rocky Chenopod Woodland. Grey

Box Eucalyptus microcarpa dominated the canopy. The shrub layer, including Fragrant

Saltbush Rhagodia parabolica and cassinias Cassinia spp., was variously intact and

obviously responding to several years’ increased rainfall after a period of extended

drought. This was particularly evident in regeneration of Bacchus Marsh Varnish Wattle

Acacia verniciflua Bacchus Marsh variant. The ground layer was characteristically

depauperate and dominated by chenopod species characteristic of this vegetation

community, such as Saloop Einadia hastata, Nodding Saltbush Einadia nutans ssp. nutans,

Ruby Saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa var. tomentosa, Inland Pigface Carpobrotus

modestus and Sieber Crassula Crassula sieberiana. As is typical of Rocky Chenopod

Woodlands, there was a relatively high cover of bryophytes, lichens and soil crust

compared to many other EVCs although cover of these lifeforms often was higher than

expected owing to historical disturbance, particularly grazing. Cover of graminoids

(grasses and grass-like plants) was typically low, with occasional wallaby grasses

Austrodanthonia spp. (mostly Bristly Wallaby-grass Austrodanthonia setaceae) and spear

grasses Austrostipa spp. present. Small-leaved Clematis Clematis microphylla was present

in may patches of Rocky Chenopod Woodland and is a typical component of this

community. Weed cover generally was low, as is typical of this EVC, however Galenia

was dominant at interfaces between woodland and cleared land.

Generally, despite the appearance of being highly degraded, patches of Rocky Chenopod

Woodland (particularly those mapped on the west side of Camerons Road) presented

elements (particularly structure) highly typical of this EVC. Nonetheless, historical

activities such as understorey clearing, vehicular traversing and mechanical soil

disturbance as well as significant grazing pressure have resulted in degradation. Without

intervention, this degradation will continue unabated and the vegetation will further decline

or – at best, maintain. However there is significant potential for active pest plant and

animal management and cessation of understorey clearing to greatly improve vegetation

condition; if implemented sensitively, the proposed rezoning could result in areas of

woodland being conserved and managed appropriately under an on-title Land Management

Plan. It is likely that the rezoning offers one of few mechanisms and opportunities that

could see the conservation and rehabilitation of Rocky Chenopod Woodlands within the

Study Area.

An ephemeral drainage/creek line extends north-south on the western side of Camerons

Road – within the drainage line and around (semi-?)permanent online waterbodies, species

diversity was higher. It is likely that some parts of this watercourse on northern properties

(e.g. properties K and L) however they were not assessed during this study as they are

unlikely to be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed rezoning. Consideration of

this watercourse should form part of the development of any future Land Management

Plans.

EVC175_1 Grassy Woodland

Ground-truthing of areas within the Study Area that were modelled by DSE as being

EVC175_1 Grassy Woodland revealed that woodland areas actually are EVC64 Rocky

Chenopod Woodland. However and nonetheless, some patches were mapped as EVC175_1

Grassy Woodland; mainly, these were derived ‘grasslands’ that met patch thresholds

(>25% cover of native species) at the time of survey and comprised opportunistic species


Oekologie 10

typical of areas that have recolonised following agricultural land use. Whilst it is normal

practice to use pre-1750 EVCs as a basis for scoring vegetation that no longer resembles an

EVC, in this case no areas in the Study Area showed elements of Shrubby Dry Forest and

vegetation structure and composition of secondary patches most closely resembled Grassy

Woodland sans canopy. Thus, these patches of secondary vegetation were assessed as

Grassy Woodland. It is recommended that these patches of ‘Grassy Woodland’ be

reviewed by DSE and considered as DTV; the decision to consider ‘secondary’ patches of

native vegetation as DTV can be made only by DSE and is at the Department’s discretion

(DSE 2007b).

3.2.2 Vegetation Quality Assessment

The current field investigation identified many patches of indigenous vegetation across the

Study Area (see Figure 1; Figures 2-6) that varied in condition (Table 1). Property

identifiers are consistent with those used by Terramatrix (2012). Note: indicative building

envelopes are indicative only. It is possible that alternative sites for building envelopes

will be considered and adopted by Council and applicants at subdivision stage. For

example, further investigation at planning application stage of proposed envelopes may be

necessary to ensure native vegetation removal is avoided and minimised as far as

practicable. Also, other factors may influence siting of building envelopes (e.g. amenity,

proximity to other dwellings, bushfire considerations, access, etc.).

Some properties were not assessed:

Property N: property N almost entirely was within the 500 metre State Park buffer and so

was not formally assessed, however a brief reconnaissance of the property revealed that

there are cleared areas supporting low-medium quality ‘grassland’ that may be appropriate

for an additional dwelling if construction within the buffer was permitted. Siting of a

building envelope within the cleared area should be guided by a detailed Net Gain

Assessment at permit application stage to ensure removal of native vegetation is avoided

and minimised; the clearing is associated with slopes and an ephemeral watercourse that

also would require further consideration. Nonetheless, the property could support an

additional dwelling if permission was granted to construct within the State Park buffer.

Property G: access to property G was not secured. Informal assessment of non-wooded

areas of the property adjacent to Hornell Lane indicated that cleared areas supported DTV

or low-quality ‘grassland’ likely to be classed as EVC175_1 Grassy Woodland. Within the

cleared areas, native vegetation appeared to be secondary (cf. remnant) vegetation and may

be deemed to be DTV, at DSE’s discretion. It is very likely that additional dwellings could

be supported on this property with little - or no - native vegetation removal or impacts.

Property D: property D was not assessed as it is within close proximity to an extractive

industry and within the extractive industry buffer. However, analysis of aerial imagery

indicated that there is likely scope for the property to support additional dwelling(s). Siting

of a building envelope should be constrained to the cleared areas and should be guided by a

detailed Net Gain Assessment at permit application stage to ensure removal of native

vegetation is avoided and minimised.

Property F: property F was not assessed as access was not secured; it is within close

proximity to an extractive industry; and it is almost entirely within the Extractive Industry

buffer. It is likely that the property could support additional dwelling(s). Areas supporting

woodland should be avoided; cleared areas should be investigated to ensure siting of

building envelopes is sensitive to avoiding and minimising native vegetation impacts.


Oekologie 11

Figure 2. Native vegetation potentially likely to be impacted on properties L and K.


Oekologie 12

Figure 3. Native vegetation potentially likely to be impacted on properties I, M, H, Q and J.


Oekologie 13

Figure 4. Native vegetation potentially likely to be impacted on properties A1, A2 and A3.


Oekologie 14

Figure 5. Native vegetation potentially likely to be impacted on properties C, P and B.


Oekologie 15

Figure 6. Native vegetation potentially likely to be impacted on property E.


Oekologie 16

Table 1. Classification, condition and Conservation Significance of native vegetation assessed within the Study Area.

Site Condition Score

Landscape

Context

Score

Pro

perty

Pa

tch

Area

(h

a)

ass

ess

ed

Ecological Vegetation

Class* EVC Status

Lar

ge

Tre

es

Tre

e C

ano

py

Co

ver

Lac

k o

f W

eed

s

Un

der

sto

rey

Rec

ruit

men

t

Org

anic

Lit

ter

Lo

gs

Mo

del

led

Lan

dsc

ape

Co

nte

xt

To

tal

Co

nd

itio

n /

10

0

Ha

bit

at

Sco

re (

Ind

ex

)

Min

imu

m

Co

nse

rv

ati

on

Sig

nif

ica

nce#

#

C 1a 2.47 Grassy Woodland Endangered 2 2 4 15 1 5 0 6 35 0.35 High



P 1a 3.35 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 4 15 0 5 0 2 26 0.26 High

E 1a 0.08 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 4 5 3 3 0 2 17 0.17 High

A1 1a 9.64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland Vulnerable 3 5 7 15 6 3 4 14 57 0.57 Very High




J 1a 0.37 Rocky Chenopod Woodland Vulnerable 4 1 9 15 6 5 0 6 46 0.46 High


Oekologie 17


Landscape

Context

Score

Pro

perty

Pa

tch

Area

(h

a)

ass

ess

ed


Class* EVC Status Lar

ge

Tre

es

Tre

e C

ano

py

Co

ver

Lac

k o

f W

eed

s

Un

der

sto

rey

Rec

ruit

men

t

Org

anic

Lit

ter

Lo

gs

Mo

del

led

Lan

dsc

ape

Co

nte

xt

To

tal

Co

nd

itio

n /

10

0

Ha

bit

at

Sco

re (

Ind

ex

)

Min

imu

m

Co

nse

rv

ati

on

Sig

nif

ica

nce#

#

J 1b 2.21 Rocky Chenopod Woodland Vulnerable 4 5 9 15 6 5 0 6 50 0.50 Very High

J 1c 9.39 Rocky Chenopod Woodland Vulnerable 4 5 9 15 6 5 2 16 62 0.62 Very High

Q 1a 1.16 Grassy Woodland Endangered 3 0 4 15 10 5 2 16 55 0.55 Very High

Q 1b 9.81 Rocky Chenopod Woodland Vulnerable 3 5 9 15 5 5 4 16 62 0.62 Very High

H 1a 6.51 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 4 15 10 4 0 16 49 0.49 Very High

H 1b 1.68 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 7 20 10 3 0 16 56 0.56 Very High

H 1c 1.53 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 7 5 0 5 0 14 31 0.31 High

M 1a 8.6 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 4 15 10 5 0 16 50 0.50 Very High

I 1a 0.82 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 0 15 10 4 0 6 35 0.35 High

I 1b 11.58 Rocky Chenopod Woodland Vulnerable 3 5 4 25 10 5 4 16 72 0.72 Very High

I 1c 3.24 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 4 15 10 5 0 2 36 0.36 High


Oekologie 18


Landscape

Context

Score

Pro

perty

Pa

tch

Area

(h

a)

ass

ess

ed


Class* EVC Status Lar

ge

Tre

es

Tre

e C

ano

py

Co

ver

Lac

k o

f W

eed

s

Un

der

sto

rey

Rec

ruit

men

t

Org

anic

Lit

ter

Lo

gs

Mo

del

led

Lan

dsc

ape

Co

nte

xt

To

tal

Co

nd

itio

n /

10

0

Ha

bit

at

Sco

re (

Ind

ex

)

Min

imu

m

Co

nse

rv

ati

on

Sig

nif

ica

nce#

#

K 1a 5.25 N/A - not formally assessed 0 0

L 1a 1.59 N/A - not formally assessed 0 0

L 1b 1.53 Grassy Woodland Endangered 0 0 0 10 3 4 0 2 19 0.19 High

* Grassy Woodland EVC assigned to assessed native vegetation that was secondary (cf. remnant) vegetation. These patches meet cover thresholds of

native vegetation and have been included herein as a ‘patch’, however there is evidence that the patches are secondary vegetation. Species recorded in

these patches generally were opportunistic species known to recolonise disturbed land. Therefore, these Grassy Woodland patches could be

considered DTV by DSE.

## Minimum Conservation Significance herein is based on Habitat Score alone. Where Conservation Significance is lower than Very High, habitat

for significant species and other attributes as per Appendix 3 of NRE (2002) could elevate the stated Conservation Significance. Very High is the

highest class of Conservation Significance.


Oekologie 19

Native vegetation was most extensive on the western side of Camerons Road. For ease of

discussion, the Study Area has been divided into areas west of Camerons Road (see

Figures 2-4) and those east of Camerons Road (see Figure 5 and 6).

West of Camerons Road

This part of the Study Area does not appear to have been historically cropped (at least, not

as intensively as properties east of Camerons Road), however, there has been long-term

clearing of understorey (mostly shrubs) and heavy grazing pressure was obvious across

much of the area. Current grazing by horses occurs on some properties, however grazing

pressure exerted by rabbits and (to a less damaging extent) kangaroos applied across the

west side.

Grey Box E. microcarpa was the dominant canopy species across the west side, although

Yellow Gum E. leucoxylon and Yellow Box E. melliodora were interspersed, as well as a

few isolated examples of other taxa such as Werribee Blue Box E. aff. baueriana

(Werribee River catchment).

Some properties (e.g. M and H) supported woodland that was not assessed in the current

study, owing to lower impact options being available beyond woodland areas. Generally,

vegetation in areas classified Grassy Woodland were without canopy species and

supported secondary/recolonised vegetation. If building envelopes cannot be sited outside

areas of native vegetation, areas currently classified as Grassy Woodland would be a

preferable site over areas of woodland.

East of Camerons Road

Generally, the east side of the Study Area was dominated by Degraded Treeless Vegetation

(DTV). Properties east of Camerons Road seem to have supported more intensive,

mechanical disturbance-based agriculture than properties west of Camerons Road and

grazing pressure exerted by rabbits and kangaroos is evident.

Several patches of native vegetation were recorded on properties east of Camerons Road

(i.e. C – 1A, 1B, 1C; P – 1A; E – 1A), however the patches were highly degraded and

supported comparatively low floristic diversity. Other than woodland vegetation, extant

native vegetation was secondary, derived vegetation that has recolonised since disturbance

has reduced. Species present are typically considered opportunistic colonisers and the

vegetation is not representative of pre-1750 flora. The patches were so degraded that

assigning an EVC to them is academic; they may be derived vestiges of Grassy Woodland

(EVC 175) but could be classified as DTV, subject to consideration by DSE. The patches

contained several species of wallaby grass Austrodanthonia spp. and spear grasses

Austrostipa spp., as well as a range of opportunistic herbs and chenopods including Ruby

Saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa and stonecrops Crassula spp. These species also were

scattered across areas of DTV.

Weed cover was high across most of the east side, including in patches of native vegetation

and vegetation was in poor condition; Galenia (‘Blanket Weed’) Galenia pubescens

dominated much of the land. Other weed species on the east side of the Study Area

included Serrated Tussock Nassella trichotoma, Boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum, Soursob

Oxalis pes-caprae and Carolina Mallow Caroliana modiola. Ongoing grazing pressure

exerted by rabbits and (to a less damaging extent) kangaroos was evident across the east

side.


Oekologie 20

Some properties (e.g. E) supported woodland that was not assessed in the current study,

owing to lower impact options being available beyond woodland areas. Generally,

vegetation in areas classified Grassy Woodland were without canopy species and

supported secondary/recolonised vegetation. If building envelopes cannot be sited outside

areas of native vegetation, areas currently classified as Grassy Woodland would be a

preferable site over woodland areas.

Scattered trees and some isolated areas of woodland were present, however these are

unlikely to be impacted by the rezoning owing to the options available for development in

DTV or secondary, low quality native vegetation - outside such areas. The dominant

canopy species across the east side was Grey Box Eucalyptus microcarpa.

3.2.3 State and Federal significant vegetation communities

State

Within EVC64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland, the Rocky Chenopod Open-scrub Floristic

Community (FC) can occur. This FC is listed as a threatened community under the Flora

and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) (see Action Statement No. 195). Rocky

Chenopod Open-scrub has an open canopy approximately 10m in height and trees are

stunted and often multi-stemmed. Otherwise, the structure is similar to that described for

EVC64. Where soil moisture or rainfall is higher, the FC is replaced by woodland (that is,

taller and denser canopy). It is considered that the patches of Rocky Chenopod Woodland

within the Study Area do not support the Rocky Chenopod Open-scrub FC; regardless, it is

highly unlikely that woodland will be impacted further by the proposed rezoning. However

if woodland was proposed to be removed, it would be prudent to consider localised

occurrences of the FFG-listed Rocky Chenopod Open-scrub FC.

Federal

Four Ecological Communities that are listed on the Federal Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are likely to or may occur within a 5km radius of the

Study Area. Presence of these communities or any other Matter of National Environmental

Significance (e.g. a listed species) would require a referral to the Federal Government for

consideration of the proposal. The Ecological Communities are:

Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

This community is considered ‘likely to occur within area’; the community is Critically

Endangered. The Study Area supports woodland that matches many aspects of the

definition, however the Study Area is not within the Victorian Volcanic Plain (VVP) -

Grassy Eucalypt Woodland is confined to the VVP (Commonwealth of Australia 2011) so

the vegetation is not the national Ecological Community.

Grey Box (E. microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-

Eastern Australia

The Protected Matter Search Tool considered this community ‘may occur within the area’;

the community is Endangered. Indeed, areas of woodland dominated by Grey Box across

the Study Area generally met condition and extent thresholds for this Ecological

Community (Appendix 2). Thus, applications for any new or intensified activities that may

have a significant impact on the Ecological Community should be referred to the Federal

environment minister for assessment and approval. The following is a summary of the

listing advice (available via www.environment.gov.au) relating to this community:


Oekologie 21

The typical structure of the Grey Box (E. microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived

Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia ecological community is a woodland to open

forest with a canopy dominated by eucalypts and an understorey with a moderately dense

to sparse shrub layer and a ground layer of perennial and annual native forbs and

graminoids.

A tree canopy is present, except in the derived grassland state. The canopy layer is

dominated by Grey Box E. microcarpa. The mid layer is variable. It ranges from absent,

where it has been removed, to moderately dense cover. Shrub composition also can be

variable. The ground layer comprises graminoids, forbs and chenopods. The development

and composition of the ground layer is highly variable and ranges from largely absent to

mostly grassy to forb-rich. The nature of the ground layer is influenced by the density of

the shrub layer at a site, such that where the shrub layer is moderately dense, the ground

layer may be sparse. Chenopods are more prominent in the ground layer of this ecological

community than in other temperate grassy woodlands, especially at drier sites in the range,

where the ecological community adjoins more semi-arid communities. Chenopod species

commonly present include Saloop Einadia hastate, Nodding Saltbush E. nutans subsp.

nutans, Ruby Saltbush Enchylaena tomentosa, Wingless Bluebush Maireana

enchylaenoides and Grey Copperbur Sclerolaena diacantha. A biological soil crust of

mosses and lichens often occurs on the soil surface, particularly in less disturbed sites.

Dense leaf litter usually precludes the development of a soil crust. Soil crusts indicate that

the soil surface has not been significantly disturbed since crusts require the maintenance of

a firm and intact ground surface to develop.

The Grey Box (E. microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of

South-Eastern Australia ecological community includes patches of derived grassland,

where the tree canopy and mid layer has been removed to less than 10% crown cover but

the native ground layer remains largely intact. In order for the derived grassland to be

included in the ecological community, a canopy or mid layer should formerly have been

present that was consistent with the ecological community as described above. Evidence

that these former layers existed may include: the presence of tree stumps or fallen logs; the

type of vegetation in nearby native remnants; historical records and photographs; or

reliable modelling of pre-European vegetation. It should be evident that the grassland patch

is not derived from different types of woodland or be a naturally treeless patch of

grassland. A patch of derived grassland should also retain sufficient ground layer species to

be consistent with the ground layer for the woodland. Derived grasslands are a special state

of the ecological community, whereby the canopy and mid layers have been mostly

removed to <10% crown cover but the native ground layer remains largely intact, with

50% or more of the total vegetation cover being native.

It is likely that some patches of ‘grassland’ may require consideration by the Federal

Government, however it has been the case historically that areas considered as DTV by the

State Government are not considered adequate quality for EPBC protection by the Federal

Government, even though the patch may meet EPBC quality thresholds. Further attention

should be given to these grassy patches when a determination of their status has been made

by DSE.

Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

This community is considered ‘likely to occur within area’; the community is Critically

Endangered. The Study Area supports areas of ‘grassland’ on the east side of Camerons

Road, however there is sufficient evidence that demonstrates that the Study Area supported


Oekologie 22

woodland, rather than grassland, prior to European settlement therefore the vegetation is

not the national Ecological Community.

White Box – Yellow Box – Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Native

Grassland

This community is considered ‘likely to occur within the area’; the community is Critically

Endangered. The Ecological Community is not present, as patches are not dominated by

any of the Eucalyptus species that characterise this community.

3.2.4 State and Federal significant flora species

No flora species that were EPBC-listed or FFG-listed flora species were recorded within

the Study Area during the current study. However, there are species of State and National

significance that appear on database records within 5 km of the site (Appendix 1).

Although no listed species were recorded during the current study, the Study Area supports

habitat for some of these species. Additional surveys (namely targeted surveys) of building

envelopes and fuel management zones may be justified at subdivision stage if dwellings

are proposed to be constructed in areas where native vegetation of sufficiently high quality

persists and/or where there is potential habitat for significant species. It is recommended

that targeted surveys for threatened taxa are conducted if species are considered likely to

occur within or around construction envelopes and building envelopes, and within

defendable space. If the proposed dwellings and their defendable space will not result in

the removal of native vegetation and/or habitat for significant species then further survey is

unlikely to be required.

Bacchus Marsh Varnish Wattle Acacia verniciflua Bacchus Marsh variant is prolific across

the western side of Camerons Road. The species is listed as vulnerable (v) in Victoria

(DSE 2005). Recent years’ rainfall have resulted in extensive regeneration of the species

within woodland and, to a greater extent, on the degraded edges beyond the woodland

extent demonstrating the species’ prolific presence in the soil seedbank and the

responsiveness of the species to favourable environmental conditions. There is evidence of

long- and recent-historical clearing of this species across parts of the Study Area.

Assessment of the cohorts indicate regeneration commenced approximately four years ago;

a new cohort responding to last season’s rainfall also was observed. Some judicious (but

minimal) removal of this species may be necessary to achieve additional dwellings (and

associated fuel modification zones) within the Study Area, however there is substantial

evidence of the species’ ability to recover (also pers. comm. Charles Dickie 30 October

2012).

Fragrant Saltbush Rhagodia parabolica was observed throughout most of the Study Area,

particularly in areas of woodland on the west side of Camerons Road. The species is listed

as rare (r) in Victoria (DSE 2005) as it has a naturally restricted distribution, although

recent years of relatively ‘normal’ rainfall have seen the species flourish and disperse more

widely than it had done during the previous decade or so. The species is bird dispersed, a

prolific seeder and quite responsive to favourable environmental conditions. It is unlikely

that any individuals would need to be removed to achieve the proposed rezoning and

consequent increase in dwellings, however, it is highly unlikely that removing a small

number across the Study Area would negatively impact on the species’ survival. That said,

removal should be avoided if alternatives are available.


Oekologie 23

3.3 Fauna

3.3.1 Habitats

Fauna habitats that occur within the Study Area can be characterised according to

vegetation communities, vegetation structure and other features (e.g. waterways, rock

outcrops). The following habitats were identified within the Study Area.

Pasture – non-native/degraded/dominated by Galenia or Phalaris spp.

Pasture within the Study Area provides habitat only for open-country birds such as

Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen and Australian Pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae.

Secondary grassland or native pasture/scattered native grasses including wallaby and

spear grasses

Secondary ‘grasslands’ or vegetation with similar structure provide potential habitat for

Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana, which is listed as Critically Endangered under the

EPBC Act.

Woodland – degraded understorey/cleared

Across the Study Area, woodland that has cleared or degraded understorey may provide

habitat for some woodland birds that are of State significance. In particular, canopy

foragers such as Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor and some species of honeyeater can utilise

woodlands with degraded understorey. Grey Box E. microcarpa and Yellow Gum E.

leucoxylon, which both are present within the Study Area, are two of the preferred food

trees for Swift Parrot, which is listed as Endangered under the EPBC Act.

Woodland – more intact understorey including chenopods and Acacia shrubs; some

woody debris (though limited due to firewood collection?)

Woodland with a shrub layer may provide habitat for State significant woodland birds that

favour habitat that offers shrubs and debris. Species that may use these woodland areas

include Speckled Warbler Chthonicola sagittata, which is considered Vulnerable in

Victoria and is FFG-listed, and Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata, which is considered

Near Threatened in Victoria and is FFG-listed.

Shrubland – Acacia but also areas in pasture where Boxthorn Lycium ferocissimum is

present

Some (very limited) habitat potential for Speckled Warbler is offered by these vegetation

structures, particularly if the vegetation is less disturbed and adjacent to woodland. Habitat

offered by this vegetation structure is not ideal habitat – such vegetation mostly is utilised

by common bird species. Dense shrubs also provide cover for Red Fox and rabbits.

Debris – natural and artificial

Debris – for example, sheets of metal, wooden panels/pallets, logs and the occasional large

rock – are present throughout the Study Area. This debris provides shelter for common

reptiles. Debris may provide possible shelter for Common Dunnart Sminthopsis murina

murina (considered Vulnerable in Victoria) in areas where woodland structure is more

intact. It is possible that Common Dunnart are present within Lerderderg State Park (pers.

comm. Charles Dickie 30 October 2012) and therefore possible that the species uses

habitat within the Study Area.


Oekologie 24

Drains and dams

The majority of dams within the Study Area are quite disturbed and/or modified, with poor

water quality and limited cover of extant fringing and aquatic vegetation. Nonetheless,

there is some potential habitat for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis which is listed

as Vulnerable under the EPBC, is considered Endangered in Victoria and is FFG-listed.

Also, marginal habitat is offered by drains and dams for State significant water birds such

as Eastern Great Egret Ardea modesta and Hardhead Aythya australis. Only common water

birds were observed during the current study.

Escarpment along Goodman Creek

Along parts of Goodman Creek, adjacent to the Study Area, some very steep/sheer cliff

faces offer habitat to Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus. A breeding pair of Peregrine

Falcons was observed utilising this habitat along Goodman Creek during the current study.

Planted trees and garden plantings

Gardens and ornamental/amenity trees provide additional feeding resources, although

mostly for common species such as honeyeaters and wattlebirds.

3.3.2 Habitat connectivity

Terrestrial habitat is well connected to the north and west to Lerderderg State Park,

offering habitat connectivity to a range of birds and other fauna (e.g. Common Dunnart). It

is possible that Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa use the Study

Area as it is well connected to Lerderderg State Park and to areas immediately north of the

Study Area where Phascogales are known to occur (pers. comm. Charles Dickie 30

October 2012).

Aquatic and ephemeral habitats also are well connected to the broader landscape via

Goodman Creek and the ephemeral drainage line that extends north-south on the west side

of Camerons Road. Although the ephemeral creek line running through the study area is of

limited value for aquatic fauna during drier conditions, during the wetter periods it is likely

to provide a corridor for frog species dispersing throughout the local area. Both Goodman

Creek and the ephemeral creek line may provide a dispersal corridor for Growling Grass

Frog between sites of known habitat, including from the Werribee River where populations

are known to occur.

3.3.3 State and Federal significant fauna communities

The Study Area is not known to contain any FFG Act or EPBC Act listed fauna

communities. No fauna that are characteristic of any significant fauna communities were

observed during the current study.

3.3.4 State and Federal significant fauna species

No species of significance were recorded in or immediately around the Study Area during

the current study. However, there are species of State and National significance that appear

on database records within 5 km of the site (Appendix 1). Although no listed species were

recorded during the current study, the Study Area supports habitat for some of these

species. It is recommended that targeted surveys for threatened taxa are conducted if

species are considered likely to occur within or around construction envelopes and building

envelopes.


Oekologie 25

3.4 Further survey – biodiversity

It is possible that some species of significance occur within areas that support little to no

native vegetation. For this reason, it is recommended that targeted surveys of construction

areas and areas likely to be associated with dwellings (i.e. domestication ‘zones’) be

conducted prior to approving individual planning applications. This recommendation could

form part of an environmentally responsible rezoning.

3.5 Other biodiversity attributes

The Study Area has been identified by the PMST as being upstream of a Wetland of

International Significance (Ramsar Site): Port Phillip Bay (Western shoreline) and Bellarine

Peninsula. Goodman Creek and probably the unnamed tributary west of Camerons Road

connect to this Ramsar site via the Lerderderg River and the Werribee River. Therefore, any

impacts on the study area have potential to result in cumulative impacts on the Ramsar site

via water quality deterioration. However, the topography of the Study Area is such that

careful siting of dwellings will mitigate much if not all potential impacts.

3.6 Summary of biodiversity values of the Study Area

Key values within the site include:

- extensive areas of EVC64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland that are likely to be significant at

the Federal level.

- Vegetation that is of Very High or (at least) High Conservation Significance.

- Likely habitat for significant flora and fauna species.

- Potential habitat for significant flora and fauna species.

- Goodman Creek and the ephemeral, unnamed tributary which potentially provide a

dispersal corridor for the nationally significant Growling Grass Frog.

4. Legislative and Policy Implications

The following key pieces of biodiversity legislation and policy were reviewed and the

implications for the project assessed:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(EPBC Act).

• Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act).

• Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act).

• Planning and Environment Act 1987 – specifically Clause 52.17, Overlays and

Clause 66.02 in the relevant Planning Scheme.

• Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management Framework (NRE 2002).

• Wildlife Act 1975 and associated Regulations.

• Water Act 1989.

• Environment Protection Act 1970: State Environmental Protection Policy (Waters

of Victoria) 2003.


Oekologie 26

4.1 Commonwealth

4.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) applies

to developments and associated activities that have the potential to significantly impact on

matters protected under the Act.

Any person proposing to take an action that may, or will, have a significant impact on a

matter of National Environmental Significance must refer the action to the Australian

Government Minister for the Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities (DSEWPaC) for a determination of whether the action is a ‘controlled

action’. As there are matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) in the project

area, and some potential for impacts, the proposal will need to be referred to the

DSEWPaC. The principal NES categories relevant to the rezoning are:

No areas of Grey Box (E. microcarpa) Grassy Woodland and Derived Native Grasslands

of South-eastern Australia currently are proposed to be removed, however it is possible

that some modification may be required to achieve fuel management targets. Also, it may

be that areas of ‘grassland’ are considered to be Derived Grasslands by the Federal

Government. It would be prudent to site building envelopes outside any areas of native

vegetation. However, it has been the case historically that areas considered as DTV by the

State Government are not considered adequate quality for EPBC protection by the Federal

Government, despite the patch meeting EPBC quality thresholds. Further attention should

be given to these grassy patches when a determination of their status has been made by

DSE and when the extent of any proposed clearing has been determined.

Also, the Study Area supports potential habitat for several EPBC-listed fauna species.

Implications for the project

Areas of woodland dominated by Grey Box across the Study Area generally meet

condition and extent thresholds for this Ecological Community (Appendix 2). On the basis

of criteria outlined in Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact

Guidelines 1.1 (DEWHA 2009), it is possible that there may be increased impacts on a

Matter of NES resulting from rezoning of the study area. Applications for any new or

intensified activities that may have a significant impact on the Ecological Community

should be referred to the Federal environment minister for assessment and approval.

Nonetheless, opportunities to improve the condition of a Federally-listed vegetation

community are likely to result from the rezoning and should be considered during review

by all tiers of Government. Indeed, the Federal Government’s view is that ‘adequate

protection (of listed Ecological Communities) and appropriate land management practices

are vitally important if the listed communities are to persist for the benefit of future

generations’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2011, p. 40). The proposed rezoning offers

opportunity to ensure such protection and improved management. Moorabool Shire

Council may choose to refer the proposed rezoning to the relevant Australian Government

Minister to determine whether the rezoning and likely consequent action (i.e. development)

requires EPBC approval. However, until the extent and condition of native vegetation is

quantified and it is clear what impacts (if any) proposed actions will have on the listed

Ecological Community, referring the proposal to the Federal environment minister may be

premature. This also applies to any application that seeks to remove or modify potential

habitat for listed fauna species. Conversely, a referral at subdivision stage would not be

required if the planning application demonstrated avoidance of any native vegetation or

habitat for significant species.


Oekologie 27

4.2 State

4.2.1 Flora & Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act).

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (FFG Act) provides for the conservation of

threatened species and communities and for the management of potentially threatening

processes. 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 catch, possess, keep or sell listed fish (DSE

website).

It is considered that the patches of Rocky Chenopod Woodland within the Study Area do

not support the Rocky Chenopod Open-scrub FC; regardless, it is highly unlikely that

woodland will be impacted further by the proposed rezoning. However if woodland was

proposed to be removed, it would be prudent to consider localised occurrences of the FFG-

listed Rocky Chenopod Open-scrub FC.


Native vegetation may contain a listed Floristic Community. However, the land is privately

owned and is not declared ‘critical habitat’. A protected flora permit is not required and

the presence of listed threatened flora and habitat for listed threatened fauna will be

considered by the Responsible Authority in determining its response to an application for

vegetation clearance under Clause 52.17.

4.2.2 Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 (CaLP Act) identifies and classifies certain

species as noxious weeds or pest animals, and provides a system of controls on noxious

species. Under the Act, land owners must take all reasonable steps to eradicate regionally

prohibited weeds and 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. Established

pest animals in Victoria include foxes, hares and rabbits.


A number of regionally prohibited and regionally controlled weeds occur within the site.

The proponent/land owner must control them in accordance with the provisions of the

CaLP Act outlined above. Rabbits, hares and foxes are also present and must be controlled

in accordance with the Act.

4.2.3 Planning and Environment Act 1987

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.

Standard sections are contained in all planning schemes - the Victoria Planning Provisions

(VPP). These State sections include the State Planning Policy Framework (SPPF Clauses

10 to 19), Particular Provisions (Clauses 51 to 56) and General Provisions (Clauses 60 to

67).

Of particular relevance to rezoning (and generally consequent) proposals are the native

vegetation provisions, which are contained in several sections of the State sections of all

Planning Schemes, and may also be included in the local section (zoning and overlays).

Clause 52.17 requires a planning permit to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation


Oekologie 28

including dead native vegetation, however certain exemptions may apply. Decision

guidelines are contained in Clause 52.17-5.

The decision guidelines require the responsible authority to consider a variety of

biodiversity and other information including Net Gain policy, biodiversity values and

conservation, the land protection role of native vegetation, the quality, condition, location

and significance of native vegetation and the impact of vegetation removal. The Planning

Scheme defines ‘native vegetation’ as ‘Plants that are indigenous to Victoria, including

trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses’ (Clause 72). The need for a permit to remove native

vegetation may be also be triggered by overlays.


The proposed rezoning in its own right does not propose vegetation removal, however it is

prudent to assess the potential impacts of the implementation of the proposed rezoning

prior to approving the rezoning. In this way, all tiers of Government can assess fully the

proposal and what the long-term implications of the rezoning could be, if each property

was permitted to subdivide and develop additional dwellings in accordance with the

proposal. In the current proposal, there is scope on most properties to achieve additional

lot(s) whilst avoiding impacting on biodiversity values; those properties where biodiversity

impacts cannot be avoided support lower quality vegetation that may be considered as

DTV by the DSE. Indeed, the vegetation that may be removed is less significant than that

being retained and, if adequate controls are applied, appropriately managed.

The impact of any future development on adjacent roadsides and road reserves must be

considered as these support patches of remnant vegetation and a number of significant

floral species, although it is likely that provision of access to most additional lots would

not require removal of roadside vegetation.

It is proposed that a planning permit will be required for subdivision and new dwellings.

This will define more clearly the location of the building envelopes and any areas of

associated impacts. This is the time at which further surveys (namely targeted surveys)

should be conducted. Overall, the potential for improving biodiversity values via on-title

(e.g. S173 Agreements) Land Management Plans exceeds the potential impacts of the

proposal. Indeed, on-title Land Management Plans would provide Council and other

Government Departments opportunities to see implementation of appropriate management

that otherwise may not exist. The proposed rezoning offers an opportunity to enhance and

achieve biodiversity conservation outcomes without placing additional pressures on higher

significance vegetation.

4.2.4 Native Vegetation Management Framework

Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (the Framework)

provides a framework for State Government policy to achieve the protection, enhancement

and revegetation of native vegetation in Victoria (NRE 2002) and is an incorporated

document in all planning schemes. Whilst the Framework currently is under review, the

primary goal of the Framework is:

‘A reversal, across the whole landscape, of the long-term decline in the extent and quality of native

vegetation, leading to a Net Gain.’ (NRE 2002).

Where an application is made under clause 52.17 to remove, destroy or lop native

vegetation, the applicant must explain (Clause 52.17-3) the steps that have been taken to:

• Avoid the removal of native vegetation, where possible.


Oekologie 29

• Minimise the removal of native vegetation.

• Appropriately offset the loss of native vegetation, if required.

Regional Native Vegetation Plans (e.g. PPWCMA 2006) provide a strategic and co-

ordinated approach to the management of native vegetation within a given Catchment

Management Authority region, and complement the Native Vegetation Management

Framework.


The Department of Sustainability and Environment defines Degraded Treeless Vegetation

(DTV) as ‘Vegetation that is neither a wetland, a remnant patch nor scattered tree(s).’

(DSE 2007b, p26). In some cases, vegetation that meets the cover threshold for definition

as a ‘patch’ is modified such that DSE may treat it as DTV. This includes areas that are

‘now dominated by species that are unlikely to have originally dominated the site.’ (DSE

2007b, p10). This can include secondary grasslands that have been cropped and are now

dominated by a small number of opportunistic species. This determination cannot be made

by the consultant and must be made by DSE.

This report establishes the extent, distribution and quality of native vegetation within the

Study Area that may be impacted (directly or indirectly) by development that could be

permitted if the proposed rezoning is accepted. The current assessment has demonstrated

that: native vegetation removal can be avoided on most properties within the Study Area if

the property is subdivided in accordance with the proposed rezoning; and that vegetation

removal can be minimised (in quality and/or extent) on properties where avoidance of

native vegetation is not achievable. In the event that vegetation removal is permitted, under

the current Framework, offsets would need to be secured to compensate for any vegetation

losses. A Net Gain Assessment was not conducted, as this would be prepared in

conjunction with specific planning applications.

4.2.5 Wildlife Act 1975 and associated Regulations

The Wildlife Act 1975 is the primary legislation in Victoria providing for protection and

management of wildlife. The Wildlife Regulations 2002 of the Act prescribe penalties for

certain activities relevant to wildlife including disturbance of habitat without appropriate

authorisation. Authorisation to destroy or possess wildlife may be required (Sections 41–

47) if wildlife needs to be moved or destroyed during development.


A permit is required to remove native vegetation throughout the Study Area unless specific

exemptions apply. If permission for removal of vegetation is granted under provisions of

other Victorian legislation a separate permit under the Wildlife Act 1975 is not required for

removal of vegetation that constitutes habitat for fauna. If construction activities are likely

to result in the death of wildlife or the need to remove wildlife, a permit will be required.

4.2.6 Water Act 1989

The primary purpose of this Act 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.

Any construction or maintenance activity that affects riparian vegetation, beds and banks

of waterways and/or quality or quantity of water, requires a licence, permit or approval

from the relevant authority.


Oekologie 30


The proposed rezoning is unlikely to require approval from the relevant authority under the

Water Act 1989 as waterways are unlikely to be affected – unless provision of access

involves construction within or around waterways.

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

The Environment Protection Act 1970 underpins the State Environmental Protection

Policies (SEPP) which provide a legal framework for the protection and rehabilitation of

Victoria’s surface water environments. The uses and values of the water environment are

known as ‘beneficial uses’. Environmental quality objectives and indicators are defined to

protect beneficial uses and an attainment program provides guidance on protection of the

beneficial uses. The key beneficial use of relevance to biodiversity is ‘Aquatic

ecosystems’. The Policy requires that aquatic ecosystems be protected.

Impacts to surface water quality must not result in changes that exceed water quality

objectives specified to protect beneficial uses. Proponents and land managers need to

ensure that direct and indirect (e.g. runoff) impacts to surface water quality do not exceed

the water quality objectives. The SEPP provides recommendations to ensure that beneficial

uses are protected.


The project may directly and/or indirectly impact upon Goodman Creek and/or an

unnamed ephemeral waterway, subsequently impacting Lerderderg River and the Werribee

River and their aquatic ecosystems. Relevant actions identified in the applicable policy

clauses have been incorporated into the mitigation measures.

4.2.8 Regional Catchment Strategy and River Health Strategy

State Planning Policy Framework Clause 15.01 (Protection of catchments, waterways and

groundwater) states that planning and responsible authorities must have regard for the

objectives of the Regional Catchment Strategy (e.g. PPWCMA, 2004). The Port Phillip

and Western Port Regional River Health Strategy (PPWCMA, Melbourne Water 2007)

provides additional recommendations on the protection of high-value rivers and creeks that

are in good condition, and strategic improvement of other rivers and creeks


The key biodiversity objectives of the above Strategies with respect to the aquatic

environment will be met if the mitigation measures outlined in this report are complied

with.


Oekologie 31

5. Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Field assessments identified that extensive areas of Very High and (at least) High Conservation

Significance vegetation were extant across the Study Area. Historical and contemporary

management of this significant vegetation has resulted in widespread degradation. As is typical

of many privately managed areas of native vegetation, within the Study Area there is little

evidence of landholder commitment to improving management of native vegetation to improve

biodiversity outcomes.

Generally, despite the appearance of being highly degraded, patches of Rocky Chenopod

Woodland (particularly those mapped on the west side of Camerons Road) presented elements

(particularly structure) highly typical of this EVC. Nonetheless, historical activities such as

understorey clearing, vehicular traversing and mechanical soil disturbance, as well as significant

grazing pressure, have resulted in degradation. Grazing pressure exerted by rabbits and (to a less

damaging extent) kangaroos was evident across the Study Area. It is likely that reduced grazing

pressure by rabbits in conjunction with weed control measures would result in natural

recruitment of, and recolonisation by, native species.

Without intervention, this degradation will continue unabated and the vegetation will further

decline or – at best, maintain. However there is significant potential for active pest plant and

animal management and cessation of understorey clearing to greatly improve vegetation

condition; if implemented sensitively, the proposed rezoning could result in areas of woodland

being conserved and managed appropriately under an on-title Land Management Plan. It is likely

that the rezoning offers one of few mechanisms and opportunities that could see the conservation

and rehabilitation of Rocky Chenopod Woodlands within the Study Area.

Indeed, the proposed rezoning may provide an opportunity to realise improved management of

the (potentially, nationally) significant vegetation across the Study Area. In most instances, there

are opportunities available on properties throughout the Study Area to subdivide to achieve at

least one additional lot and dwelling – if creation and implementation of an on-title Land

Management Plan was required as part of the rezoning/planning permit, improved vegetation

management could be achieved. This would lead to great improvements in condition (and

probably extent) of native vegetation across the Study Area that (almost certainly) could not be

achieved in the absence of such an agreement. A range of agricultural activities and intensity of

agricultural land use has resulted in a mosaic of vegetation conditions across the Study Area,

therefore, it is recommended that on-title Land Management Plans be tailored for each property

to achieve common objectives across the Study Area. Whilst many of the objectives and actions

will be same across the Study Area, Land Management Plans that are designed specifically for

each property are more likely to achieve improved biodiversity outcomes. Further, ideally the

Land Management Plans would be developed by and/or with landholders to foster stewardship

and landholder buy-in.

With a few exceptions, additional dwellings could be sited on properties within the Study Area



lowest. Additional surveys (e.g. targeted surveys) of building envelopes and fuel management

zones may be justified in areas where native vegetation of sufficiently high quality persists

and/or where there is potential habitat for significant species. Consideration of Goodman Creek

and ephemeral watercourse(s) should form part of the development of any future Land

Management Plans.


Oekologie 32

6. Conclusion

The current assessment identified that the Study Area supported areas of High – Very High

Conservation Significance that may be nationally significant. These areas largely were in a

degraded state due to factors such as historical land management practices and intensive grazing,

particularly by rabbits. Nonetheless, the Study Site offered potential habitat to a range of

significant flora and fauna species.

With a few exceptions, additional dwellings could be sited on properties within the Study Area



lowest. Importantly, the proposed rezoning offers a unique opportunity to introduce on-title Land

Management Plans that can help improve the condition of significant vegetation and achieve

improved biodiversity outcomes.


Oekologie 33

References

Commonwealth of Australia (2011). Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities of the

Victorian Volcanic Plain: Natural Temperate Grassland and Grassy Eucalypt Woodland

– a Guide to the Identification, Assessment and Management of Nationally Threatened

Ecological Communities Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,

Canberra.

DEWHA (2009). Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant impact guidelines

1.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Australian Government, Canberra.

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 and Environment, Melbourne.

DSE (2005). Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria - 2005. Victorian

Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria.

DSE (2007a). Advisory List of the Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2007. Victorian

Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria.

DSE (2007b). Native Vegetation Guide for Assessment of Referred Planning Permit

Applications. Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East

Melbourne, Victoria.

NRE (2002). Victoria's Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action. Department of

Natural Resources & Environment, Victoria.

PPWCMA (2006). Port Phillip and Westernport Native Vegetation Plan. Port Phillip and

Westernport Catchment Management Authority, Frankston, Victoria.

Terramatrix (2012). Bushfire Development Report for the proposed rezoning of properties in

Camerons Road, Bacchus Marsh. November 2012. Terramatrix PL, Collingwood,

Victoria.

Walsh, N.G. and Stajsic, V. (2007). A census of the vascular plants of Victoria. 8th edn. Royal

Botanic Gardens Melbourne, South Yarra.


Oekologie 34

Appendices


Oekologie 35

Appendix 1. Significant species likely to occur within 5km of the Study Area.

Flora:

Conservation Status

Scientific Name Common Name EPBC DSE FFG Most recent

record

Other

sources

Likelihood of occurrence in study

area

National Significance

Carex tasmanica Curly Sedge VU v L 2009 High

Diuris basaltica Small Golden Moths EN v L 2009 Negligible

Diuris fragrantissima Sunshine Diuris EN e L 2009 Negligible

Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine VU v L 2009 Medium

Lachnagrostis adamsonii Adamson's Blown-grass EN v L 2009 Medium

Lepidium hyssopifolium Basalt Peppercress EN e L 2009 Medium

Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens Spiny Rice-flower CR e L 2009 Negligible

Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon Leek-orchid EN e L 2009 Negligible

Senecio macrocarpus Large-headed Fireweed VU e L 2009 Negligible

Xerochrysum palustre Swamp Everlasting VU v L 2009 Negligible

State Significant

Acacia aspera subsp. parviceps Rough Wattle r 2009 High

Acacia verniciflua (1-nerved variant) Seymour Wattle v 2004 Medium

Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke L 2009 High

Austrostipa breviglumis Cane Spear-grass r 2009 High

Austrostipa exilis Heath Spear-grass r 2009 High

Calotis lappulacea Yellow Burr-daisy r 2009 Medium

Cullen parvum Small Scurf-pea e L 2009 High

Cullen tenax Tough Scurf-pea e L 2009 High

Dianella sp. aff. longifolia (Benambra) Arching Flax-lily v 2009 High

Diuris X fastidiosa Proud Diuris e 2009 Medium

Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. connata Melbourne Yellow-gum v 2009 Medium

##Eucalyptus leucoxylon subsp. megalocarpa Large-fruit Yellow-gum e L 2001 High

Goodia medicaginea Western Golden-tip r 2009 Medium

Myoporum montanum Waterbush r 1853 Low

Nicotiana suaveolens Austral Tobacco r 2009 High


Oekologie 36

Olearia minor Satin Daisy-bush r 2009 Medium

Pimelea hewardiana Forked Rice-flower r 2009 Medium

Pimelea spinescens Spiny Rice-flower e L 1993 Negligible

##Prostanthera nivea var. nivea Snowy Mint-bush r 2009 Negligible

Prostanthera saxicola var. bracteolata Slender Mint-bush r 1991 Low

Pterostylis truncata Brittle Greenhood e L 2009 Medium

Ptilotus erubescens Hairy Tails L 2009 Negligible

##Rhagodia parabolica Fragrant Saltbush r 2009 Recorded

Senecio cunninghamii var. cunninghamii Branching Groundsel r 2009 Negligible

Westringia glabra Violet Westringia r 1904 Negligible

Fauna:

Conservation Status

Scientific Name Common Name EPBC DSE FFG Most recent record

Birds

Anas rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler vu 2001

Ardea modesta Eastern Great Egret vu L 2001

Aythya australis Hardhead vu 2003

Biziura lobata Musk Duck vu 2003

Chalcites osculans Black-eared Cuckoo nt 1990

Chthonicola sagittata Speckled Warbler vu L 2004

Cinclosoma punctatum Spotted Quail-thrush nt 1988

Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier nt 2001

Climacteris picumnus victoriae Brown Treecreeper (south-eastern ssp.) nt 2006

Falco subniger Black Falcon vu 1986

Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern en L 1986

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle vu L 1995

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern nt L 2000

Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin nt L 1988

Melithreptus gularis Black-chinned Honeyeater nt 2006

Ninox connivens Barking Owl en L 1987

Ninox strenua Powerful Owl vu L 1997

Oreoica gutturalis Crested Bellbird nt L 1986

Phalacrocorax varius Pied Cormorant nt 1986

Platalea regia Royal Spoonbill vu 1986

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis nt 1986


Oekologie 37

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail vu L 2008

Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck en L 1992

Mammals

Cercartetus nanus Eastern Pygmy-possum nt I 1992

Miniopterus schreibersii GROUP Common Bent-wing Bat L 1988

Phascogale tapoatafa tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale vu L 1968

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox VU vu L 1968

Sminthopsis murina murina Common Dunnart vu 1968

Reptiles

Varanus varius Lace Goanna vu 1968

Amphibians

Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog VU en L 1977

Pseudophryne bibronii Brown Toadlet en L 1990

Invertebrates

Cherax destructor albidus Common Yabby dd 1994


Oekologie 38

Appendix 2. Consideration of EPBC Grey Box (E.

microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of SE Australia.

Table A2.1. Key diagnostics for the Grey Box (E. microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and

Derived Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia ecological community and how they

apply to EVC64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland across the Study Area.

Key diagnostic Decision

The ecological community occurs on low

slopes and plains from central NSW, through

northern and central Victoria into South

Australia. Disjunct occurrences are known from

near Melbourne and in the Flinders-Lofty

Block Bioregion of South Australia.

Yes

The vegetation structure of the ecological

community is typically a woodland to open

forest.

Yes – woodland

The tree canopy is dominated (! 50% canopy

crown cover) by Eucalyptus microcarpa (Grey

Box). Other tree species may be present in the

canopy and, in certain circumstances, may be

co-dominant with Grey Box but are never

dominant on their own.

Yes – dominated by Grey Box (E.

microcarpa)

The mid layer comprises shrubs of variable

composition and cover, from absent to

moderately dense. The mid layer usually has a

crown cover of less than 30% with local

patches up to 40% crown cover.

Yes – shrubs present as per description and

species present are as per Appendix 1 of the

listing advice

The ground layer also is highly variable in

development and composition, ranging from

almost absent to mostly grassy to forb-rich.

Ground layer flora commonly present include

one or more of the graminoid genera:

Austrodanthonia, Austrostipa, Elymus,

Enteropogon, Dianella and Lomandra; and one

or more of the chenopod genera: Atriplex,

Chenopodium, Einadia, Enchylaena, Maireana,

Salsola and Sclerolaena.

Yes – ground layer is almost absent/forb-

rich. Ground layer graminoids (at least)

include Austrodanthonia; chenopod genera

include Atriplex, Einadia and Enchylaena.

Derived grasslands are a special state of the

ecological community, whereby the canopy and

mid layers have been mostly removed to <10%

crown cover but the native ground layer

remains largely intact, with 50% or more of the

total vegetation cover being native.

Yes, it is plausible that some of the

‘grassland’ patches may meet this threshold.


Oekologie 39

Table A2.2. Condition thresholds for the Grey Box (E. microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia

ecological community and how they apply to EVC64 Rocky Chenopod Woodland across the Study Area.

Category and rationale Thresholds Decisions

Criteria that are broadly applicable 1a. The minimum patch size is 0.5 hectare;

AND

1b. The canopy layer contains Grey Box (E.

microcarpa) as the dominant or co-dominant tree

species;

AND

1c. The vegetative cover of non-grass weed species in

the ground layer is less than 30% at any time of the

year.

1a. Yes

1b. Yes

1c. Yes, except possibly on

edges (Galenia)

Additional criteria that apply to smaller woodland patches

(0.5 to <2 ha in area) with tree crown cover >10%

2a. At least 50% of the vegetative cover in the

ground layer comprises perennial native species at

any time of the year;

AND

2b. 8 or more perennial native species (6 or more in

the Flinders Lofty Block Bioregion of South

Australia) are present in the mid and ground layers at

any time of the year.

2a. Where relevant, yes.

2b. Where relevant, yes.

3a. At least 8 trees/ha are hollow bearing or have a

diameter at breast height of 60 cm or more10;

AND

3b. at least 10% of the vegetative ground cover

comprises perennial native grasses at any time of the

year;

3a. No

3b. N/A as 3a not addressed.

Go to 4a.

Additional criteria that apply to larger woodland patches with

a well developed canopy (2 ha or more in area)

OR


Oekologie 40

Category and rationale Thresholds Decisions

4a. At least 20 trees/ha have a diameter at breast

height of 12 cm or more;

AND

4b. at least 50% of the vegetative cover in the ground

layer comprises perennial native species.

4a. Yes

4b. Yes, except possibly on

edges (Galenia)

Additional criteria that apply to patches where the canopy is

less developed or absent (derived grassland)

(!0.5 ha in area)

5a. Woodland density does not meet criteria 3a or 4a,

or is a derived grassland with clear evidence that the

site formerly was a woodland with a tree canopy

dominated or co-dominated by E. microcarpa;

AND

5b. At least 50% of the vegetative cover in the

ground layer is made up of perennial native species

at any time of the year;

AND

5c. 12 or more native species are present in the

ground layer at any time of the year.

5a. Some areas of ‘grassland’

do not meet 3a or 4a – some

are not even dominated by

native species. Where they

are dominated by native

species, no clear evidence

that former woodland was

dominated by Grey Box but

can be assumed.

5b. Yes, in some patches.

5c. Yes, in some patches.

NB. - Vegetative cover excludes mosses and lichens. Patches of bare ground or leaf litter are also not included.

- Relevant growth-forms to include are: grasses, other graminoids, forbs and shrubs less than 4 metres tall. Shrubs that are 4 metres or more in height and non-

vascular plants (mosses and lichens) are not included.

Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment final final...Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment –...

Documents

Transcript of Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment final final...Preliminary Flora and Fauna Assessment –...