figure 7.5 planning zones and overlays within the study ... › __data › assets › pdf... ·...

Vear ings Road Drain

Hume Fwy

PAO2

RCZ1

FZ

CDZ4

RDZ1

DDO2

DPO23

VPO2

ESO4

!Epping

Rufus StCooper St

Eppin

g Rd

Edgars Rd

94 6 7 8

3

2

1

5

Matter: 23402,Date: 02 June 2017,Checked by: CPM, Drawn by: LDM, Last edited by: lmilneLocation:P:\23400s\23402\Mapping\23402_F7_PlanningMap.mxd

Scale: 1:2,000 @ A3Coordinate System: GDA 1994 MGA Zone 55

Biosis Pty LtdBallarat, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne,

Newcastle, Sydney, Wangaratta & Wollongong

±

Figure 7.5 Planning zonesand overlays within thestudy area, Epping,

0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres

LegendStudy areaImpact areaMSA boundary

Vegetation removal not exemptPlanning Zone

Comprehensive Development Zone (1 to 6)Farming Zone (FZ)Rural Conservation Zone (RCZ1-15)

Planning overlayDesign and Development Overlay (DDO, DDOPT)Development Plan Overlay (DPO)Environmental Significance Overlay (ESO)Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)

Vegetation removal exemptPlanning zone

Road Zone (RDZ1) - Hume FreewayPlanning overlay

! ! !

! ! !

Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO)

Edgar sCree k

Oherns Rd

RDZ1

CDZ2

FZ

FZ

CDZ4DDO2

DPO14

DPO23

RFO

VPO2

DCPO4

PAO2

!Epping

Rufus StCooper St

Eppin

g Rd

Edgars Rd

94 6 7 8

3

2

1

5





±


0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres

LegendStudy areaImpact areaMSA boundary


Comprehensive Development Zone (1 to 6)Farming Zone (FZ)

Planning overlay#* #*

Development Contributions PlanOverlay (DCPO)Design and Development Overlay (DDO, DDOPT)Development Plan Overlay (DPO)Rural Floodway Overlay(RFO)Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)

Vegetation removal exemptPlanning zone

Road Zone (RDZ1) - Hume FreewayPlanning overlay

! ! !

! ! !

Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO)

Gottloh St

Jarama Bvd Wuchatsch Av

Varroville St

Min to

Av

Draper CrOr

iano S

t

Macfie Av

Cinel

Lnwy

Cotte

rs Rd

Blaine

y Cr

Palm

ero St

Ciava

rella

Lnwy

Oherns Rd

CDZ2

GRZ1

FZ

CDZ4

DPO12

DPO14

DPO23

RFO

VPO2

DCPO4

DCPO1

!Epping

Rufus StCooper St

Eppin

g Rd

Edgars Rd

94 6 7 8

3

2

1

5





±


0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres

LegendStudy areaImpact area


Comprehensive Development Zone (1 to 6)Farming Zone (FZ)General Residential Zone (GRZ)

Planning overlay

#* #*

#* #* Development Contributions PlanOverlay (DCPO)Development Plan Overlay (DPO)Rural Floodway Overlay(RFO)Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)

Minto

A v

Wuchatsch Av

Anti ll

Rise

Dolerite Pl

Vocke

nsoh

n Pl

Loch

aber

Pl

Draper Cr

Colde

n Cl

Ambrosia Cl

Redd

ing Ri

se

Varroville St

Blaine

y Cr

Radm

an St

Pinney Lane

Sheales Way

Bern

hardt

Dr

Oherns Rd

Woolc

ott Tc

e

Macfie Av

Yale D

r ive D

ra in

IN1Z

IN1Z

CDZ2

GRZ1

UFZ

CDZ4

MUZ1

DPO9

DPO12

DPO14

DPO23

LSIO

VPO2

DCPO4

DCPO1

!Epping

Rufus StCooper St

Eppin

g Rd

Edgars Rd

94 6 7 8

3

2

1

5





±


0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres



Comprehensive Development Zone (1 to 6)General Residential Zone (GRZ)Industrial 1 Zone (IN1Z)Mixed Use Zone (LDRZ)Urban Floodway Zone (UFZ)


Development Contributions PlanOverlay (DCPO)Development Plan Overlay (DPO)Land Subject to InundationOverlay (LSIO)Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)

Findon Creek

San C

ri stob

a lPa

ss

Mediterranean Way

Brus

h Rd

Miro Pl

Kinlora Av

Duffy

St

Sparta Link

Alicia

Pl

Oherns Rd

Palenque Tce

Simon Ct

Meran

ti Way

Rosen Fraser Cl

Rita Ct

Nicho

las St

Aries Dr

Albert Ct

Tulum Lane

Jordi Pl

Joanne Ct

Seba

stion

St

Pablo

St

Fend

i Av

Park St

Prada

Dr

Paul Cr

High St

Findon RdEp

ping R

d

DCPO2PUZ1

RDZ1

FZ

GRZ1

UFZPPRZ

PUZ5

PPRZ

GRZ1

GRZ1

GRZ1

GRZ1

RDZ2

PUZ1HO105

DPO12

LSIO

VPO2

DCPO3

DCPO1

!Epping

Rufus StCooper St

Eppin

g Rd

Edgars Rd

94 6 7 8

3

2

1

5





±


0 20 40 60 80 100

Metres



Farming Zone (FZ)General Residential Zone (GRZ)Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ)Public Use Zone (PUZ1 or 2)Public Use Zone (3 to 7)Road Zone (RDZ2)Urban Floodway Zone (UFZ)Road Zone (RDZ1)


Development Contributions PlanOverlay (DCPO)Development Plan Overlay (DPO)Heritage Overlay (HO)Land Subject to InundationOverlay (LSIO)Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO)

© Biosis 2017 – Leaders in Ecology and Heritage Consulting 64

5. Victoria's biodiversity assessment guidelines

The Guidelines were introduced in December 2013, and they describe the following objective for permitted clearing of native vegetation in Victoria:

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

This objective is to be achieved through Victoria's planning system using a risk-based approach that relies on strategic planning and the permit and offset system. The key strategies for achieving no net loss at the permit level are:

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

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

where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensuring it is offset in a manner that makes a contribution to Victoria's biodiversity that is equivalent to the contribution made by the native vegetation to be removed.

The steps that have been taken during the design of the development to ensure that impacts on biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation have been minimised include:

Locating the works in predominately non-native vegetation dominated by Chilean Needle-grass

Minimising the project footprint as far as practicable to minimise impacts to remnant native vegetation and scattered trees.

DELWP has provided biodiversity information tools to assist with determining the risk associated with permitted clearing and the contribution that native vegetation within the study area makes to Victoria's biodiversity.

All planning permit applications to remove native vegetation are assigned to a risk-based pathway determined by the extent and location of proposed clearing. The risk-based pathway dictates the information to be provided in a planning permit application and the decision guidelines the responsible authority (e.g. Council) and/or DELWP as a referral authority will use, to assess the permit application.

The biodiversity information tools have two components:

Site-based information

The site-based information is observable at a particular site. Biosis has collected the requisite site-based information for the assessment against the Guidelines.

Landscape scale information

Landscape scale information requires consideration of information beyond the site. This information is managed by DELWP and can be accessed via the NVIM. Biosis has submitted the site-based data and location information to DELWP to allow for a Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) to be prepared to accompany a planning application.

The following section summarises the results of the site-based assessment and the outputs generated by the BAR report. The BAR report identifies the risk-based pathway on which the planning application will be assessed. This output is provided in Appendix 4 (Stage 1) and Appendix 5 (Stage 2).

Note: a glossary of terms used in relation to the Guidelines and Habitat hectares assessment is provided in Appendix 6.


5.1 Proposed removal of native vegetation

Native vegetation patches and scattered trees were mapped within the study area (Figure 4). The proposed removal of native vegetation was assessed in accordance with the concept design provided.

5.1.1 Planning context

Part of the study area is located inside the MSA, and is therefore not directly subject to the requirements of the Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines. However, when an impact area crosses the MSA boundary, impacts to all native vegetation are considered to determine if specific offsets are required. A test clearing scenario was therefore prepared using the EnSym Native Vegetation Regulations (NVR) tool (DELWP version 8.2) to determine if specific offsets would be triggered by removal of vegetation within the full extent of the impact area. This test clearing scenario suggests that the vegetation clearance within the full extent of the impact area is unlikely to trigger specific offsets. The vegetation removal and BAR summary results presented below are therefore based on the removal of vegetation for the section of the study area located outside the MSA and outside the area subject to exemptions under 52.17. Obligations for removal of native vegetation and threatened species habitat within the MSA are summarised in Section 4.1.2.

Outside the MSA and areas exempt from the need for a permit to remove native vegetation under the schedule to 52.17, the proposed works would remove one patch of Plains Grassy Woodland and three scattered trees in Stage 1 and two scattered trees in Stage 2, as shown on Figure 2 and summarised in the BAR attached at Appendix 4 (Stage 1) and Appendix 5 (Stage 2).

5.1.2 Habitat hectares

Areas of uniform quality for each EVC within the patches are termed ‘habitat zones’ and are assessed separately. The condition score of the habitat zone is multiplied by the extent of the zone to give a value in Habitat hectares (Table 6).


Table 6 Habitat hectares of native vegetation within the study area

Stage # 2 1 Site ID 1 2 Habitat Zone ID A A

EVC #: Name EVC 649 Stony Knoll Shrubland

EVC 55_61 Plains Grassy Woodland

Max Score Score Score

Site

Co

ndit

ion

Large Old Trees 10 N/A 0

Canopy Cover 5 N/A 5

Lack of Weeds 15 4 9

Understorey 25 15 0

Recruitment 10 6 0

Organic Matter 5 2 3

Logs 5 N/A 0

Total Site Score (standardised) 27 (37) 17

Land

scap

e Va

lue

Patch Size 10 1 1

Neighbourhood 10 0 0

Distance to Core 5 1 1

Total Landscape Score 2 2 HABITAT SCORE 100 39 19 Habitat points = #/100 1 0.39 0.19

5.2 Determining the risk-based pathway

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

Location risk has been pre-determined by DELWP for all locations in Victoria. The location of a particular site is determined using the Native vegetation location risk map available in the Native Vegetation Information Management (NVIM) system (http://nvim.depi.vic.gov.au).

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

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

number of any scattered trees proposed to be removed.

For applications that propose to remove both remnant patch vegetation and scattered trees, the extent of scattered trees is calculated using the standard extent multiplier and added to the extent of remnant patch vegetation, to determine the overall extent to be considered when determining the risk-based pathway.

These requirements are provided in Appendix 4 (Stage 1) and Appendix 5 (Stage 2).


5.3 Offset requirements

In order to ensure a gain to Victoria’s biodiversity that is equivalent to the loss resulting from permitted clearing of native vegetation, compensatory offsets are required. Losses and gains are measured in biodiversity equivalence scores or units.

For a moderate risk-based pathway application, the specific-general offset test will determine if a general offset, specific offset or combination of both is required. As described above, the full extent of the impact area, including vegetation removal within the MSA, is required to be considered for the specific-general offset test. The proposed vegetation clearing does not trigger specific offsets, therefore general offsets can be used to offset the proposed vegetation clearing.

The general offset requirements are provided in Appendix 4 (Stage 1) and Appendix 5 (Stage 2) and summarised in Table 7.

Table 7 Summary of DELWP Biodiversity Impacts and Offset Requirements report

Attribute Outcome Notes

Stage 1

Location risk A

Native vegetation removal extent 0.326 ha Includes three scattered trees

Risk-based pathway Low

Habitat hectares to be removed 0.064

Strategic Biodiversity Score 0.124

Specific-general offset test result General offset

Offset type General

Offset risk factor 1.5

Offset amount: General Biodiversity Equivalence Units

0.012

Offset Vicinity Port Phillip and Westernport CMA or Whittlesea City Council

Offset minimum Strategic Biodiversity Score

0.099

Stage 2

Location risk A

Native vegetation removal extent 0.141 ha Two scattered trees

Risk-based pathway Low

Habitat hectares to be removed 0.028

Strategic Biodiversity Score 0.291

Specific-general offset test result General offset

Offset type General

Offset risk factor 1.5


Attribute Outcome Notes

Offset amount: General Biodiversity Equivalence Units

0.012

Offset Vicinity Port Phillip and Westernport CMA or Whittlesea City Council

Offset minimum Strategic Biodiversity Score

0.232

5.4 Proposed offset strategy

VicRoads intends to purchase the offset credits from the Victorian native vegetation credit register.

5.5 Past permitted clearing

DELWP have advised that, in order to consider cumulative impacts within a road reserve, the full scope of a single project must be assessed as one project, even if it consists of multiple stages. The current project is likely to be considered as a stand-alone project, and VicRoads has advised that no permitted clearing of native vegetation has occurred within the study area in the past 5 years.


6. Key ecological values and recommendations

This section identifies the key ecological features of the study area, provides an outline of potential implications of proposed development on those values and includes recommendations to assist VicRoads to design a development to minimise impacts on biodiversity.

The primary measure to reduce impacts to biodiversity values within the study area is to minimise removal of native vegetation and terrestrial and aquatic habitat. It is critical that this be considered during the design phase of the project, when key decisions are made about the road design. The results of this assessment should therefore be incorporated into the project design, by adding the flora and fauna mapping information into the planning maps and investigating options to retain as much of the mapped vegetation/habitats as possible. Priority should be given to highest value areas and retaining larger areas in preference to numerous smaller ones.

A summary of potential implications of development of the study area and recommendations to minimise impacts is provided in Table 8.

Table 8 Summary of key ecological values, potential implications of developing the study area and recommendations to minimise ecological impacts.

Ecological feature (Figure 4)

Implications of development Recommendations

Native vegetation The application will be assessed on the low risk-based pathway. Proportional impacts to native vegetation are below the specific offset threshold for all rare and threatened species.

Avoid and minimise removal of native vegetation, in accordance with the Guidelines (no net loss).

All areas of vegetation to be retained should be fenced as no-go-zones for the duration of the works. This includes tree protection zones of remnant scattered trees.

Significant fauna habitat

Removal of habitat for Golden Sun Moth and potential indirect impacts to retained habitat Growling Grass Frog.

Avoid and minimise the removal of habitat outlined in Figure 3 and within this report.

Retained areas to be clearly marked as 'no-go' zones and communicated to all construction personnel during site inductions.

Maintain habitat connectivity for Growling Grass Frog on Edgars Creek through best practice culvert and/or bridge design.

Implement appropriate hygiene protocol to ensure that no introduced species or pathogens are introduced to the study area.

Revegetate disturbed areas with appropriate flora species (e.g. known food plants for Golden Sun Moth).


Ecological feature (Figure 4)

Implications of development Recommendations

Other habitat features (including Habitat connectivity)

Removal of potential habitat for FFG Act listed fauna species (as identified in Table 2 below. Table 2). Loss of, or alterations to, riparian and in-stream habitat associated with Edgars Creek and potential impacts to a habitat corridor for fauna including the EPBC Act listed Growling Grass Frog.

Avoid/minimise removal of aquatic habitat by designing to avoid or minimise instream works and maintain habitat continuity for Growling Grass Frog and other aquatic fauna through best practice crossing design over Edgars Creek.

Construction and post-construction management

Specific detail relating to preventing impacts to retained native vegetation and aquatic and terrestrial habitat should be addressed in a site-specific Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). This will include issues relating to contractors such as environmental inductions, installation of temporary fencing/signage, drainage and sediment control.

The configuration of works for the crossing of Edgars Creek should be designed to maintain or enhance the ability of Growling Grass Frog to move through this structure. This is best achieved by designing the crossing to be broadly in accordance with DELWP’s Growling Grass Frog Crossings guidelines. Suitable management actions to avoid impacts to surface water quality should be undertaken in accordance with EPA ‘best practice’ construction environmental management guidelines, i.e. Publications 275, 480 and 960).

Neither phytophthora nor phylloxera are considered to be relevant to the proposed works. Machinery hygiene protocols required to mitigate impacts to Growling Grass Frog and spread of weeds will further reduce the risk of transporting phylloxera, phytophthora and other plant pests and pathogens.


References

Biosis 2017. 165-195 O'Herns Road Epping: Biodiversity Assessment Report. Draft report prepared for MAB Corporation. Authors: Mueck, S. & Gilmore, D. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 23682.

Biosis Research 2006. Flora and Fauna of Aurora, Epping North. Report prepared for VicUrban. Authors: Costello, C., Timewell, C., Koehler, S. & Endersby, I. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 5003.

Biosis Research 2008a. Habitat hectare assessment for the Melbourne Wholesale Market site, Copper Street, Epping. Report prepared for Major Projects Victoria. Author: Mueck, S. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 7280.

Biosis Research 2008b. Survey of the Golden Sun Moth at the proposed Melbourne Wholesale Market site, Epping, Victoria. Report prepared for Department of Primary Industries. Author: Gilmore, D. Biosis Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project no. 7490.

Clemann N. and Gillespie G. R. 2012. National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bell Frog Litoria raniformis. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/litoria-raniformis.html. In effect under the EPBC Act from 10-Feb-2012.

Commonwealth of Australia 2009a. Significant impact guidelines for the critically endangered golden sun moth (Synemon plana). Nationally threatened species and ecological communities EPBC Act policy statement 3.12, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts. Australian Government, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 2009b. Background Paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.12 – Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts. Australian Government, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 2009c. Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable Growling Grass Frog (Litoria raniformis). Nationally threatened species and ecological communities EPBC Act policy statement 3.14, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts, Australian Government, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 2012. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: Environmental Offsets Policy. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 2013. Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia 2014. Policy statement of Melbourne urban development proposals needing consideration under Parts 7, 8 and 9 of the EPBC Act. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Canberra.

DEPI 2013a. Permitted clearing of native vegetation - Biodiversity assessment guidelines. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne (September 2013).

DEPI 2013b. Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Melbourne’s Growth Corridors. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne (June 2013).

DEPI 2014a. Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014. Victorian Government Department of Environment & Primary Industries, East Melbourne.


DEPI 2014b. Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment handbook. Version 0.2. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne (January 2014).

DSE 2004. Native Vegetation: Sustaining a living landscape. Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – Guidelines for applying the Habitat hectares scoring method. Version 1.3. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne.

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

DSE 2013. Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013. Victorian Government Department of Environment & Primary Industries, Melbourne.

DSE 2007. Native Vegetation – Guide for assessment of referred planning permit applications. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability & Environment, East Melbourne.

DSE 2010. Victorian Biodiversity Atlas ‘VBA_FAUNA25, FAUNA100 & FAUNARestricted, FLORA25, FLORA100 & FLORARestricted’ August 2010 © The State of Victoria. Victorian Government Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne.

Ecology Australia 1998. Hume Freeway – Mahoneys Road to Craigieburn: Detailed Flora and Fauna Investigation of Route Options. Report prepared for VicRoads. Ecology Australia, Fairfield.

Ecology Partners 2007. Craigieburn Bypass: Monitoring of Crossing Structures for the Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis 2006/07, Thomastown to Craigieburn, Victoria. Report prepared for VicRoads. Ecology and Heritage Partners, Melbourne.

Murray K., Skerratt L., Marantelli G., Berger L., Hunter D., Mahony M. and Hines H. 2011. Hygiene protocols for the control of diseases in Australian frogs. A report for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

figure 7.5 planning zones and overlays within the study ... › __data › assets › pdf... ·...

Documents