expert statement of evidence accompanying; “assessment of ... · expert statement of evidence...

Abzeco Pty Ltd Suite 1/4 Brisbane St, Eltham,VIC 3095. (03) 9431-5444 Fax. (03) 9431-5443 ABN 93 113 245 435 www.abzeco.com.au

Expert Statement of Evidence accompanying;“Assessment of suitable habitat for theGrowling Grass Frog at 1170 & 1245 SayersRoad, Tarneit, dated 4th of June, 2012”

Prepared by Richard Francis

Report 12023-3 Ver. 1.0

14th of November, 2013

1. Name and Address of Expert

Richard FrancisAbzeco Pty LtdSuite 1, 4 Brisbane Street,Eltham VIC 3095

2. Qualifications, Experience and Areas of Expertise

The qualifications and experience I have to undertake vegetation and fauna habitat assessment areas follows;

I am director and consulting botanist/zoologist/ecologist for Abzeco Pty Ltd, a firm ofecological, botanical and zoological consults based in Eltham, Melbourne. I have over 20 yearsexperience in natural resource management and ecological survey and have held the positionof Director since the company commenced trading in 2004.

I have a Bachelor of Science Degree (Biology) with majors in Botany and Zoology from LatrobeUniversity.

Abzeco Report 12023-3 Statement of Evidence for C176 Riverdale PSP dated 14th of November 2013 Ver.1.0

of 12

I have previously worked for 5 years as a full time lecturer and program coordinator for RMITUniversity Applied Science Department, principally in the Diploma Programs of NaturalResource Management, Conservation Ecology and Conservation and Land Management.

I have worked in Local Government in the role of Environmental Works Officer. In this role Iwas required to provide recommendations on the management of indigenous vegetation andhabitats on public and private lands within the municipality, including the assessment ofhabitat retention values and suitable protection and enhancement measures.

Prior to working in Local Government I spent 5 years working as a technical officer in a floraand fauna reserve. My role and responsibility included habitat management and restoration,indigenous plant propagation, fauna monitoring, revegetation, pest plant control, feral animalmanagement, prescribed burning, education, interpretation and external consulting. In thiscapacity I was responsible for the evaluation and monitoring of flora and fauna habitat qualityand fauna animal activity within the reserve system.

I have considerable expertise in applying and interpreting Victorian and Federal Planning andconservation legislation in relation to management of biodiversity in development projects andhave played a key role in many negotiations between developers, Councils, the federalgovernment and DSE to achieve successful outcomes for all stakeholders and for biodiversityconservation. I have appeared as an expert witness at VCAT hearings and Planning Panels andhave worked on a number of Native Vegetation Precinct Plans.

My experience includes work on botanical and zoological assessments across Victoria andinterstate, including several hundred surveys. A brief list of current clients includes;

Parks Victoria The Department of Sustainability &

Environment Department of Transport VicRoads City of Brimbank Nillumbik Shire Council City of Whittlesea

JCA Land Consultants Shire of Yarra Ranges HVP Plantations (Hancock) Taylors Development Strategists Astutus Pty Ltd Masten Bennett & Associates City of Casey

3. Expertise to prepare this Statement of Evidence

I have prepared numerous ecological reports, including flora and fauna survey, mapping,habitat protection, restoration, enhancement, net gain, offsetting and other matters to informdevelopment and for broader biodiversity management aims.

While working for in the Victorian Government and as a consultant I prepared advice onmatters relating to flora and fauna considerations for presentation at Tribunal hearings.

I have previously provided evidence to Tribunal and Panel hearings on matters relating toflora and fauna survey, faunal habitat values, habitat retention and enhancement, and NetGain matters.

I have published widely, including numerous technical reports for private and public clientsincluding ecological assessments for residential developments and infrastructure, landmanagement plans and pest animal management.


of 12

I have produced and contributed to several publications on flora and fauna management andhave taught a number of Nationally Accredited Diploma level units on flora and faunaassessment, protection, restoration and management.

4. Instructions and Scope for Statement of Evidence

In the preparation of this statement of evidence I have been provided with background materialand instruction by Mr. Gerard Gilfedder, Manager Planning Services, Sweett (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Mr. Gilfedder instructed me to provide an expert witness statement of evidence and to appearas witness at a panel hearing on 29 October 2013.

The witness statement is to inform Panel on habitat issues associated with the Growling GrassFrog (GGF) and the suitability of the GGF reserve.

As necessary, the witness expert statement is to address the requirements of the PlanningScheme, State Planning Policy, Legislation and Regulations, relevant to ecological matters.

This statement of evidence is to be informed by the Abzeco Brief Report on Assessment ofsuitable habitat for the Growling Grass Frog at 1170 & 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit, dated 4th ofJune, 2012. The findings presented in this expert statement of evidence are derived from theaforementioned report which is an attachment to this statement of evidence.

5. Facts, Matter and Assumptions

Site assessments were undertaken on the 27th of March, 2012 and 8th of October, 2013. Duringthese assessments the property was traversed on foot. Observations were made of flora and faunaoccurrence, habitat values and weed infestation issues on the site and in the immediate vicinity.Areas in the study site identified in DSE modeling as potential GGF habitat (Category 1, 2 and 3)were specifically targeted for assessment of values.

6. Previous Involvement

Abzeco was first engaged to undertake site assessment and reporting on the subject land in Marchof 2012. The purpose of the study was to review information provided, assess current andpotential future site suitability, following rehabilitation, as habitat for GGF and to present thefindings in a brief report.

7. Documents and Literature

In preparation of this statement of evidence I have viewed and reviewed the following documents;

Wyndham Planning Scheme Online -http://planningschemes.dpcd.vic.gov.au/wyndham/home.html

Abzeco Brief Report 12023 - assessment of suitable habitat for the Growling Grass Frog at 1170& 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit, dated 4th of June, 2012

Paul Kelly & Associates: 1170 & 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit, Review - Draft BiodiversityConservation Strategy for Melbourne Growth Areas and Draft Sub-regional Species Strategyfor the Growling Grass Frog, 4 December 2011


of 12

Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Melbourne’s Growth Corridors, June 2013

Sub-regional Species Strategy for the Growling Grass Frog, May 2013

Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis Habitat Assessment and Targeted Surveys acrossMelbourne’s Extended Urban Growth and Precinct Structure Plan Areas, Victoria, November2011

Metapopulation viability of the Growling Grass Frog in Melbourne’s urban growth areas,Heard & McCarthy, July 2012

Review of habitat corridors for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis within Melbourne’sUrban Growth Areas, Biosis Research June 2012

Wyndham C176 001znMaps02_03_10_11 Exhibition Gazetted

Wyndham C176 002d-esoMap10_11 Exhibition Gazetted

Wyndham C176 003ipoMaps10_11 Exhibition Gazetted

Wyndham C176 Incorporated document - Ballan Road Native Vegetation Precinct Plan - June2013 Exhibition Gazetted

Wyndham C176 Incorporated document - Ballan Road Precinct Structure Plan - June 2013Exhibition Gazetted

Wyndham C171 Incorporated document - Wyndham Precinct Structure Plans 40_92_1088_1091March 2013 Exhibition Gazetted

Conservation Management Plan for Conservation Area 12 – Sewells Road Reserve

Conservation Management Plan for Conservation Area 14 – Growling Grass Frog corridors(south)

PSP 40 Draft Conservation Area Concept Plan

8. Identity of the Person/s who Prepared this Statement of Evidence

The author of this statement of evidence is identified on the front cover. The author was assistedby Abzeco staff members David De Angelis and Kathy Himbeck in the assessment of the site andsurrounds.

9. Key Objectives

To assess the suitability of habitat for Growling Grass Frog on land at 1170 & 1245 Sayers Road,Tarneit. Review the proposed extent and suitability of the GGF Reserve on the subject land.

10. Observations

Abzeco undertook assessment of the subject land and surrounds on the 27th of March 2012 and 8th

of October, 2013. During these assessments notes were taken on the potential extent of suitablehabitat for the Growling Grass Frog along the Werribee River corridor and across the subject land.The opposite bank was assessed visually from the study area. The extent of the riparian corridor


of 12

and potential GGF Habitat was mapped by GPS using ArcPad (version 7.1) coupled with a HolluxM1000 Bluetooth GPS receiver (accuracy ±5 m).

The extent of of the site assessed as suitable for targeted rehabilitation to improve habitat valuesfor GGF is presented in Figures 1 and 2 on pages 8 & 9 of this statement. The area defined wasdetermined on the basis that habitat suitability is largely dependent on stands of highly connectedhabitat relied upon GGF for foraging, dispersal and as refugia for over-wintering and duringotherwise unfavourable periods. Given GGF are not currently present on the subject land and thehabitat structure is modified from the natural state it is not possible to define the extent of habitatcurrently relied upon by the species.

Image 1 (above): A relatively natural section of the Deep Creek at Mickleham much of which is fenced fromstock grazing and known to support a metapopulation of Growling Grass Frog (GGF). Knowledge of GGFhabitat use at this site was used to assist assessment of potential habitat restoration for GGF on the SubjectLand.

To inform assessment of the area likely to be relied upon by GGF under more ‘natural’ conditionswe have assumed the site will be successfully rehabilitated and managed to a high standard. Wehave then, in part, relied upon our experience on sites supporting relatively ‘natural’ habitat, withsimilar topography and geology that support populations of GGF. For example, one reference site


of 12

used is a section of Deep Creek on private property at Mickleham, much of which is fenced fromstock grazing and supports a GGF metapopulation and numerous other indigenous fauna speciesin relatively ‘natural’ habitat. The site also has several off-stream constructed dams with emergentvegetation where GGF breed (see image 1 on the previous page). This habitat structure largelyreflects the potential for rehabilitation of the subject land as proposed in the BCS and detailed inthe CMP.

Assessment of habitat requirements for long term strategic protection of GGF on the subject landfollows the the principles as set out in the Review of habitat corridors for Growling Grass FrogLitoria raniformis within Melbourne’s Urban Growth Areas (Biosis, 2012) which state as follows:

“For streams previously identified as important for the conservation of Growling Grass Frog in the GrowthAreas (Kororoit Creek, Merri Creek, Werribee River, Darebin Creek, Cardinia Creek), the minimum corridorwidth between metapopulation nodes was set at 100 m. The rationale for setting 100 m as the minimum inthese areas was based on the following principles.

1. The Growling Grass Frog is a highly aquatic species that carries out most of its activity in orimmediately adjacent to inundated areas. For example, of 187 nocturnally active Growling GrassFrogs observed by Heard et al. (2008), 91% were either in water or within 5 m of the waterline.

2. While the extent to which the species uses terrestrial areas is poorly known, the terrestrial zonewithin 100 m appears to be particularly important for Growling Grass Frog (Heard et al. 2008;Wassens et al. 2008).

3. A corridor 100 m wide generally allows sufficient space for the construction of additionalwetlands of a suitable size, with a minimum 50m setback from development to act as ‘steppingstones’ between metapopulation nodes. These wetlands need not be large and their hydroperiodcan vary as it is not the intention that these wetlands provide permanent breeding habitat. Rather,their role is to facilitate movement of frogs through the landscape and in particular betweenmetapopulation nodes. In this respect, they will augment the function of the streams themselves inaiding dispersal movements. In some cases, the corridor has been widened to allow for theconstruction of stepping stone wetlands where local topography and hydrology required additionalspace to ensure an adequate catchment and buffer was provided to the wetland.”

The subject land at 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit is predicted through modeling by DEPI to supportGGF Category 1 Habitat (Strategically Important Habitat Areas) that runs along the WerribeeRiver as a narrow linear strip.

The subject land at 1170 and 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit, has also been predicted through modelingby DEPI to support areas of GGF Category 2 Habitat (other habitat required to be offset if cleared).The Category 2 areas are shown as patchy cover across the paddocks of 1245 Sayers Road, to theeast of the river and those areas mapped as Category 1 habitat.

Targeted habitat assessment across the subject land identified a narrow linear riparian corridor onthe eastern bank of the river. This section of the river is best described as an incised waterway,with steep rocky escarpments along much of the channel. The opposite bank of the river from thesubject land is one of few sections of river in this area that have a well-defined large alluvialterrace of low lying flood prone land, on the inside of a large bend and slow moving pool.

The narrow riparian vegetation on the eastern bank of the river does not currently support ahabitat structure which meets the definition of Category 1 habitat. It does however have large slowmoving pool and narrow strip of fringing vegetation that is relatively contiguous along thisstretch. On the opposite bank (western side of the river) the bank is more gently sloped andsupports a relatively wide band of vegetation that more closely meets the habitat requirements for


of 12

GGF. In the south western section of the subject land the river bank is also less steep and althoughhabitat quality is currently low there is the potential through targeted habitat improvement togreatly increase values for GGF.

None of the Category 2 habitat predicted by DEPI modeling was found to occur on the subjectland in this study. No water bodies or waterways suitable to support the GGF are present in theseareas and no records are known from the subject land. This is further support by vegetationmapping for the subject land presented in Map 2 of the Riverdale Native Vegetation Precinct Plan(NVPP). The NVPP depicts a narrow band of riparian vegetation following the eastern bank of theriver. No other patches of remnant vegetation were found to occur on the subject land.

There are two key areas on the subject land with potential for habitat improvement to increasesuitability for GGF. One area is a small ephemeral off channel wetland at the head of the largepool on the bend of the river, where it intersects with the southern edge of the rail corridor. Ifrehabilitated through targeted weed control and revegetation this naturally ephemeral area couldprovide valuable refugia for GGF.

The other site considered suitable for GGF habitat restoration is lower lying areas in the southwestern section where the river bank is less rocky and less steeply sloped. On the subject land thislower lying area is the most suitable location for a broad area of revegetation and constructedwetland. There are few opportunities for creation of artificial water bodies close to the river in thissection of the river due to the rocky, steeply incised nature of the channel and surrounds.

Abzeco concurs with the findings of Paul Kelly (PKA 2011) that areas on the study site designatedas Category 2 Habitat are not potential GGF habitat and do not meet the criteria for Category 2habitat as defined by EHP (2011). These areas have been cultivated and cropped over severaldecades, do not hold water for an extended period or support a suitable habitat structure for GGF.Further there have been no previous records for GGF at these locations and there is no functionalconnectivity between the Davis Creek and Werribee River in this area.

WERR

IBEE

RIV

ER

Figure 1. Assessment of the Subject Land for Growling Grass Frog Habitat, Category 1 & 2 at 1170 & 1245 Sayers Rd,Tarneit

Abzeco Pty. LtdSuite 1, 4 Brisbane StreetEltham, Victoria 3095Ph 03 9431 5444www.abzeco.com.au

File: J:\Jobs\2012_Jobs\12023-Sweett1170&1245SayersRdTarneit\AbzecoFigure1-GGFHabAssessSayersRd-V1.1-Oct2013

Created by : Kathy Himbeck

Date Created: 8th October 2013

Scale 1:6,000Note: location of property boundaries, watercourse and topography indicative only

LegendAssessed Potential Extent GGF HabitatBCS 2013CMP Reserve 2013CMP Constructed Wetland Buffer 2013PSP 40 Draft Conseration Area

Subject Land1m ContourDrainage Line

50 0 50 100 150 20025Meters

Davis Creek does not supportpermanent water and is not have connectivity with theWerribeeRiver through the site.

The majority of the site does not support any areas of potentiallysuitable GGF habitat. It has a long history of agriculture activitiesand an absence of aquatic vegetation.

This area was not foundto support any GGFhabitat. A farm damon the land lacksvegetation cover.

Seasonally damp depressionswere not found to supporthabitat for GGF.

WERR

IBEE

RIVE

R

47

48

49

50

46

45

44

43

4241

40

3938

37

36

35

5152

33

34

53

32

54

31

0

0

47

0

40

3840

0

37

35

39

45

36

39

33

32

39

34

0

41

43

44

36

46

33

38

38

34

38

37

48

42

31

211 m

209 m

201 m

194 m

153 m

126 m

124 m46 m

44 m 22 m

20 m

Figure 2. Assessment of Site Specific Conservation Reserve Extent for Growling Grass Frog Habitat, 1170 & 1245 Sayers Rd, Tarneit

Abzeco Pty. LtdSuite 1, 4 Brisbane StreetEltham, Victoria 3095Ph 03 9431 5444www.abzeco.com.au

File: J:\Jobs\2012_Jobs\12023-Sweett1170&1245SayersRdTarneit\AbzecoFigure2-GGFHabAssessSayersRdNov2013_V1.1

Created by: Richard Francis

Date Created: 14th November 2013

Scale 1:2,500Note: location of property boundaries, watercourse and topography indicative only

LegendBCS 2013CMP Reserve 2013CMP Constructed Wetland Buffer 2013PSP 40 Draft Conseration AreaAssessed Potential Extent GGF HabitatProposed Site Specific GGF Reserve Extent

Subject Land1m ContourDrainage LineDistance

50 0 50 10025Meters


of 12

11. Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations

Land at 1245 Sayers Road, Tarneit, based on modeled data was considered likely to support GGFCategory 1 Habitat (Strategically Important Habitat Areas) that requires protection. A minimum200m wide conservation reserve is proposed in the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (BCS) andthis has been modified in the Sub-regional Species Strategy for the Growling Grass Frog (CMP).On the subject land the CMP realigns the reserve boundary to avoid dwellings and outbuildingsand extends to cover a larger area in the south western section of the subject land. The recentlyreleased PSP 40 Draft Conservation Area Concept Plan further alters the alignment of the GGFconservation area, reducing requirements on the western side of the river while the net area on theeastern side remains relatively unchanged. Part of the reserved area would affect the UrbanGrowth Zone. The majority of this area on the subject land is currently zoned Rural ConservationZone.

The area defined in the CMP and Draft Conservation Area Concept Plan as reserved to protectGGF habitat realigns the boundary of the BCS reservation to remove the existing dwellings andother buildings on the subject land that are not suitable as habitat for GGF. Given the topographyof the land future rehabilitation of the house site area would not include habitat types likely to berelied upon by the species. The reserve boundary to the south has then been realigned to includegreater area than that defined in the BCS. This increased buffering of the river includes habitatsnot likely to be relied upon by GGF. It is understood the addition of reserve area south of thedwelling is to balance out the loss of area from the dwelling site and if so is not based onecological principles and as such has little strategic value for GGF habitat protection.

At the time of the assessment it was determined the subject land does not support habitat forGrowling Grass Frog. This may in part explain the lack of records for the species from the areadespite known populations elsewhere on the river. It is however acknowledged that given theknow occurrence of population’s both up-stream and down-stream of the site, this section of riveris likely to be relied upon for connectivity and GGF are likely on occasion to the move through thesite. If strategically rehabilitated, this section of river is likely to provide habitat suitable for GGFand increased connectivity between metapopulations. The riparian corridor is therefore importantfor the long term strategic management of the species.

Based on the habitat suitability assessment we found that through the steep rocky escarpmentsection of the site the 46m Above Sea Level (ASL) contour represents the extent of area suitable forrehabilitation as habitat and buffer from proposed change in land use. In areas south and west ofthe rocky escarpment the extent of reserved area should be aligned to follow the site specificassessment of suitable area for rehabilitation based on the landform and soil properties in theseareas (see Figure 2). To the west of escarpment the habitat buffer width runs approximatelyparallel with the Werribee River, at an average width of approximately 125m, linking up with the46m ASL contour in the vicinity of the rocky escarpment. To the south of the escarpment the areasuitable for rehabilitation runs roughly along the 43m ASL contour.

The river bank on land adjacent to the study area, the western side of the Werribee River, supportssimilar riparian vegetation but with a greater cover and diversity of small and medium shrubs andfewer large River Red Gums. The section of bank opposite the steep escarpment supports a moregentle slope and greater cover and diversity of vegetation. From the limited assessment of the


of 12

adjacent land, there are more natural attributes and a more suitable landform on the western bankfor targeted strategic GGF habitat rehabilitation. These findings are reflected in the CMP and DraftConservation Area Concept Plan, with a wider buffer and stepping stone wetland proposed on thewestern side of the river. This, combined with the more narrowly defined buffer on the easternside, provide suitable connectivity along this section of the Werribee River for the species.

It is considered that the extent of the recommended site specific variable width buffer willadequately provide protection for existing riparian habitat, allow for strategic riparianrevegetation, considers the potential presence of GGF in the future and provides opportunities forthe construction and protection of ‘frog pond’ wetlands. All vegetation identified in the NVPP tobe protected is within the recommended site specific GGF conservation area presented in figure 2.

None of the areas on the subject modeled by DSE as supporting areas of GGF Category 2 Habitat(other habitat requiring offset if cleared) were found to support GGF habitat. The lack of GGFhabitat on the land is due to a long history of cropping and cultivation. These findings aresupported by vegetation mapping presented in the NVPP.

Based on the findings in this report the following matters have been resolved:

The findings of our assessment clearly define the area suitable for rehabilitation andmanagement to increase habitat values for GGF on the subject land. This area is defined inFigure 2 if the statement as Site Specific GGF Reserve Extent.

Retention, rehabilitation and ongoing management of the area defined by Abzeco for retentionwill capture those habitat types most likely to be relied upon by GGF on the subject land.

Our findings assume the reserved area will be rehabilitated and managed to a high standard.

The findings support the removal of the area where the buildings occur from the reserve onthe basis that is does not reflect suitable habitat for GGF and the habitat types that would occurin this area are not likely to be relied upon by the species.

Our findings differ from the extent of area proposed for reservation to the north and south ofthe dwellings. The proposed reserve in the Draft Conservation Area Concept Plan includesareas that would not support habitat or vegetation types likely to be relied upon by GGF.

The extent of area defined in Figure 2 of this statement as Site Specific GGF Reserve Extent isconsistent with the treatment of habitat protection on the western side of the river as depictedin the Draft Conservation Area Concept Plan. The distances proposed from the river andbuffers afforded to ‘Primary’ habitat and constructed wetlands are equal to or greater thanthose provided in comparable areas on the western side of the river.

The extent of area defined in Figure 2 of this statement as Site Specific GGF Reserve Extent isconsistent with the principles outlined in the Review of habitat corridors for Growling GrassFrog Litoria raniformis within Melbourne’s Urban Growth Areas (Biosis, 2012) for sites betweenmetapopulation nodes previously identified as important for conservation of GGF.

To the extent of matters within my area of expertise, the extent of area defined in this statement assite specific retention and restoration of suitable habitat for Growling Grass Frog is consistent withwhat is sought in the BCS and CMP. The findings presented are consistent with the intent of theexhibited plans, other relevant State and National Policy and legislative requirements. I believe


of 12

that there are no ecological-related reasons why the extent of reserved area defined in thisstatement should not be adopted.

Hearing Declaration:

I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and that no matter that I believe to besignificant or relevant to this report has to my knowledge been withheld from the tribunal.

To the authors knowledge all facts, matter and all assumptions upon which this statement ofevidence proceeds have been stated within the body of the report. This report (given the total ofthe listed page numbers) is complete and to the writers knowledge contains no inaccuracies oromissions.

Richard FrancisDirector/Senior Consultant EcologistAbzeco Pty LtdEncl. Abzeco Report 12023 V1.0 dated June 2012