yaringa harbour expansion flora and fauna expert · pdf fileyaringa harbour expansion flora...

Yaringa Harbour Expansion Flora and Fauna Expert Witness

Statement

Mornington Peninsula Shire Planning Scheme Amendment C161

Project: 15-026

Prepared for:

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council

Ecology Australia Pty Ltd

www.ecologyaustralia.com.au [email protected]

88B Station Street, Fairfield, Victoria 3078, Australia

Tel: (03) 9489 4191 Fax: (03) 9481 7679

©2015 Ecology Australia Pty Ltd

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 from Ecology Australia Pty Ltd.

Document information

This is a controlled document. Details of the document ownership, location, distribution,

status and revision history are listed below.

All comments or requests for changes to content should be addressed to the document

owner.

Bioregion: Gippsland Plain

Owner Ecology Australia Pty Ltd

Author Geoff Carr, Bernadette Schmidt, Andrew McMahon

Location

J:\CURRENT PROJECTS\Yaringa Harbour Expansion Mornington

Shire 15-026\Expert Witness Statement\Yaringa Harbour Expert

Witness Statement V13.docx

Distribution Garrique Pergl Mornington Peninsula

Shire Council

Document History

Status Changes By Date

Draft 1 G Carr, B Schmidt, A McMahon 22/05/2015

Final B Schmidt, G Carr, A McMahon 25/05/2015


Statement

Final iii

Contents

Witness Statement 1

1 Introduction 4

2 Vegetation 6

3 Fauna 9

4 Ramsar and the Wise Use Concept 16

5 The Three-step Approach 20

6 Draft Planning Permit Conditions 22

7 Declaration 24

8 References 25

Figures

Figure 1 Distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot around Western Port,

showing the locations of recent records in relation to the proposed

development. 15

Figure 2 The proposed development site, showing the boundary to the Western Port

Ramsar Site, and Western Port Coastal Reserve and North Western Port

Nature Conservation Reserve. 19

Plates

Plate 1 Proposed ‘corridor’: northern boundary of Lot 5, adjoined by the

development area, to the left of the cleared path, and pasture, to the right

(12 May 2015) 12

Plate 2 Proposed ‘corridor’: looking north from Lumeah Road, along the North

Road easement (12 May 2015) 12


Statement

Final iv


Statement

Final 1

Witness Statement

This Expert Witness Statement has been prepared in accordance with Planning Panels

Victoria – Guide to Expert Evidence.

Expert 1

Geoffrey William Carr: Director/Principal Botanist, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, 88B Station

Street, Fairfield, Victoria 3078.

Qualifications and Experience:

Bachelor of Science and Certificate of Gardening, with 36 years of experience as a consulting

botanist.

Expertise to make this report:

Extensive experience in vegetation assessment and documentation, and environmental

effects assessment. This includes numerous projects dealing with the documentation and

management of flora and fauna of urban, peri-urban and rural environments; many of these

studies have been on the Mornington Peninsula.

Expert 2

Bernadette Schmidt: Senior Zoologist, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, 88B Station Street, Fairfield,

Victoria 3078.


Bachelor of Science (with Honours), and 8 years of experience as a consulting zoologist.


Expertise in zoological assessment, survey and management, with particular expertise on the

Southern Brown Bandicoot. Experience includes numerous studies using motion-sensing

cameras, impact assessment and mitigation, and the preparation of sub-regional

management plans, Environmental Management Plans and contribution to the development

of the Federal Southern Brown Bandicoot Referral Guidelines.

Other significant contributors to the report

Andrew McMahon: Director/Principal Ecologist, Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, 88B Station Street,

Fairfield, Victoria 3078


Bachelor of Economics, Bachelor of Science (with Honours), and 30 years of experience in

consultancy


Extensive experience with flora and fauna across most environments in south-eastern

Australia, decades of experience with projects on the Mornington Peninsula, considerable

involvement with Southern Brown Bandicoot projects, and numerous presentations to VCAT,

planning panels and state and federal courts.


Statement

Final 2

We discuss matters relating to flora (Expert 1) and fauna (Expert 2) separately in this Expert

Witness Statement.

Facts and matters on which the report is based

This report is based on the documents listed below, and a site inspection undertaken on 12

May 2015.

Documents provided and other material/information upon which the report is based

DSEWPC (2013) Approval Notice: Yaringa Boat Harbour, Western Port, Victoria (EPBC

2011/6014). 26 June 2013 (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Populations and Communities, Canberra, ACT).

DTPLI (2014) Morning Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (Department of Transport,

Planning and Local Infrastructure, Melbourne).

Ecology Partners (2009) Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Gain Analysis of the proposed

Yaringa Boat Harbour Redevelopment, Lumeah Road, Somerville, Victoria. Report

prepared for Aurecon (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2011) Yaringa Boat Harbour Redevelopment Project: Targeted

Surveys for Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus and New Holland

Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae. Prepared for Yaringa Boat Harbour on behalf of

Mason Planning (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013 a) Final Public Report: Yaringa Harbour Expansion. EPBC

Referral: 2011/6014. 1 Lumeah Road, Somerville. Prepared for Western Port Boat

Harbour Pty Ltd (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd, in association with Mason

Planning and Planning and Property Partners).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013 b) Draft Environmental Management Plan, Yaringa Boat

Harbour, Western Port, Victoria. Prepared for Western Port Boat Harbour Pty Ltd

(Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2015 a) Permitted clearing assessment for the Yaringa Boat

Harbour Development, Lumeah Road, Somerville, Victoria (Ecology and Heritage

Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2015 b) Yaringa Boat Harbour Offset Strategy – Offset

Potential on French Island, Victoria. Letter to Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd


Legg M (2010a) Westernport RAMSAR Protection Program: Fauna surveys, Threatened and

Feral Fauna Monitoring at Parks Victoria Management Reserves. Yaringa to Bass

Landing, Victoria. February to October 2010. Report prepared for Parks Victoria (Mal’s

Environmental & Ecological Services, Somerville).

Legg M (2010b) Western Port Ramsar Protection Program. Fauna surveys, Threatened and

Feral Fauna Monitoring at Mornington Peninsula Shire Management Reserves. Yaringa

Foreshore Reserve, Gordon Rolfe Reserve and Bittern Coastal Wetlands, Victoria.

February to October 2010. Report prepared for Mornington Peninsula Shire (Mal’s



Statement

Final 3

ML Design (2011) Yaringa Boat Harbour Expansion: Site Development Plans (ML Design,

Melbourne).

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (undated). Proposed Planning Permit Granted Under

Division 5 of Part 4 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. Permit No. CP09/002.

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (undated), Mornington Peninsula Planning Scheme.

Schedule 9 to the Special Use Zone. Yaringa Boat Harbour: Amendment C161.

Sholto Consulting (2011) Yaringa Boat Harbour Upgrade: Traffic Management Road Upgrade

Recommendations (Sholto Consulting Pty Ltd, Balnarring Beach).

Terramatrix (2014) Bushfire Management Statement for the Expansion of the Yaringa Boat

Harbour, Lumeah Rd Someville, Vic, 3912. Report prepared for Western Port Boat

Harbour Pty Ltd (Terramatrix Pty Ltd, Collingwood).

Western Port Boat Harbour (2011) Yaringa Harbour Expansion. EPBC Referral (EPBC

2011/6014) 20 June 2011. Referral to the Federal Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Western Port Boat Harbour Pty Ltd,

Somerville).


Statement

Final 4

1 Introduction

1.1. Our brief was to prepare an Expert Witness Statement in accordance with Planning Panels

Victoria - Guide to Expert Evidence and appear at an independent panel hearing as an

expert witness on matters of flora and fauna concerning the proposed expansion of

Yaringa Harbour, for the purpose of assisting Mornington Peninsula Shire Council in its role

as a planning and responsible authority. We were commissioned on 11 May 2015.

Instructions that define the scope of this Witness Statement

1.2. We were instructed to address the following:

Issues arising from a review of the Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Gain

Analysis, undertaken by Ecology and Heritage Partners, May 2009, specifically

regarding suitability of mitigation or amelioration measures on the ecological

values of the study area and specifically regarding maintenance of a habitat

corridor within the land that will facilitate connectivity of Southern Brown

Bandicoot populations identified to occur on public and private land located to the

north and south of the land;

The suitability and identification of any gaps in the current assessment of loss and

off-setting of native vegetation associated with the proposed development,

specifically in areas potentially requiring to be subject to vegetation clearance

located external to the subject land in association with proposed reticulated sewer

connection and road and intersection upgrades;

Suitability of the existing off-sets proposed to be located on French Island,

particularly having regard to the loss of Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat on the

land in accordance with the requirements of the Permitted Clearing of Native

Vegetation - Biodiversity Guidelines and the Mornington Peninsula Localised

Planning Statement - July 2014; and

Suitability and adequacy of the Draft Permit Conditions proposed by the

Mornington Peninsula Shire Council.

1.3. This Witness Statement provides an evaluation of the proposal according to the following

main components:

Vegetation – including floristic inventories, threatened species, Ecological Vegetation

Classes, and vegetation condition;

Fauna – with a focus on loss of habitat and connectivity for the Southern Brown

Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus obesulus);

Ramsar – an evaluation of the proposal in the context of the Wise Use Concept;

Three-step Approach – an assessment of compliance with the process of avoidance,

minimisation, and offsetting; and

Draft Permit Conditions – comments on the appropriateness of the Council’s Draft

Permit Conditions.


Statement

Final 5

Summary of findings

1.4. The key issues identified from our review include:

Considerable uncertainty around the presence or otherwise of several threatened

flora and fauna species on the subject land;

Out-of-date vegetation condition assessments;

Potentially significant impacts to the Southern Brown Bandicoot relating to habitat

loss and connectivity;

Inadequate mitigation of Southern Brown Bandicoot impacts and lack of any offsets

for the species;

Inadequate analysis and treatment of the interface of the development with the

Western Port Ramsar Site;

Poor compliance with the three-step approach of avoidance, minimisation and

offsetting; and

Possibile review of some Draft Permit Conditions in the context of the findings above.


Statement

Final 6

2 Vegetation

Floristic inventory

2.1. The Ecology Partners (2009) report identifies four significant limitations to vegetation field

survey: the survey was brief; it was conducted during a major drought; it was conducted in

summer (seasonal species not evident); and the site was being grazed by cattle at the time.

2.2. We have substantial reservations about the quantity and quality of their floristic data,

including the adequacy of survey effort and its timing.

2.3. Ecology Partners (2009) recorded 79 indigenous and 24 exotic plant species on the site. On

our 12 May 2015 site inspection we opportunistically recorded an additional 26 indigenous

plant species to test the extent of their floristic inventory. Some of these are seasonal

species (e.g. orchids) while others are perennials and sometimes localised structural

dominants or co-dominants (e.g. Bare twig-sedge Baumea juncea and Coarse Twine-rush

Apodasmia brownii) which would have been evident all year, including during drought

conditions.

Ecological Vegetation Classes

2.4. The authors identified three Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs) on the subject land

(Ecology Partners 2009, p.15): EVC 48 Heathy Woodland, EVC 53 Swamp Scrub, and EVC

707 Sedgy Swamp Woodland. EVCs have been correctly identified and presumably

correctly mapped.

Rare and threatened species

2.5. To overcome potential limitations in detecting Rare or Threatened species, particularly

species listed at the National or State levels [under the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

(FFG Act)] the authors used database records within a 10-kilometre radius, to indicate

species potentially occurring on the subject land. The authors do not acknowledge the

limitations of database searching to reveal threatened species.

2.6. Of the nationally-significant (EPBC-listed) species that the authors considered, suitable

habitat does not exist on site for Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre, while suitable

habitat does exist for Swamp Fireweed Senecio psilocarpus. Of the five State-significant

species they considered, the site is plausible habitat for only one: Marsh Sun-orchid

Thelymitra longiloba. The other four species would not occur on habitat grounds: Blotched

Sun-orchid Thelymitra benthamiana (laterised soils derived from Tertiary geology), Coastal

Ballart Exocarpus syrticola (dune limestone), Creeping Rush Juncus revolutus and Marsh

Saltbush Atriplex paludosa subsp. paludosa (saltmarsh).


Statement

Final 7

2.7. A number of species were overlooked or ignored because they did not appear in the 10-

kilometre radius Data Review Area, yet they occur in similar environments on the

Mornington Peninsula, e.g. Pallid Sun-orchid Thelymitra pallida and Gaping Sun-orchid T.

reflexa (both critically endangered Victorian endemics), Slender Flax-lily Dianella sp. aff.

revoluta (Crib Point) (endangered), and Green-striped Greenhood Pterostylis

chlorogramma (EPBC-listed, vulnerable). Pterostylis chlorogramma may occur on site as

we recorded a vegetatively similar species, not yet in flower.

2.8. The authors do not appear to display a sound understanding of probable flora species and

the habitats they occupy.

2.9. We conclude that the assessment and evaluation for the presence of listed threatened

plant species (at federal and state levels) on the proposed development area has been

inadequate.

2.10. Furthermore the targeted surveys for listed Rare or Threatened Species (plants) as

advocated in the authors’ own report (Ecology Partners 2009) have not been carried out,

despite a five-year window of opportunity from the initial survey until 2013 (when the

Public Environment Report was published).

Vegetation condition

2.11. The condition of the indigenous vegetation in the proposed development area was

evaluated on the basis of habitat scores in identified zones (Ecology Partners 2009, pp.16-

18). The authors noted the vegetation to be in moderate condition (most) and good to very

good condition depending on the particular area/lot in question. These evaluations were

carried-out during a major drought (December 2008 – January 2009), and cattle grazing

(Lot 4).

2.12. We believe that the vegetation condition is likely to have improved markedly with the

cessation of the drought and the removal of cattle grazing, thus the condition (and habitat

scores so derived) should be re-evaluated. Five years have elapsed since the original

assessment and the 2013 Public Environment Report (Ecology and Heritage Partners

2013a), but the site has not been re-assessed.

Survey extent

2.13. Ecology and Heritage Partners (2015a) has not addressed vegetation losses resulting from

road upgrades and the provision of services to the proposed development. These include

water, sewer connection to the mains, power and telecommunications. Lumeah Road for

example, currently with considerable remnant Heathy Woodland vegetation in the road

reserve, on both sides, will be upgraded from a 6.1 m pavement to an 8 m pavement and

swale drains (to be grassed) will be constructed to dispose of surface-runoff (Sholto

Consulting 2011; p. 3). Similarly, there has been no assessment of the potential impacts of

these road upgrades and service provisions on fauna.


Statement

Final 8

Summary of limitations

2.14. In summary we consider the vegetation assessment has the following key limitations:

Inadequate floristic inventory;

Significant uncertainty as to the presence of threatened species; and

An out-of-date habitat hectare assessment which fails to reflect any vegetation

change from the summer of 2008/09 to the preparation of either the Environmental

Management Plain in 2013 or the Offset Plan in 2015 (Ecology and Heritage Partners

2015 b).


Statement

Final 9

3 Fauna

3.1. Our review identified a number of material issues regarding the assessment and mitigation

of impacts to fauna from the proposed development. Our main concerns surround the

treatment of potential impacts to Southern Brown Bandicoots, and we deal with these

issues here first.

Southern Brown Bandicoot

3.2. The proposed development site has been described as supporting areas of low to

moderate quality habitat for the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Ecology and Heritage

Partners 2011). This assessment appears to be made primarily on the basis of past

disturbance, recent drought conditions and rabbit grazing, and without reference to the

site’s habitat characteristics, and how these relate to the habitat and distribution of

Southern Brown Bandicoots.

3.3. Our analysis differs substantially from that of Ecology and Heritage Partners:

The proposed development site falls within the current local distribution of Southern

Brown Bandicoots (see Figure 1);

Records of the Southern Brown Bandicoot have recently been obtained north and

south of the proposed development; and

Based on the habitat requirements of the species, and the habitat characteristics

observed on the proposed development site, we consider the site to support good

quality habitat for the Southern Brown Bandicoot.

3.4. Southern Brown Bandicoots occur in a wide variety of vegetation types with low, dense

cover, including Swamp Scrub, Heathy Woodland, Coastal Heathland and Lowland Forest,

often on well-drained, sandy soils (Braithwaite and Gullan 1978, Stoddart and Braithwaite

1979, Brown and Main 2010, DOE 2015). The species shows little direct association with

land use (Brown and Main 2010). In many areas south-east of Melbourne, bandicoots have

also been recorded in highly degraded remnant vegetation, with high levels of weed

invasion. In these cases, weeds such as Blackberry (Rubus spp.) can, and often have,

provided important habitat (Coates et al. 2008, Ecology Australia 2009, DOE 2015). Thus,

vegetation structure is more important than floristics, with low, dense vegetation up to 2m

high, considered to be the primary habitat requirement (Claridge and Barry 2000,

Sanderson and Kraehenbuehl 2006, Paull et al. 2013).

3.5. The development site supports Swamp Scrub, Sedgy Swamp Woodland and Heathy

Woodland vegetation on sandy soil, including a dense understorey of sedges, grasses and

bracken, typical of Southern Brown Bandicoot habitats. These habitats are interspersed

with smaller areas that support a more open structure; small clearings adjacent to, or

amongst, dense cover are considered to be important for foraging (Heinsohn 1966, Quin

1985, Ferla 2007).


Statement

Final 10

3.6. Ecology and Heritage Partners’ habitat assessment, together with the results of the

targeted survey (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2011) are used to draw the conclusion that

bandicoots have a low likelihood of occurrence on the proposed development site, which

they contend, provides ‘supplementary foraging habitat’, that is ‘less likely to be relied

upon by individuals in the local population’. This gives insufficient regard to the ecology or

local distribution of the species, and the landscape context of the proposed development

site.

3.7. Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013b) place repeated emphasis on the results of the

targeted survey to support this view, with the assertion that the surveys were extensive

and robust (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 b). However, the surveys sampled the

local population at a single point in time, and were undertaken outside of the dispersal

period, when population numbers and the rate of detection are likely to be highest.

3.8. The biology and ecology of the species means that the occupancy and use of habitats by

bandicoots may vary considerably over time, with local environmental conditions, such as

rainfall, food availability and predation, which influence local distribution (Brown and Main

2010, DOE 2015). The high dispersal capability of juveniles enables the bandicoot to

respond to the ephemeral nature of these environmental factors. This means that

bandicoots may occupy certain habitats in some years, but not others. Hence, the

detection probability for the species can vary significantly, particularly when population

densities are low.

3.9. Mapping of Southern Brown Bandicoot records shows that bandicoots have been recorded

north and south of the proposed development site, as recently as 2010, with the nearest

record approximately 250 m north of the site (Legg 2010 b; see Figure 1). Mapping of

records across the broader landscape shows that the Southern Brown Bandicoot has a

near-continuous distribution along the Western Port coastline, from The Inlets, at Koo Wee

Rup, to Hastings (Figure 1). The coastal vegetation supports some of the largest and most

contiguous areas of suitable habitat in the region. The proposed marina expansion site (Lot

4) occupies almost the entire width of the coastal vegetation in that location, with the

property situated between the individuals recorded around Hastings, from the remainder

of the local population.

3.10. Although we understand that approval for the development has been granted under the

EPBC Act, this approval is based on the documentation submitted, and the assessment of

potential impacts. Our analysis is that this documentation was inadequate.

3.11. The assessment provided within the Referral (Western Port Boat Harbour 2011) and the

Public Environment Report (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 b), submitted under the

EPBC Act, states that the proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on

the Southern Brown Bandicoot. However, neither document provides reasonable

justification or assessment against the criteria given in either the:

Southern Brown Bandicoot Referral Guidelines (DSEWPC 2011); or

Significant Impact Guidelines EPBC Policy Statement 1.1 (DEH 2006).


Statement

Final 11

3.12. Our analysis of potential impacts differs from that in the EPBC Referral. Notably, the

development appears to fulfil the criteria for a ‘High risk of significant impacts’ under the

Southern Brown Bandicoot Referral Guidelines (DSEWPC 2011), namely:

Loss or long-term modification of suitable habitat; and

Reduced connectivity or fragmentation of suitable habitat known or likely to support

Southern Brown Bandicoots.

3.13. Similarly, we consider that under the EPBC Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, significant

impact criteria for endangered species, the development would potentially:

Reduce the area of occupancy of the species; and

Fragment the existing population into two or more populations.

3.14. The degree of fragmentation that exists between populations is understood to be a

particularly important consideration in the ability of the species to persist or recover

(Bennett 1990, Reese and Paull 2000, NSW DEC 2006). Low levels of connectivity, coupled

with predation, are widely thought to have resulted in the apparently lower densities and

lower detection rates of bandicoots in habitats to the east (e.g. Lang Lang) and west (e.g.

Hastings) of Western Port, compared with land to the north (e.g. Koo Wee Rup, Bayles,

Bunyip) of Western Port (Coates et al. 2008, Ecology Australia 2009). We believe that the

proposed development would result in continued habitat fragmentation, one of the main

threatening processes contributing to the decline of the species, both regionally and

nationally (Brown and Main 2010).

3.15. The only measure proposed for the mitigation of potential impacts to the Southern Brown

Bandicoot, centres on a ‘corridor’ around the perimeter of Lots 4 and 5, and along the

western boundary of Lot 1 (Plates 1 and 2). Contrary to suggestions made in the Public

Environment Report, this is not a designated wildlife corridor specifically designed to

facilitate the dispersal of fauna; rather, it appears to be simply an artefact of the

development not extending to the limit of the site boundaries.

3.16. The Environmental Management Plan claims that the proposed mitigation measures are

‘best practice’, and that ‘there is a high likelihood that the safeguards and mitigation

measures are effective in their intended task’. However, there is no evidence submitted

on how or why this ‘corridor’ would work, the risks attached, or precedents available. Our

assessment of this ‘corridor’ is that it lacks credibility and that the risk to Southern Brown

Bandicoots is very high.

3.17. Furthermore, the Bushfire Management Statement indicates that approximately half of the

‘corridor’ falls within the area required to be designated as ‘defendable space’ (Terramatrix

2014). The vegetation management requirements for defendable space would result in a

major alteration of the vegetation structure, with the complete loss of the key habitat

requirements for Southern Brown Bandicoots; namely, the removal of shrubs and mowing,

to maintain a vegetation height of 50 mm or less, in the understorey.


Statement

Final 12

Plate 1 Proposed ‘corridor’: northern boundary of Lot 5, adjoined by the

development area, to the left of the cleared path, and pasture, to the right

(12 May 2015)

Plate 2 Proposed ‘corridor’: looking north from Lumeah Road, along the North

Road easement (12 May 2015)

Development area

Proposed ‘corridor’


Statement

Final 13

Other threatened fauna

3.18. The Swamp Skink (Lissolepis coventryi) (FFG-listed, Vulnerable), Glossy Grass Skink

(Pseudemoia rawlinsoni) (Vulnerable) and Southern Toadlet (Pseydophryne

semimarmorata) (Vulnerable) were identified as ‘possible residents’ within the

development area (Ecology Partners 2009). These species are well known from the region,

with numerous records of the species around the Western Port coast, and in relatively

close proximity to the proposed development site (Legg 2010 a, b; VBA 2015). Suitable

habitat for these species is present within and around the proposed development site.

Despite this, there have been no targeted surveys, and no further consideration given to

potential impacts on any of these species or specific mitigation measures.

Environmental Management Plan

3.19. This Witness Statement comments on two particular aspects of the Environmental

Management Plan; namely, management and mitigation measures identified for fauna, in

general, and those identified specifically for shorebirds.

3.20. The Environmental Management Plan (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 b) appears to

imply that impacts to other significant and non-threatened native fauna can be ‘managed’

through Pre-construction and Construction ‘salvage and relocation’. The adoption of this

approach is inappropriate as a mitigation strategy, as it fails, in the first instance, to

mitigate habitat loss, and assumes that fauna will be able to relocate themselves to

adjacent habitats and/or survive in these habitats. This notion is contrary to mainstream

theories of population ecology (e.g. Clemann 2015).

3.21. The Environmental Management Plan recommends a program of shorebird monitoring to

address specific concerns raised by the (then) Federal Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Populations and Communities in relation to potential increased

disturbance from construction activities and increased numbers of watercraft, adjacent to

an area of primary shorebird foraging habitat (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 b). Our

review finds that the measures outlined in the Environmental Management Plan do not

adequately, address the concerns raised regarding potential impacts of disturbance to

shorebirds.

3.22. Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013 b) recommends a monitoring program (Section 6.14;

p. 61), which they contend will enable:

Any changes in the use of habitats by shorebirds to be detected;

Associations between these changes and the potential impacts of proposed

development to be delineated; and

Further recommendations to be made for the avoidance, minimisation or reversal of

these impacts, if detected.

3.23. Detection of changes in the use of habitats by shorebirds, and more importantly, the

determination of whether these changes are caused by the proposed development are

highly unlikely to be possible within the scope outlined in the Environmental Management

Plan. Specifically, this is because shorebirds are highly mobile and respond to changes in


Statement

Final 14

climate and other environmental factors at a continental and global scale (Hansen et al.

2011). Thus, any changes due to the proposed development are likely to be masked by:

Annual variation in reproductive success at breeding grounds in the northern

hemisphere, and the resulting numbers of migrating birds; and

Annual variation in the use of tidal habitats by shorebirds due to variation in:

- Local food availability (intertidal invertebrates);

- Other disturbance factors in the region; and

- Suitability and availability of other foraging habitats in south-eastern Australia.

3.24. Furthermore, the Environmental Management Plan (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 b)

recommends that the main construction activities be undertaken between October and

March; this is during the peak period for shorebirds in Victoria, and encompasses the

critical feeding period (January to April), when birds must gain weight prior to their

northward migration.

Yaringa Harbour Expansion Flora and Fauna Expert Witness Statement

Final 15

Figure 1 Distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot around Western Port, showing the locations of recent records in relation to the proposed development.


Statement

Final 16

4 Ramsar and the Wise Use Concept

The Wise Use Concept

4.1. The proposed development abuts the Western Port Ramsar site – a Wetland of

International Importance – to the immediate east; the proponent’s land and the Ramsar

area share a common boundary. Vegetation of the proposed development area is

contiguous with the adjoining Ramsar site at its eastern boundary (Figure 2), i.e. Heathy

Woodland and Swamp Scrub. An extensive Coastal Saltmarsh zone and Mangrove

Shrubland occurs further seaward in the Ramsar site, and then expansive tidal mudflats.

4.2. Clearing for the proposed development will go as close as approximately 10 m from the

Ramsar boundary.

4.3. In Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013 a), the authors outline ‘Likely or Potential Impacts’

on Ramsar values. Those identified include (pp. 21 - 23):

modification to fauna habitats via edge effects;

changes in hydrology, pollution etc.;

accidental chemical spills;

exposure to Acid Sulphate Soils;

noise and light disturbance (to fauna);

spread of diseases and pest plants;

increase in (introduced) pest species (competition, predation, disturbance);

increased fire risk; and

increased recreational activity disturbance.

4.4. The authors then outline (pp. 24 - 65) a range of mitigation, management and monitoring

measures and protocols which they believe will address these potential impacts. However,

the key mitigation strategy is to maintain a narrow (10-25m) band of vegetation along the

property boundary, which also needs to accommodate Defendable Space (Terramatrix

2014). Furthermore, the authors (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 a, b) do not consider

two central tenants of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance:

Ecological Character and Wise Use.

4.5. ‘Ecological Character’ is defined as the combination of the ecosystem components,

processes, and benefits/services that characterise the Ramsar wetland at a given point in

time (DEH 2006, Ramsar 2006, DEWHA 2008).

4.6. The act of designating (listing) under the Ramsar Convention, a wetland that is

internationally important, is a first step along a conservation and sustainable-use pathway,

the endpoint of which is achieving the long-term ‘wise (sustainable) use’ of the site

(Ramsar 2006, DEWHA 2008). Contracting parties are expected to manage their Ramsar

sites so as to maintain the Ecological Character, remain vigilant and informed of any

changes to the Ecological Character and notify the Ramsar Secretariat of any changes at

the earliest opportunity (Ramsar 2006, DEWHA 2008). ‘Changes’ to the Ecological


Statement

Final 17

Character of the wetland outside the natural variations may signal that uses or externally

derived impacts on the site are unsustainable and may lead to the degradation of natural

processes and thus, the ultimate breakdown off the ecological, biological and hydrological

functioning of the wetland (DEWHA 2008). Thus, ‘Wise Use’ is defined as the maintenance

of Ecological Character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches,

within the context of sustainable development (DEWHA 2008).

4.7. The issue for the present proposal is whether such a development, on the boundary of the

Ramsar site, is consistent with the Wise Use concept, and by extension, what is the

appropriate type and extent of mitigation.

Proposed Buffers

4.8. The primary purpose of an ecological buffer zone is to insulate areas, where biodiversity

conservation is the primary objective, from potentially damaging external influences.

4.9. There is a large body of literature on buffers, and particularly for wetlands. Some salient

references which include buffers for Ramsar sites are Paton et al. (2000), Taylor (2006),

Melbourne Water (2006), Birds Australia (2008), Antos et al. (2007) and DEWHA (2009). In

these studies buffers from 100 – 500 m wide are advocated, for example:

500 m buffer for Fivebough Swamp (Fivebough and Tuckerbil Swamps Ramsar Site,

Leeton) (NSW NPWS 2002; Iain Taylor, Charles Sturt University, pers. comm.).

350 m strips of pasture are used to buffer wetlands at the Western Treatment Plant,

in the Port Phillip Bay Western Shoreline and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar Site

(Melbourne Water 2006).

A buffer of at least 250 m from the landward edge of the wetland would be needed

at Cheetham Wetlands based on human intrusion levels into the wetland beginning

to decline beyond this point (Antos et al. 2007).

Paton et al. (2000) recommended a buffer zone width of 350 m around a wetland, to

reduce the impact of disturbance of waterbirds at the Coorong Ramsar Site.

Toolibin Lake Ramsar site is a seasonal fresh to brackish water perched lake or

wooded swamp, in south-western Australia that has a buffer zone of at least 100 m

width around most of the lake (DCLM 2003).

4.10. Effective buffers to protect the Ramsar values – that is, ecological character – have not

been developed by Ecology Partners (2009) or Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013).

Buffers need to be external to the Ramsar boundary, and by implication be located on the

proposed development site. The authors also suggest that the Ramsar site itself will

‘buffer’ shorebirds from disturbance – this is untenable as it ignores all other Ramsar

values. As shown on the development plan the buffers adjoining the Ramsar site will be 10

– 25 m wide.

4.11. Similarly, buffers identified by Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013), that will protect the

North Western Port Nature Conservation Reserve are inadequate under the proposed

development scenario. The authors claim that retained vegetation will function as an

appropriate buffer to this area: on the development plan these are 10 – 25 m wide.


Statement

Final 18

4.12. We conclude that a 10 – 25 m buffer, which also includes modification to achieve

Defendable Space, will be inadequate to effectively insulate the Ramsar site from the

development.

Yaringa Harbour Expansion Flora and Fauna Expert Witness Statement

Final 19

Figure 2 The proposed development site, showing the boundary to the Western Port Ramsar Site, and Western Port Coastal Reserve and North Western Port Nature Conservation Reserve.


Statement

Final 20

5 The Three-step Approach

5.1. The three-step approach is the foundation of environmental policy, including the EPBC Act

1999, the former Native Vegetation Management Framework, and the current Permitted

Clearing Regulations.

Avoidance

5.2. The proposal does not satisfy the first principle of avoidance, as 8.122 ha (6.012 ha of

remnant vegetation and 30 scattered trees) would be removed.

Minimisation

5.3. Our analysis suggests that there are three substantiative issues requiring the development

of mitigation:

Loss of some six hectares of suitable Southern Brown Bandicoot habitat, also

corresponding to vegetation with a high strategic biodiversity score of 0.963 out of 1;

Loss of connectivity, with potential for a complete barrier to Southern Brown

Bandicoot movement; and

Juxtaposition of a major development on the boundary of the Western Port Ramsar

Site, with apparently no consideration of the ‘Wise Use’ concept or a reasoned,

articulated approach to buffer design.

5.4. The mitigation proposed by Ecology and Heritage Partners amounts to an implausible

‘corridor’ for Southern Brown Bandicoot and a narrow band of vegetation on the Ramsar

boundary. The Environmental Management Plan (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2013 b)

addresses environmental management, and is not central to the first principle of mitigation

or minimisation, which is to reduce impacts in the first instance, through project layout and

design.

5.5. The Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines for High-risk Pathway applications require the

relevant authorities to consider whether reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that

impacts of the proposed removal of native vegetation on biodiversity have been minimised

(DEPI 2013, Section 8.4).

5.6. The subject land makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity, as identified by

the Department of Environment and Primary Industries modelling, with a score of 0.963

Strategic Biodiversity Units (Ecology and Heritage Partners 2015 a, b). In these cases, the

authorities are required to consider:

Impacts on important habitat for rare or threatened species;

Proportional impacts on remaining habitat for rare or threatened species, including

previous removal of vegetation on the same property; and

Contribution to cumulative impacts that threaten the persistence of rare or

threatened species.

These considerations are particularly relevant to the subject land.


Statement

Final 21

Offsets

5.7. The potential French Island offset site would readily meet the offset requirements of the

Permitted Clearing Regulations; however, there are no offsets proposed for the Southern

Brown Bandicoot. While we acknowledge that the project has approval under the EPBC

Act, our analysis suggests that documentation presented to the (then) Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities was inadequate, and

there is a high risk of significant impact on the Southern Brown Bandicoot as a result of the

project.

5.8. In summary, the proposal falls well short of satisfying the three-step approach. It cannot

meet the avoidance objective, and fails to adequately mitigate the key potential impacts of

the proposal. The proposal relies on offsetting which is contrary to the three-step

approach. While we acknowledge Federal Approval, we consider significant impacts to the

Southern Brown Bandicoot a high risk, in relation to the project. In this context, we

strongly encourage the preparation of a robust mitigation strategy for this species, and

appropriate offsetting.


Statement

Final 22

6 Draft Planning Permit Conditions

6.1. Council’s proposed conditions have been reviewed and we believe generally that all

conditions which are required to be met by the proponent of the Yaringa Boat Harbour are

justified. Conditions relating directly and indirectly to the maintenance and protection of

environmental values during the pre-construction and construction phases of the proposed

development are itemised in the following conditions of the Proposed Planning Permit

(environmental considerations are sometimes a minor component):

1 Plans required before start of approved development and uses

2 Potentially contaminated land

14 Waterway establishment and use

19 Amenity conditions

24 Lighting

25, 26 Erosion prevention

27, 28 Landscape maintenance and stabilisation

29 Construction Environmental Management Plan

30 Operational Environmental Management Plan

32 Review of Management Plan

34, 36, 37 Country Fire Authority Conditions

38, 39, 40, 41 Native Vegetation Management

6.2. A number of these conditions are based on the documentation by Ecology Partners (2009)

- Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Gain Analysis - and Ecology and Heritage Partners

(2013 b) - Environment Management Plan.

6.3. The Flora and Fauna Assessment (Ecology Partners 2009) in particular, is inadequate in its

present form, as the basis for some Conditions. Further flora and fauna assessment work

is required and Conditions may need to be reviewed on the basis of additional findings.

Condition 1

6.4. Plans required before start of approved development and uses, Section 1l, Native

vegetation offset plan specifies that an offset of suitable habitat for the Southern Brown

Bandicoot must be located within the Mornington Peninsula municipality to the

satisfaction of the Responsible Authority. Additionally, the Condition should specify that

the Environmental Offset Policy of the EPBC Act 1999 should be followed for offsets for the

Southern Brown Bandicoot (DSEWPC 2012 a, b).


Statement

Final 23

6.5. In addition we consider that the loss of connectivity for the Southern Brown Bandicoot is a

central issue and the current mitigation fundamentally inadequate. A Condition of

Approval should specify a redesign to adequately accommodate a well-designed and

potentially viable habitat link.


Statement

Final 24

7 Declaration

We have made all enquiries that are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance

which we regard as relevant have, to our knowledge, been withheld from the Panel.

Geoff Carr Bernadette Schmidt


Statement

Final 25

8 References

Antos MJ, Ehmke GC, Tzaros CL and Weston MA (2007) Unauthorised human use of an urban

coastal wetland sanctuary: current and future patterns. Landscape and Urban Planning

80, 173-183.

Bennett AF (1990) Habitat corridors: their role in Wildlife Management and Conservation.

(Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne).

Birds Australia (2008) Planning for the conservation of birds in relation to the Melbourne

Strategic Plan. Report prepared for the Department of Sustainability and Environment

(Birds Australia, Carlton).

Braithwaite RW, Gullan PK (1978) Habitat selection by small mammals in a Victorian

heathland. Australian Journal of Ecology 3, 109-127.

Brown GW, Main ML (2010) National Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot

Isoodon obesulus obesulus. Draft for Comment June 2010 (Department of Environment,

Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT).

Claridge A, Barry SC (2000) Factors influencing the distribution of medium-sized ground-

dwelling mammals in southeastern mainland Australia. Austral Ecology 25, 676-688.

Clemann N (2015) Cold-blooded indifference: a case study of the worsening status of

threatened reptiles from Victoria, Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 21(1), 15-26.

Coates TD, Nicholls D, Willig R (2008) The distribution of the Southern Brown Bandicoot in

South Central Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist 125(5), 128-139.

DCLM (2003) Toolibin Lake Ramsar site Ramsar Information Sheet. Department of

Conservation and Land management, Western Australia.

DEH (2006) EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 Significant Impact Guidelines. Matters of National

Environmental Significance May 2006. (Department of Environment and Heritage,

Canberra, ACT).

DEPI (2013) Permitted Clearing of Native Vegetation: Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines

(Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne).

DEWHA (2008) National Framework and Guidance for Describing the Ecological Character of

Australian Ramsar Wetlands: Module 2 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar wetlands

– Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia (Department of Environment,

Water, Heritage and Arts, Canberra, ACT).

DEWHA (2009) Draft Policy Statement for Migratory Shorebirds – EPBC Act Policy Statement

3.21. Significant Impact Guidelines for Migratory Shorebirds (Department of

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.).

DOE (2015) Isoodon obesulus obesulus – Southern Brown Bandicoot. Species Profile and

Threats Database. Accessed 18 May 2015 at http://www.environment.gov.au/

DSEWPC (2011) Draft Referral Guidelines for the Endangered Southern Brown Bandicoot

(Eastern). (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and

Communities, Canberra, ACT).

http://www.environment.gov.au/


Statement

Final 26

DSEWPC (2012 a) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999:

Environmental Offsets Policy. October 2012 (Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Populations and Communities, Canberra, ACT).

DSEWPC (2012 b) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Environmental Offsets Policy: How to Use the Offsets Assessment – Guide.

(Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities,

Canberra, ACT).

Donaldson A, Bennett A (2004) Ecological Effects of Roads. Implications for Internal

Fragmentation of Australian Parks and Reserves. Parks Victoria Technical Series

Number 12. (Parks Victoria and Deakin University, Melbourne).

Ecology Australia (2009) Southern Brown Bandicoot Strategic Management Plan for the

former Koo Wee Rup Swamp Area. Report prepared for Cardinia Shire Council, Casey

City Council and Melbourne Water by B Schmidt, C Renowden and D Quin (Ecology

Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield).

Ecology Partners (2009) Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Gain Analysis of the proposed

Yaringa Boat Harbour Redevelopment, Lumeah Road, Somerville, Victoria. Report

prepared for Aurecon (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2011) Yaringa Boat Harbour Redevelopment Project: Targeted

Surveys for Southern Brown Bandicoot Isoodon obesulus obesulus and New Holland

Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae. Prepared for Yaringa Boat Harbour on behalf of

Mason Planning (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013 a) Final Public Report: Yaringa Harbour Expansion. EPBC

Referral: 2011/6014. 1 Lumeah Road, Somerville. Prepared for Western Port Boat

Harbour Pty Ltd (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd, in association with Mason

Planning and Planning and Property Partners).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2013 b) Draft Environmental Management Plan, Yaringa Boat

Harbour, Western Port, Victoria. Prepared for Western Port Boat Harbour Pty Ltd


Ecology and Heritage Partners (2015 a) Permitted clearing assessment for the Yaringa Boat

Harbour Development, Lumeah Road, Somerville, Victoria (Ecology and Heritage

Partners Pty Ltd, Brunswick).

Ecology and Heritage Partners (2015 b) Yaringa Boat Harbour Offset Strategy – Offset

Potential on French Island, Victoria. Letter to Planning and Property Partners Pty Ltd


Ferla L (2007) Microhabitat use by the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus

obesulus) in Heathland and Woodland Habitats within the Royal Botanic Gardens,

Cranbourne, Victoria. B.Sc. (Hons) Thesis. Monash University.

Hansen B, Menkhorst P, Loyn R (2011) Western Port Welcomes Waterbirds: Waterbird Usage

of Western Port. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research. Technical Report

222 (Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg).


Statement

Final 27

Heinsohn GE (1966) Ecology and reproduction of the Tasmanian bandicoots (Perameles

gunnii and Isoodon obesulus). University of California Publications in Zoology 80, 1-107.

Legg M (2010a) Westernport RAMSAR Protection Program: Fauna surveys, Threatened and

Feral Fauna Monitoring at Parks Victoria Management Reserves. Yaringa to Bass

Landing, Victoria. February to October 2010. Report prepared for Parks Victoria (Mal’s


Legg M (2010b) Western Port Ramsar Protection Program. Fauna surveys, Threatened and

Feral Fauna Monitoring at Mornington Peninsula Shire Management Reserves. Yaringa

Foreshore Reserve, Gordon Rolfe Reserve and Bittern Coastal Wetlands, Victoria.

February to October 2010. Report prepared for Mornington Peninsula Shire (Mal’s


Melbourne Water (2006) Land-use Strategy for the Western Treatment Plant (Melbourne

Water, Melbourne).

NSW DEC (2006) Recovery Plan for the Southern Brown Bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus). (New

South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville).

NSW NPWS (2002) Fivebough and Tuckerbil Swamps Ramsar Site Information Sheet (New

South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney).

Paton D, Ziembicki M, Owen P and Heddle C (2000) Distances for Waterbirds and the

Management of Human Recreation with Specific Reference to the Coorong Region of

South Australia. University of Adelaide, South Australia.

Paull DJ, Mills DJ, Claridge AW (2013) Fragmentation of the Southern Brown Bandicoot

Isoodon obesulus: Unravelling Past Climate Change from Vegetation Clearing.

International Journal of Ecology. Article ID 536524.

Quin DG (1985) Aspects of the feeding ecology of the bandicoots, Perameles gunnii (Gray

1838) and Isoodon obesulus (Shaw and Nodder 1797) (Marsupialia: Peramelidae) in

southern Tasmania. B.Sc Honours Thesis. University of Tasmania.

Ramsar (2006). Strategic Framework and Guidelines for the future development of the list of

Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran,

1971). Key Documents of the Ramsar Convention. Strategic Framework for the List of

Wetlands of International Importance, edition 2006. Accessed at

http://www.ramsar.org/

Reese M, Paull D (2000) Distribution of the southern brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus) in

the Portland region of south-western Victoria. Wildlife Research 27, 539-545.

Sanderson KJ, Kraehenbuehl J (2006) Southern Brown Bandicoots Isoodon obesulus obesulus

in Belair National Park. Australian Mammalogy 28(2), 147-152.

Sholto Consulting (2011) Yaringa Boat Harbour Upgrade: Traffic Management Road Upgrade

Recommendations (Sholto Consulting Pty Ltd, Balnarring Beach).

Stoddart MD, Braithwaite W (1979) A strategy for the utilisation of regenerating heathland

habitat by the brown bandicoot (Isoodon obesulus: Marsupialia, Peramelidae). Journal

of Animal Ecology 48, 165-179.

http://www.ramsar.org/


Statement

Final 28

Taylor (2006) Managing visitor disturbance of waterbirds on Australian inland wetlands. Pp.

150-157. In: ‘Wetlands of the Murrumbidgee River Catchment: Practical Management

in an Altered Environment’. Eds. I. Taylor, P. Murray and S. Taylor. Fivebough and

Tuckerbil Wetlands Trust (Active Print, Wagga, Wagga, New South Wales)

Terramatrix (2014) Bushfire Management Statement for the Expansion of the Yaringa Boat

Harbour, Lumeah Rd Someville, Vic, 3912. Report prepared for Western Port Boat

Harbour Pty Ltd (Terramatrix Pty Ltd, Collingwood).

VBA (2015) Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Acessed at http://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba

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