Feasibility Study Report Replacement of Ronald Street Bridge over Edgars Creek, Coburg North
transport | community | mining | industrial | food & beverage | energy
Prepared for: Moreland City Council
Client representative: Joe Carnuccio
Date: 27 March 2018 Rev 02
Now part of the pitt&sherry group
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.3 Study Area ...... 2 1.4 Scope of Work ...... 2 1.5 Project Methodology ...... 3 2. Site Information ...... 4 2.1 Land Ownership ...... 4 2.2 Flooding ...... 5 2.3 Geology ...... 7 2.4 Native Vegetation ...... 8 2.5 Cultural Heritage ...... 8 2.6 Services ...... 8 3. Stakeholder Consultation ...... 9 3.1 Melbourne Water ...... 9 3.2 Community Information Evening ...... 9 4. Concept Designs ...... 10 4.1 Design Alternatives ...... 10 4.2 Design Standards ...... 10 4.3 Bridge Option 1A ...... 10 4.4 Bridge Option 1B ...... 13 4.5 Bridge Option 1C ...... 15 4.6 Path Option 2A ...... 17 4.7 Path Option 2B ...... 19 5. Options Comparison ...... 21 6. Recommendation ...... 22
List of figures Figure 1: Flood damaged Ronald Street Bridge ...... 1 Figure 2: Project study area ...... 2 Figure 3: Existing and proposed bicycle paths ...... 4 Figure 4: Informal walking track along creek ...... 4 Figure 5: Land ownership surrounding Kodak Bridge ...... 5 Figure 6: Land ownership surrounding the Ronald Street Bridge site ...... 5 Figure 7: 1 in 10 year ARI flood map ...... 6 Figure 8: 1 in 100 year ARI flood map ...... 6 Figure 9: Surface geology ...... 7 Figure 10: Silurian rock outcrop ...... 7 Figure 11: Existing utility services ...... 9 Figure 12: Alignment Option 1A ...... 11 Figure 13: Option 1A west view...... 12 Figure 14: Option 1A east view ...... 12 Figure 15: Alignment Option 1B ...... 13 Figure 16: Option 1B bridge site ...... 14 Figure 17: Option 1B path adjacent Ronald Street ...... 14 Figure 18: Alignment Option 1C ...... 15 Figure 19: Option 1C span to west bank ...... 16 Figure 20: Option 1C span to east bank ...... 16 Figure 21: Alignment Option 2A ...... 17 Figure 22: Option 2A looking north ...... 18 Figure 23: Option 2A looking south from Photography Drive ...... 18 pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc
Figure 24: Alignment Option 2B ...... 19 Figure 25: Option 2B path beside athletics track ...... 20 Figure 26: Option 2B path near athletics safety net ...... 20
List of tables Table 1: Comparison of bridge and path options ...... 21
Appendices Appendix A: Native Vegetation Assessment Appendix B: Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report Appendix C: Information Evening Discussion Notes Appendix D: Concept Bridge Elevations
Prepared by: …………………………………………………. Date: 27 March 2018 C. Morton
Reviewed by: ………………………………………………… . Date: 27 March 2018 A. Sonnenberg
Authorised by: ………………………………………………… . Date: 27 March 2018 A. Sonnenberg
Revision History
Rev Description Prepared by Reviewed by Authorised by Date No. A Draft C. Morton - - 12/02/18 00 Final C. Morton A. Sonnenberg A. Sonnenberg 08/03/18 01 Revision C. Morton A. Sonnenberg A. Sonnenberg 15/03/18 02 Revision C. Morton A. Sonnenberg A. Sonnenberg 27/03/18
© 2018 pitt&sherry This document is and shall remain the property of pitt&sherry. The document may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form is prohibited.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc
1. Introduction
1.1 Background Moreland City Council (Council) maintain the shared use pedestrian/cycle bridge crossing Edgars Creek which links Ronald Street to Golf Road, Coburg North. The original structure comprised of timber log girders, decking and barriers. The bridge was constructed circa 1985 with the deck level approximately 800mm below the 1 in 10 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) flood height of 44.8m Australian Height Datum (AHD).
The low bridge sustained flood damage on multiple occasions. On 29 December, 2016 a high intensity rain event resulted in the bridge being damaged and the deck and handrails being washed away (Figure 1). The path either side of the bridge was fenced off by Council and for safety reasons the bridge superstructure removed as pedestrians were still attempting to cross the creek.
Figure 1: Flood damaged Ronald Street Bridge Council has engaged pitt&sherry to investigate options of restoring the shared use access across Edgars Creek at or near this location, by either constructing a new bridge and/or provide a formalised path along the west side of Edgars Creek linking up with the existing bridge infrastructure crossing Edgars Creek at Coburg Hill.
At the conclusion of the feasibility phase Council will determine if the project is to proceed to the design and construction phases for the preferred option. This report documents the feasibility phase investigations and recommendations.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 1
1.3 Study Area The Ronald Street Bridge site is located at the south end of a concrete channel section of Edgars Creek between Ronald Street and Golf Road in Coburg North. The GPS coordinates of the original structure are - 37.729811, 144.975945. Kodak Bridge, a former private road bridge, is situated approximately 350m upstream of the Ronald Street Bridge. Another pedestrian bridge spans Edgars Creek approximately 650m downstream of the Ronald Street Bridge near the confluence of Merri Creek and Edgars Creek. The study area is primarily focussed on the creek area adjacent to Ronald Street and the west side of the creek extending to Kodak Bridge.
KODAK BRIDGE
COBURG HILL
RONALD STREET BRIDGE SITE
BRIDGE NEAR CONFLUENCE
Figure 2: Project study area
1.4 Scope of Work The feasibility study scope of work was to identify options and costs associated with the replacement of (or alternative to) the Ronald Street Bridge. The brief required the following options to be investigated: 1. A new shared use bridge crossing Edgars Creek in the vicinity of Ronald Street 2. A new formalised travel path along the west side of the creek linking Kodak Bridge to the existing path leading west to Golf Road The feasibility study was to investigate various design alternatives and identify advantages/disadvantages and costs associated with each option. As part of the study internal stakeholder and community consultation was required in order to gauge opinions and requirements on the various options presented. Key investigations undertaken at the feasibility stage were to include: • Confirm Melbourne Water requirements • Land use and ownership • Native vegetation assessment • Cultural heritage Due Diligence assessment • Site feature and level survey • Preliminary geological assessment • Identification of existing utility services. pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 2
1.5 Project Methodology In performing the feasibility study the following methodology was used:
1.5.1 Planning • Project inception meeting with Council representatives • Review of background information • Initial site visit by pitt&sherry engineers.
1.5.2 Investigation • Liaise with Melbourne Water to confirm their requirements • Site feature and level survey by a licenced surveyor • Native vegetation assessment by specialist sub-consultant • Cultural heritage investigation by specialist sub-consultant • Preliminary geological assessment by geotechnical engineer • Dial Before You Dig search and review of plans • Develop preliminary alignment options.
1.5.3 Consultation • Community information session • Review and summary of community feedback.
1.5.4 Design Concepts • Follow up site visit by pitt&sherry engineers • Finalise bridge / path alignment options • Assess advantages and disadvantages of each option • Advise on high-level budget construction cost estimates • Make recommendation on option that best meets objectives.
1.5.5 Reporting • Prepare Draft feasibility study report • Council review of the Draft report • Prepare Final feasibility study report. Related Documents The following reports prepared for Council directly relate to the bridge feasibility study and as such key findings and recommendations presented in these documents were taken into consideration. • Moreland Bicycle Strategy 2011 – 2021 • Edgars Creek Conservation and Development Plan, Edwardes Lake to Merri Creek (Thomson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd in association with Ecology and Heritage Partners P/L, Revision F, June 2013).
The Moreland Bicycle Strategy includes a map showing existing bicycle paths and routes and maps of the future network based on proposed short term (before 2021) and medium/long term (before 2041) projects. An annotated extract of these maps is shown in Figure 3. pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 3
The east west link between Ronald Street and Golf Road is shown as an existing route and there are short term plans to use the Ronald Street Bridge site to connect Coburg Hill and surrounding communities to the Merri Creek Trail with a new path running south along Edgars Creek. Medium term projects include a path along the west side of Edgars Creek linking the Ronald Street Bridge and Kodak Bridge.
EXISTING BEFORE 2021
RONALD STREET RONALD STREET BRIDGE SITE BRIDGE SITE
Figure 3: Existing and proposed bicycle paths The Edgars Creek Conservation and Development Plan notes that provision of a pedestrian and cycling link between Edwardes Lake and the Merri Creek Trail is identified as a high priority in both Darebin and Moreland City Council cycle and open space strategies and the Merri Creek and Environs Strategy. Existing informal walking tracks (Figure 4) along both sides of Edgars Creek have been identified as important site values.
Figure 4: Informal walking track along creek
2. Site Information
2.1 Land Ownership Council’s Property Unit provided maps showing land ownership in the area surrounding Kodak Bridge (Figure 5) and the original Ronald Street Bridge site (Figure 6). In the figures below orange areas are Council land, green areas represent Crown land with Council as the Committee of Management while the blue area is Melbourne Water land.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 4
KODAK BRIDGE
Figure 5: Land ownership surrounding Kodak Bridge
RONALD STREET BRIDGE SITE
Figure 6: Land ownership surrounding the Ronald Street Bridge site
2.2 Flooding Melbourne Water provided flood maps covering the area surrounding the original bridge site. The extent of flooding (blue area) and flood contours (red lines) for 1 in 10 year and 1 in 100 year ARI events is shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8 respectively. The available design drawings for the original Ronald Street Bridge show the timber deck level at 44.0m AHD.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 5
Figure 7: 1 in 10 year ARI flood map
Figure 8: 1 in 100 year ARI flood map
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 6
2.3 Geology The Sunbury (1 : 63 630) geological map suggests complex geological conditions within the project study area including alluvium, basalt and mudstone units. Variable depths of rock may be encountered at bridge foundations and shallow or deep foundations may be required.
A detailed geotechnical investigation, including borehole drilling and rock coring, will be required at bridge support locations to inform the detailed design of the foundations. The upper soil layers are subject to erosion and collapse along the creek banks and may require protection / stabilisation.
OLIVINE BASALT, MINOR LIMBURGITE, TRACHY- ANDESITE, SCORIA, THIN INTERBEDDED SAND, CLAY AND TUFF INTERBEDDED SHALE, MUDSTONE AND GREYWACKE
RONALD STREET BRIDGE SITE
ALLUVIUM. SAND, SANDY SILT, SILT, GRAVEL
Figure 9: Surface geology An exposed outcrop of Silurian rock (Figure 10) is located immediately south of the original Ronald Street Bridge site. There are few comparable sites in the Melbourne metropolitan area and as such the site is regionally significant.
Figure 10: Silurian rock outcrop pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 7
2.4 Native Vegetation A native vegetation assessment of the site was conducted by Brett Lane & Associates Pty Ltd for pitt&sherry. The investigation was commissioned to provide information on the extent and condition of native vegetation in the study area to be assessed for potential removal under the Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013).
A copy of the Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge Native Vegetation Assessment report prepared for this project is provided in Appendix A. Recommendations are provided for two possible bridge alignment options and path alignment options along the west side of the creek to Kodak Bridge.
The study identified areas with low, moderate and high retention value and recommended alignment options that minimised the removal of any vegetation. The destruction, lopping or removal of any native vegetation requires a planning permit and, where permitted to be removed, a native vegetation offset is required.
2.5 Cultural Heritage A cultural heritage assessment of the site was conducted by Dr Vincent Clark & Associates for pitt&sherry. The purpose of the assessment was to determine any implications for the project arising from relevant cultural heritage legislation, including the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Heritage Act 2017.
A copy of the Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report prepared for this project is provided in Appendix B. The study identified several registered Aboriginal Places within the study area where artefact scatters have previously been found.
A project specific Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) is mandatory when works occur in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity and are classed as a high impact activity under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007. A mandatory CHMP is expected to be required for the project, regardless of which alignment option is selected.
2.6 Services A number of utility services are present within the project area including the 1.3m diameter M9 underground water supply pipeline located within a Melbourne Water easement, overhead power including an AusNet Transmission Group high voltage electrical transmission line, Yarra Valley Water underground sewer pipes and Council drainage assets. The approximate location of existing services, based on Dial Before You Dig information, is shown in Figure 11.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 8
Figure 11: Existing utility services
3. Stakeholder Consultation
3.1 Melbourne Water Melbourne Water was initially contacted directly by Council in regards to reconstruction or replacement of the Ronald Street Bridge. Melbourne Water advised Council that a replacement structure would need to be built no lower than the 1 in 10 year ARI flood height of 44.8m AHD (at the site of the original bridge) and not reduce flood flow capacity. Melbourne Water supplied maps showing the flood height and extent for the 1 in 10 year (Figure 7) and 1 in 100 year (Figure 8) ARI events.
During the feasibility study phase Melbourne Water reconfirmed the project design requirements, regarding bridge height and flood impacts, to pitt&sherry. Melbourne Water was asked specifically if there were any plans to remove the existing concrete channel and alter the creek to its previous alignment, as this was mentioned during the community information evening. Melbourne Water (Asset Services) advised they were not aware of any such plans.
3.2 Community Information Evening A community information evening was held on the evening of 12 December 2017 at the Newlands Senior Citizens Centre in Coburg. Local residents were notified of the event via letters distributed by Council. Approximately 30 members of the community attended the presentation that was introduced by Council and delivered by pitt&sherry.
The presentation outlined the project requirements, preliminary investigation findings and current design options including two alterative bridge alignments (Option 1A and Option 1B, described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of this report respectively) and an alternative path alignment (Option 2A described in Section 4.6 of this report). A copy of the presentation slides was later made available on Council’s website.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 9
Attendees were given opportunity to provide comment and ask questions during and after the presentation. Whilst there were some differences of opinion between individuals there was a clear sense that the loss of the bridge has been keenly felt by the community as it connected communities with schools, shops, valuable parkland and recreational activities. A summary of community feedback is provided in Appendix C and includes the following points: • Frustration that it has been a year since the original bridge was removed without replacement • Children used the bridge to ride to school and are now missing an opportunity for active transport • Residents are opposed to having a large structure introduced into the natural creek environment • A new bridge near Ronald Street would better meet community needs than a path to Kodak Bridge • Significant community effort, with Melbourne Water funding, has gone into revegetation works.
Following the community information evening pitt&sherry was contacted by a small number of residents who provided further feedback and suggestions.
4. Concept Designs
4.1 Design Alternatives Three alternative alignments have been investigated for constructing a new shared use bridge in the vicinity of the original Ronald Street Bridge. In addition, two options for constructing a formal pedestrian and bicycle path along the creek have been considered (with no new bridge). The five options are: • Bridge Option 1A – Bridge and path on the original alignment (Section 4.3) • Bridge Option 1B – Bridge just south of original site with path to Ronald St (Section 4.4) • Bridge Option 1C – Bridge approximately 100m upstream of original site (Section 4.5) • Path Option 2A – Formal path from Kodak Bridge on west side of creek (Section 4.6) • Path Option 2B – Formal path to Merri Creek Trail on east side of creek (Section 4.7).
4.2 Design Standards New works will need to conform with the following design standards and guidelines: • AS1428.1 Design for Access and Mobility • AS5100 Bridge Design • Austroads Guide to Road Design (AGRD) Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths.
4.3 Bridge Option 1A Option 1A considers a new shared use bridge and path on the same alignment as the original/existing conditions (Figure 12). On this alignment, the width of the waterway under the 1 in 10 year ARI flood condition is approximately 100 metres. This option was presented at the community information evening.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 10
Figure 12: Alignment Option 1A Melbourne Water requires the underside of the new bridge to be set no lower than the 1 in 10 year ARI flood level. This is approximately 44.8m AHD at the site of the original bridge. Figure 12 shows that the flood level rises along the path of travel when heading east. A concept elevation view of Option 1A is provided in Appendix D. The underside of the main span has been set at 44.8m AHD and the bridge deck level is expected to be approximately 500mm higher.
The current path leading to the site of the original crossing is relatively steep towards the Ronald St / Danthonia St intersection, with a grade of around 12% over a distance of approximately 20m. AS1428.1 specifies that for walkways shallower than 1 in 33 (3%) landings are not required and the maximum gradient of a ramp exceeding 1.9 metres in length is 1 in 14 (7%). In order to satisfy such requirements, the following options were considered: 1. Maintaining the same deck level on the structure (main and approach spans) and then constructing a code compliant ramp, approximately 42m in length, with landings at approximately 9m intervals that will match in with existing path levels near the Ronald St / Danthonia St intersection. With this option the vertical clearance under the approach spans would reduce from around 900mm at the west end to around 250mm at the east end of the flood extent. 2. Maintaining the same deck level on the bridge main span and then having approach spans and ramp at a constant grade of approximately 2% that will match in with existing path levels near the Ronald St / Danthonia St intersection. With this option the vertical clearance under the approach spans would increase from around 900mm at the west end to around 1,300mm at the east end of the flood extent. The latter option of the two is expected to be preferable in terms of aesthetics and ease of inspection/maintenance and as such has been illustrated in Appendix D and can be summarised as follows: • 3m clear width on structure (typical all options) • 24m main span length (flat) • 72m total length of approach spans (2% grade) • 55m earth ramp (embankment) length at east end, alternatively the elevated structure could be continued (2% grade) • 10m earth ramp (embankment) length at west end to transition to existing path levels (3% grade). pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 11
The above lengths are indicative and subject to detailed design.
ORIGINAL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT
Figure 13: Option 1A west view
12% GRADE APPROX.
Figure 14: Option 1A east view pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 12
4.4 Bridge Option 1B Option 1B considers a new shared use bridge with the west approach and abutment closely matching the original alignment but with the main span rotated approximately 30 degrees towards the south. The east approach would then traverse upwards toward and then run parallel with Ronald Street before connecting with the existing path near the Danthonia Street intersection (Figure 15). An additional path giving more direct access to/from Ronald Street (towards the south) could also be considered. On this alignment, the width of the waterway under the 1 in 10 year ARI flood condition is approximately 40 metres. This option was presented at the community information evening.
*
Figure 15: Alignment Option 1B Melbourne Water requires the underside of the new bridge to be set no lower than the 1 in 10 year ARI flood level. This is approximately 44.8m AHD at the site of the original bridge. Figure 15 shows that the flood level slightly reduces along the path of travel when heading south east. A concept elevation view of Option 1B is provided in Appendix D. The underside of the main span has been set approximately 700mm to 1,800mm above the controlling flood height for reasons explained below.
As stated in the previous section of the report, AS1428.1 permits a maximum ramp gradient of 7%. On the alignment depicted in Figure 15 the existing surface slopes at a grade of approximately 16% from the position marked with an asterisk (*) heading towards the creek. Therefore, even with approach spans constructed on the maximum allowable grade the east end of the main span will sit well above the 1 in 10 year ARI flood height.
The Option 1B elevation is shown in Appendix D and can be summarised as follows: • 3m clear width on structure (typical all options) • 36m main span length (3% grade) • 30m total length of approach spans (7% grade with landings at 9m maximum intervals) • 22m ramp/path length (7% grade with landings at 9m maximum intervals) • 100m path at east end to Ronald St/Danthonia St intersection (3% maximum grade) • 20m earth ramp (embankment) length at west end to transition to existing path levels (3% grade). The above lengths are indicative and subject to detailed design. pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 13
OPTION 1B ALIGNMENT ORIGINAL BRIDGE ALIGNMENT
Figure 16: Option 1B bridge site
OPTION 1B ALIGNMENT
EXISTING PATH ALIGNMENT
Figure 17: Option 1B path adjacent Ronald Street
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 14
4.5 Bridge Option 1C Option 1C considers a new shared use bridge located approximately 100m upstream of the original Ronald Street Bridge. A short section of path would connect to the existing path along Danthonia Street while on the west side a new path would be built just north of existing vegetation until it connects with the existing path that links to Golf Road (Figure 18).
Existing overhead and underground services, including the Melbourne Water easement containing the 1.3m diameter M9 water supply pipeline, constrain the position of bridge foundations and so the concept alignment has been placed just south of the existing east-west running overhead power lines. On this alignment, the width of the waterway under the 1 in 10 year ARI flood condition is approximately 52 metres. This option was investigated following the community information evening.
Figure 18: Alignment Option 1C Melbourne Water requires the underside of the new bridge to be set no lower than the 1 in 10 year ARI flood level. This is approximately 45.8m AHD at crossing location shown in Figure 18. A concept elevation view of Option 1C is provided in Appendix D. The deck level is shown on a constant grade in order to tie in with existing path levels on either side of the creek and this results in approximately 250mm minimum clearance above the nominated flood event.
The Option 1C elevation is shown in Appendix D can be summarised as follows: • 3m clear width on structure (typical all options) • 2 x 32m span lengths (2% grade) • 3m earth ramp (embankment) length at east end (2% grade) • 8m earth ramp (embankment) length at west end (2% grade) • 140m path at west end to connect with existing path to Golf Rd (3% maximum grade). The above lengths are indicative and subject to detailed design.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 15
OPTION 1C OPTION 1C WEST SPAN EAST SPAN
Figure 19: Option 1C span to west bank
OPTION 1C OPTION 1C EAST SPAN WEST SPAN
Figure 20: Option 1C span to east bank
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 16
4.6 Path Option 2A There is an existing gravel track on the west side of the creek running between the original Ronald Street Bridge site and Kodak Bridge (Figure 22). The track is approximately 2.5m wide and it passes beneath Kodak Bridge. Option 2A considers making this a formal route for pedestrians and cyclists. The new path would connect to Photography Drive so that the creek can be crossed using Kodak Bridge. This option was presented at the community information evening.
The existing track passes over a hill (Figure 22) and the path gradient either side of the high point is approximately 15%. This is much steeper than the maximum grade permitted by AS1428.1, as explained in Section 4.3. It would therefore be necessary to introduce code compliant ramps (7% maximum grade with landings at intervals not more than 9m).
If a ramp was built at the maximum permitted grade its length would be in the order of 130m from the high point (Figure 21) until it intersected with the existing track level towards the Ronald Street Bridge site. The deck level on the ramp structure would be up to 4m higher than the existing track level.
A similar ramp structure would be needed to link with Kodak Bridge, as the natural slope from the low point (Figure 21) to Photography Drive is around 17% on the alignment represented by the solid orange line. An alternative path alignment is represented by the dashed orange line and this route more closely follows the natural contours (Figure 23).
The alternative path alignment would likely have a significant impact on vegetation and therefore a ramp structure (boardwalk) may need to be considered for the entire length of Option 2A.
KODAK LOW POINT BRIDGE
HIGH POINT
RONALD STREET BRIDGE SITE
Figure 21: Alignment Option 2A
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 17
15% GRADE APPROX.
Figure 22: Option 2A looking north
DIRECT ROUTE TO FOLLOWING EXISTING TRACK CONTOUR LINES
Figure 23: Option 2A looking south from Photography Drive
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 18
4.7 Path Option 2B Option 2B was investigated following the community information evening after it was suggested by a local resident. This option would make the existing informal walking track on the east side of the creek, between the Ronald Street Bridge site and the Merri Creek Tail, a formal travel route for pedestrians and cyclists (Figure 24).
The alignment skirts along the creek and adjacent to a high security fence surrounding the Harold Stevens Athletic Track (Figure 25). It runs directly behind the athletics safety net which is marked with an asterisk (*) in Figure 24. Behind the safety net the existing track dips lower and therefore some land acquisition may be required to remain on higher ground, alternatively an elevated structure could be constructed.
The Edgars Creek Conservation and Development Plan (2013) considered this alignment but deemed it too narrow to safely and substantially formalise path access without impacting on habitat values. The 2013 plan recommended a path on the west side of the creek past the Merri Edgars Wetland, about a third of which has already been constructed by Council.
*
RONALD STREET BRIDGE SITE
Figure 24: Alignment Option 2B
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 19
Figure 25: Option 2B path beside athletics track
Figure 26: Option 2B path near athletics safety net
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 20
5. Options Comparison Table 1 provides a summary of how each option relates to key project considerations. The construction cost estimates are based on representative units rates for steel structures ($3,000/m2 for all bridge options), timber boardwalks ($1,500/m2 for both path options), concrete paths ($150/m2) and earth ramps ($150/m3). A 30% allowance is included in the estimates provided to cover preliminaries and miscellaneous works. Council should apply a contingency, perhaps 20%, for budgeting purposes. Table 1: Comparison of bridge and path options
Consideration Bridge Option 1A Bridge Option 1B Bridge Option 1C Path Option 2A Path Option 2B Consistency with related Option consistent with Option consistent with Option consistent with Option consistent with Option previously ruled planning documents short term projects short term projects short term projects medium term projects out Reconnects community Would restore previous Would restore previous Would restore previous Does not provide a direct Does not restore to schools etc. east west link east west link east west link east west link previous east west link Impact on creek and Significant visual impact. Significant visual impact. Significant visual impact. Significant visual impact Least visual impact environs Blocks informal track Clears informal track Blocks informal track Need for any acquisition Land acquisition not Land acquisition not Land acquisition not Land acquisition not May need to acquire of land expected expected expected expected land behind safety net Flood immunity Structure above 1 in 10 Structure above 1 in 100 Structure above 1 in 10 Path above 1 in 10 year Subject to further year ARI flood year ARI flood year ARI flood ARI flood investigation Impact on 1 in 100 year Main span and ramp Negligible impact Negligible impact Negligible impact Subject to further ARI flood event reduce flow area investigation Geotechnical Requires investigation at Requires investigation at Requires investigation at Ramp footings likely Subject to further considerations main bridge supports main bridge supports main bridge supports require drilling of basalt investigation Impact on native Removal of vegetation Removal of vegetation Removal of vegetation Removal of vegetation Subject to further vegetation requires general offset requires general offset requires general offset requires general offset investigation Impact on cultural A mandatory CHMP will A mandatory CHMP will A mandatory CHMP will A mandatory CHMP will A mandatory CHMP will heritage be required be required be required be required be required Impact on existing Design to avoid clash Design to avoid clash Existing services may Require approval to Subject to further services with sewer pipe with sewer pipe impact on site works build over MW pipeline investigation Impact if creek realigned Alignment is likely to be Alignment is unlikely to Alignment is unlikely to Alignment is unlikely to Alignment would not be in the future affected be affected be affected be affected affected High-level construction $1,280,000 $885,000 $840,000 $1,670,000 $585,000 (assume 50m cost estimate long elevated structure) pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 21
6. Recommendation Based on the investigation findings presented in this report Option 1B appears to best satisfy the key project requirements. The alignment is consistent with Moreland Bicycle Strategy and Edgars Creek Conservation and Development Plan, and would restore the east west link that has been lost with the removal of the original bridge.
In order to meet code requirements relating to vertical grade the bridge deck would need to be elevated to approximately 3m above existing ground levels. The structure would sit above the 1 in 100 year ARI flood height and is expected to give enough clearance to maintain the existing informal walking track on the east side of the creek. Consideration should be given to providing stairs linking the bridge deck to the informal walking track along the east side of the creek.
A small quantity of vegetation will likely need to be removed and this will require assessment under the low risk pathway, and a general offset only would apply. As the area of native vegetation removal would be less than one hectare, a habitat hectare assessment report would not be required under Victoria’s Biodiversity assessment guidelines.
The visual impact of a bridge on this alignment is expected to be less than bridge options 1A and 1C, particularly from Ronald Street and Danthonia Street as well as the adjoining properties. At creek level the structure will have a significant visual impact. Council should consider preparing visualisations of the structure prior to detailed design.
The construction cost is estimated to be in the order of $905,000 (including an allowance for stairs linking the bridge deck to the informal walking track) and a budget estimate of around $1,090,000 is considered appropriate at present. The preparation of a CHMP and site geotechnical investigation will be required during the next phase of the project and the outcomes may impact on the project cost estimate.
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc 22
Appendix A
Native Vegetation Assessment
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc
EDGARS CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
NATIVE VEGETATION ASSESSMENT
Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd
Suite 5, 61–63 Camberwell Road, Hawthorn, VIC 3123 P.O. Box 337, Camberwell, VIC 3124 Ph. (03) 9815 2111 Fax. (03) 9815 2685 March 2018 Report No. 17224 (1.4) Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 2. DEFINITIONS, METHODS & ASSESSMENT PROCESS ...... 2 2.1. Definitions ...... 2 2.1.1. Study area ...... 2 2.1.2. Native vegetation ...... 2 2.2. Field methods ...... 3 2.3. Biodiversity assessment guidelines ...... 3 2.4. DELWP referral criteria ...... 4 3. ASSESSMENT RESULTS, IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS ...... 5 3.1. Site assessment ...... 5 3.1.1. Site description, zoning and overlays ...... 5 3.1.2. Native vegetation patches ...... 5 3.1.3. Retention value of native vegetation patches ...... 9 3.1.4. Scattered trees ...... 10 3.2. Proposed development ...... 13 3.2.1. Minimisation of impacts ...... 13 3.2.2. Native vegetation removal ...... 13 3.2.3. Risk–based assessment pathway for the site ...... 13 3.3. Implications under the Guidelines ...... 16 3.3.1. Permit requirements ...... 16 3.3.2. Offset requirements ...... 16 4. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 17 5. REFERENCES ...... 19
TABLES Table 1: Description of habitat zones in the study area ...... 6 Table 2: Summary of habitat zone attributes ...... 10
FIGURES Figure 1: Study area and native vegetation ...... 11 Figure 2: Retention value of native vegetation patches ...... 12 Figure 3: Preliminary Alignment Option 1A ...... 14
Page | i Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Figure 4: Preliminary Alignment Option 2A ...... 15
APPENDICES Appendix 1: Details of the assessment process and offset requirements ...... 20 Appendix 2: Photographs of native vegetation comprising each habitat zone ...... 25
Page | ii Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
1. INTRODUCTION Brett Lane & Associates Pty. Ltd. (BL&A) were engaged by Pitt & Sherry Pty Ltd to undertake a native vegetation assessment of two potential route options for the replacement of the Edgars Creek pedestrian bridge, adjacent Ronald Street in Coburg North. This assessment was requested as part of a feasibility study for Moreland Council for replacement of the bridge. This investigation was commissioned to provide information on the extent and condition of native vegetation in the study area to be assessed for potential removal under the Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013), as well as to provide recommendations on the route options based on impacts to native vegetation. This report outlines any implications under Victoria’s native vegetation permitted clearing regulations, the Biodiversity assessment guidelines (the ‘Guidelines’). Potential impacts on flora and fauna matters listed under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 have been considered as part of a review of existing information and field investigation; no relevant implications were identified under either Act. Specifically, the scope of the investigation included: ▪ Existing information on the flora, fauna and native vegetation of the study area and surrounds will be reviewed, including: o Victorian Biodiversity Atlas administered by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP); o DELWP Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM). ▪ A site survey will be undertaken involving: o Characterisation and mapping of native vegetation on the site, as defined in Victoria’s Biodiversity assessment guidelines (the ‘Guidelines’). o Assessment of native vegetation in accordance with the Guidelines, including habitat hectare assessment and/or scattered tree assessment. This report is divided into the following sections: Section 2 describes the methods used for the assessment, definitions and the legislative background. Section 3 presents the assessment results, proposed native vegetation removal and implications under the Guidelines. Section 4 provides recommendations for the design options of the project to minimise impacts on biodiversity. This investigation was undertaken by Brett Macdonald, Senior Ecologist at BL&A.
Page | 1 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
2. DEFINITIONS, METHODS & ASSESSMENT PROCESS
2.1. Definitions
2.1.1. Study area The study area for this investigation comprises both route options, as depicted in figures 1 and 2.
2.1.2. Native vegetation Native vegetation is defined in the Victoria Planning Provisions as ‘plants that are indigenous to Victoria, including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses’. The Guidelines define native vegetation as belonging to two categories (DEPI 2013): ▪ Remnant patch; or ▪ Scattered trees. The definitions of these categories are provided below, along with the prescribed DELWP methods to assess them. It should be noted for this particular project that the vast majority of the vegetation in the study area is planted vegetation, in the from of a series of connected revegetation plots, which have been designed to replicate the native vegetation communities which would have occurred there in the past. While planted trees, shrubs or herbs which are indigenous to Victoria are generally exempt from the provisions of Clause 52.17 of all Victorian planning schemes, revegetation plantings which have been financed with public funds and are for the purpose of biodiversity conservation are not exempt from the provisions of Clause 52.17. The vast majority of revegetation in the study area is assumed to have been planted and managed with public funds and is clearly for the purpose of biodiversity conservation. Therefore, it has been deemed as native vegetation which is subject to the provisions of Clause 52.17 in the Moreland Planning scheme. I.e. any approved removal of such vegetation requires offsetting in accordance with the Guidelines. This, however, will be subject to Moreland Councils interpretation of the planning scheme and subsequent status of the vegetation.
Remnant patch A remnant patch of native vegetation is either: ▪ An area of native vegetation where at least 25 per cent of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native; and/or ▪ Any area with three or more native canopy trees1 where the canopy foliage cover2 is at least 20 per cent of the area. Remnant patch condition is assessed using the habitat hectare method (Parkes et al. 2003; DSE 2004) whereby components of native vegetation (e.g. tree canopy, understorey
1 A canopy tree is a reproductively mature tree that is greater than 3 metres in height and is normally found in the upper layer of the relevant vegetation type. 2 Foliage cover is the proportion of the ground that is shaded by vegetation foliage when lit from directly above.
Page | 2 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4) and ground cover) are assessed against an EVC benchmark. The score effectively measures the percentage resemblance of the vegetation to its original condition. The NVIM system (DELWP 2014a) provides modelled condition scores for native vegetation to be used in certain circumstances. All wetlands mapped on DELWP’s native vegetation layer are treated as a remnant patch. The condition score assists in defining the biodiversity equivalence score of the native vegetation and the offset targets if removal of native vegetation is approved.
Scattered trees The Guidelines define scattered trees as a native canopy tree2 that does not form part of a remnant patch of native vegetation. Scattered trees are counted, the species identified and their DBH (diameter at breast height or 1.3 metres above ground) measured or estimated.
2.2. Field methods The field assessment was conducted on the 5th December 2017, during which the study area was surveyed on foot. Sites in the study area found to support native vegetation were mapped. Mapping was undertaken through a combination of aerial photograph interpretation and ground-truthing using a hand held GPS (accurate to approximately five metres). Whilst this assessment was not designed to provide an exhaustive inventory of flora species in the study area, all efforts were made to schedule the site assessment at a time of year when the majority of native vegetation life forms are likely to be present. The season timing of the survey and condition of vegetation was considered suitable to ascertain the extent and condition of native vegetation.
2.3. Biodiversity assessment guidelines Victoria’s planning schemes are constituted under the Planning and Environment Act 1987. This section discusses the Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) and Clause 52.17 (Native vegetation) of the planning provisions in the Victorian planning scheme applicable to native vegetation removal. Destruction, lopping or removal of native vegetation on land which, together with all contiguous land in a single ownership, has an area of 0.4 hectares or more requires a planning permit under Clause 52.17 of all Victorian Planning Schemes. This includes the removal of dead trees with a DBH (diameter at breast height or 1.3 metres) of 40 centimetres or more and any individual scattered native plants. Before issuing a planning permit, Responsible Authorities are obligated to refer to Clause 12.01 (Biodiversity) in the Planning Scheme. This refers in turn to the document Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (DEPI 2013) – the ‘Guidelines’. The application of the Guidelines is described in more detail in Appendix 1.
Page | 3 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
2.4. DELWP referral criteria ▪ Clause 66.02 of the planning scheme determines the role of DELWP in the assessment of native vegetation removal permit applications. If an application is referred, DELWP may make certain recommendations to the responsible authority in relation to the permit application. An application to remove native vegetation must be referred to DELWP in the following circumstances: ▪ Applications where the native vegetation to be removed is 0.5 hectares or more (this does not apply to removal of scattered trees only); ▪ All applications in the high risk-based pathway; ▪ Applications where a property vegetation plan applies to the site; or ▪ Applications on Crown land which is occupied or managed by the responsible authority.
Page | 4 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
3. ASSESSMENT RESULTS, IMPACTS AND IMPLICATIONS
3.1. Site assessment
3.1.1. Site description, zoning and overlays The study area for this investigation (Figure 1) was approximately 1.7 hectares of public land located in North Coburg, in Melbourne’s northern suburbs. It is situated within public open space within the Edgar’s Creek valley, between the ‘Kodak’ Bridge and the former creek pedestrian crossing (bridge) adjacent Ronald Street. The study area supported volcanic soils within a relatively abrupt valley, incised by Edgars Creek. In a few locations, the underlaying sedimentary geology has been exposed by the creek cutting. Past disturbance appears to have been widespread in the vicinity of the study area, as it is situated in what was formerly an outer suburban industrial area. It appears that the vast majority of vegetation in the study area has been planted over the past two or three decades, as part of a program to restore native vegetation within the creek valley and to provide a recreation area for local residents. It is likely that at least some of the vegetation within and abutting the Edgars Creek channel is remnant, particularly River Red-gum trees and some of the shrub species. Revegetation works appear to have ‘evolved’ over time, in that the earliest plantings comprised trees only, some indigenous to the area and some not. The aim of the most recent plantings has been to entirely restore the former vegetation communities – canopy trees, understorey trees and shrubs and the ground layer vegetation. Some of the revegetation plots comprise both older semi-mature planted trees and more recently planted understorey trees, shrubs and ground layer grasses and herbs. Revegetation plots are interspersed with formal walking tracks and open areas of mown lawns. The study area lies within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion and falls within the Port Phillip and Westernport catchment and Moreland local government area. It is currently zoned Public Park and Recreation Zone (PPRZ) and is covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 1 (ESO1) in the Moreland Planning Scheme.
3.1.2. Native vegetation patches Pre–European EVC mapping (DELWP 2014c) indicated that the study area and surrounds would have supported Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55), Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) and Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) prior to European settlement based on modelling of factors including rainfall, aspect, soils and remaining vegetation. Areas of revegetation (native vegetation) in the study area were considered to be either Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) or Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68), primarily on the basis of soil type and position in the landscape. 15 areas of native vegetation (referred to herein as habitat zones) comprising the abovementioned EVCs were identified in the study area. A description of the attributes of these habitat zones is provided in Table 1 below and their locations in the study area are depicted in figures 1 and 2. Photographs representative of the vegetation in each habitat zone are provided as Appendix2.
Page | 5 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Table 1: Description of habitat zones in the study area Habitat EVC Description Zone Recently established mulched revegetation plot on steep bridge foundation slope. Plantings comprise a wide variety of indigenous trees, shrubs and graminoids; the more prominent being River Red-gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Red Box Eucalyptus polyanthemos, Yellow Box Eucalyptus melliodora, Hedge Wattle Acacia paradoxa, Tree Violet Melicytus dentatus, Sweet Bursaria Bursaria spinosa, Hop Goodenia Goodenia ovata, Sticky Hop- Grassy bush Dodonaea viscosa, Common Tussock Grass Poa A Woodland (EVC labillardierei, Kangaroo Grass Themeda triandra, wallaby grass 175) Rytidosperma spp, spear grass Austrostipa spp and Spiny- headed Matt-rush Lomandra longifolia. Low introduced weed cover. Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as clearly planted and maintained for conservation purposes. High retention value native vegetation.
Older plantings of indigenous trees, namely Red Box, Manna Gum Eucalyptus viminalis and River Red-gum. No shrub layer and short grassy ground cover is maintained as a lawn by regular slashing/mowing. Ground cover was dominated by introduced *Chilean Needle-grass Nassella neesiana and broadleaf weeds, with a minor element of wallaby grass. Very high introduced weed B, N N/A cover. Considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as has little value for conservation and if current management continues, trees will eventually require replacement (no recruitment possible when regularly mown). Low retention value native vegetation.
Well established revegetation plot between existing gravel path and creek channel. Dominated by Black Wattle Acacia mearnsii, Prickly Moses Acacia verticillata, Tree Violet, Sweet Bursaria and Creekline River Bottlebrush Callistemon sieberi. Also several immature Grassy River Red-gum. Ground cover dominated by Common Tussock- C Woodland (EVC grass and Spiny-headed Matt-rush. Low introduced weed cover. 68) Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as clearly planted and maintained for conservation purposes. High retention value native vegetation.
Page | 6 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat EVC Description Zone Sparsely planted mulched revegetation plot adjacent existing concrete path. Had been previously planted with a mixture of indigenous and introduced trees, such as *Sugar Gum Eucalyptus cladocalyx, *River Oak Casuarina cunninghamiana and River Red-gum, More recent plantings include Yellow Gum Creekline Eucalyptus leucoxylon, Red Box and Silver Wattle Acacia Grassy D dealbata. Ground layer vegetation a mixture of indigenous Woodland (EVC Nodding Saltbush Einadia nutans, wallaby grass and introduced 68) grassy weeds. Moderate introduced weed cover. Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as considered planted and maintained for conservation purposes. Low retention value native vegetation.
Recently created mulched revegetation plot, adjacent existing concrete path, centered on stand of previously planted semi- mature Manna Gum trees. Planting sparse. Recent plantings include Red Box, River Red-gum, Hedge Wattle, Rock Correa Creekline Correa glabra, Hop Goodenia, Gold-dust Wattle Acacia acinacea Grassy and Blackwood Acacia melanoxylon. Ground layer plantings E Woodland (EVC include Common Tussock-grass, rush Juncus spp and wallaby 68) grass. Low introduced weed cover. Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as considered planted and maintained for conservation purposes. Moderate retention value native vegetation.
Well established mulched revegetation plot between existing gravel path and creek channel. Dominated by Silver Wattle, Hop Creekline Goodenia, Sweet Bursaria, Blackwood and Common Tussock- Grassy grass. Low introduced weed cover. F Woodland (EVC Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as clearly 68) planted and maintained for conservation purposes. High retention value native vegetation.
Recently created mulched revegetation plot, adjacent existing gravel path, Typical species mix (as previous zones). Low Creekline introduced weed cover. Grassy G Woodland (EVC Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as 68) considered planted for conservation purposes. Low retention value native vegetation.
Page | 7 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat EVC Description Zone Older poorly managed revegetation plot on steep escarpment adjacent existing gravel path. Dominated by semi-mature Grey Box Eucalyptus microcarpa, Red Box and Yellow Gum. Sparse understory of Sweet Bursaria and Black Wattle over very weedy Grassy ground layer. At least some of the Sweet Bursaria may be H Woodland (EVC remnant (not planted). Very high introduced weed cover. 175) Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as considered planted and maintained for conservation purposes. Moderate retention value native vegetation.
Well established mulched revegetation plot either side of existing gravel path. Dominated by Drooping Sheoak Allocasuarina verticillata, Sweet Bursaria, Blackwood, Sticky Hop-bush, Gold- dust Wattle, Tree Violet and a few immature River Red-gum trees. Grassy Ground layer dominated by Common Tussock-grass. Low I Woodland (EVC introduced weed cover. 175) Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as clearly planted and maintained for conservation purposes. High retention value native vegetation.
Older planted stands of semi-mature River Red-gum, currently undergoing in-fill understory planting. Plantings include Blackwood, Hop Goodenia, Sticky Hop-bush and Sweet Bursaria. Creekline Ground layer plantings sparse, comprising Common Tussock- Grassy grass, Nodding Saltbush and Ruby Saltbush Enchylaena J, M Woodland (EVC tomentosa var. tomentosa. Moderate introduced weed cover. 68) Not considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as clearly planted and maintained for conservation purposes. Moderate retention value native vegetation.
Well established revegetation plot on steep creek terrace, although some elements are possibly remnant (not planted). Dominated by immature Yellow Gum, Drooping Sheoak, Black Grassy Wattle, Sweet Bursaria, Red Box, Hop Goodenia, Gold-dust Wattle K Woodland (EVC and Golden Wattle Acacia pycnantha. Ground layer dominated by 175) spear and wallaby grasses, Nodding Saltbush and Ruby Saltbush. Low introduced weed cover. High retention value native vegetation.
Small, well established revegetation plot adjacent existing Creekline concrete path. Consists of a dense sward of Common Tussock- Grassy L grass interspersed with a variety of indigenous herbs. Moderate Woodland (EVC introduced weed cover. 68) Moderate retention value native vegetation.
Page | 8 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat EVC Description Zone Recently created landscaped revegetation plot between existing concrete path and Danthonia Street. Planted with typical mix of indigenous small shrubs and grasses, and a sparse scattering of eucalypts. Introduced weed cover low. O N/A Considered exempt from provisions of cl. 52.17, as due to its close proximity to Danthonia Street and housing on the other side of the road, it will likely be managed for amenity, not conservation – and will likely be eventually replaced in future. Low retention value native vegetation.
* = Introduced species
3.1.3. Retention value of native vegetation patches Listed below in Table 2 are a selection of habitat zone attributes which were intended to serve as a means of rating each habitat zone in terms of its retention value, or removal constraint for construction of the proposed bridge and associated pedestrian path/s. Of these attributes however, the conservation status and condition scores of the habitat zones do not contribute to the retention value, as all but three zones have an endangered EVC conservation status rating and the modelled condition scores do not consistently reflect the retention value of each habitat zone. Therefore, the retention value was rated by the overall ‘quality’ of the vegetation in each habitat zone. Quality being the appropriateness of the species selection used in each habitat zone, the level of establishment of the revegetation plots, introduced weed cover and the overall contribution of each zone to the conservation of biodiversity in the area, much of which is provided in the habitat zone descriptions above in Table 1. The retention value of each habitat zone in the study area is presented in Figure 2. It should be noted that DELWP modelled habitat condition scores have been sourced for each habitat zone rather than site based scores - in accordance with the habitat hectare assessment method (Parkes et al. 2003; DSE 2004). The reason for this was expediency. Site based habitat scores are only required under the moderate or high-risk assessment pathways; and the project is highly unlikely to assessed under the moderate or high-risk assessment pathways, as it will unlikely require the removal of one hectare or more of native vegetation (see Section 3.2.3 below and Appendix 1).
Page | 9 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Table 2: Summary of habitat zone attributes
EVC *Condition Removal Habitat Retention EVC conservation Area (ha) score exempt under Zone value status (out of 100) Cl. 52.17 A 175 Endangered 0.167 58 High No B N/A N/A 0.426 N/A Low Yes C 68 Endangered 0.019 47 High No D 68 Endangered 0.008 51 Low No E 68 Endangered 0.091 36 Moderate No F 68 Endangered 0.033 23 High No G 68 Endangered 0.028 20 Low No H 175 Endangered 0.162 26 Moderate No I 175 Endangered 0.087 21 High No J 68 Endangered 0.029 42 Moderate No K 175 Endangered 0.038 28 High No L 68 Endangered 0.017 20 Moderate No M 68 Endangered 0.056 20 Moderate No N N/A N/A 0.059 N/A Low Yes O N/A N/A 0.009 N/A Low Yes Total 1.230
* = DELWP modelled scores, not site based scores. Source: NVIM, 7th December 2017
3.1.4. Scattered trees No scattered trees were recorded in the study area.
Page | 10 A B
C
I
I
H
G Dan thonia St F
E
D
D
J K K L M O Ronald St K K
N
Figure 1: Study area and native vegetation
Project: EDGARS CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Client: Pitt and Sherry Date: 8/12/2017 Metres Study area 0 40 Native vegetation ¯ Creekline Grassy Woodland (EVC 68) Grassy Woodland (EVC 175) N/A - exempt under Clause 52.17
PO Box 337, Camberwell, Vic 3124, Australia www.ecologicalresearch.com.au P: 03 9815 2111 - F: 03 9815 2685
160XXXX - Created by: nmay / XXX - E:\GIS\2017 Jobs\17224\17224 retention value 171208.mxd B
A
C
I I
H
G Dan thonia St F
E
D
D
J K L M O Ronald St
K K
N
Figure 2: Retention value of native vegetation patches
Project: EDGARS CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE Client: Pitt and Sherry Date: 8/12/2017 Metres Study area 0 40 Retention value ¯ High Moderate Low
PO Box 337, Camberwell, Vic 3124, Australia www.ecologicalresearch.com.au P: 03 9815 2111 - F: 03 9815 2685
160XXXX - Created by: nmay / XXX - E:\GIS\2017 Jobs\17224\17224 retention value 171208.mxd Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
3.2. Proposed development It is understood that the two options being investigated for the redevelopment of the creek crossing and associated pedestrian pathways will involve the use of a combination of existing pathways and new proposed pathway sections. Both options are presented in the following figures (Option 1A and Option 2A).
3.2.1. Minimisation of impacts As set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (‘the Guidelines’) the objective for permitted clearing of native vegetation in Victoria is ‘No net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity’. The key strategies for ensuring this outcome when considering an application to remove native vegetation are: ▪ Avoiding the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity; ▪ Minimising impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation; and ▪ Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensuring it is offset in a manner that makes an equivalent contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed. The principles of the above strategy should be considered in the design option of the redevelopment of the creek crossing and associated pedestrian pathways to avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity.
3.2.2. Native vegetation removal At this stage of the project, impacts on native vegetation have yet to be established.
3.2.3. Risk–based assessment pathway for the site
Location risk The entire study area and surrounds is mapped as Location Risk A – the lowest of three ratings.
Extent risk At this stage of the project, the extent of native vegetation removal, if any, has yet to be established.
Risk-based assessment pathway Based on the criteria outlined in Appendix 1, and providing that less than one hectare of native vegetation is proposed to be removed, the proposal would likely be assessed under the low risk assessment pathway, where a general offset would apply to any approved native vegetation removal.
Page | 13 FIGURE 3: OPTION 1 – PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT OPTIONS ML17218
EXISTING PATH ALIGNMENT POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE FIGURE 4: OPTION 2 – PRELIMINARY ALIGNMENT OPTIONS ML17218
EXISTING PATH ALIGNMENT POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
3.3. Implications under the Guidelines
3.3.1. Permit requirements A planning permit under Clause 52.17 of the Moreland Planning Scheme would be required for any removal of native vegetation. The project is unlikely to trigger a referral to DELWP as it is unlikely to meet the criteria specified in Section 2.4.
3.3.2. Offset requirements At this stage of the project it has yet to be determined whether any offsets will be required, as it has yet to be determined whether any native vegetation removal will be required.
Page | 16 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
4. RECOMMENDATIONS An analysis of the retention value of native vegetation in the study area against the possible alignment options for redevelopment of the creek crossing (bridge) and associated pathways is discussed below. The scenarios are summarised below including anticipated impacts on native vegetation. Option 1A: Preliminary Alignment Option 1A (Figure 3), utilising the existing concrete pathway and rebuilding the creek crossing in its former location. This design scenario would involve construction of a ramp requiring the removal of a few recently planted seedlings and some existing planted trees adjacent to the existing path from Zone M. Option 2A: Preliminary Alignment Option 2A (Figure 4), utilising the existing gravel pathway and Kodak Bridge as the creek crossing. This design scenario would likely have little impact on native vegetation – and biodiversity conservation, as it would likely only require minimal removal of any native vegetation to ‘harden up’ the existing gravel pathway. Option 1B: Preliminary Alignment Option 1B (Figure 3), utilising a short section of the existing concrete pathway and rebuilding the creek crossing in its former location, as well as construction of a new section of pathway. This design scenario would involve removal of a small area of native vegetation from habitat zones J, K and N, of which N is of low retention value, J of moderate and K of high retention value (Figure 2), thus requiring offset with some native plantings. Option 2A (alternative): Preliminary Alignment Option 2A (alternative) (Figure 4), utilising a short section of the existing concrete pathway and Kodak Bridge as the creek crossing, as well as construction of a new section of pathway. This design scenario would involve removal of native vegetation from habitat zones H (moderate retention value), I (high retention value) and B (low retention value), as well as minimal removal of any native vegetation to ‘harden up’ the existing gravel pathway. This design scenario would be the least preferred from a biodiversity conservation standpoint, as it would involve the removal the most native vegetation and among the highest quality native vegetation. Pitt & Sherry Pty. Ltd. recently communicated to BL&A that they have considered all of the above options, and concluded that options 1A & 2A were not feasible for the following reasons: ▪ The bridge structure would prevent access to informal walking tracks located on either side of the creek bank; ▪ The bridge structure would have a significant visual impact on this section of the creek; ▪ The bridge structure would sit lower than desired flood immunity standards (structure lower than 1 in 100-year ARI flood); and ▪ The bridge structure would be longer than in alternative options and would therefore incur a significantly higher cost.
Page | 17 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Pitt & Sherry Pty. Ltd. have found Option 1B to be feasible for the following reasons: ▪ The bridge structure would comply with desired flood immunity standards (structure higher than 1 in 100-year ARI flood); and ▪ The bridge structure would be shorter than in alternative options and would therefore incur a significantly lower cost. A detailed comparison of these options is provided in a Feasibility Study Report prepared by the Pitt & Sherry Group for Moreland Council (Pitt & Sherry Group, 2018). As with all options considered for this proposal, Option 1B would result in the removal of less than one hectare of native vegetation and would therefore be assessed under the low risk pathway, and a general offset only would apply. As with all applications in the low risk pathway, a habitat hectare assessment report would not be required.
Page | 18 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
5. REFERENCES Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2014a, Native Vegetation Information Management system, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (then DEPI), East Melbourne, Victoria, viewed 7th December 2017,
Page | 19 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Appendix 1: Details of the assessment process and offset requirements Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) The online Native Vegetation Information Management system (NVIM) is an interactive mapping tool, which provides some of the information required to accompany a permit to remove native vegetation. It does not replace the application process. The information provided by NVIM can include the following (described in more detail below): ▪ The location risk of the native vegetation; ▪ The condition of the native vegetation – used for the low-risk assessment pathway only; ▪ The strategic biodiversity score of the native vegetation proposed to be removed; and ▪ The native vegetation offset requirement – used for the low risk assessment pathway only. Biodiversity assessment guidelines Guidelines objective As set out in Permitted clearing of native vegetation – Biodiversity assessment guidelines (‘the Guidelines’) the objective for permitted clearing of native vegetation in Victoria is ‘No net loss in the contribution made by native vegetation to Victoria’s biodiversity’. The key strategies for ensuring this outcome when considering an application to remove native vegetation are: ▪ Avoiding the removal of native vegetation that makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity; ▪ Minimising impacts on Victoria’s biodiversity from the removal of native vegetation; and ▪ Where native vegetation is permitted to be removed, ensuring it is offset in a manner that makes an equivalent contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed. Note: if native vegetation does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees, the Guidelines are not required to be applied. Risk-based assessment pathways The first step in determining the type of assessment required for any site in Victoria is to determine the risk to biodiversity associated with the proposed native vegetation removal and therefore the risk-based assessment pathway for the proposed native vegetation removal. There are three risk-based pathways for assessing an application to remove native vegetation, below. ▪ Low risk ▪ Moderate risk ▪ High risk This risk-based assessment pathway is determined by two factors, outlined below. Extent risk – the area in hectares proposed to be removed or the number of scattered trees. Note: extent risk also includes any native vegetation clearing for which permission has been granted in the last five years.
Page | 20 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Location risk – the likelihood that removing native vegetation in a location will have an impact on the persistence of a rare or threatened species classified into three categories: Location A, Location B and Location C. The risk-based pathway for assessing an application to remove native vegetation is determined by the following matrices for remnant patches and scattered trees: Extent (remnant patches) Location A Location B Location C < 0.5 hectares Low Low High ≥ 0.5 hectares and < 1 hectare Low Moderate High ≥ 1 hectare Moderate High High Extent (scattered trees) Location A Location B Location C < 15 scattered trees Low Moderate High ≥ 15 scattered trees Moderate High High All native vegetation within any subdivision plot of less than 0.4 hectares is deemed to be lost; For applications with combined removal of both remnant patch and scattered trees, the extent of the scattered trees is converted to an area by assigning a standard area of 0.070 hectares per tree – the total extent is then used to determine the risk-based pathway. The presence of any Location B or Location C risk categories within an area of proposed native vegetation removal means this whole area of removal is considered to belong to that category for the purpose of determining the risk-based assessment pathway. Strategic biodiversity score The strategic biodiversity score generated by NVIM acts as a measure of the site’s importance for Victoria’s biodiversity relative to other locations across the landscape. It is calculated based on a weighted average of scores across an area of native vegetation proposed for removal on a site. Habitat importance Habitat importance mapping produced by DELWP is based on one or a combination of habitat importance models, habitat distribution models or site record data. It identifies the following: ▪ Habitat importance for dispersed species – based on habitat distribution models and assigned a habitat importance score ranging from 0 to 1; and ▪ Highly localised habitats – considered to be equally important for a particular species and assigned a habitat importance score of 1. Habitat importance mapping is used to determine the type of offset required under the moderate and high risk assessment pathways.
Page | 21 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Biodiversity equivalence Biodiversity equivalence scores are used to quantify losses in the contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity from removing native vegetation and gains in this contribution from a native vegetation offset. There are two types of biodiversity equivalence scores depending on whether or not the site makes a contribution to the habitat of a Victorian rare or threatened species. ▪ A general biodiversity equivalence score is a measure of the contribution native vegetation on a site makes to Victoria’s biodiversity overall and applies when no habitat importance scores are applicable according to the equation: General biodiversity equivalence score = habitat hectares x strategic biodiversity score ▪ A specific biodiversity equivalence score is a measure of the contribution that native vegetation on a site makes to the habitat of a particular rare or threatened species – calculated for each such species for which the site provides important habitat (using habitat importance scores provided by DELWP) according to the equation: Specific biodiversity equivalence score = habitat hectares x habitat importance score Offset requirements A native vegetation offset is required for the approved removal of native vegetation. Offsets conform to one of two types and each type incorporates a risk factor to address the risk of offset failing: ▪ A general offset applies if the removal of native vegetation impacts Victoria’s overall biodiversity and has an offset risk factor of 1.5 applied according to the equation: General risk-adjusted offset requirement = general biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 1.5 ▪ A specific offset applies if the native vegetation makes a significant impact to habitat for a rare or threatened species determined by a specific-general offset test. It applies to each species impacted and has an offset risk factor of 2 applied according to the equation: Specific risk-adjusted offset requirement = specific biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 2 Note: if native vegetation does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees an offset is not required.
Page | 22 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4) Summary of the Guidelines assessment process
Decision guidelines Offset requirements
Low-risk assessment pathway
General offset applies: ▪ General offset = general biodiversity equivalence score (clearing site) x 1.5 An application for removal cannot be refused on biodiversity grounds (unless it is not in accordance with any property vegetation plan that applies to the site). ▪ Offset must be located in the same CMA^ or Local Government Area as the removal Note: this guideline also applies to native vegetation that does not meet the definition of either a remnant patch or scattered trees. ▪ Offset must have a strategic biodiversity score at least 80% of the native vegetation removed Offsets must be secured before the removal of native vegetation.
Moderate-risk assessment pathway
The responsible authority will consider: If the proportional impact on modelled habitat for a rare or threatened species is above a predetermined ▪ The strategic biodiversity score and habitat importance score of the native vegetation threshold, a specific offset applies for that species: proposed to be removed ▪ Specific offset = specific biodiversity equivalence ▪ Any property vegetation plan that applies to the site score (clearing site) x 2 ▪ Whether reasonable steps have been taken to ensure that impacts of the proposed ▪ Offset must be located in the same species removal of native vegetation on biodiversity have been minimised with regard to the habitat anywhere in Victoria as determined by contribution to biodiversity made by the native vegetation to be removed and the DELWP habitat importance mapping native vegetation to be retained General offsets apply where the specific offset ▪ Whether an offset has been identified that meets the requirements threshold is not exceeded. ▪ The need to remove native vegetation to create defendable space to reduce the risk of Offsets must be secured before the removal of native bushfire vegetation.
Page | 23 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
High-risk assessment pathway
In addition to the considerations for the moderate pathway the responsible authority will determine whether the native vegetation to be removed makes a significant contribution to Victoria’s biodiversity. This includes considering: ▪ Impacts on important habitat for rare or threatened species, particularly highly localised habitat As for the moderate pathway ▪ Proportional impacts on remaining habitat for rare or threatened species ▪ If the removal of the native vegetation will contribute to a cumulative impact that is a significant threat to the persistence of a rare or threatened species ▪ The availability of, and potential for, gain from offsets
* Habitat hectares = condition score (out of 1) x extent (hectares) ^ Catchment Management Authority Note: All applications must provide information about the vegetation to be removed such as location and address of the property, description of the vegetation, maps and recent dated photographs.
Page | 24 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Appendix 2: Photographs of native vegetation comprising each habitat zone
Habitat Zone A
Page | 25 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone B
Habitat Zone C
Page | 26 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone D
Habitat Zone E
Page | 27 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone F
Habitat Zone G
Page | 28 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone H
Habitat Zone I
Page | 29 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone J
Habitat Zone K
Page | 30 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone L
Habitat Zone M
Page | 31 Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge: Native Vegetation Assessment Report No. 17224 (1.4)
Habitat Zone N
Habitat Zone O
Page | 32
Appendix B
Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc
Edgars Creek Pedestrian Bridge
Cultural Heritage Due Diligence Report
Report to Pitt & Sherry
Fiona Shanahan
December 2017
11/240 Sydney Road, Coburg, Victoria 3058
Table of Contents Table of Contents ...... 2 1. Introduction ...... 3 2. Proposed works ...... 3 3. Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 ...... 3 4. Registered Aboriginal Party ...... 7 5. The Geographical Region ...... 7 6. Ethno-historical background ...... 10 7. Historical land use background ...... 12 8. Previous archaeological investigations ...... 14 9. Previously recorded archaeological sites ...... 15 10. European historical places ...... 17 11. Conclusions ...... 17 12. Recommendations ...... 19 13. References ...... 20 Appendix 1: Study Area Proposed Plans ...... 22
List of Maps Map 1: Location of the study areas...... 5 Map 2: The study areas in relation to areas of cultural heritage sensitivity...... 6 Map 3: The geomorphology of the region, with the study areas highlighted...... 9 Map 4: The geographic region of the study area, including locations of VAHR places ...... 10
List of Figures Figure 1: Clans of Central Victoria (Barwick 1984: 118)...... 12 Figure 2: Aerial photo from 1945, showing the study areas in yellow...... 13 Figure 3 Aerial photo from 1968, showing the study areas in yellow ...... 13
List of Tables Table 1: Aboriginal Places (VAHR sites) within a 3km radius...... 17
Abbreviations ACHRIS Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register and Information System AV Aboriginal Victoria BOM Bureau of Meteorology CHMP Cultural heritage management plan ECC Environmental Conservation Council LCC Land Conservation Council RAP Registered Aboriginal Party SLV State Library of Victoria VAHR Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register VRO Victorian Resources Online
2
1. Introduction Dr Vincent Clark & Associates was commissioned by Pitt and Sherry on 20 November 2017 to undertake a background archaeological and cultural heritage due diligence assessment ahead of the construction of a proposed replacement of a pedestrian footbridge over Edgars Creek, near Ronald Street, Coburg North, Victoria. The purpose of the assessment is to determine any implications for the works arising from relevant cultural heritage legislation, including the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and the Heritage Act 2017 and to advise Pitt and Sherry which of the two options for works will have a lower impact on the cultural heritage within the study areas. It further provides advice as to whether a Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Test (PAHT), Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) or any other action relating to cultural heritage is required for the project. Preparation of the report consisted of two stages: (1) background research and (2) assessment of the planned project in relation to the current legislation. First, information on the physical, environmental, historical and cultural context of the study area was consulted; the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) was searched for Aboriginal sites located within and near to the study area and previous archaeological reports from the region were reviewed. Second, the results of the background research and site inspection were used to inform an assessment of the sponsor’s cultural heritage obligations in relation to the planned project and to advise which of the options was less likely to impact cultural heritage within the area. 2. Proposed works The proposed replacement of a pedestrian footbridge over Edgars Creek as well as the alteration of the pre-existing shared trail link via the footbridge will occur just north or north west of Ronald Street, Coburg North, at or close to the site of the existing pedestrian foot bridge (Map 1). The study area is located approximately 9.5 kilometres north of Melbourne’s Central Business District, in the City of Moreland. Edgars Creek is directly west of Ronald Street, Coburg North. The Moreland City Council has not yet decided upon a specific development plan. Rather they are awaiting advice from this report regarding the feasibility of two options. Option 1 (approximately 189m long) is to construct a new bridge on or close to the original bridge alignment. This is referred to as Study Area 1 in this report. Option 2 (approximately 130m long) is to construct a shared use path along the western side of Edgars Creek which will link with another bridge approximately 300m upstream from the present day bridge. This is referred to as Study Area 2 in this report. The study areas have a 25m buffer zone around the proposed alignment options in order to allow for space for a construction works zone. Any potential site huts, laydown areas, or plant storage areas may require a large space or additional areas. 3. Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 Aboriginal heritage in Victoria is protected by the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. The preparation of a CHMP may be required and approved by Aboriginal Victoria or a RAP prior to certain high impact activities are undertaken, as stated in the Aboriginal Heritage Regulation 2007. Regulation 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 states that a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) is required for an activity if: (a) All or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (b) All or part of the activity is a high impact activity.
3
Regulation 44 Constructing specified items of Infrastructure of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 states that a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) is required for an activity if: (1) The construction of any one or more of the following is a high impact activity if the construction would result in significant ground disturbance- (b) a bicycle track with a length exceeding 100 metres; (f) a walking track with a length exceeding 100 metres Where a CHMP is not required under the Act, a plan may be prepared voluntarily to determine the nature of any Aboriginal cultural heritage that may be present in the study area and to set out conditions to manage and protect it during the activity. The implications of the legislation for this project, with consideration of the results of the background research and site inspection are considered in Section 12 of this report.
4
Map 1: Location of the study areas.
5
Map 2: The study areas in relation to areas of cultural heritage sensitivity.
6
4. Registered Aboriginal Party The Wurundjeri Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council Aboriginal Corporation (Wurundjeri) is the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the region. They are the relevant body to consult during the preparation of Cultural Heritage Management Plans, and the evaluating authority of CHMPs in their RAP area. There has been no consultation with the RAP for the purposes of this assessment. 5. The Geographical Region In order to review previous research and formulate a predictive statement for the likely presence, location and type of Aboriginal cultural heritage present in the region, a geographic region specific to the project was taken into consideration. The boundaries of this region are defined by a 3 km radius from between the two study area options as shown in Map 4. Given the highly urbanised nature of the study area, this radius captures a useful sample of the Edgars Creek environments and landforms relevant to understanding the nature and context of any Aboriginal cultural heritage that might be present. The study areas are west and east of Edgars Creek. The Creek has its headwaters in Wollert and its course runs for approximately 17km through Epping, Thomastown, Reservoir and Coburg North (Thompson Berrill Landscape Design 2013: 1). While the greater part of the Melbourne region lies within the Port Phillip Sunkland, the study area lies on both the stony rises of the Volcanic Plains and the Eastern Uplands outlying ridges and hills (only the north east corner of study option 2 lies with the outlying ridges and hills). The stony rises are some of the youngest landforms in Australia as they have been dated to 590,000 years old. The younger stony rises are characterised as the ‘most rocky and undulating landscapes’ and contain swamps, wetlands and ephemeral lakes which do not have good drainage systems. Eventually as the landscapes continue to form they become poorly drained plains (Agriculture Victoria 2017b). The outlying ridges and hills differ from that of the stony rises as they are usually continuations of major drainage systems. The slopes in this area are usually moderate and contain rounded crests. (Agriculture Victoria 2017a).
A 2013 Development Plan contracted by Moreland City Council identified three sites of geological importance, of which exist adjacent to or include in both study areas. They include; The Edgars Creek Terrance and Meanders o This site is located between Outlook Drive and Ronald Street and has local significance due to the natural formation of its ‘confined floodplain and meander’. This site however may be destroyed due to works by Melbourne Water in 1996/7. The Edgars Creek Waterfall and Geological Structure o This site is located south of the Ronald Street Bridge and has regional significance due to the ‘exposed outcrop of Silurian sandstone (Melbourne Formation)’. This site had previously been heavily disturbed by access vehicles, however recently the access vehicles have ceased to use the area. The cliff of Melbourne Formation (Silurian Cliff) o This site is located north of the Coburg Hill development on the east side of the creek. It consists of an 8m high cliff and is of local significance. (Thompson Berrill Landscape Design 2013: 6) Soils in the stony rises consist of clay and are often dark, shallow, and self-mulching (cracking), whilst those in the outlying ridges and hills are mostly reddish brown gradational soils. (Agriculture Victoria 2017a; 2017b) Edgars Creek begins in Wollert in the north, flows south through Edwards Lake (Reservoir) and connects with the Merri Creek in Coburg North. (Thompson Berrill Landscape Design 2013: 1). The
7
ecological vegetation along Edgars Creek mainly consists of the Plains Grassy Woodland, Escarpment Grassland, Creekline Grassy woodland and Stream Bank Shrubland. The Plains Grassy Woodland, Escarpment Grassland and Creekline Grassy Woodland mainly exhibit medium to small Tufted Graminoid and thus are similar to the Stream Bank Shrubland which mainly produces small or Prostrate Herb and Medium Shrub. (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017: EVC 55, 68, 851, 895). It should be noted that all four of these ecological vegetation categories are endangered and in the study areas have undergone extensive revegetation programs.
8
Map 3: The geomorphology of the region, with the study areas highlighted.
9
Map 4: The geographic region of the study area, including locations of VAHR places 6. Ethno-historical background The study area is located on lands belonging to the Wurundjeri people, a Woi wurrung-speaking group and one of the five tribal groups forming the Kulin Nation, “…a regional cultural bloc or ‘confederacy’ maintained by intermarriage, a common language and mutual interests” (Barwick 1984: 105; Figure 1). It shared boundaries with the Daung Wurrung to the north of the Great Dividing Range, the Wada Wurrung west of Werribee River, the Gunai Kurnai to the east, and the Bun Wurrung to the south. Each tribal group consisted of many smaller clans which were the main units of Aboriginal social organisation in south-eastern Victoria, and these clans were in turn subdivided into family groupings. The Wurundjeri‐balluk clan occupied the Yarra Valley and Yarra River catchment area as far as Heidelberg, and was itself divided into two patrilines that occupied adjacent localities: the Bulug- willam (‘swamp dwellers’) who occupied the ranges and swamps of the Upper Yarra, and the Wurundjeri-willam (‘white gum tree dwellers’) who occupied the Yarra River from its source at Mt. Baw Baw to its junction with the Maribyrnong River near Coode Island in West Melbourne, including the study area (Clark 1990: 384 – 6). All clan members moved according to the seasons. In winter, the Wurundjeri-william would move to higher areas, to avoid the flooding of the river terraces that were inhabited in the warmer months. In spring and summer, activities involving the hunting and gathering of food could involve travel of up to sixteen kilometres a day (City of Yarra 2017). A network of smaller tributaries in the region fed both the Darebin and Merri creeks; meaning that there were small pools of water available as
10
reliable water sources for Aboriginal people all year round. The way in which both creeks cut the landscape helped to create ‘movement corridors’ north and south through the land (Context Pty Ltd 2008). In 1835 John Batman famously led an exploration party from Van Diemen’s Land across the Bass Strait to the mainland in search of new grazing pastures. Batman was not the first European to trespass on Kulin territory – there had been sealers, explorers and two failed settlements before him – but his arrival in 1835 marks the beginning of the ‘frontier’ period, which had devastating effects on Aboriginal society (Land Conservation Council (LLC) 1991: 20). Almost immediately after New South Wales Governor Richard Bourke declared the Port Phillip District to be Crown Land, the process of colonisation was advanced with the deployment of a team of surveyors from Sydney, who were ordered to commence the mapping of lands. In 1837 Robert Hoddle, the Surveyor in Charge at Port Phillip, produced his grid outline of what were to become Melbourne’s streets (Cannon and MacFarlane 1988: 43-44). In July of that year, Hoddle was issued with detailed instructions about the division of parishes to accommodate “the intention of the Government to hold forthwith periodical sales of lands and town allotments at Port Phillip” (Letter from S. A. Perry to Robert Hoddle, in Cannon and MacFarlane 1988: 98-100). The Aboriginal population dropped dramatically after the arrival of the colonists. Estimates of the size of the Kulin nation before European settlement vary widely between 1500 and 12000 people. William Thomas made several censuses during his time as Assistant Protector for the Melbourne and Western Port areas (Clark 1990). In his 1839-42 censuses, the Kulin population was estimated at 1225 people, before dropping to 181 by 1863. Woi wurrung and Bunwurrung were estimated to be 350 in 1836-37. These numbers dropped to 207 in the 1839-42 census and even lower in 1852 to 59 people. In the 1863 census, only 33 Woi wurrung and Bunwurrung were recorded. Reasons for this dramatic decrease vary from the direct impact of colonisation such as diseases, malnutrition (as their most fertile grounds were taken over by squatters), alcohol, violence and the displacement to places such as the Coranderrk Station near Healesville in the late 1850s to keep Aboriginal people away from Melbourne. Coranderrk Station was established following the closure of the Acheron Station by the Board for the Protection of Aborigines in 1862 (LCC 1991: 24). In March 1863, Barak and Wonga, two Woi wurrung leaders, led more than 40 Aborigines to a site they had chosen between Watts River and Bader Creek, south of Healesville (LCC 1991: 24). In June that year the area was made into a reserve of 2300 acres. At its largest, the station was 4850 acres (Caldere and Goff 1991: 13). Coranderrk was so successful it became the model for other mission stations. The Aboriginal inhabitants were essentially self-sufficient, as they grew their own vegetables and cropped arrowroot and hops for sale (Caldere and Goff 1991: 14). However, the station and its residents suffered after the introduction of the Aborigines Protection Act 1886, as it changed the legal definition of ‘Aborigine’ and therefore required that all ‘half-caste’ Aboriginals under the age of 35 leave the missions (Caldere and Goff 1991: 14; LCC 1991: 25). The result was that once again, families were torn apart, and Coranderrk lost a large section of its farming workforce (Caldere and Goff 1991: 14; LCC 1991: 25). Coranderrk closed in 1924, and the Healesville Sanctuary now occupies part of what was once the station. After Coranderrk’s closure, most of the Aboriginal residents were re-located to Lake Tyers.
11
Figure 1: Clans of Central Victoria (Barwick 1984: 118) 7. Historical land use background In 1837, Robert Hoddle surveyed the area now known as Coburg (In 1840 it was known as Pentridge, so named by surveyor Henry Foot after his wife’s birthplace) and established Bell Street West and another street which is now known as Sydney Road as part of the greater grid system on which Melbourne was laid out. The suburb was then sold into 11 lots in 1839. A number of large estates were established in the area from 1840, the most prominent of which was Dr Farquhar McCrae’s La Rose. This bluestone farmhouse was built between 1842-43 and is today the oldest private Victorian residence (Moreland City Council 2017; eMelbourne 2008). The 1850s – 1870s saw exceptional development in Coburg with 21 farms by 1849, 41 bluestone quarries by 1857 and the construction of four large Churches and a stockade. By 1865 Sydney Road contained the following businesses: 6 shopkeepers, 4 bootmakers, 3 bakers, 3 butchers, 2 saddlers, 2 blacksmiths, 2 ironmongers, 1 druggist and a draper. The sudden influx of people to Coburg during this time can be attributed to the Gold Rush. The Gold Rush did not, however, only provide positive outcomes for Coburg, as crime soared and by 1860 Pentridge Prison provided a fifth of Coburg’s employment. Residents were unhappy about the association of their town name with the prison and therefore in 1870 it was renamed Coburg. In 1875 Coburg became a shire (Moreland City Council 2017; eMelbourne 2008; Discover Coburg 2017). Rail came to Coburg in 1888 with the construction of its train station and the introduction of the horse tram service in the same year. The area continued to have largely farming and bluestone quarrying industries after the Gold Rush. It was not until 1910 that the major industry changed to that of factories, mills and foundries. After World War II the area became heavily populated with those in housing commissions, and the demographic became rather multicultural with the influx of
12
European, Lebanese, Turkish and Asian migrants. The last dairy farm was sold in 1960 to the Kodak factory (south east of Study Area 2). In 1994 the Municipality of Coburg merged with that of Brunswick and became the City of Moreland (Moreland City Council 2017; eMelbourne 2008; Discover Coburg 2017). In 2007, the Friends of Edgars Creek community group formed. The primary focus of this group is to ‘restore and protect Edgars Creek’ (Friends of Edgars Creek 2017). As can be seen from the aerial images included in Figures 2 and 3 the area surrounding Edgars Creek remained rural into the mid-20th century. The study areas are within an easement and recreation reserve. It is therefore possible that subsurface cultural heritage deposits, if they are present, could remain relatively undisturbed within the study area.
Figure 2: Aerial photo from 1945, showing the study areas in yellow.
Figure 3 Aerial photo from 1968, showing the study areas in yellow
13
8. Previous archaeological investigations A number of cultural heritage assessments have been undertaken in the vicinity of the present study area. Relevant reports are outlined below. These reports provide information about archaeological and cultural heritage investigations that have been conducted in the regional area that is relevant to the current assessment. In particular, these reports provide information about ground conditions encountered, as well as information about previously identified Aboriginal cultural heritage, the landforms on which the cultural heritage sites occur, and the types of stone artefacts known to occur. This information is useful in predicting the types of sites that may occur in the study area and the landforms on which they may be located. A number of regional studies have been conducted that stress the archaeological sensitivity of waterways and reveal that the most common site types found in these landscapes are stone artefact scatters and scarred trees (du Cros & Rhodes 1998). These studies also highlight the dramatic impact that European land use has had on the landscape, and the preservation of Aboriginal cultural remains. du Cros and Rhodes (1998) assessed the Aboriginal archaeological sensitivity of the waterways and floodplains of Greater Melbourne, reviewing past heritage studies and examining waterways including Merri Creek, Darebin Creek and the Yarra River. It was found that isolated artefacts were more likely to be common based on poor ground surface visibility; however, this was not to say that artefact scatters from both a surface and subsurface context do not exist (du Cros and Rhodes 1998: 2.1.4). The authors concluded that, although most of the creeks had been surveyed, remnants of cultural material may be found beneath the surface where no surface artefacts were identified and that areas immediately adjacent to waterways were highly likely to contain cultural material. Several studies undertaken by cultural heritage consultancies have focused on areas of land within the current geographic region. Two of these reports (Mialanes et al. 2009; MacCullock 2015) are in relation to the construction of pathways and bridges. These are particularly relevant as they are for locations within the geographic region and of the same works type as those at Edgars Creek. Another two reports (Chamberlain 2005; Vines 2003) are of particular interest as they are immediately adjacent to the activity areas. In 2009, Mialanes completed CHMP 10664 in relation to six locations along Merri Creek where path widening and bridge construction works were going to occur. The six locations are as follows: New and path widening between King Street, Brunswick and Allister Street, Brunswick Path widening between Albion Street, Brunswick and Kingfisher Gardens, Brunswick Realignment and widening between Moreland Road, Brunswick and Brunswick Velodrome New path on Carr Street, Coburg Bridge replacement between Hare Street, Fawkner and Broadhurst Avenue Reservoir Bridge replacement between McBryde Street, Fawkner and Hamersley Court, Reservoir
The CHMP was required due to the works causing significant ground disturbance within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity, within 200m of a waterway (Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007, r.44). The desktop assessment concluded that no previously registered Aboriginal Places were within the activity area and that previous disturbances were likely to have occurred within the immediate area. The standard and complex assessments confirmed that there had been significant ground disturbance in the activity areas and no cultural materials were located (Mialanes et al. 2009).
Another CHMP (13459) was undertaken on the Merri Creek, between Merri Creek and the Coburg Pool, Coburg North, in relation to paths, by MacCulloch in 2015. MacCulloch’s desktop assessment also concluded that no previously registered Aboriginal Places were within the activity area and that the area had been disturbed; however, there was a surface artefact scatter (coarse and fined grained
14
worked silcrete flakes) within 80m of the area on the opposite side of the creek (MacCulloch 2015). The standard and complex assessments did not locate any cultural materials, this may have been due to the poor visibility and the modification of the land post 1945.
Vines in 2003 conducted a survey of the area adjacent to Newlands Road between the access road to the Coburg Drive-In and an unused road reserve. At the time of the survey the area was used for multiple activities - storage for industrial waste, a fenced area for stock grazing, and a grassy open space. Vines, like MacCulloch spoke of the limitations of poor visibility and significant ground disturbance. Whilst Vines did not locate any cultural material, there were, however, two sites within close proximity to the activity area (Vines 2003).
Chamberlain (2005) completed subsurface testing at the Kodak property on Elizabeth Street, Coburg North, in 2005 after locating a single isolated artefact (VAHR 7822-1831) during a survey of the property. It was noted that, due to significant ground disturbance to the west of the activity area, no further cultural material was located. The subsurface testing located an additional five silcrete artefacts (VAHR 7822-1906) within 100mm of the surface.
9. Previously recorded archaeological sites Both study areas are located within areas of cultural heritage sensitivity, as they are within 200m of a named waterway - Edgars Creek. A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) on the 21st November 2017 found a total of twenty eight registered Aboriginal sites within a 3km radius (Map 4; Table 1). These sites consist of twenty artefact scatters, six Low Density Artefact Distribution (LDAD) sites, one shell midden and one Aboriginal Historical Place/ Rock Art site. Whilst there are two known Aboriginal cultural heritage places located within the Option 1 study area, there are no known Aboriginal cultural heritage places within the Option 2 study area. The two sites within the option one study area are below:
Aboriginal Place Number Aboriginal Place Name Type of Aboriginal Place
7822-0851 EC 6 Artefact Scatter
7822-0852 EC 7 Artefact Scatter
Both of these artefact scatters were identified and registered as part of Stocks and Lane’s report to Melbourne Water (An Archaeological Survey and Subsurface Investigation of Edgars Creek from the Kodak Bridge to Merri Creek) in January 1997. The report was commissioned due to the need for Melbourne Water to undertake erosion control works in the area. It was recommended in the report that, should any works occur within 20m of the registered artefact scatters, a permit to destroy must be obtained from Wurundjeri. Since these sites were recorded, a new heritage act has been introduced and therefore management conditions for these sites will need to be included in a CHMP for the works. 7822-0851 This artefact scatter consists of a single reddish coarse grained silcrete broken flake. It was located above the concrete channel on Edgars Creek in parkland vegetation on a lowland plain. The area was
15
visibly disturbed and possibly contained introduced fill and was therefore recorded as unlikely to be in situ. 7822-0852 This artefact scatter consists of a single small fine grained grey silcrete flake. It was located in exposed, eroding parkland vegetation on a small rise overlooking the Edgars Creek Valley. The rise mainly consisted of rocks. Due to erosion in the area the artefact was recorded as not in situ.
Almost all of the Aboriginal cultural heritage places are located adjacent to the banks of the waterways of the region, in particular the Edgar, Merri and Merlynston creeks. Twenty six of the twenty eight sites are within geomorphological area ‘volcanic plain, stony rises’, the landform in which all of option 1 study area is located and which the majority of Option 2 study area is situated. The majority of sites are artefact scatters (71%) with most of these located closest to the study areas. Option 1 study area has a larger amount of sites close to it than Option 2, with only four previously registered Aboriginal Places within 250m of Option 2 study area.
VAHR No Aboriginal Place Name Site Type Distance from Distance from study area 1 (m) study area 2 (m) 7822-0006 Merri Creek Coburg Shell Midden 700 1000 7822-0149 Central Creek 2 Artefact Scatter 3000 2760 7822-0157 Edgars Creek 1 Artefact Scatter 435 680 7822-0158 Edgars Creek 2 Artefact Scatter 135 360 7822-0159 Central Creek 1 Artefact Scatter 2800 2530 7822-0462 Hadfield 1 Artefact Scatter 2995 2930 7822-0846 EC1 Artefact Scatter 145 400 7822-0847 EC2 Artefact Scatter 180 450 7822-0848 EC3 Artefact Scatter 300 580 7822-0849 EC4 Artefact Scatter 125 345 7822-0850 EC5 Artefact Scatter 120 325 7822-0851 EC6 Artefact Scatter 0 230 7822-0852 EC7 Artefact Scatter 0 300 7822-1057 Ronald Bull Mural Aboriginal Historic 1210 1480 Place/ Rock Art 7822-1654 Fawkner Cemetery 1 Artefact Scatter 2650 2545 7822-1655 Fawkner Cemetery 2 Artefact Scatter 2680 2575 7822-1831 Kodak 1 Artefact Scatter 510 230 7822-1906 Kodak 2 Artefact Scatter 220 125 7822-1971 Newlands Road AS1 Artefact Scatter 1020 815 7822-2275 Broadhurst Ave 1 Artefact Scatter 2640 2390 7822-2912 Edgars Creek 3 Artefact Scatter 200 425 7822-3344 Griffith Street 1 Artefact Scatter 2430 2180 7822-3651 Convent Court Low Density Artefact 1000 1110 Distribution 7822-3672 818 Sydney Road Coburg Low Density Artefact 1110 1210 North 1 Distribution 7822-3724 Edgars Creek 4 Low Density Artefact 308 590 Distribution 7822-3805 Connolly Avenue 1 Low Density Artefact 1040 1285 Distribution 7822-3922 De Chene Reserve LDAD Low Density Artefact 1145 1400 1 Distribution 7822-4016 Fawkner Cemetery LDAD Low Density Artefact 2970 2775 Distribution
16
Table 1: Aboriginal Places (VAHR sites) within a 3km radius.
10. European historical places All cultural heritage precincts, places and sites in Victoria are protected by Victorian and/or Commonwealth legislation whether they have been previously recorded or not. The main legislation that protects non-Indigenous historical places and archaeological sites is the Heritage Act 2017. The Act ‘provides for the protection and conservation of places and objects of cultural heritage significance and the registration of such places and objects’. Other relevant legislation includes heritage overlays in local government planning schemes. In Victoria there are three separate mechanisms for protection of historic sites or places under the Heritage Act 2017 and local government planning schemes: historic places that are significant to the State are included on the Victorian Heritage Register (VHR); historical places with archaeological potential are listed on the Victorian Heritage Inventory (VHI); and places with local significance are included on local planning scheme heritage overlays (HO). In addition, sites of national significance can be included on the Commonwealth Heritage List or the Australian National Heritage List and are protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. A check of the National and Commonwealth heritage lists, the Australian Heritage Database, and the Heritage Victoria Database confirmed that although there are over twenty historical places listed within a 3km radius of the study area, there are no nationally registered, VHR or VHI sites located within the current study areas. However, both study areas are located within Moreland City Council Heritage Overlay 72 (HO72), Edgars Creek Reserve Precinct, and are therefore protected by this local government planning scheme heritage overlay. Consultation with the Moreland City Council planning department will be necessary prior to any works associated with the proposed development taking place. Moreland City Council Heritage Overlay 72 (HO72) Edgars Creek Reserve is situated between where Merri and Edgars Creeks meet (Outlook Road, Coburg) and Carawa Drive, Reservoir. It includes both Jackson and Cash Reserves. It was listed due to its local historic significance to the Woiworung people and later post colonisation farming. Edgars Creek was home to market gardens throughout the late 19th Century and early 20th Century and recently has been subject to native replanting programs. It is possible that either of the two study areas will impact upon the new vegetation, however it should not detract from the local historic significance and values.
11. Conclusions Aboriginal Cultural Heritage This assessment has taken into consideration whether a cultural heritage management plan is required for the proposed activity and whether the activity is likely to cause harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage. It has also assessed which option, Alignment Option 1 or Alignment Option 2, would have a lower impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage. Regulation 6 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 states that a cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) is required for an activity if: (a) All or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity; and (b) All or part of the activity is a high impact activity.
17
In this case, both alignment options 1 and 2 will require a mandatory CHMP under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. For Option 1, the construction of the new bridge and associated pathways will take place in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity – a waterway or land within 200 metres of a waterway [r23(1)] and land within 50m of a registered Aboriginal place [r.22(1) and (2)]. Also, the activity itself is defined by the Regulations as a high impact activity, as the length of the proposed bridge and pathways will exceed 100m in length [r. 44(1)(b) - a bicycle track with length exceeding 100m and r.44(1)(f) - a walking track with length exceeding 100m]. Therefore, a CHMP is mandatory for the Option 1 activity. For Option 2, the construction of a new shared-use pathway 130m in length, will take place in an area of cultural heritage sensitivity - [r. 23 (1) a waterway or land within 200 metres of a waterway and land within 50m of a registered Aboriginal place [r.22(1) and (2)] is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity]. The Option 2 pathway also constitutes a high impact activity, as the length of the proposed bridge and pathways will exceed 100m [r. 44(1)(f) a walking track with length exceeding 100m]. Therefore, a CHMP is also mandatory for the Option 2 activity.
The land use history has indicated that the banks of Edgars Creek within the study areas appear to have undergone a little disturbance in the past due to natural erosion and European activities. These activities include sewer pipelines, Melbourne Water water pipe M9, vehicle, powerline installation, pedestrian bridge installation, shared footpath installations and Kodak Bridge installation. However, as discussed above in Section 7 of this report, the majority of both sides of Edgars Creek appear to be largely intact. Therefore, there is potential for Aboriginal cultural heritage to be present in this area. The most likely site type to occur would be an artefact scatter, either in a surface or subsurface context and the most likely material type is silcrete.
It should be noted that it is unlawful to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage (s.27 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006) or to carry out an act likely to harm Aboriginal cultural heritage (s.28 of the Act), except when harm is permitted under an approved CHMP or pursuant to a Cultural Heritage Permit, issued under s.40 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Historic (non-indigenous) cultural heritage
Whilst there are over twenty historic sites within 3km of the study areas, none of these sites are located within the study areas and therefore these sites will not be affected by works.
However, both of the study areas are situated within Moreland City Council Heritage Overlay HO72, Edgars Creek Reserve Precinct, and therefore further action is required in relation to historic cultural heritage for this project. The Moreland City Council should liaise with their planning department and in house heritage advisor to ensure that the works do not impact or alter the heritage values stated in HO72.
18
12. Recommendations Recommendation 1: Aboriginal Cultural Heritage, mandatory CHMP is required The preparation of a CHMP is mandatory for both Option 1 and Option 2.
Recommendation 2: Alignment Option 2 to have lower potential impact upon Aboriginal cultural heritage It is advised that study area Option 2 will have the lower impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage within the area, as it has no previously recorded Aboriginal places within it.
Recommendation 3: Aboriginal Heritage Places VAHR 7822-0851 and 7822-0852 Further investigation will be required as part of a CHMP assessment and specific protection measures may be required in the CHMP for VAHR sites 7822-0851 and 7822-0852. .
Recommendation 4: Historical Cultural Heritage – Heritage Overlay precinct HO72 Both bridge/path alignment options are located within HO72, Edgars Reserve Precinct. Prior to any works commencing within Heritage Overlay areas, the City of Moreland must consult with its planning department and in house heritage advisor to discuss the proposed works, their potential impact on the heritage place, and further management measures that may be needed. If necessary, permission and a planning permit may be needed for any alteration or disturbance to the HO72 precinct.
Recommendation 5: Historical Cultural Heritage It should be noted that it is an offence under the Victorian Heritage Act 2017 (s.127) to damage or disturb unregistered relics and unregistered archaeological sites. In the unlikely event that an historic site is identified during works, Heritage Victoria must be notified and works must cease at that location until an assessment can be made by an archaeologist.
Contact details for Heritage Victoria are:
Heritage Victoria 8 Nicholson Street East, Melbourne VIC 3002 Phone: (03) 9208 3333
Recommendation 6: All works must be restricted to within the ‘Limits of Works’
In order to ensure that cultural heritage is not harmed by the proposed works, the City of Moreland must ensure that all ground disturbing work undertaken by it, or its contractors, is restricted to the works zone or ‘Limit of Works’, to be defined by City of Moreland and its contractors for the CHMP, and as indicated in this report in Map 1. If the Limit of Works is altered or relocated, then a further assessment of cultural heritage requirements should be undertaken.
19
13. References
Agriculture Victoria. 2017a. Victorian Resources Online: 1.4.6 Outlying ridges and Hills (Warby Range, Lurg Hills, Howe Range, Mt Dandenong). http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework _1.4.6. Accessed on 21st November 2017.
Agriculture Victoria. 2017b. Victorian Resources Online: 6.1.2 Stony rises (Mt. Eccles, Pomborneit, Mt. Rouse). http://vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dpi/vro/vrosite.nsf/pages/landform_geomorphological_framework _6.1.2. Accessed on 20th November 2017.
Barwick, D. 1984. Mapping the past: an atlas of Victorian clans 1835 – 1904. Aboriginal History vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 100 – 131.
Caldere, D. B. and D. J. Goff 1991. Aboriginal Reserves and Missions in Victoria. Department of Conservation and Environment.
Cannon, M. and I. MacFarlane, 1988. Historical Records of Victoria: Foundation Series, VOL 5 ‘Surveyor’s Problems and Achievements 1836 - 1839’. Victorian Government Printing Office, Melbourne.
Chamberlain, M. 2005. Archaeological Subsurface Testing: Kodak Property. Prepared for Kodak (Australasia) Pty Ltd.
City of Yarra. 2017. 2. Pre-contact Wurundjeri. http://aboriginalhistoryofyarra.com.au/2-pre-contact- wurundjeri/. Accessed on 9th March 2017.
Clark, I. D. 1990. Aboriginal Languages and Clans: An Historical Atlas of Western and Central Victoria, 1800-1900. Monash Publications in Geography No. 37, Monash University.
Context Pty Ltd. 2008. City of Darebin Heritage Study Volume 1 Draft Thematic Environmental History Stage 2 Report. Report to the City of Darebin. http://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/- /media/cityofdarebin/Files/Building-and- Business/PlanningandDevelopment/ZoningandPolicies/Heritage/Heritage_Study_2007_Final_Volum e_1_Thematic_Environmental_History_May_2008.ashx?la=en. Accessed 16th March 2017.
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning 2017. 2017. EVC Benchmarks – Victorian Volcanic Plain Bioregion: EVC 55, 68, 851, 895. https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0029/48755/VVP_EVCs_combined.pdf. Accessed 21st November 2017.
Discover Coburg. 2017. History of Coburg. http://discovercoburg.com.au/about/history-of-coburg/. Accessed 21st November 2017. du Cros, H. and D. Rhodes. 1998. Aboriginal Archaeological Sensitivities Study of the Water Ways and Flood Plains Greater Melbourne. Report to Melbourne Water Corporation. eMelbourne. 2008. Coburg. http://www.emelbourne.net.au/biogs/EM00368b.htm. Accessed 21st November 2017.
20
Friends of Edgars Creek. 2017. Friends of Edgars Creek. http://foec.org.au/. Accessed 20th November 2017.
Land Conservation Council 1991. Melbourne Area District 2 Review Descriptive Report. LCC, Melbourne.
MacCulloch, J. 2015. Merri Creek to Coburg Pool Link Path, Coburg North, Victoria CHMP 13459. Prepared for Moreland City Council.
Mialanes, J., Clarke, V., Kiddell, H. and Cameron, A. 2009. Merri Creek Paths Widening and Bridges Construction Moreland and Darebin City Councils CHMP 10664. Report prepared for Moreland City Council.
Moreland City Council. 2017. History of Coburg and Pascoe Vale. http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/about-us/our-city/local-history/history-coburg-pascoe-vale/. Accessed 21st November 2017.
Thompson Berrill Landscape Design Pty Ltd (in association with Ecology and Heritage Partners P/L). 2013. Edgars Creek Conservation and Development Plan: Edwards Lake to Merri Creek. Report for the Moreland City Council.
Vines, G. 2003. An Archaeological survey of land adjacent to Newlands road, Coburg, Victoria. Prepared for Charter Keck Cramer.
21
Appendix 1: Study Area Proposed Plans
22
23
24
25
Appendix C
Information Evening Discussion Notes
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc ML17218 RevB
Edgards Creek / Ronald Street Footbridge – Information Evening
Discussion Notes prepared by Pitt & Sherry
1. Friends of Edgars Creek concerned that some planted areas identified as Low retention value. FoEC requested copy of native vegetation assessment report 2. Planting has been done by the community, with grant funding from Melbourne Water over many years 3. Department within Melbourne Water would like to remove concrete channel 4. Residents don’t want a big structure in a natural setting 5. Can council do short term treatment? How about replace bridge with a culvert? 6. Can the channel be deepened to allow more water through? 7. Concern about high steep hill is on Option 2 alignment 8. Concern about safety with Option 2, particularly at night 9. How long is it going to take to replace bridge? Not able to ride bikes to school 10. Looked at weathering steel? 11. If Option 1 alternative alignment adopted consider rock/stone feature(s) (sympathetic with local geology), not just plain path 12. If Option 1 alternative alignment adopted need fence to separate path from adjacent road 13. Option 2 geology a potential risk due to seepage of water 14. Already existing development plan for the area (Edgars Creek Conservation and Development Plan). This plan does not show a path on alignment Option 2 15. Need to comply with Austroads guidelines for pedestrian and cycle paths 16. Residents from local community concern the vegetation on site, and they want to know what are the requirements of removal of vegetation? 17. The power posts should be noted on site 18. Local community concern the cost of both options, and they want to know what is the budget from Council? 19. The maintenance cost should be considered for the chosen option 20. Local community mentioned that there are many services on site, including sewer overhead power 21. Residents asked why do we need to have bridge ramp structure? They think that the bridge would be closed during the flood period. Melbourne water need to pay some funding for this part.
Page 1 of 2
ML17218 RevB
22. Residents from local community mentioned that there is a development plan available which show the location of the bridge. 23. What is the grading of ramp structure? Do we have to raise up the ramp structure? P&S response: 1:14, and we need to raise the ramp structure to achieve Melbourne water requirements. 24. Residents suggested that the stone/rock can be considered for stabilizing the riverbank/abutments rather than concrete plank. 25. Safety barriers need to be considered at both side of riverbank adjacent to proposed bridge 26. Local community concern the budget and timeline for this project. Council responded that $50,000 has been budgeted for the feasibility study. The concept report/feasibility report will be submitted to Council for approval with the budget planning. 27. Residents concern the safety access for the current situation, as they need to cross the creek to send their children to the school. 28. Can we have more visual design so that they can have more visible understanding of the proposed bridge 29. Residents mentioned that Melbourne Water may rework or demolish the current concrete channel 30. A new option crossing north of the current concrete channel is suggested to be considered to connect the current concrete pathway along the eastern side 31. Do we have any further consultation meeting? Council responded that there possibly have a consultation session during the detailed design stage. 32. Temporary safety protection need to be considered for the current river access or river crossing. 33. Can we get the vegetation report? Asked by residents. They want to know more about this. 34. Can we use box culvert option instead bridge option? Box culvert would have a lots of debris issues. 35. Feasibility study will be presented to Council meeting at March 2018. 36. Regarding option 2, do we have enough geotechnical information or have we completed the geotechnical investigation? Residents mentioned that geotechnical issue would be a high risk for the option 2. P&S responded that a geotechnical investigation will be undertaken during the detailed design stage. 37. Council will make project information available on Council’s website for public access, and notes from the information evening discussions will be circulated to attendees
Page 2 of 2
Appendix D
Concept Bridge Elevations
pitt&sherry ref: ML17218M001 REP 16P REV 02/CM/lc To Golf Rd MAIN SPAN APPROACH SPANS RAMP Ronald St
ORIGINAL BRIDGE Q10 FLOOD LEVEL Q100 FLOOD LEVEL EXISTING SURFACE Option 1A
To Golf Rd MAIN SPAN APPROACH SPANS PATH Ronald St
Q10 FLOOD LEVEL INFORMAL Q100 FLOOD LEVEL EXISTING SURFACE WALKING TRACK Option 1B
To Golf Rd PATH MAIN SPANS Danthonia St
EXISTING SURFACE Q10 FLOOD LEVEL Q100 FLOOD LEVEL INFORMAL WALKING TRACK Option 1C
transport | community | mining | industrial | food & beverage | energy
Brisbane Launceston Newcastle E: [email protected] Level 10 Level 4 Level 1 W: www.pittsh.com.au 241 Adelaide Street 113 Cimitiere Street 81 Hunter Street
Brisbane QLD 4000 PO Box 1409 Newcastle NSW 2300 incorporated as T: (07) 3058 7499 Launceston TAS 7250 T: (02) 4910 3600 Pitt & Sherry (Operations) Pty Ltd T: (03) 6323 1900 ABN 67 140 184 309 Devonport F: (03) 6334 4651 Level 1 Sydney 35 Oldaker Street Suite 902, Level 9, PO Box 836 Melbourne 1-5 Railway Street Devonport TAS 7310 Level 1, HWT Tower Chatswood NSW 2067 T: (03) 6424 1641 40 City Road PO Box 5487 F: (03) 6424 9215 Southbank VIC 3006 West Chatswood NSW 1515 PO Box 259 T: (02) 9468 9300 Hobart South Melbourne VIC 3205 199 Macquarie Street T: (03) 9682 5290 GPO Box 94 F: (03) 9682 5292 Hobart TAS 7001 T: (03) 6210 1400 F: (03) 6223 1299
Now part of the pitt&sherry group