EDITHVALE AND BONBEACH LEVEL CROSSING REMOVAL PROJECTS ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT

Technical Report B Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision:0

February 2018

Document Control

Release

Revision Date Released Release Status Comment

0 22/02/2018 ISSUED FOR USE

QA Sign Off

ON FILE ON FILE Package Lead Project Manager

iii | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Table of Contents

Executive summary ...... viii

Abbreviations ...... xi

Glossary ...... xiv

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Why understanding Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems important is for the projects ...... 1 1.3 Project description...... 2 1.4 Project area ...... 4

2. Scoping requirements ...... 10 2.1 EES objectives ...... 10 2.2 EES scoping requirements ...... 10

3. Legislation, policy and guidelines ...... 14

4. Methods ...... 17 4.1 Existing ecological conditions assessment ...... 18 4.2 Likely presence of threatened and/or migratory species ...... 20 4.3 Impact assessment ...... 21 4.4 Risk assessment ...... 36 4.5 Environmental Performance Requirements ...... 36 4.6 Independent peer review ...... 37 4.7 Linkage to other technical reports ...... 37

5. Existing conditions ...... 38 5.1 GDEs in the study area ...... 38 5.2 High value GDEs...... 43 5.3 Edithvale Wetland (part of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands) ...... 43 5.4 Wannarkladdin Wetlands ...... 105 5.5 Other GDEs ...... 112 5.6 Threatened and/or migratory species...... 127 5.7 Threatening processes ...... 127

6. Risk assessment ...... 128

7. Impact assessment ...... 134 7.1 Edithvale ...... 134 7.2 Bonbeach ...... 150

8. Environmental performance requirements ...... 157

9. Matters of National Environmental Significance ...... 160 9.1 Overview ...... 160 9.2 Significant impact assessment ...... 163

10. Conclusion ...... 166

11. References ...... 168

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | iv

Table Index

Table 1 Scoping requirements for GDE impact assessment ...... 10

Table 2 Primary legislation and associated information ...... 14

Table 3 Bathymetric survey methods applied in each wetland cell ...... 24

Table 4 RL for bathymetric survey ...... 25

Table 5 Macroinvertebrate and fish survey and water quality sampling in each wetland cell ...... 27

Table 6 Fish survey techniques ...... 28

Table 7 GDEs within the project area ...... 38

Table 8 Aquifer systems ...... 82

Table 9 In situ water quality sampling results July 2017 ...... 82

Table 10 Water quality sampling summary for salinity 2009-2015 (from Ecology Australia 2016) compared with in situ 2017 results ...... 83

Table 11 Summary of Ramsar criteria met by Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands since listing in 2001 ...... 84

Table 12 Summary of critical CPS of Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands ...... 89

Table 13 Summary of assessment against Limits of Acceptable Change for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site ...... 92

Table 14 Dominant aquatic plants - salinity tolerance ...... 96

Table 15 Dominant macroinvertebrate taxa - salinity tolerance ...... 98

Table 16 Summary of likely outcome of climate change for components of the Edithvale Wetland (from Jacobs 2016) ...... 100

Table 17 Summary of BirdLife Australia observations of significant birds at Wannarkladdin Wetland ...... 108

Table 18 Risks to wetlands and other GDEs ...... 129

Table 19 Edithvale and Bonbeach environmental performance requirements ...... 157

Table 20 Summary of other potential mechanisms of impact ...... 165

Figure Index

Figure 1 Edithvale project area ...... 6

Figure 2 Bonbeach project area ...... 7

Figure 3 GDE study area ...... 9

Figure 4 Overview of assessment process ...... 17

Figure 5 Aquatic fauna survey locations ...... 31

Figure 6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the study area – overview ...... 40

Figure 7 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the study area – north ...... 41

Figure 8 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the study area - south ...... 42

Figure 9 Overview map of Edithvale Wetland (including Edithvale Common) ...... 46

Figure 10 Edithvale Wetland north ...... 48

v | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 11 Edithvale Wetland south ...... 56

Figure 12 Vegetation of Edithvale Wetland ...... 66

Figure 13 Temporal change of reed beds across one year (2014), Edithvale Wetland ...... 70

Figure 14 Temporal change of mudflats during peak migratory shorebird visitation (January) ...... 71

Figure 15 Curlew Sandpiper observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016 ...... 76

Figure 16 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016 ...... 77

Figure 17 Australasian Bittern observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016 ...... 77

Figure 18 Latham’s Snipe observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016 ...... 78

Figure 19 Overview map of Wannarkladdin Wetlands ...... 107

Figure 20 Coastal dune plants and potential depth of roots ...... 118

Figure 21 Native vegetation of the foreshore reserve - Edithvale...... 119

Figure 22 Native vegetation of the foreshore reserve - Bonbeach ...... 120

Figure 23 Conceptual cross section of Edithvale identifying GDEs in relation to existing groundwater conditions ...... 136

Figure 24 Groundwater change post-trench installation at Edithvale (inland) ...... 140

Figure 25 Groundwater change post-trench installation with groundwater management solution at Edithvale (inland) ...... 141

Figure 26 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation at Edithvale (coastal) ...... 146

Figure 27 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation with groundwater management solution at Edithvale (coastal) ...... 148

Figure 28 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation at Bonbeach (inland) ...... 151

Figure 29 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation at Bonbeach (coastal) ...... 154

Figure 30 VBA threatened fauna species records ...... 181

Figure 31 VBA migratory fauna species records ...... 182

Figure 32 Modelled EVCs ...... 183

Figure 33 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper abundance (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland plotted against population estimates in Hansen et al. 2016...... 217

Figure 34 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper maximum counts compared with rainfall at Edithvale Wetland 1987 - 2017 ...... 218

Figure 35 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper maximum counts compared with rainfall and water level at Edithvale Wetland 2011 - 2017 ...... 219

Figure 36 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper total count by month 2013/2014 and 2015/2016 ...... 220

Figure 37 Total monthly rainfall during overall period of bird visitation 2013/2014 and 2015/2016 ...... 220

Figure 38 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper abundance ...... 222

Figure 39 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper observations ...... 223

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | vi

Figure 40 Curlew Sandpiper abundance (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland plotted against population estimates in Hansen et al. 2016...... 225

Figure 41 Curlew Sandpiper abundance ...... 226

Figure 42 Curlew Sandpiper observations ...... 227

Figure 43 Latham’s Snipe abundance (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland plotted against population estimates in Hansen et al. 2016...... 230

Figure 44 Latham’s Snipe abundance ...... 231

Figure 45 Latham’s Snipe observations ...... 232

Figure 46 Australasian Bittern observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 - 2016 ...... 234

Figure 47 Australasian Bittern abundance ...... 235

Figure 48 Australasian Bittern observations ...... 236

Figure 49 Threatened diving ducks: abundance ...... 240

Figure 50 Threatened diving ducks: observations ...... 241

Figure 51 Edithvale Wetland native vegetation habitat zones and EVCs ...... 256

Appendices

Appendix A – Database results

Appendix B – PMST search results

Appendix C – Threatened flora species likelihood of occurrence assessment

Appendix D – Threatened and/or migratory fauna species likelihood of occurrence assessment

Appendix E – Key threatened and/or migratory birds

Appendix F – Other migratory and/or threatened birds – Edithvale Wetland

Appendix G – Aquatic fauna survey results

Appendix H – Vegetation assessment results

Appendix I – Bathymetric survey locations

Appendix J – Risk assessment – wetlands and GDEs

Appendix K – Independent peer reviewer assessment

vii | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Executive summary The Victorian Government is removing 50 of Melbourne’s most dangerous and congested level crossings. The Edithvale Road, Edithvale and Station Street/Bondi Road, Bonbeach level crossing removal projects were referred to the Minister for Planning who decided an Environment Effects Statement (EES) was required. This report addresses the Scoping Requirements of the EES in relation to potential impacts to wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) as a result of groundwater changes associated with removal of the level crossings. The most notable of the GDEs is the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands Ramsar site. Ecological context

Impacts to wetlands and GDEs and the application and implication of relevant legislation, frameworks and policies that relate to their protection are a key consideration of the EES process. Accordingly, an understanding of the existing condition of these wetlands and GDEs and the ecological values they support is important in order to determine the likelihood and extent of project related impacts on significant ecological assets.

This report describes the existing ecological condition of wetlands and GDEs within an area of interest which extends from the coast to approximately 2.5 kilometres inland (study area – refer to Figure 3). This area excludes the Edithvale and Bonbeach project areas which are the subject of EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas. The study area was defined on the basis of the potential extent of groundwater change that was identified by preliminary groundwater modelling undertaken for the level crossing removal project.

A particular focus of this report is the Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar site. Seaford Wetland is not considered by this report as it is greater than two kilometres south of the Bonbeach project area and is physically and hydrologically separated from Edithvale Wetland by Patterson River and is not expected to be affected by the Edithvale or Bonbeach level crossing removals.

The development of the detailed ecological approach presented within this report occurred in the context of groundwater mounding impacts being predicted at the Edithvale Wetland by early groundwater models. These studies were considered necessary to adequately inform the assessment of potential ecological impacts to Edithvale Wetland in the event that the detailed groundwater model predicted groundwater mounding at the site.

Existing conditions

A number of potential GDEs were modelled to occur within the study area. These include:

 GDEs that rely on surface expression of groundwater (wetlands and rivers): Edithvale Wetland, Wannarkladdin Wetlands, Edithvale Common, Patterson River, Centre Main Drain

 GDEs that rely on the availability of water beneath the surface (terrestrial vegetation): golf courses (Rossdale and Patterson River), recreation reserves (Chelsea Bicentennial Park, Beazely Reserve, residential areas (backyards and nature strips) and sections of the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve.

Two of these GDEs are considered to be of particularly high value, including:

 Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar site. The wetland supports remnant vegetation and a diversity of habitats for a range of flora and fauna species. It provides potential habitat for significant flora species and is known to support a high diversity of significant birds including shorebirds listed under international migratory

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | viii

agreements and/or wetland-dependent birds listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Key species that are regularly supported by the site include Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus, Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata and Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii.

 Wannarkladdin Wetlands are ecologically similar to Edithvale Wetland. The wetland cells range from a deeper pool surrounded by reed beds to shallow open water, bare soil or mud. The Wannarkladdin Wetlands provide habitat for a number of waterbirds and shorebirds and are part of a complex of wetlands (which includes the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands) that are of national significance. Whilst classed as a high value GDE, Wannarkladdin Wetlands are not of the same ecological value as Edithvale Wetland. They are not managed specifically for conservation and public access is unrestricted. Other GDEs identified within the study area are also described in the report. Generally these GDEs are not considered as ecologically significant as Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands, however, their collective contribution may be valuable at a landscape scale. For instance, Bicentennial Park and Centre Main Drain form a network of habitats and/or open space linking Wannarkladdin Wetland and Edithvale Wetland, and the corridor of vegetation along the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve is likely to facilitate the movement of fauna through the area.

The Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve is a largely continuous linear strip of vegetation which is identified by the City of Kingston as a key natural resource area (areas that contain remnant indigenous vegetation). The reserve is characterised by three Ecological Vegetation Classes (Coast Banksia Woodland, Coastal Dune Scrub and Coastal Dune Grassland) which support a diverse range of flora and fauna.

Impact assessment - Edithvale

Constructing the railway line in a trench to remove the level crossing at Edithvale would result in changes to groundwater. These changes have the potential to affect the ecological condition of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar site and/or other vegetation and habitats that are reliant on groundwater, including native vegetation in the foreshore reserve. The susceptibility of the Ramsar site and coastal vegetation to hydrological and/or water quality changes are discussed in the existing conditions section of this report.

Changes to groundwater as a result of the level crossing removal could have an impact on GDEs through:

 groundwater mounding changing water levels and/or water quality in GDEs inland of the project area

 groundwater drawdown changing water levels and/or water quality for GDEs on the bay side of the project area. No change to water levels, duration of inundation, rates of drawdown over summer and/or water quality are predicted to occur within the Edithvale Wetland. As such, impacts on the extent of habitat and therefore on waterbird diversity and abundance, and impacts to its capacity to meet the Ramsar listing criteria would not occur as a result of the level crossing removal project at Edithvale and risk to the wetland is negligible. The groundwater model identified that groundwater drawdown could occur within the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve and therefore result in a risk to native vegetation located within this area. Accordingly, as this assessment progressed, the focus has shifted from the Ramsar- listed Edithvale Seaford Wetland to the remnant vegetation of the Edithvale foreshore.

Groundwater changes as a result of removing the level crossing at Edithvale have the potential to result in a decline in quality and extent of native vegetation within the foreshore reserve. In

ix | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

order to reduce the risk of groundwater changes, an Environmental Performance Requirement around design of the rail trench was added to limit the change in groundwater levels inland and on the coastal side of the trench. Up to 0.9 hectares of native vegetation could be affected within this area of the foreshore reserve. The Edithvale project is therefore considered to present a negligible risk to the decline in quality or extent of native vegetation. Construction works would also affect ecological values within the project area. Impacts on those ecological values are considered in a separate report – refer to EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

Impact assessment - Bonbeach

Similar to Edithvale, constructing the railway line in a trench at Bonbeach would result in changes to groundwater. Wannarkladdin Wetlands are not expected to be impacted as they are located approximately 1400 metres from the area of inferred groundwater change. However, groundwater changes could result in a decline of other vegetation and habitats that are reliant on groundwater, particularly a change in the condition and/or extent of up to 1.6 hectares of native vegetation within the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve. The extent of native vegetation which may be affected by groundwater drawdown represents a minor risk for the project at Bonbeach. Construction works would also affect ecological values within the project areas. Impacts on those ecological values are considered in a separate report – refer to EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

Environmental Performance Requirements

Environmental Performance Requirements are recommended for the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects. The current design of the level crossing removal projects (EPR_GW1), combined with the addition of measures to manage groundwater (EPR_GW2), would result in a negligible risk to most GDEs in the study area.

The risk of groundwater drawdown impacting on the native vegetation of the foreshore reserve is negligible at Edithvale and minor at Bonbeach based on the extent of vegetation which could be affected.

To confirm the performance of the rail trench design in mitigating impacts to GDEs following construction of the piled walls, a groundwater management and monitoring program would be implemented (EPR_GW3). The plan would include clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require mitigation plans to be implemented. A GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for Foreshore Native Vegetation (EPR_FF7), and a GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for Edithvale Wetlands (EPR_FF8) would be developed in consultation with the land manager. The plans would only be implemented if the criterion for groundwater change was met.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | x

Abbreviations

Term Definition

AHD Australian Height Datum

ASS Acid Sulfate Soils

BA BirdLife Australia

BCS Bioregional Conservation Status

BIM Biodiversity Interactive Map

CaLP Act Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994

CAMBA China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

DEPI Department of Environment and Primary Industries (see DELWP)

DELWP Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning

DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (see DoEE)

DoEE Department of the Environment and Energy

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment (see DELWP)

EAAF East Asian - Australasian Flyway

EE Act Environmental Effects Act 1978

EES Environmental Effects Statement

EnSym Environmental Systems Modelling Platform

EPA Environment Protection Authority

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

EPR Environmental Performance Requirement

ESO Environmental Significance Overlay

EVC Ecological Vegetation Class

FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

GDE Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem

GPS Global Positioning System

ha hectares

Hha habitat hectares

HZ habitat zone

JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

xi | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Term Definition

JV AECOM-GHD Joint Venture khz kilohertz km kilometres

KBR Kellogg, Brown and Root

LGA Local Government Area

LXRA Level Crossing Removal Authority m metres m2 square metres mbgl metres below ground level mg/L milligrams per litre mm millimetre

µS/cm micro siemens per centimetre

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units

NVIM Native Vegetation Information Management

NVR report Native Vegetation Removal report

P&E Act Planning and Environment Act 1987

PMST Protected Matters Search Tool

PPWCMA Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority

PSA Planning Scheme Amendment

PSM permanent survey mark

R Restricted

Ramsar The Convention of Wetlands, called the Ramsar Convention

RC Regionally controlled (weed)

RL Reduced Level

RNE Register of the National Estate

ROKAMBA Republic Of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

RP Regionally prohibited (weed)

SP State prohibited (weed)

TIN triangulated irregular network

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | xii

Term Definition

TWL top water level

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

UMTD Upper Mid-tertiary Aquifer (Fyansford Formation)

UTAF Upper Tertiary Aquifer

VAF Victorian Aquifer Framework

VBA Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

Vic Victoria

VPO Vegetation Protection Overlay

VROTS Victorian Rare or Threatened Species

VRS VRS Now™ (Trimble)

VQA Vegetation Quality Assessment

WoNS Weeds of National Significance

Refer to the Glossary for a definition of terms used in this report.

xiii | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Glossary

Term Definition

Biodiversity The variety of all life-forms, the different plants, animals and micro- organisms, the genes they contain, and the ecosystems of which they form a part.

Bioregion A landscape based approach to classifying the land surface using a range of environmental attributes such as climate, geomorphology, lithology and vegetation.

Bioregional An assessment of the conservation status of the native vegetation type Conservation Status (EVC) in the context of a particular bioregion, taking account of how commonly it originally occurred, the current level of depletion and the level of degradation of condition typical of remaining stands.

Ecological Vegetation EVCs are the standard unit for classifying vegetation types in Victoria. EVCs Class (EVC) are described through a combination of floristics, lifeforms and ecological characteristics, and through an inferred fidelity to particular environmental attributes. Each EVC includes a collection of floristic communities (i.e. lower level in the classification) that occur across a biogeographic range, and although differing in species, have similar habitat and ecological processes operating

Ecology Ecology is the study of the interrelationships between living organisms and their environments.

Environmental An environmental outcome that must be achieved during design, construction Performance and operation of the projects Requirement (EPR)

Exotic vegetation Any vegetation that is not native to Australia or its States and Territories. It can include native species established outside their natural range. cf Indigenous vegetation, Native vegetation

Groundwater An ecosystem that requires access to groundwater to meet all or some of its Dependent Ecosystems water requirements so as to maintain the communities of plants and animals (GDE) and ecological processes is supports, and ecosystem services it provides.

Habitat hectare (Hha) A site based measure of quality and quantity of native vegetation that is assessed in the context of the relevant native vegetation type.

For native vegetation:

Habitat hectares of patch = extent in hectares × condition multiplier

For scattered trees:

Habitat hectares of scattered trees = (number of trees × standard extent) × condition multiplier

Where standard extent is a circle with 15 metre radius

Habitat zone A discrete area of native vegetation consisting of a single vegetation type (EVC) with an assumed similar averaged quality. This is the base spatial unit for conducting a habitat hectare assessment.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | xiv

Term Definition

High threat weed Introduced species, including native species occurring outside their natural range (‘non-indigenous’), with the ability to out-compete and substantially reduce one or more indigenous life forms in the longer term assuming on- going current site characteristics and disturbance regime.

Indigenous vegetation Indigenous vegetation is vegetation native to Australia as well as being native to a specific geographic region. cf Exotic vegetation, Native vegetation.

Matter of National The EPBC Act defines and protects nine MNES: World Heritage properties, Environmental National Heritage places, wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Significance (MNES) sites), listed threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species protected under international agreements (JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA), Commonwealth marine areas, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, nuclear actions (including uranium mines), and a water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.

Native vegetation Native vegetation is defined in planning schemes as ‘plants that are indigenous to Victoria, including trees, shrubs, herbs and grasses’. cf Exotic vegetation, Indigenous vegetation.

Non-indigenous Vegetation or species native to Australia, but not to the geographic region vegetation or species within which a site is located.

Native Vegetation A native vegetation offset is any works or other actions to make reparation Offset for the loss of native vegetation arising from the removal of native vegetation. It may include an area of existing remnant vegetation that is protected and managed, an area that is revegetated and protected, an area that is set aside for regeneration or restoration, or any combination of these. The relative size of an offset is graded according to its conservation significance.

Native vegetation patch An area of native vegetation where at least 25% of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native. or is an area with three or more native canopy trees where the drip line of each tree touches the drip line of at least one other tree, forming a continuous canopy, or any mapped wetland included in the current wetlands map available in DELWP systems and tools .

Scattered tree A scattered tree is a native canopy tree that does not form part of a patch.

Total count Total count refers to the total number of birds observed over the monitoring period. It is a tally of all observations and does not account for double count of individuals as the same bird may be present at the time of multiple observations.

xv | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose The Victorian Government is removing 50 of Melbourne’s most dangerous and congested level crossings, including the level crossings at Edithvale Road, Edithvale (Edithvale) and Station Street/Bondi Road, Bonbeach (Bonbeach).

The level crossing removal projects have three core objectives. To provide:  improved productivity from more reliable and efficient transport networks

 better connected, liveable and thriving communities

 safer communities. The Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects were referred to the Minister for Planning on 9 March 2017. On 5 April 2017, the Minister issued a decision determining that an Environment Effects Statement (EES) was required for the projects due to the potential for a range of significant environmental effects.

This report provides an ecological impact assessment for Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs) within proximity to the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal project areas. The ecological impacts within the project areas are the subject of a separate report (EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas).

Preliminary groundwater modelling identified the potential for groundwater change to occur as a result of the rail under road construction approach adopted for the level crossing removals at Edithvale and Bonbeach. Regional groundwater change has the potential to impact on GDEs, the most notable of which is the Ramsar listed Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. As such, the Victorian Minister for Planning determined that an EES was required to evaluate the potential impacts on the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands.

An improved understanding of the impact to regional groundwater and the relationship between these changes and GDEs, particularly the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site, is required before an assessment of the likely impacts on GDEs can be made. The focus of this report is on the Edithvale component of the Ramsar site. Edithvale Wetland is hydrologically and hydrogeologically separated from the Seaford component of the Ramsar site. The Seaford section is not expected to be impacted by the level crossing removals (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

This report defines GDEs, identifies GDEs within proximity to the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects and investigates the potential impacts on GDEs from the possible groundwater change that may be caused by the project.

1.2 Why understanding Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems important is for the projects

Groundwater change has the potential to affect ecosystems that are dependent on groundwater. The most notable of these is the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site, but there are other areas of GDEs that may be impacted which may support significant ecological values.

GDEs are defined by the ministerial guidelines for groundwater licensing and protection as ‘those ecosystems that require access to groundwater to meet all or some of their water requirements so as to maintain the communities of plants and animals and ecological processes they support, and ecosystem services they provide’ (Victorian Government, 2015).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 1

Six types of GDEs have been identified in Australia (Geosciences Australia, 2017), and these can be grouped into two categories as per Eamus (2009):

 GDEs that rely on surface expression of groundwater – wetlands and rivers

– terrestrial fauna that rely on groundwater as a source of drinking water

 GDEs that rely on the availability of water beneath the surface (subsurface) – terrestrial vegetation that relies on groundwater close to the surface (within the root depth of the vegetation) which in turn supports animal communities

– Aquifer and cave ecosystems, – Estuarine systems which rely on submarine groundwater discharge.

The dependency of a GDE on groundwater determines the degree and nature of impact that changes in groundwater quality and quantity may have on the ecosystem. GDEs can vary in the extent they draw upon groundwater and their dependency on groundwater may range on a temporal scale (Colvin et al, 2003). In some instances GDEs may be solely reliant on groundwater at all times, while others may rely more heavily on groundwater during dry periods (Serov et al, 2012).

It is also important to note that a dependency on groundwater does not mean that vegetation would not persist without groundwater supply. For instance, in years of drought, access to groundwater may not be essential for the survival of a tree but a lack of available water may affect the frequency and abundance of flowering and therefore plant reproduction and availability of resources for fauna species (Holloway et al, 2013).

1.3 Project description

1.3.1 Overview

Edithvale

The Level Crossing Removal Authority (LXRA) proposes to remove the level crossing by lowering the Frankston railway line into a trench under Edithvale Road while maintaining Edithvale Road at the current road level. The trench would be located between Lochiel Avenue and Berry Avenue. It would be up to 1,300 metres in length and 14 metres wide at its narrowest point, widening to 24 metres (including pile widths) at the new Edithvale station platforms.

The rail track would be approximately eight metres below ground level, and sit above the trench base slab and infrastructure to collect and divert rain water from the trench. The maximum depth of the excavation would be 15 metres. Pile depths would be a maximum of 24 metres at the deepest point of the trench.

Barriers, fencing and screening would be erected along the trench at road level to prevent unauthorised access by vehicles or people. Decking above the rail trench would provide for the new station building, car parking and a new substation required to ensure sufficient power is available for passenger services on the Frankston railway line. New pedestrian bridges would be constructed to retain pedestrian access across the railway line. A new station is to be constructed with lift, ramp and stair access to the below-ground train platforms.

Bonbeach

LXRA proposes to remove the level crossing by lowering the Frankston railway line into a trench under Bondi Road while maintaining Bondi Road at the current road level. The trench would be located between Golden Avenue and The Glade. It would be up to 1,200 metres in length and

2 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

14 metres wide at its narrowest point, widening to 24 metres (including pile widths) at the new Bonbeach station platforms. The rail track would be approximately eight metres below ground level, and sit above the trench base slab and infrastructure to collect and divert rain water from the trench. The maximum depth of the excavation would be 15 metres. Pile depths would be a maximum of 24 metres at the deepest point of the trench. Barriers, fencing and screening would be erected along the trench at road level to prevent access by vehicles or people. Decking above the rail trench would provide for the new station building and car parking. New pedestrian bridges would be constructed to retain pedestrian access across the railway line. A new station building would be constructed with lift, ramp and stair access to the below-ground train platforms.

1.3.2 Construction The main construction activities for the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects include:

 site establishment: – clearing of vegetation and ground levelling

– establishment of site fencing, staff facilities and temporary construction areas

 protection and/or relocation of utility services

 excavation for piling, foundations and the rail trench

 on site waste management including removal, management and appropriate disposal of excavated soil, rock, stormwater and groundwater

 transport of spoil, excavated material and groundwater offsite

 demolition of existing stations and removal of existing rail and road infrastructure

 construction of bridge/deck structures to support Edithvale Road and Station Street/Bondi Road where they cross the railway line

 construction of base slab and waterproofing, including stormwater tanks

 construction of new station infrastructure including platforms and buildings

 construction of pedestrian overpasses and decking over the rail trench

 installation and commissioning of new rail infrastructure including ballast, overhead line equipment and rail. In preparation for the occupation of the rail line by construction teams, the existing Edithvale and Bonbeach train station would be closed approximately four weeks in advance. Both projects would be constructed concurrently under the same rail closure which is anticipated to take six weeks.

During the closure of the rail corridor, construction activities would occur 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Additional periodic road closures and lane closures would be required and access along adjacent streets could be restricted. Additional weekend rail shutdowns would likely be required prior to and after the main rail occupation. Construction is expected to be completed within an 18 month period.

1.3.3 Operations and maintenance

Following the construction of the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects, the key operation and maintenance phase activities would include:

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 3

 operation – monitoring, controlling and operating the asset in accordance with the rail and road network requirements  maintenance – routine inspection and monitoring of the condition of the asset, planned routine maintenance and refurbishment work, and unplanned intervention and repair of the asset. Operation and maintenance activities would be consistent with existing practices and subject to the evolving operational demands of the road and rail networks.

1.3.4 Study foreword This document was prepared concurrently with the development of the detailed, regional groundwater model (EES Technical Report A Groundwater). Prior to this detailed model, a preliminary groundwater model was prepared that predicted the possibility for groundwater mounding in the order of 0.1 metres that could impact the Edithvale Wetland section of the Ramsar listed Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (AECOM-GHD JV, 2016). This potential impact was the primary trigger for the development of an EES. The development of the detailed ecological approach presented within this report occurred in the context of groundwater mounding impacts being predicted at the wetlands by early groundwater models. Accordingly, a detailed ecological assessment program was developed for the site to ensure that all important impact pathways had been considered. It included terrestrial and aquatic ecology investigations as well as bathymetric assessments of each of the wetland cells within the Edithvale section of the Ramsar Site. All these studies were considered necessary to adequately inform potential ecological impacts to the wetland in the event that the detailed groundwater model predicted groundwater mounding at the site.

Following the implementation of the ecological survey methods, the detailed regional groundwater investigation refined the predicted groundwater interaction with the wetland. The results of the modelling indicated that groundwater mounding would not extend to the Edithvale Wetland (refer to EES Technical Report A Groundwater). Although ecological data collated via the detailed methods outlined above are presented within the existing conditions section of this ecological impact assessment report, the data have not been subjected to the same level of analysis as would have been required had the initial expected change to groundwater levels been predicted by the detailed model.

The refined groundwater model has identified a risk of increased impact to the vegetation that is located within the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve in proximity to both level crossing removal projects (refer to Section 5.5.1). Accordingly, the focus of the risk and impact assessment discussions within this report has shifted from the Ramsar-listed Edithvale Seaford Wetland to other GDEs and primarily the native vegetation which dominates much of the foreshore at Bonbeach and Edithvale.

1.4 Project area

1.4.1 Edithvale

The Edithvale Road, Edithvale level crossing project investigation area (Edithvale project area) extends from Lincoln Parade, Aspendale to Chelsea Road, Chelsea. It includes the rail corridor and all of Station Street and Nepean Highway to the east and west of the rail corridor respectively, and small sections of adjacent road reserves - refer to Figure 1.

The project area is located solely within the Kingston Local Government Area, within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion, and within the jurisdiction of the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA).

4 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

1.4.2 Bonbeach

The Station Street/Bondi Road, Bonbeach level crossing removal project area (Bonbeach project area) extends from Chelsea Road, Chelsea to Patterson River, Bonbeach. It includes the rail corridor and all of Station Street and Nepean Highway located to the east and west of the rail corridor respectively, and small sections of adjacent road reserves - refer to Figure 2. The Bonbeach project area is located solely within the Kingston Local Government Area, within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion, and within the jurisdiction PPWCMA.

1.4.3 Temporary construction areas Specific construction temporary construction areas have not been identified at this time. Temporary construction areas would be used for site offices, storing materials, plant and equipment, parking for construction works and construction traffic standby.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 5

Figure 1 Edithvale project area

6 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 2 Bonbeach project area

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 7

1.4.4 Study area

The study area for the ecological impact assessment of wetlands and other GDEs extends from the coast to approximately 2.5 kilometres in the proximity of the Edithvale and Bonbeach project areas – refer to Figure 3.

This area of interest has been defined on the basis of the potential extent of groundwater mounding/drawdown that was identified by the preliminary groundwater modelling (AECOM- GHD JV, 2016). The site boundaries for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site outlined in the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Boundary Description - Technical Report (DEPI, 2013a) have been adopted for this investigation.

8 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 3 GDE study area

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 9

2. Scoping requirements

2.1 EES objectives Draft evaluation objectives provide a framework to guide integrated assessment of the environmental effects of the project, in accordance with the Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (DSE, 2006).

The following evaluation objective is relevant to the biodiversity assets and GDEs in the study area and the desired outcomes in the context of potential project effects. Draft evaluation objective for biodiversity assets and GDEs

To avoid, minimise and/or offset adverse effects on native vegetation, listed threatened species and ecological communities, listed migratory species, the Ramsar listed Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands, other protected flora and fauna and groundwater dependent ecosystems.

2.2 EES scoping requirements Table 1 below lists the Scoping Requirements, (issued by the Minister for Planning) relevant to the draft evaluation objective for biodiversity assets and GDEs.

Table 1 Scoping requirements for GDE impact assessment

Aspect Scoping requirement Refer to

Key issues - Loss of, or degradation to, habitat for threatened Section 5.6 fauna species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Also refer to EES Technical Act and/or DELWP Advisory List or for other Report D Ecology: Project protected species. Areas

- Risk of impact to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Section 6 resulting directly or indirectly from changes to Refer also to EES groundwater (e.g. levels or quality). Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas

- Adverse impacts on any aspect of the ecological Section 5.3.11 character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands, in Section 7.1.1.1 the context of the relevant Ramsar listing criteria, including indirect impacts upon the four Section 6

components*, processes and services that are Section 7 critical to the ecological character of the wetlands (at the time of the listing) such as the critical component of physical habitat for waterbirds. *The four critical components are: waterbird diversity and abundance, waterbird breeding, physical habitat for waterbirds and threatened species (birds)

- Direct loss of native vegetation and any EES Technical Report D associated listed threatened flora and fauna Ecology: Project Areas species and communities known or likely to occur in the project site.

- Potential for other significant effects on Section 5.7 for listed biodiversity values including but not limited to

10 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Aspect Scoping requirement Refer to

effects associated with changes in hydrology or threatening processes. hydrogeology (under current and climate change Refer to EES Technical scenarios) or threatening processes listed under Report D Ecology: Project the FFG Act. Areas

- Understanding community values associated with Refer to EES Technical the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands and the potential Report L Social for indirect impacts on the community brought about by the project.

Existing - Characterise the distribution and quality of native Section 5 environment vegetation and terrestrial habitat that could be Refer to EES Technical impacted by the project, within the project area, Report D Ecology: Project associated works areas or in the broader area. Areas for native vegetation and habitat within the project areas.

- Identify the existing or likely presence of any Section 5 species listed under the EPBC Act, FFG Act Section 5.6 (threatened and/or DELWP Advisory List, as well as declared and migratory ) weeds and pathogens within the project area, associated works areas or in the broader area. Also refer to EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

- Describe the components of the ecological Section 5.3.9 character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands and

the critical components, processes and services of the ecological character that could be impacted by the project with reference to the Description of the ecological character of the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands report, prepared by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, 2012

- Characterise the listed threatened and migratory Section 5.3.3 (flora) species, other protected species, ecological Section 5.3.6 (fauna) communities and potentially threatening processes that are likely to be present in the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands from the literature and available data, supported by seasonal or targeted surveys where necessary. Details of the scope, timing and method for studies or surveys used to provide information on the ecological values at the site (and in other areas that may be impacted by the project) should be outlined.

- Describe the biodiversity values that could be Section 5 directly or indirectly affected by the project, Section 5.2 (Edithvale including: Wetland) - native vegetation and any ecological Section 5.4

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 11

Aspect Scoping requirement Refer to

communities listed under the FFG Act and EPBC (Wannarkladdin Wetlands Act; vegetation and habitat description) - presence of, or suitable habitats for, native flora and fauna species, in particular species listed Section 5.5 (other GDEs) under the FFG Act, and DSE Advisory List and Section 5.6 (likelihood of EPBC Act; and threatened species) - use of the site and its environs for movement by FFG Act, and DSE Advisory List and EPBC Act listed fauna species.

- Describe the threats posed directly or indirectly Section 6 by the project to biodiversity values, including: Section 7 - direct removal or destruction of habitat; Refer to EES Technical - direct and indirect disturbance or alteration of Report D Ecology: Project habitat conditions (including groundwater Areas for impacts within mounding or drawdown effects on GDEs) or the project areas. other sources of increased habitat threat;

- initiating and/or exacerbating potentially threatening processes under the EPBC Act and FFG Act;

- threats to mortality of listed threatened fauna; and

- the presence of any declared weeds or pathogens within and in the vicinity of project area.

Design and - Identify potential and proposed design options Section 6 mitigation and measures that could avoid or minimise Section 7 measures significant direct and indirect effects on native vegetation and any listed ecological communities Refer to EES Chapter 2 or flora and fauna species and their habitat Project Description for including the ecological character of the discussion of design Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. options considered.

Refer to EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas for impacts within the project areas.

Assessment of - Identify and assess likely direct and indirect Section 6 likely effects effects of the project and relevant alternatives on Section 7 native vegetation, ecological communities and

flora species, in particular any species listed Refer to EES Technical under the FFG Act and EPBC Act. Report D Ecology: Project Areas for impacts within the project areas.

- Identify and assess likely indirect effects of the Section 5.2 project on the ecological character and habitat

12 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Aspect Scoping requirement Refer to

values of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. Section 6

Section 7

- Identify and assess likely direct and indirect Section 6 effects of the project and relevant alternatives on Section 7 protected fauna and their habitat, including listed (FFG Act/EPBC Act) threatened and migratory species, relative to existing hazards and risks where relevant.

Approach to - Describe and evaluate proposed measures to Section 7 manage further mitigate or manage residual effects of the Section 8 performance project on biodiversity values, including an outline of an offset strategy that sets out the offsets that have been secured or are proposed to satisfy offset policy requirements and the relevant provisions of the Kingston Planning Scheme.

- Describe and evaluate the approach to Section 7 monitoring and subsequent contingency Section 8 measures to be implemented in the event of adverse residual effects on flora and fauna values, including on the ecological character and habitat values of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands requiring further management.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 13

3. Legislation, policy and guidelines

Table 2 (below) summarises the relevant legislation that applies to the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects and details their implications and required approvals. An outline of relevant legislation is provided in Technical Appendix D Ecology: Project Areas.

Table 2 Primary legislation and associated information

Legislation/policy Key policies/strategies Implications for the projects Approvals required

Commonwealth

Environment Significant Impact Provides for the Commonwealth Minister Protection and Guidelines 1.1 (DoE, conservation of biodiversity for the Environment Biodiversity Act 2013) and the protection of the determined the projects 1999 (EPBC Act) environment, particularly to be a controlled action. EPBC Act Policy Matters of National Statement 3.21 (DoEE, To be assessed via the Environmental Significance 2017a) accredited State process (MNES). of an EES under an Environment Protection assessment bilateral and Biodiversity agreement. Conservation Regulations 2000

State

Planning and Guidelines for the The Guidelines are Offsets for loss of native Environment Act removal, destruction or incorporated into the vegetation patches and 1987 (P&E Act) lopping of native Victorian Planning scattered trees will be vegetation (DELWP, Provisions and all planning required. 2017a). schemes. Offsets are determined They provide instruction on by a Native Vegetation how an application for a Removal report (NVR permit to remove native report) unless an vegetation is to be alternative approach is assessed under the identified by DELWP. planning scheme.

Sets the offsetting requirements for removal of native vegetation patches and scattered trees.

Sets out the permits and actions necessary for vegetation removals.

Kingston Planning The broad intent of an ESO Work with Kingston Scheme: is to identify areas where Council to determine the the development of land significance of the Environmental may be affected by environment to be Significance Overlays environmental constraints, impacted and consider (ESOs) and to ensure that if mitigation measures via a development does happen, condition in the it is compatible with the

14 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Legislation/policy Key policies/strategies Implications for the projects Approvals required

values that are highlighted incorporated document. in any schedule to the Following the granting of identified ESO. a permit to remove Vegetation Protection A VPO is specific to the vegetation (or equivalent) Overlays (VPOs) removal of vegetation that any loss of native has been deemed to be vegetation loss will be significant, and protects offset in accordance with this vegetation against the Guidelines. inappropriate development.

Flora and Fauna Flora and Fauna Provides a process for Protected flora controls - Guarantee Act Guarantee Regulations listing threatened native permit to ‘take’ (kill, 1988 (FFG Act) 2011 species and communities, injure, disturb or collect) protected flora and fauna, protected flora required if and potentially threatening protected flora are processes with respect to impacted species and communities

of native flora and fauna.

Protected flora controls

Wildlife Act 1975 Wildlife Act Regulations Under the Act it is an Management 2013 offence to take or destroy Authorisation from protected or threatened DELWP required to Translocation of non- wildlife without undertake salvage. threatened native wildlife authorisation. (DELWP, 2017b) Under the Wildlife Act Procedure statement for Regulations it is an offence translocation of to damage, disturb threatened native fauna (including removal or in Victoria - 2016 relocation of wildlife) or (DELWP, 2016a). destroy any wildlife habitat unless authorised to do so under any Act.

Catchment and List of declared noxious Establishes a framework Responsibility to take all Land Protection weeds for management and reasonable steps to Act 1994 (CaLP protection of catchments, eradicate regionally List of established pest Act) including responsibilities in prohibited weeds, animals relation to the management prevent the growth and of pest plants and animals spread of regionally in Victoria. controlled weeds and, where possible, eradicate

established pest animals declared under the CaLP Act.

Threatened An advisory list of There are no direct legal No direct approvals species advisory threatened species is requirements or required however lists maintained by DELWP. consequences that flow advisory list status is from inclusion of a species considered when Species are broken into in advisory lists, although determining vegetation the following groupings: they are afforded some offsets in relation to the Advisory List of Rare or protection through the

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 15

Legislation/policy Key policies/strategies Implications for the projects Approvals required

Threatened Plants in Guidelines (DELWP, Guidelines. Victoria (DEPI, 2014) 2017a).

Advisory List of Species included in the list Threatened Vertebrate may also be formally listed Fauna (DEPI, 2013b) as threatened under the EPBC Act or FFG Act Advisory list of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria (DSE, 2009)

16 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

4. Methods

This section describes the method that was used to assess the potential impacts of the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects on identified GDEs and additional wetlands that may or may not be groundwater dependent. Potential impacts on biodiversity within the project areas are assessed in EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

A systematic risk based approach was applied to understand the existing environment, potential impacts of the projects and how to avoid, minimise or manage the risk of impacts.

The iterative nature of the assessment is illustrated in Figure 4 (below).

Figure 4 Overview of assessment process

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 17

The following sections outline the methodology for the ecological impact assessment on GDEs and wetlands.

4.1 Existing ecological conditions assessment

An understanding of the existing (current) ecological condition of all ecosystems that have potential to be affected by groundwater change was critical to inform an assessment of the potential ecological impacts of the level crossing removal. A focus of this assessment was on the known and potential GDEs that lie within the area of potential groundwater change.

The existing ecological conditions assessment incorporated:  a review of relevant GDE databases to identify GDEs in the study area

 a desktop assessment of biodiversity databases and existing literature in relation to ecological values of the study area  verification (by field assessment) of the location and type of GDEs identified by the databases and any other potential GDEs not identified during the desktop assessment  assessment of the ecological value of identified GDEs (based on literature and fieldwork), and in particular whether they are likely to support threatened and/or migratory species listed under the EPBC Act and/or the FFG Act.

4.1.1 Identifying GDEs in the study area GDEs have been identified on the basis of those modelled to occur within the study area on the following databases:

 National Atlas of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems administered by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology (BOM)

 Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Mapping for the PPWCMA administered by DELWP.

The results of the database searches are provided in Appendix A and have been collated into a combined list of GDEs (see Section 5.1).

The accuracy of the GDE mapping in each of the databases is variable and likely dependent on the accuracy of input data. The collation of the BOM national atlas relied upon a combination of expert opinion, remote sensing data (from 2000 to 2010) and GIS analysis to map the potential for groundwater/ecosystem interaction (BoM, 2016, Doody et al. 2017).

Since the national atlas was released in 2012, Victoria conducted a regional study generating GDE mapping for the PPWCMA. This mapping was developed using satellite remote sensing data, geological data and groundwater monitoring data. Field assessment was not undertaken to validate the GIS overlay model (DELWP, 2017c). In principle, modelling of potential GDEs at a finer resolution than available in the two resources noted above could be done by using Landsat8 remote sensing imagery. Near Infra-Red (NIR) bands can be used to inform a model such as the Normalised Density Vegetation Index (NDVI) can observe temporal or spatial variations in the chlorophyll signature. In turn, these variations may indicate vegetation with access to groundwater. While this was considered a potentially useful approach for this EES, further assessment indicated it would have only limited applicability in such an urban context given the likely artificial watering occurring in residential gardens, golf courses, playing fields and municipal parks. The application of the approach is also problematic around wetlands. It was therefore not considered as a reliable means of identifying GDEs in the study area and, as such, GDEs are defined on the basis of the National Atlas and the PPWCMA model only.

18 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

4.1.2 Desktop assessment

The following databases and online tools were reviewed to inform our understanding of the ecological values of the study area and the key GDEs that may be impacted by the predicted groundwater change:

 Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) administered by DELWP

 Biodiversity Interactive Map1 (BIM) administered by DELWP  EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) administered by the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE)

 Native Vegetation Information Management (NVIM) tool administered by DELWP  aerial photography (sourced from a number of providers including, but not limited to, NearMap™, DELWP and ESRI™)  BirdLife Australia bird survey data from the Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project and the Melbourne Water biodiversity surveys

 climate data (dating from 1950) from the Bureau of Meteorology (SILO data at station 86210 Bonbeach Carrum)  existing literature: documents reviewed are listed in the references section and cited throughout the report. The literature review was not intended to be an exhaustive synthesis of current knowledge of GDEs, but rather provide a concise and consolidated account of the ecological values supported, or predicted to be supported, by these ecosystems.

The review of the VBA and PMST incorporated a five kilometre buffer around the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal project areas to capture records of highly mobile fauna species and to account for the possible lack of historic survey effort in the area. This buffer area covers the GDE study area.

These extracts were completed to identify threatened flora and fauna species with the potential to rely upon or interact with GDEs. The likelihood of bird species was also informed by the BirdLife Australia data (see Section 4.3.5).

Not all locations of records in the VBA are precise; the actual accuracy of a record can range from +/- one metre to +/- 500 metres. The VBA was last updated on 1 January 2017. We have relied upon the DELWP data vetting process. Many records within the VBA are attributed to the same coordinate. For instance a bird surveyor may have recorded several species of bird at the same location, over multiple site visits spanning several years.

4.1.3 Field assessment

Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands

An initial field assessment was undertaken in 2016 to validate the findings of a preliminary wetlands ecological desktop assessment (which supported the EES referral), and to provide a high level account of the current ecological condition of the Ramsar site. A two day field assessment - one day at the Edithvale section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (Edithvale Wetland) and one day at the Seaford section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (Seaford Wetland) - was undertaken on 13 and 19 September 2016 respectively. Whilst the value of this ecosystem for migratory waders and water birds is well known at the time of the assessment, the vegetation communities within the Ramsar site were not as well understood.

1 Now superseded by NatureKit

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 19

It is noted however that the 2016 field assessments were planned prior to the release of the current management plan for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (Ecology Australia, 2016). This revised plan now provides a more thorough account of the aquatic and terrestrial ecological values of the site.

Access by the public to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands is restricted by cyclone mesh fencing around the entirety of the waterbodies, and much of the fringing vegetation. As a consequence the initial field assessments and habitat observations were made from the publicly-accessible walking tracks lining the perimeter of the site. The Edithvale Wetland was subsequently accessed as part of a site walkover to inform the groundwater investigation on 26 July 2017. Observations from the walkover have been incorporated into the description of existing conditions of the Edithvale Wetland provided in Section 5.2 where relevant.

Other GDEs

Further field assessments were undertaken on 29 June 2017 and 24 August 2017 to characterise the ecological values of other GDEs within the study area. Assessments of GDEs on private land and golf courses were undertaken from the closest publically accessible vantage points and with reference to aerial imagery. No private land was accessed.

Native vegetation of the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve was mapped from Roycroft Avenue to Bristol Avenue, Edithvale and from Shelfield Avenue to Mernda Avenue, Bonbeach. These sections were identified as areas of interest based on preliminary groundwater modelling.

The suitability of these GDEs to support threatened flora and fauna species was assessed on the basis of habitat availability and existing survey information.

4.2 Likely presence of threatened and/or migratory species

A desktop assessment was undertaken of the likelihood of threatened and/or migratory species occurring within the GDEs and/or habitats identified. This included species:

 Listed as threatened under the EPBC Act

 Listed as threatened in Victoria:

– under the FFG Act

– on the Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013 (DEPI, 2013b)

– on the Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014 (DEPI, 2014).

 Listed as migratory under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act lists 37 migratory shorebirds that regularly visit Australia. These are species that are subject to the following international agreements relating to migratory shorebird conservation to which Australia is a signatory: – Bilateral agreements:

- Japan-Australian Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA)

- China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA - Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA)

– Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (also known as the CMS or the Bonn Convention)

A number of species were eliminated from the VBA list based on their listing status, a review of relevant literature and an understanding of their preferred habitats. These species are not considered further in this report and include:

20 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

 Records older than 30 years (i.e. pre-1987).

 Fauna species considered ‘near threatened’ or ‘data deficient’ in the VROTS list unless they are also recognised under the EPBC Act and/or FFG Act.  Flora listed as ‘poorly known’ in the VROTS list as the current knowledge of their distribution and abundance is not sufficient to determine whether these species should be considered rare or threatened in Victoria.  Some threatened flora species which are outside their natural range but are commonly used for landscaping and amenity, including Spotted Gum Corymbia maculata and Giant Honey-myrtle Melaleuca armillaris.

 Fauna reliant on marine environments, including albatross, petrel, cetaceans and marine turtles (which are in the database search results based on the proximity of the project areas to the Port Philip Bay marine environment) as no habitat for these species is present in the project areas.

The likelihood of occurrence assessment was based on the number of VBA records, year of most recent VBA record, species ecology and the habitat values observed during the field assessment.

Likelihood categories are:

 Unlikely – No preferred habitat present within the study area.

 Low – Some habitat is present in the study area but it is limited in extent and quality. In the case of fauna, the species may infrequently visit for foraging but would not reside, roost or otherwise depend on habitats in the study area for their survival.  Moderate – Habitat is available in the study area which partially meets the requirements of the species. In the case of fauna, the species may regularly visit the habitat.  High – Species has historically been recorded in the study area (or within very close proximity). The study area contains habitat that meets their habitat requirements and is likely to support a population of the species.  Present – Species confirmed to be present within the study area either through direct observation of the species or recent records in the VBA output.

4.3 Impact assessment

To understand the potential for ecologically significant GDEs to be impacted by groundwater change, the following areas were considered as part of this ecological impact assessment and the groundwater and surface water impact assessment reports (EES Technical Report A Groundwater:

 the hydrological regimes within identified GDEs and their dependency on, and relationship to, groundwater  the nature and extent of regional groundwater impact

 consequence of any change in the relationship between the GDEs and groundwater, and the subsequent impact this may have on the ecological values they support. This section outlines the investigations that were undertaken concurrently with groundwater and surface water modelling to inform the assessment of potential consequences of groundwater and/or surface water change on the ecological values of GDEs within the study area.

Given the significance of its Ramsar listing, the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are the priority for consideration in the impact assessment and are therefore the focus of the investigations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 21

outlined below. Specifically, the Edithvale Wetland section is of most relevance to this project, due to its proximity to the proposed level crossing removals at Edithvale and Bonbeach. The Seaford Wetland section is less relevant due to the presence of a hydraulic and hydrogeologic flow divide (the Patterson River) located to the south of Edithvale and Bonbeach. The proposed level crossing removals at Edithvale and Bonbeach were not considered likely to impact the Seaford Wetland component (Technical Report A Groundwater) and as such, impacts to this wetland have not been considered further.

For other GDEs within the study area, the potential to support State and nationally significant ecological values has also been considered as part of the impact assessment. The groundwater and ecological impact assessments were interdependent as the results of a number of investigations completed for each discipline informed the other. As a consequence, not all of the ecological investigations outlined below were ultimately relevant to discuss within the ecological impact assessment, particularly once the predictions of the groundwater modelling were known (Technical Report A Groundwater). The methods are therefore described in relation to the assessment that would have been undertaken if the groundwater modelling predicted changes in groundwater levels at Edithvale Wetland. The results of the existing conditions and impact assessments are presented in Section 5. The impact assessment considers those ecological risk events with a higher risk level than negligible that were identified during the risk assessment process. It outlines the management and mitigation measures which informed the likelihood ratings applied in EES Attachment II Environmental Risk Assessment and in Section 7 of this report (below). These measures provided the foundations for the Environmental Performance Requirements (EPRs) identified in Section 8.

The impact assessment does not consider any potential ecological impacts of temporary construction areas as these are yet to be confirmed. EPRs implemented through the EES process would also be applied to any temporary construction area utilised for the projects in order to manage any ecological impacts.

4.3.1 Aerial photographic interpretation

High-resolution, time-series aerial photographs were obtained from Nearmap™. The aerial photography was used to map the main habitat features likely to be preferred by significant fauna species and/or faunal groups at the Edithvale Wetlands including mudflats and reed beds. Through the use of time-series photographs, the extent of available habitat for particular fauna species was estimated both annually and seasonally. This information was then used in conjunction with surface water hydrology modelling to allow any changes in extent of habitat to be identified in relation to any predicted changes to water inputs. Refer to EES Technical Report A Groundwater for more detail.

4.3.2 Bathymetric survey

A bathymetric survey was undertaken to establish a detailed depth profile of each of the cells of the wetland and allow a water volume of each cell to be determined. Measuring the profile of the wetland cells also assisted in the identification potential mud flat/foraging habitat that was otherwise not visible from afar due to seasonally deep water or the presence of reed beds. In the event that a change in water level was identified as a potential impact of the project (see Section 7), the results of the bathymetric survey combined with surface water modelling would provide an understanding of wetland capacity. This in turn would provide an indication of how the change in water level would affect the exposure or inundation of habitats, for example, the area of mud flats available to foraging shorebirds in comparison to the area that may be colonised by reed beds (preferred habitat for Australasian Bittern). Current and predicted water

22 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

level change is presented as a conceptual model (in cross section) and as an aerial representation of area of mudflat under current scenarios and under the scenario for the level crossing removal project. Refer to Section 5.3.11.1. Bathymetric surveys were completed on the 24 – 28 July 2017. All wetland cells within Edithvale Wetland north and south were assessed using two techniques:  A Trimble R4 rover was used to collect Top Water Level (TWL) measurements and contours of the dry wetlands and to collect pond perimeter and isolated points where boat access was not possible in wetland cells where the water was too shallow (see Plate 1). The Trimble R4 utilises the VRS Now™ (VRS) correction service which accesses real- time kinematic (RTK) corrections via a network of permanent (fixed) continuously operating reference stations.

Plate 1 – Capturing pond perimeter data in the filed using the Trimble R4

 A Teledyne Oceanscience Z-Boat 1800 (a small 1.8 metres remotely operated vessel) was used to collect bathymetry data (see Plate 2) in wetlands containing water. This vessel can determine depth profile in 20 centimetres increments provided that it has a minimum water depth of 20 – 50 centimetres of water to operate. The Z-boat uses dual frequency sonar 33/200 kHz to determine water depths. The low-frequency sonar was not used in this survey as it is better suited to deeper water than present within the wetlands at the time of survey. A GPS unit collected X, Y and Z coordinates for the boats location and a bluetooth link was used to stream the data from the Z-Boat to a shore-based computer in real time.

The Z-Boat data was RTK corrected using the Trimble R4 base station set up over a VRS measured point. The RTK corrected the X, Y and Z co-ordinates live as the data were being collected.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 23

Plate 2 – Z-Boat

Survey methods applied within each wetland cell are outlined in Table 3. Wetland cells referred to in the table related to the cells identified by SKM (2011) which are shown in Figure 9 and described in Section 5.3.2. The location of transects are shown in Appendix I.

Table 3 Bathymetric survey methods applied in each wetland cell

Wetland cell Survey methods

ES1 Z-boat survey at 20m transects in a large portion of the wetland.

Trimble R4 rover used for TWL and shallow areas where Z-boat could not be used.

EN1 Trimble R4 rover survey only

EN2 Z-boat survey at 10m transects and wetland perimeter.

Trimble R4 rover used for TWL and some random points.

EN3 Z-boat survey at 10m transects and wetland perimeter.

Trimble R4 rover used for TWL and some random points.

EN3a Z-boat survey at 10m transects in a small selection of areas.

Trimble R4 rover used for TWL and shallow areas where z-boat could not be used.

Dog Pond Z-boat survey at 10m transects and wetland perimeter.

Trimble R4 rover used for TWL and some random points.

The shallow nature of some wetland cells restricted the use of the Z-boat to undertake the surveys. Other difficulties were encountered with wifi links, boat remote controls, radio, GPS and base station effectiveness being interrupted by air traffic (the wetlands are under a flight path of Moorabbin Airport). Despite this, a good coverage of the bathymetry of the wetland cells was achieved.

24 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 3 – Z-boat in action

The collected data was then post-processed using HYPACK® hydrographic survey software to:

 tidy the data to remove duplicates and/or obviously erroneous outliers from the dataset

 develop a triangulated irregular network (TIN) model

 export the X, Y and Z co-ordinate file.

Data collected by the Trimble R4 rover were checked against a permanent survey mark (PSM) at the corner of Montrose Avenue and Edithvale Road, Edithvale to check the equipment was correctly calibrated (Table 4). The accuracy is based on the relative reduced level (RL) which is the surveyed level of a location relative to a datum that is used to reconcile heights or depths of a location (i.e. for equating elevations).

Table 4 RL for bathymetric survey

Site PSM RL

Corner of Montrose Avenue and Edithvale Road 38 1.870

Trimble R4 n/a 1.899

The bathymetry outputs were provided to the groundwater and surface water disciplines to improve the resolution of the surface water modelling (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

The use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to capture high resolution imagery (a contingency in the event that the wetlands were not at capacity at the time of survey or the Trimble R4 could not sufficiently capture bathymetric data) was not considered necessary. Existing LIDAR information was used to infill gaps in the bathymetric survey data. To prevent the introduction of pathogens such as Chytrid Fungus, works were undertaken in accordance with the Hygiene Protocol for the control of diseases in frogs (DECC, 2008).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 25

4.3.3 Aquatic fauna survey

One of the criteria for listing of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetland Ramsar Site is the habitat it provides for migratory shorebirds, in particular the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata and Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea. These species do not breed in Australia but they spend their non-breeding season foraging in Australian waters ready for their return journey to their breeding grounds in the Northern Hemisphere. The abundance of food resources is likely to be a major influence on their presence and persistence within a given area of habitat.

The primary aim of the macroinvertebrate monitoring/fauna survey therefore was to:

 identify the potential invertebrate prey for priority foraging wading birds  identify the distribution of these food resources across the wetland

 estimate their biomass or density in different sections of the wetlands. The analysis of this data included a trait-based assessment of those invertebrate taxa sensitivity to changed hydrology/salinity conditions.

An understanding of the possible hydrological and water quality impacts at the site would have allowed for an assessment to be made of the potential effect on the invertebrate community. This would have been achieved by understanding the sensitivity of the invertebrate community to ecosystem change, and potentially identifying critical environmental conditions at which the likelihood of food chain collapse is significant. Invertebrate taxa sensitivity to changed hydrology/salinity conditions would then have been overlaid with modelled hydrological/salinity changes to suggest the type and degree of impact on wading bird food resources.

Surveys were undertaken to sample macroinvertebrates (invertebrates able to be seen without a microscope) and fish. These surveys were undertaken on 21 July 2017 and 26 – 28 July 2017. Weather conditions during the site visits, as recorded at the Bureau of Meteorology Station 086077 at Moorabbin Airport, included maximum air temperatures of 15.2 degrees Celsius. Total rainfall for July 2017 was 38.2 millimetres.

The methods used to survey macroinvertebrates and fish are outlined below and the survey locations are shown in Figure 5. Habitats sampled were informed by aerial photograph interpretation and an assessment of habitat at the time of survey. The results of the survey are detailed in Appendix G and are drawn upon in relevant sections of this report. The number and location of macroinvertebrate and fish surveys (and also the water quality sampling points referred to in Section 4.3.4) as they relate to the wetland cells is provided in Table 5.

26 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Table 5 Macroinvertebrate and fish survey and water quality sampling in each wetland cell

Wetland cell Fish survey point Macroinvertebrate Water quality sample survey point point

Edithvale north

EN1 NF9

EN2 NF1 NM1 WQ2

NF2 NM2

NF3

EN3 NF4 NM3 WG3

NF5 NM4

NF6 NM5

NM6

NM7

EN3a NF7 NM9 WQ4

NF8 NM11

Dog Pond NF10 NM8 WQ5

Edithvale south

ES1 SF1 SM1 WQ1

SF2 SM2

SF3 SM3

SF4 SM4

SF5 SM5

SF6

SF7

To prevent the introduction of pathogens such as Chytrid Fungus, works were undertaken in accordance with the Hygiene Protocol for the control of diseases in frogs (DECC, 2008).

The outcomes of these surveys were supplemented by historic survey data as the timing of the surveys was not ideal for accurately determining the presence of all species, with some dormant or difficult to detect in the cooler months. Rates of detection are widely accepted to be higher during spring and summer when fauna is typically more active, ecosystems more productive and migratory shorebirds are present.

Macroinvertebrate survey

Sixteen sites were sampled for macroinvertebrates. The locations of sampling sites are shown in Figure 5 below.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 27

Two methods were used to target macroinvertebrates living on and within the sediments of the wetland; sweep sampling and composite shallow-sediment core sampling. Sweep samples are effective for collecting invertebrates living on and above the sediment (Baldwin et al. 2005, Chessman et al. 2001) and shallow sediment cores are suitable for collecting burrowing invertebrates (Baldwin et al. 2005; Morris et al. 2017). Sampling was stratified across available habitat types and wetland cells (see Figure 5 and Table 5). Macroinvertebrates were collected from edge habitats using sweep nets. Samples were collected by sweeping the net through the water column and above the substrate, ensuring that the substrate was sufficiently disturbed so bottom dwelling macroinvertebrates were suspended in the water column and collected in the net. Open water habitats, submerged aquatic vegetation, emergent aquatic vegetation and bare edge habitats were sampled in a similar manner. Each sample comprised a consolidated 10 metres of habitat, although the distance was not always continuous to ensure the microhabitats sampled were representative of the site. One sweep sample was collected per site using a 250 micrometres aperture mesh sweep net with a 30 x 30 centimetre opening. Following collection, the macroinvertebrate samples were live-picked in the field. The overall aim of the live pick procedure was to represent the available potential food sources for wading birds, and to collect as many different families as possible to provide an overview of the aquatic invertebrate assemblage. During field sampling, the presence of microcrustacean zooplankton became obvious as a major component of the invertebrate biomass. The abundance of zooplankton collected in each sweep sample was estimated in the field using the ACFOR scale (abundant, common, frequent, occasional, rare). This subjective method was used to characterise the trophic status and food web complexity in each wetland cell. A small subsample of zooplankton (less than 50 individuals) from each sample was retained to identify the major microcrustacea groups. The purpose of the zooplankton sample was to characterise the ecosystem, and is not intended as a qualitative measure of biomass or diversity.

At each site five core samples were collected by inserting a PVC pipe (50 millimetres diameter) into the substrate to a depth of approximately 50 millimetres from randomly selected locations. The five replicates were combined to form a single consolidated sample for each site and preserved in 70 percent ethanol.

On return to the laboratory, the samples were processed under a stereo microscope, using current published taxonomy (Hawking 2000). Individuals were identified to family level taxonomic resolution with the following exceptions: Chironomidae (midge fly larvae) were identified to sub-family level; Oligochaeta (worms), Ostracod (seed shrimp) and Acarina (mites) were identified to class level, Copepods were identified to order level. Sample details were entered into the GHD macroinvertebrate database and given a unique LIMS number to ensure accurate identification and tracking.

Fish survey

The survey of fish populations in Edithvale Wetland used a number of techniques that are discussed below. The specific technique/s used at each survey location was dependent on several factors including the salinity of the water, water depth and safe access. The fish surveys techniques adopted for each site are listed in Table 6 and shown in Figure 5.

Table 6 Fish survey techniques

Area of Edithvale Wetland cell Fish survey Fish survey technique Wetland point

Edithvale North EN2 NF1 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, dip netting

28 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Area of Edithvale Wetland cell Fish survey Fish survey technique Wetland point

NF2 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, dip netting

NF3 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, dip netting

EN3 NF4 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, dip netting

NF5 2 fyke nets, 3 bait traps, dip netting

NF6 2 fyke nets, 3 bait traps, electrofishing, dip netting

EN3a NF7 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, electrofishing, dip netting

NF8 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, electrofishing, dip netting

EN1 NF9 seine net, dip netting

Dog Pond NF10 dry

Edithvale South ES1 SF1 2 fyke nets, 3 Bait traps, electrofishing, dip netting

SF2 2 fyke nets, 3 bait traps, electrofishing, dip netting

SF3 1 fyke net, 3 bait traps, electrofishing, dip netting

SF4 dip netting

SF5 dip netting

SF6 dip netting

SF7 dip netting

Back-pack electrofishing was completed by suitably experienced senior operators using a Smith-Root LR-20B backpack electrofisher. Where possible, electrofishing was conducted along a minimum 200 metre long transect at each location (up to 500 metres), focussing on all representative microhabitats. In some cases the transect was not continuous to ensure that all microhabitats were surveyed. Effort (pulse time on), voltage and frequency settings was recorded for each location.

Double-winged fyke nets with a four millimetre aperture mesh were deployed in areas where access allowed. Nets were set in the afternoon/early evening and retrieved the following day. The cod ends of the Fyke nets were secured above the water to ensure any air-breathing animals (e.g. freshwater turtles, if present) were able to breathe if collected. Foam floats were placed into each of the nets to further ensure adequate breathing space. A minimum of three baited box-traps (two millimetre mesh with entrance funnels of 40 millimetres) were set in close vicinity to each Fyke net over the same time-period.

A seine net was hauled through the water by two aquatic ecologists ensuring that all representative habitats were monitored. The seine net was 10 metres long with a mesh size of four millimetres.

Dip netting was undertaken using a 250 micrometre aperture mesh sweep net with a 30 x 30 centimetre opening. Areas with suitable aquatic micro-habitats, including submerged or emergent vegetation were sampled. The dip netting was undertaken either in conjunction with the electrofishing surveys, or in conjunction with, but separately to, the macroinvertebrate surveys.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 29

All individual fish were identified in the field, enumerated and returned at the point of capture. Exotic fish species (e.g. Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki) were euthanized in the field in accordance with Animal Ethics Committee and Research Authority guidelines. The surveys of fish communities occurred in accordance with the stipulations outlined in research permits and Standard Operating Procedures held by GHD:  Fisheries Act 1995 General Research Permit No. RP1096 (Expiry 28/09/2018)

 Permit to Take Protected Fish / Research Permit No. 10007730 (Expiry 30/09/2018)

 Scientific Procedures Fieldwork Licence No. SPFL20067 (Expiry 30/06/2021)

 GHD Animal Ethics Committee and Research Authority  Melbourne Water Permit to Work recipient authorisation

 Australian Code of Electrofishing Practice (SCFFA, 1997)

 GHD’s Fauna Survey Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

Dwarf Galaxias targeted surveys

Ecology Australia (2016) suggested that due to the disconnection of the Edithvale Wetlands from their natural catchments and high salinity in some wetland cells, there was a low likelihood that the EPBC Act listed Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla would be present. However, Ecology Australia (2016) acknowledged that there were no survey data available for the Edithvale Wetlands to validate this proposal. Earlier, SKM (2011) recommended targeted surveys for the species as a management action. Therefore, in addition to the fish community surveys within the wetland cells, a targeted survey for Dwarf Galaxias was carried out in areas containing suitable habitat for this species.

Dwarf Galaxias inhabit slow flowing, typically shallow permanent and semi-permanent waterbodies (Allen et al. 2002). This includes drains, wetlands and the backwaters of streams and creeks. Water bodies typically have a dense cover of macrophytes (Cadwallader & Backhouse, 1983). A key aspect of ephemeral habitat appears to be the presence of burrowing crayfish with burrows forming refuge in dry conditions (Beck, 1985; McDowell, 1996; Coleman et. al., 2016). Linkages to other more permanent water and the presence of suitable prey are also important with the species diet consisting predominately of micro and macro invertebrates (Saddlier et al 2010).

Targeted surveys for Dwarf Galaxias involved both electrofishing and/or dip netting. Dwarf Galaxias surveys were carried out with reference to state and federal survey guidelines for the species.

Frogs

Amphibians collected as part of fish or macroinvertebrate surveys were identified and recorded. Adult frogs were also identified through call recognition at the time of other surveys. Active searching or night time surveys were not undertaken.

The macroinvertebrate and fish surveys were undertaken outside the active calling period of many species. However, general observations by BirdLife Australia during monthly bird surveys throughout the year (and therefore across all seasons) were also referenced.

30 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 5 Aquatic fauna survey locations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 31

4.3.4 Surface water quality sampling

Surface waters were sampled to provide a comparison of the underlying groundwater and the exposed surface water of the various wetland cells. This sampling also allowed the relationship between groundwater and surface water of each cell to be determined through assessment of ionic balances and comparison of chemical signatures (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

In situ surface water recordings of temperature (degrees Celsius), dissolved oxygen (milligrams per litre), percentage saturation of dissolved oxygen (percentage), pH, electrical conductivity (microSiemans per centimetre), turbidity (Nephelometric Turbidity Unit) and alkalinity (milligrams per litre) were made at a single location in Edithvale South (SM1) and within each wetland cell in Edithvale North in July 2017. These samples were taken at macroinvertebrate survey locations SM1, NM2, NM3, NM8 and NM11 shown in Figure 5. The wetland cell associated with each of these locations is explained in Table 5 above. Recordings of temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH and electrical conductivity were made using a WTW Multi 3430 water quality probe and turbidity using a Merc Turbiquant 1100IR turbidity meter. All water quality probes were calibrated daily as per manufacturer’s instructions and recommendations. Alkalinity was assessed using a HACH Alkalinity Titration Kit. Water quality of wetlands can be highly variable on very short time periods and the in situ recordings represent a snap-shot of conditions at the time of the survey only.

4.3.5 BirdLife Australia bird survey data

BirdLife Australia data obtained for the study area was interrogated to determine species diversity and abundance and period/timing of occupancy of the key GDEs in the study area. Analysis focused on Edithvale Wetland and the key species of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata, Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea, Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus and Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii.

Other species of interest included those species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act (but observed in lesser numbers), listed under the FFG Act and listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered under the VROT advisory list (DEPI 2013b).

BirdLife data was extracted in two parts:

 Edithvale Wetlands.

 The wider study area excluding Edithvale Wetland. This incorporated sites such as the riparian zone of the Patterson River, the Wannarkladdin Wetlands, and various parklands including Edithvale Common.

Within the Edithvale wetland, bird survey data dates back to October 1987, although formal monthly surveys by BirdLife Australia (on behalf of Melbourne Water) did not commence until September 1989. Surveys completed prior to September 1989 were assigned to Edithvale Wetland with no further reference to location. Surveys from September 1989 divided the wetlands into the designations of North and South and from January 2005 the wetland was broken into eight defined zones (see Figure 9). Although all records were assigned latitude and longitude, these values were not specific to individual observations of species; the latitude longitude was based on the location/zone the observation was attributed to. Records used in this assessment are based on the most recent survey prior to the data extract on 21 July 2017. While the BirdLife Australia surveys are ongoing, bird count data after this date are not documented in this report.

Surveys at Edithvale Wetland have been completed by BirdLife Australia on a routine basis and have followed the same approach for over 20 years. Surveys have been undertaken by a minimum of two observers on each occasion. Bird surveys completed were diurnal. It is

32 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

acknowledged that due to timing and methods of observation surveys are likely to have a bias toward recording diurnal species that occur in exposed habitats over more cryptic species that utilise closed habitats or species that are considered nocturnal. Furthermore it is important to note that these data should be interpreted as comparable relative information and not as a definitive estimate of the total number of birds present (Silcocks, 2017). Outside of the Edithvale Wetland bird survey data dates back to February 1999. This data is assigned to the categories of general bird data, Shorebirds 2020 data and Birds in Backyards. This data set is less comprehensive but is still useful, being based on 6788 separate records. A limitation is that details on the methods of survey are unknown. Records analysed span from February 1999 until June 2017.

Data was analysed separately for each of the GDE areas identified above. Analysis was most detailed for key species identified during the existing ecological conditions assessment. For key species a maximum count was calculated for 1 July to 30 June – though the period of visitation (typically August to March) was of primary concern. This count was based on the highest single count across a given non-breeding period. Where data was attributed a location and multiple counts of the species were taken on the same day they were added together to derive an overall total. However, where counts occurred across different locations but also across multiple days they were discarded. This was done to compensate for the fact that birds are likely to move between locations (especially if disturbed) and double counting of individuals may occur. Even so, the rate of migration and immigration between non-breeding habitats is unknown and it is acknowledged that any such movement could vary considerably from year to year.

Total bird counts were also derived from the data. The total counts reflect the total number of birds observed over the observation period but does not reflect the actual number of individual birds (and may be affected by double counting of some individuals). Total count is used to indicate the relative abundance of each of the species based on how many observations there were over the duration of the monitored period.

To investigate whether there was a correlation between bird numbers, rainfall and water level in the wetlands, the maximum count for Sharp-tailed Sandpipers was plotted against rainfall and water level data. Climate data was available dating back to 1950 (SILO Data station 86210 Bonbeach (Carrum)). The climate data was cut to align with available bird count data. Correlations between temperature and evaporation data were also considered however when plotted, did not show any obvious correlations. Water level data was collected as part of the monthly bird monitoring program with data supplied spanning from July 2011 to July 2017.

A figure series was also developed plotting bird records at the wetlands in each of the eight defined bird survey zones. This figure series plotted number of observation and abundance (total count) as a percentage (of overall observations/abundance for that species) independently across zones. This was not able to be done for data pre January 2005. To determine risk and potential impacts, bird count data was also analysed in conjunction with bathymetry, water quality, climate data (such as rainfall and temperature), habitat area and seasonal hydrology (surface water modelling).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 33

4.3.6 Targeted surveys for threatened/migratory species

The need for targeted survey was considered in response to the EES Scoping Requirements which requested details of the scope, timing and method for studies or surveys used to provide information on the ecological values (including listed threatened and migratory species) to be outlined. For those species identified with a moderate or greater likelihood of occurrence in the study area, consideration was given to national survey guidelines (DEWHA, 2010; DoEE, 2017a; 2017c.

Flora and fauna investigations and management plans as previously completed by BirdLife Australia (Silcocks, 2017), Ecology Australia (2016) and SKM (2011) were reviewed to inform an assessment of species likelihood and status in the study area.

Targeted surveys were undertaken where suitable data had not already been gathered. On this basis, targeted survey was undertaken for Dwarf Galaxias (refer to Section 4.3.3 above). Habitat assessments were completed for Grey-headed Flying Fox commensurate with national survey guidelines (DEWHA, 2010). These assessments informed the assessment of species likelihood. Incidental records of significant flora were undertaken as part of the vegetation assessment (refer to Section 4.3.7).

For species that could not be targeted within project timeframes, habitat requirements were compared to existing conditions of the study area and a precautionary approach taken to their likelihood of occurrence. This approach is reflected in the outcomes of Section 5.

4.3.7 Vegetation assessment Vegetation assessments were undertaken in July 2017 to establish a baseline of vegetation extent and condition in order to enable change in vegetation (and therefore habitat) quality and extent in response to hydrological changes to be determined in the event that such changes (particularly flooding) were predicted to occur.

Much work has already been done to understand the ecological values of the Ramsar site, and this includes detailed mapping of the distribution of EVCs at Edithvale Wetland (Ecology Australia, 2016). The quality of the vegetation has also been assessed, applying the Index of Wetland Condition (IWC) assessment approach (Australia Ecosystems, 2016).

Whilst it is not recognised as an ideal monitoring tool, particularly in wetland environments, the application of the habitat hectares method through a Vegetation Quality Assessment (VQA) is necessary to allow for changes to, or losses of, EVCs extent or quality to be quantified in a manner that facilitates the application of the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP, 2017a). Further, the application of this method is necessary in order to inform the quantum of offsets that may have been required should impacts have been realised. The IWC cannot provide this information. The field assessment of the vegetation of Edithvale Wetland was conducted on 21 and 26 July 2017 and included:

 mapping native vegetation according to DELWP (2017a) with reference to recent EVC mapping by Australian Ecosystems documented in Ecology Australia (2016)  conducting habitat hectare assessments of native vegetation patches, according to the VQA Manual (DSE, 2004) and with reference to the DELWP benchmarks for wetland EVCs (DELWP 2016c).

 identifying any threatened flora species or communities present or considered likely to be present within the investigation area

34 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

 collecting an inventory of incidental observations of both native and non-native flora species encountered during the field assessment, together with conservation status, origin and weed status. It is recognised that the VQA occurred outside the preferred spring survey period of flora surveys (DSE, 2010). There is some potential that the survey may have missed some species or life form components of the more diverse EVCs such as Aquatic Herbland, Given the comparatively small extent of these EVCs at the site, the limitation of this on the VQA is considered to be minimal. For those species-poor EVCs such as Tall Marsh the risk of out-of- season survey is negligible. In the event that a potential impact to the wetland was predicted (Section 7), detailed mapping of vegetation distribution would have been related to a theoretical extent of inundation determined by the surface water model (drawing on the outcomes of the bathymetric survey) predicting changes to water depths within each wetland cell. This in turn would have identified:

 change in the extent of physical habitat for waterbirds which is considered by Ecology Australia (2016) to be a ‘Critical Ecosystem Component’ of the Edithvale wetland  change in the extent of native vegetation as an indirect consequence of the level crossing removals that would be included in the accounting for native vegetation removal as part of the EES process.

Flora species listed under the advisory list of rare and threatened plants in Victoria (DEPI, 2014) would be considered in native vegetation offsets in the event of an impact being identified through the application of the the Guidelines (DELWP, 2017a).

4.3.8 Climate data

Climate data was obtained in order to gain an understanding of whether seasonal variation in the abundance and diversity of key bird species at the Edithvale Wetland is influenced by rainfall and temperature.

Climate data from the Bureau of Meteorology (SILO data at station 86210 Bonbeach Carrum) obtained during hydrology and groundwater investigations have been used to ensure consistency and accuracy of the data.

Climate data were compared against bird diversity/abundance data (Section 4.3.5) to determine its relative importance and role in maintaining ecological values at the wetlands.

Climate data was utilised by the surface water modelling in predicting changes to surface water levels within the wetlands (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

4.3.9 Climate change The potential influence of climate change on the future hydrological regime at the wetland was assessed by the groundwater model and surface water model as part of the hydrological assessment (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

The vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the Edithvale Wetland to predicted climate change has been considered in a Decision Support Framework prepared by Jacobs (2016). A summary of this assessment is provided in Section 5.4.5. On this basis, a literature review on the potential effects of climate change on wetlands was not considered necessary.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 35

4.4 Risk assessment

A risk-based approach is integral to the EES as required by Section 3 of the Scoping Requirements for the EES.

The risk management approach adopted for the Edithvale and Bonbeach EES is consistent with AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management Process and involves the following steps:  establishment of the context of the risk assessment – this identifies the boundaries of the project including the project definition, the duration of construction and operation, the design and environmental controls that would be in place (initial Environmental Performance Requirements (EPRs) – refer to Section 8), and the location of the projects

 risk identification – identification of risk pathways by specialists in each relevant discipline area  risk analysis – assessment of risk for each risk pathway, whereby risk is a combination of:

– the likelihood of an event and its associated consequences occurring

– the magnitude of potential consequences of the event.  risk evaluation – review key risks posed by the projects to focus effort in terms of impact assessment and mitigation.

 risk treatment – identification of additional management and mitigation where required to reduce risk levels where possible.

An initial risk assessment was undertaken to assess potential risks to the environment arising from the implementation of the projects. Where risks were minor or above, further mitigation was explored. Risks were re-assessed to determine the residual risk based on further mitigation.

A more detailed description of each step in the risk assessment process is provided in EES Attachment II Environmental risk report.

This technical report describes the risks associated with the projects on wetland and GDEs.

4.5 Environmental Performance Requirements The environmental outcomes that must be achieved during design, construction and operation of the projects are referred to throughout the EES as Environmental Performance Requirements (EPRs). EPRs must be achieved regardless of the construction methodology or design solutions adopted. Measures identified in this EES to avoid, reduce or manage environmental impacts have formed part of the recommended EPRs for the projects.

The development of a final set of EPRs for the project has been iterative.

4.5.1 Initial EPRs Environmental performance requirements were identified to inform the assessment of initial risk ratings (where appropriate). These initial EPRs were based on compliance with legislation and standard requirements that are typically incorporated into the delivery of construction contracts for rail projects.

The risk assessment either confirmed that these EPRs were adequate or identified the need for further refinement of EPRs.

36 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

4.5.2 Amend or refine EPRs

EPRs were amended or refined or new EPRs were developed for any initial risk that could not be appropriately managed by standard requirements. The risk and impact assessment processes confirmed the effectiveness of new or amended EPRs to determine the residual risk rating.

4.5.3 Final EPRs The EPRs recommended for the project are outlined in Section 8 of this report and are included in the EES Environmental Management Framework. The EPRs are applicable to the final design, construction approach and operation and provide certainty regarding the environmental performance of the projects.

4.6 Independent peer review

Ecology Australia was engaged to independently review the impact assessment of wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs). In particular, the review was to assess the design and adequacy of the wetlands and GDEs technical assessment to identify and assess the potential environmental effects of the projects, and address the DELWP scoping requirements (prepared by DELWP for the EES. The peer reviewer assessment is provided in Appendix K.

4.7 Linkage to other technical reports

This report relies on, or informs the following technical assessments:

 EES Technical Report A Groundwater

 EES Technical Report C Acid Sulfate Soils and Contamination

 EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas

 EES Technical Report E Surface Water

 EES Technical Report I Air Quality

 EES Technical Report H Noise and Vibration

 EES Technical Report J Landscape and Visual

 EES Attachment II Environmental Risk Report

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 37

5. Existing conditions

The study area is within the established residential suburbs of Aspendale, Aspendale Gardens, Edithvale, Chelsea, Chelsea Heights and Bonbeach (Figure 3). As such, it is dominated by residential properties interspersed with areas of open space including the coastal reserve, recreation reserves, sports ovals and golf courses. As this investigation is related to the potential impacts of groundwater change, only those features within the study area that are related to groundwater are described in detail below. Details of the database outputs are provided in Appendix A and incorporated where relevant in the outline of existing conditions and, later on, in the risk and impact assessment sections of this report. The overview and details provided by the numerous field assessments are drawn upon to provide the description of existing conditions of GDEs in this chapter. The specific results of many of those assessments are provided as appendices where relevant – Appendix G (aquatic fauna survey) and Appendix H (vegetation assessment). This section incorporates discussion of MNES of relevance to the GDE study area for the level crossing projects where relevant. These are Ramsar wetlands, threatened species, threatened ecological communities and listed migratory species. Impact on MNES associated with the project areas is appraised in EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

5.1 GDEs in the study area

A number of potential GDEs were modelled to occur within the study area (Figure 6 to Figure 8). These include:

 GDEs that rely on surface expression of groundwater: wetlands and rivers

 GDEs that rely on the availability of water beneath the surface (subsurface): terrestrial vegetation

The outcomes of the database searches are provided separately in Appendix A and then collated into a combined list of GDEs in Table 7. The ecological values of those GDEs are described in Section 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.

Table 7 GDEs within the project area

Name Summary of known values/key references

Edithvale Wetland (part of the Edithvale-Seaford Internationally important wetland complex. Wetlands Ramsar Site) Refer to Section 5.3.

Management plan (Ecology Australia 2016).

Wannarkladdin Wetlands Part of the Carrum Important Bird Area (IBA) program led by BirdLife Australia.

Surveyed by BirdLife Australia since 2013.

Managed by Melbourne Water.

Part of a broader complex of wetlands (in conjunction with Edithvale Wetland and Edithvale Common).

Refer to Section 5.4.

Area south of Edithvale wetland (unnamed) Currently being developed. Not considered further.

38 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Name Summary of known values/key references

Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve Native vegetation.

Refer to Section 5.5.1.

Edithvale Common Recreation reserve.

Two wetland cells are included as part of Edithvale Wetland by SKM (2011) but outside the Ramsar site boundary.

Part of a broader complex of wetlands (in conjunction with Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands)

Refer to Section 5.5.2.

Rossdale Golf Course Open fairways, water hazards and planted vegetation.

Refer to Section 5.5.5.

Chelsea Bicentennial Park Recreation reserve with open expanses pasture grasses, planted vegetation and pathways.

Refer to Section 5.5.6.

Beazley Reserve, Chelsea Heights Recreation reserve with baseball pitch and planted vegetation

Refer to Section 5.5.6.

Centre Main Drain (also referred to as Centre Shallow open drain over pipe. Swamp Drain, Carrum Swamp Drain, Carrum Refer to Section 5.5.4. Lowlands Drain)

Patterson River Artificial waterway.

Riparian patches of native vegetation.

Refer to Section 5.5.3.

Patterson River Golf Course Open fairways, water hazards and planted vegetation.

Refer to Section 5.5.5.

Residential areas Small areas of residential back yards and nature strips.

Section 5.5.7.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 39

Figure 6 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the study area – overview

40 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 7 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the study area – north

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 41

Figure 8 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems in the study area - south

42 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.2 High value GDEs

The ministerial guidelines for groundwater licensing and protection (Victorian Government, 2015) consider that: “High value ecosystems” means those ecosystems that are recognised by State and National Governments as being significant for the environmental values; including but not limited to: (a) Ramsar listed wetlands as identified in the Australian Wetlands database of the Commonwealth Government wetlands listed in the Directory of Important wetlands in Australia of the Commonwealth Government. (b) Heritage river areas under Schedule 1 of the Heritage Rivers Act

(c) species and communities listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 of the Victorian Government or the Environment Protection and Biodiversity [Conservation] Act 1999 of the Commonwealth Government

(d) Priority environmental values set by the waterway managers. Including those identified in Regional Waterway Strategies (ore previously, Regional River Health Strategies) or their relevant sub-strategies.

Based on these criteria, the following GDEs are considered to be high value and warrant further consideration in the impact assessment for the level crossing removals:

1. Edithvale Wetland (Ramsar listed, species and communities listed under the FFG Act and EPBC Act). Refer to Section 5.3.

2. Wannarkladdin Wetland (species and communities listed under the FFG Act and EPBC Act). Refer to Section 5.4.

5.3 Edithvale Wetland (part of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands)

5.3.1 Overview The Edithvale Wetland is one of two wetlands which form the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands, a site recognised as:

 a wetland of national importance in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (DoEE, 2017d).

 a wetland of international importance listed under the Ramsar convention in 2001

 a MNES under the EPBC Act (by virtue of the Ramsar listing)

 a site recognised to be internationally important for shorebird conservation in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway (EAAF) (Bamford et al. 2008)

 part of the Carrum Important Bird Area (IBA) program led by BirdLife Australia  a site of State and International Treaty Zoological Significance in the southeast of Melbourne and Mornington Peninsula by DSE (2004) cited in Ecology Australia (2016)

 identified as a high value site of biodiversity significance by Melbourne Water (Melbourne Water 2013)  an area of environmental significance subject to an Environmental Significance Overlay under the Kingston Planning Scheme.

The Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are remnants of what was once the Carrum Carrum Swamp, a shallow freshwater swamp that was largely drained in the late nineteenth century (DSE, 2012, Hale and Butcher, 2017). The wetlands are highly modified and form part of a regional drainage

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 43

system for stormwater. The Ramsar site is also used for conservation, recreation and education with the Edithvale-Seaford Wetland Education Centre established at Edithvale in recognition of this value. The Ramsar site also provides open space that is highly valued by the local communities (DSE, 2012).

Edithvale Wetland covers 103 hectares and has 39 hectares of wetland habitat (DSE, 2012). The wetland is a combination of natural and excavated depressions to the north and south of Edithvale Road. Edithvale South was historically farmed for dairy cattle (KBR, 2009a). In 1974 the Dandenong Valley Authority (DVA) decided to protect Edithvale Wetland due to its flood storage value (KBR 2009a). Seaford Wetland covers 158 hectares and has 93 hectares of wetland habitat (DSE 2012). Seaford Wetland was earlier used as a low-lying market garden, dairy farm and horse paddock (KBR, 2009a). The City of Frankston and the Dandenong Valley Authority progressively purchased the Seaford Swamp area between 1973 and 1987 (KBR 2009a).

Parts of both Edithvale and Seaford wetlands were excavated to create additional wetland and lake areas in 1987–88 (KBR, 2009a). The Edithvale and Seaford wetlands are two discrete wetland systems which are physically distinct and hydrologically and hydrogeologically separated (EES Technical Report A Groundwater). As the Seaford Wetland is not expected to be impacted by the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removals, the focus of this report is on the Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands.

Edithvale Wetland is owned and managed by Melbourne Water. Management of the site is guided by a management plan which is to be updated every seven years in accordance with the Australian Ramsar management principles set out in Schedule 6 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000. The current Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan will guide management until 2023 (Ecology Australia, 2016).

Different entities interested in the management of the Edithvale Wetland have variously divided it into a number of units (or ‘cells’) in order to inform management of the site (Figure 9). On the broadest scale, Edithvale Road divides the wetlands into northern and southern cells. These cells were determined by GHD in 2006 and will be referred to in this report for consistency. SKM (2011) subsequently referred to those cells with slight revisions and also added in cells for Edithvale Common, which is outside (but adjacent to) the Ramsar site. BirdLife Australia subsequently also divided Edithvale Wetland into zones for bird monitoring. Some of these zones contain multiple cells. These zones have been overlaid with the cells in Figure 9.

The ecological values of the Edithvale Wetland have been well documented (SKM 2011; DSE, 2012; Ecology Australia, 2016; Hale and Butcher, 2017) and include:

 A diversity of habitat for a range of flora and fauna species.  Potential habitat for flora species of conservation significance.

 High diversity of significant birds, in particular

– Fourteen of 37 migratory shorebirds listed under international migratory agreements. – Two wetland dependent fauna species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act that are regularly supported by the site:

- Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus – Endangered

- Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea – Critically Endangered.

44 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

– Counts above one percent of the estimated population of two species are regularly recorded within the site: Australasian Bittern and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata. – Important habitat for Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii as defined under the EPBC Act (DEWHA 2009) having exceeded the threshold of 18 individuals of the species.  Native vegetation representing eight Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs): Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 3), Swamp Scrub (EVC 53), Brackish Aquatic Herbland (EVC 537), Brackish Herbland (EVC 538), Plains Sedgy Wetland (EVC 647), Aquatic Herbland (EVC 653), Brackish Wetland Aggregate (EVC 656) and Tall Marsh (EVC 821).  Function as an essential component of the regional drainage system and as critical flood storage. Given the availability of this information, it is not the role of this report to provide a comprehensive description of the site. Instead, it summarises the relevant conservation values (i.e. Ramsar listing and therefore protection under the EPBC Act, ecological character description, limits of acceptable change), existing ecological values and threats relevant to the potential risks presented by the level crossing removal project. In particular, the report draws upon information available in existing reports and databases, and the results of surveys undertaken as part of the EES. The values are described collectively below for the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands except where it is possible to make the distinction and be specific in relation to Edithvale Wetland.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 45 Figure 9 Overview map of Edithvale Wetland (including Edithvale Common)

46 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.3.2 Wetland cell descriptions

This section provides a brief description of the wetland cells within Edithvale Wetland (refer to Figure 9). It includes reference to the BirdLife Australia monitoring zones, the vegetation and habitat features, key threatened and/or migratory bird species recorded within the cell and the water source and water regime as identified by SKM (2011) and/or Ecology Australia (2016). The series of smaller sediment trap ponds and drainage lines along the eastern and western edge of the wetlands are not described. Although these features may provide occasional habitat for the significant species that utilise the wetlands cells themselves, most are ephemeral in nature, and of poorer habitat quality than the cells themselves. Refer also to EES Technical Report A Groundwater for the most recent information pertaining to the hydrology of the wetland cells.

5.3.2.1 Edithvale north The wetland cells of Edithvale Wetland north and associated habitat values are depicted in a conceptual model presented in Figure 10. It provides an overview of cell habitat features, key fauna species and indicative levels of groundwater interaction. The conceptual model does not represent an accurate cross section but rather a series of discrete individual cross sections based on the deepest point of each individual cell. These cross sections were then placed in sequence from north to south. In actuality, there is a degree of connectivity between some cells (refer to Figure 9).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 47 Ecosystems 48 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent

Figure 10 Edithvale Wetland north

Edithvale North 1 Description

Wetland cell EN1

(from SKM 2011)

Zone Zone 5

(BirdLife Australia monitoring)

Vegetation/habitat Fresh-brackish

(from SKM 2011, Ecology Shallow peat-lined cell with concentric marsh zones and an island in Australia 2016, current the centre. assessment) Supports heavy growth of Salt Club-sedge Bolboschoenus caldwellii in late summer and autumn.

Extensive and dense beds of Tall Marsh dominated by tall emergent Common Reed Phragmites australis and/or Cumbungi Typha sp. with a small area of open water. Also likely to be some submerged/weakly emergent vegetation when inundated and potential for mudflat areas during drawdown phase.

Potential also for small areas of open water in centre.

Water source Mostly from ES1 via a siphon crest in ES1 and culvert under Edithvale Road (from SKM 2011) Weir 5 from Centre Main drain

Groundwater discharge

Water regime Winter and spring inundation

(from SKM 2011 and/or Drying in summer and autumn Ecology Australia 2016) Dry out every year, but residual pool in autumn after wet summers

Moist areas in dry periods (maintained by groundwater)

Discharges to EN2 at Weir 1

Key/priority species Australasian Bittern

Baillon’s Crake

Photos

(July 2017)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 49

Edithvale North 2 Description

Wetland cell EN2

(from SKM 2011)

Zone Zone 7

(BirdLife Australia monitoring)

Vegetation/habitat Saline

(from SKM 2011, Ecology Constructed in the former floodplain of Carrum Carrum Swamp. Australia, current assessment) Large area of open water surrounded by Tall Marsh, particularly on western side. Presume also has submerged/weakly emergent vegetation. Firm base with some organic detritus ~20cm thick.

Deep, permanent pond.

Water source From EN1 at Weir 1

(from SKM 2011) Groundwater discharge

Water regime Draws down over summer.

(from SKM 2011 and/or A series of weirs between EN3, EN3a and EN2 limit the total Ecology Australia 2016) drawdown under prolonged dry or drought conditions.

Connected to groundwater. Response to groundwater in summer is controlled by area saturation and drawdown to invert low flow pipe in Centre Main Drain floodway to the south.

Maintains permanent water.

Suggestion that ranges in depth from empty to more than 2 m.

Discharges to EN3 at Weir 2 but is dependent on ponded level in EN3.

Excess flows can be directed to the Dog Pond via a high level overflow channel.

Key/priority species Australasian Bittern

Latham’s Snipe

Blue-billed Duck

Freckled Duck

Hardhead

Musk Duck

Magpie Goose

Great Egret

50 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Edithvale North 2 Description

Photos

(July 2017)

Edithvale North 3

Wetland cell EN3

(from SKM 2011)

Zone Zone 7

(BirdLife Australia monitoring)

Vegetation/habitat Fresh-brackish

(from SKM 2011, Ecology Large expanse of open water fringed with Tall Marsh and a smaller Australia, current assessment) area of Brackish Wetland Aggregate/ unvegetated (open water/bare soil/mud).

Water source From EN2 at Weir 2

(from SKM 2011) From EN3-a via Weir 3

From EN4 via Weir 3

Groundwater

Water regime Permanent deep water

(from SKM 2011 and/or Responsive to groundwater Ecology Australia 2016) Deep pool that draws down in dry periods.

Occasionally filled from subdivision stormwater and overflow from

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 51

Edithvale North 3

EN1 and EN2 in summer.

Discharges to Centre Swamp Drain via a high level overflow channel

Key/priority species Australasian Bittern

Latham’s Snipe

Blue-billed Duck

Freckled Duck

Hardhead

Musk Duck

Magpie Goose

Australasian Shoveler

Great Egret

Photos

(July 2017)

Edithvale North 3a

Wetland cell EN3a

(from SKM 2011)

52 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Edithvale North 3a

Zone Zone 7

(BirdLife Australia monitoring)

Vegetation/habitat Fresh water

(from SKM 2011, Ecology Habitat for ducks and Australasian Bittern Australia, current assessment) Complex vegetation mosaic within relatively small area of Edithvale wetland. Dense beds of tall emergent vegetation with some areas of open water and presumably submerged/weakly emergent vegetation. Potential for areas of permanent open water. Is fresher water than in EN3. Small areas of Estuarine or Swamp Scrub and Brackish Wetland. Cumbungi is present.

Water source Stormwater

(from SKM 2011)

Water regime Deep pool – sedimentation basin

(from SKM 2011 and/or Dries out depending on inflows vs evaporation. Ecology Australia 2016) Filling of pond generally only occurs in July-October.

Water levels are responsive to groundwater.

Key/priority species Australasian Bittern

Latham’s Snipe

Blue-billed Duck

Freckled Duck

Hardhead

Musk Duck

Magpie Goose

Australasian Shoveler

Great Egret

Photo

(July 2017)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 53 Edithvale North – Dog Pond

Wetland cell Dog pond

(from SKM 2011)

Zone Zone 8

(BirdLife Australia monitoring)

Vegetation/habitat Hyper saline (almost sea water)

(from SKM 2011, Ecology Within Ramsar site boundary but outside the fence around Edithvale Australia, current assessment) Wetland. Accessible to the public from Edithvale Common and the share use pathway. This pond is fenced out of the main area as Melbourne Water designated this area for dogs to swim and play in to reduce disturbance of wildlife elsewhere Edithvale Wetland.

Constructed within the former floodplain.

Deep pond reaching into the sandy substrates underlying the area.

Water source From overflow on EN2 via a high level overflow channel

(from SKM 2011) Water level is controlled by groundwater

Water regime From overflow on EN2

(from SKM 2011 and/or Deep pool. Ecology Australia 2016) Groundwater fed. Relies on inflows from EN2 for water levels to be above the standing groundwater height.

Key/priority species No threatened species are noted to use this location in significant numbers. Species recorded include Latham’s Snipe

Photo

(July 2017)

54 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.3.2.1 Edithvale south Edithvale Wetland south and its associated habitat values are depicted in Figure 11 and summarised below. Figure 11 provides an overview of cell habitat features, key fauna species and indicative levels of groundwater interaction. The southern portion of Edithvale Wetlands is one cell – Edithvale South 1 (ES1) – which contains a few deeper sections referred to by SKM (2011) as Edithvale South 1a (ES1a) and Edithvale South 1b (ES1b). Refer to Figure 9 for the location of the cells.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 55 Ecosystems 56 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent

Figure 11 Edithvale Wetland south Edithvale South 1

Wetland cell ES1

(from SKM 2011)

Zone Zone 2

(BirdLife Australia monitoring)

Vegetation/habitat Shallow fresh-brackish marsh

(from SKM 2011, Ecology Natural dish-shaped cross-section underlain by a thick layer of peat Australia, current assessment) which thins towards the edges

Drawdown during summer and autumn creates critical mudflat foraging habitat for migratory waders.

Supports heavy growth of Salt Club-sedge in late summer and autumn which dies off over winter (see photos from July and January below).

Complex of vegetation types across southern section of Edithvale wetland, including extensive fringing areas of tall emergent vegetation (Tall Marsh), shorter emergent vegetation (including Brackish Wetland likely dominated by Salt Club-sedge and potential for large areas of mudflat and/or open water (e.g. Aquatic Herbland). Peaty mudflat is generally extensive during late summer/autumn drawdown phase. Small areas of Brackish Wetland also near southern end. Ringed on eastern side by planted Plains Grassy Woodland.

Water source Three drains from urban catchment via sediment ponds ES1

(from SKM 2011) Overland flow

Overflows from Centre Main drain during storms

Flood overflows from Centre Main Drain are generally controlled by inflows into Edithvale North (EN1)

Water regime Inundated in winter and spring

(from SKM 2011 and/or Drawdown and drying occurs in summer and autumn Ecology Australia 2016) Excavated pools deeper than the main wetland (ES1a, ES1b) have permanent water, except in drought.

Discharges to Edithvale North (EN1) via a siphon under Edithvale Road

During rain events discharges to Edithvale North Wetlands are Centre Main Drain when water levels are above the invert level of the weir

Key/priority species Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

Australasian Bittern

Curlew Sandpiper

Latham’s Snipe

Australasian Shoveler

Magpie Goose

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 57

Edithvale South 1

Photos Refer to ES1a also as ES1 surrounds the two ES1a cells

Southern end of ES1 (July 2017):

Northern end of ES1 near bird hide:

July 2017

January 2018

58 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Edithvale South 1

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 59

5.3.1 Vegetation

The description of the Edithvale section of the wetlands below is based on the Management Plan (Ecology Australia 2016), the Melbourne Water Sites of Biodiversity Significance- Vegetation Assessments (Australian Ecosystems 2016) and on the results of the habitat hectare assessment undertaken for the technical input into the EES. There is broad similarity between the two assessments. The extent of some individual patches varies, however this is not unexpected given the natural variability of wetland vegetation communities. Two additional EVCs were identified during the current assessments that were not classified in Ecology Australia (2016) and these are detailed below. Edithvale Wetland is a complex mosaic of different wetland ecosystems ranging from shallow, ephemeral areas dominated by rushes and sedges and areas or shallow open water, bare soil or mud (Edithvale South and part of Edithvale North), to deeper pools surrounded by extensive reed beds (Edithvale North). The terrestrial environs of the Edithvale Wetland complex are characterised by patches of woodland (some planted) and non-remnant vegetation (Ecology Australia 2016). The wetland cells range in permanency and depth and as such the vegetation and habitats they support vary. The wetland cells are shown in Figure 9Figure 9 and described in Section 5.3.2 above. Eight EVCs have been previously recorded within the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands and are described in Ecology Australia (2016). These EVCs are summarised below:

 Damp Sands Herb-rich Woodland (EVC 3 – Bioregional Conservation Status (BCS) of vulnerable in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion). This EVC is typically restricted to the outer extent of the Edithvale Wetland property boundary, forming an almost continuous link around the cells north of Edithvale Road. A number of these patches are considered likely to have been revegetated. The current site assessment considered these patches to be more representative of Plains Grassy Woodland (the description is provided below).

 Swamp Scrub (EVC 53 – BCS of endangered in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion) occurs as small, fragmented patches elevated on three small islands in the north of Edithvale Wetlands (EN1). In addition to the areas of Swamp Scrub mapped by Ecology Australia (2016), the current site assessment identified other small patches of this EVC adjacent to cell ES3 and along drainage lines that bound the perimeter of the site. This EVC is characterised by Swamp Paperbark Melaleuca ericifolia with a degraded understorey which includes Blackberry Rubus fruticosus spp. agg. and exotic grasses such as Paspalum Paspalum dilatatum, Kikuyu Cenchrus cladestinum and Couch Cynodon dactylon var. dactylon. Scattered Swamp Gums Eucalyptus ovata are occasionally present in the patches (Ecology Australia, 2016).

60 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 4 – Swamp Scrub

 Tall Marsh (EVC 821) is dominated by thick swards of Common Reed Phragmites australis and occasionally Cumbungi Typha domingensis and/or Typha orientalis. This EVC has a tendency to become dominant in a wetland, out-competing other wetland EVCs and reducing the floristic diversity and changing the structure from open wetland to a dense sward of tall reeds. Old growth Common Reed is tall and dense while regrowth of Common Reed has a less dense, more open structure. Tall Marsh forms a buffer around the wetlands that shields birds from some human disturbance. This function is actively maintained near walking paths and around the boundary, particularly along Edithvale Road.

Plate 5 – Tall Marsh in winter (left) and summer (right)

 Brackish Wetland Aggregate (EVC 656 – endangered in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion) at Edithvale Wetland appears as unvegetated open water/bare soil/mud (EVC 990) for approximately 6 months of the year and large areas have been displaced by the encroachment of Common Reed.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 61

Plate 6 – Brackish Wetland Aggregate

 Brackish Aquatic Herbland (EVC 537) occurs in deeper water and is dominated by aquatic herbs and filamentous algae and has contracted in extent over the past decade from being once abundant in both northern and southern Edithvale Wetlands to now only in the constructed wetlands in the north.

Plate 7 – Brackish Aquatic Herbland

 Plains Sedgy Wetland (EVC 647) occurs in the lower lying areas of EN1. Plains Sedgy Wetland is dominated by Water Ribbons Triglochin procera now Cycnogeton procerum, water-milfoils Myriophyllum spp, Streaked Arrow-grass Triglochin striata and Tall Spike- sedge Eleocharis sphacelata. The floristic diversity of this vegetation is threatened by the encroachment of Common Reed and Cumbungi which surround and are interspersed through all patches.

 Aquatic Herbland (EVC 653) occurs in an area of ES1 and is replaced with Tall Marsh and Brackish Wetland Aggregate/Unvegetated (open water/bare soil/mud) as the water draws down in spring and summer.

62 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 8 – Aquatic Herbland

 Brackish Herbland (EVC 538) previously occurred on the outskirts of the Edithvale South and in the middle of the wetland. Australian Ecosystems (2016) did not identify this EVC in their survey and instead the area was dominated by open water, mudflat or Common Reed. The distribution of this EVC is likely to fluctuate each year in response to season and rainfall.

The fieldwork undertaken to complete the VQA assessment also revealed the presence of an additional two EVCs within the Edithvale Wetland: Plains Grassy Woodland and Coast Banksia Woodland (EVC 2):

 Plains Grassy Woodland (EVC 55) was represented by patches of planted native trees and shrubs including River Red-gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Swamp Gum Eucalyptus ovata and Banksia sp. over a weedy understorey dominated by Kikuyu with other pasture grasses such as Cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata. Understorey of these patches appears regularly mown as part of amenity maintenance. This EVC is mapped as Damp-Sands Herb-rich Woodland in Ecology Australia (2016) but is considered (based on species composition and soil type) that Plains Grassy Woodland is a more appropriate classification.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 63

Plate 9 – Plains Grassy Woodland

 Coast Banksia Woodland (EVC 2) was recorded from elevated land between some wetland cells, and was identifiable by the dominance of Coast Banksia Banksia integrifolia yet to reach canopy height, and growing above introduced grass species. It is considered probable that these patches of vegetation had been planted.

Plate 10 – Coast Banksia Woodland

The condition of native vegetation within Edithvale Wetland at the time of the EES investigation was assessed using the Vegetation Quality Assessment method. The results of this assessment are presented in Appendix H and the extent of vegetation mapped is shown in Figure 12.

64 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.3.2 Flora species

Flora species observed during the assessment as part of these EES investigations are listed in Appendix H.

5.3.3 Threatened flora species

No threatened flora species have been recorded within Edithvale Wetland. Ecology Australia (2016) provides a list of significant flora recorded or predicted to occur within 5 km of Edithvale Wetlands and an assessment of the likelihood of those species occurring within the site (p141). Ecology Australia (2016) considered that there is suitable habitat present within Edithvale Wetlands for River Swamp Wallaby-grass Amphibromus fluitans and Swamp Everlasting Xerochyrsum palustre (listed under the EPBC Act), Pale Swamp Everlasting Coronidium gunnianum (vulnerable in Victoria) and Lacey River Buttercup Ranunculus amplus (rare in Victoria). In the absence of suitable survey timing for the EES vegetation assessment, likelihood of threatened flora presented in Appendix C defers to the assessment of likelihood by Ecology Australia (2016). River Swamp Wallaby-grass

The prevalence of Tall Marsh EVC around and within many of the cells of the Edithvale Wetland has reduced the extent of available habitat for this species, however James (2009) found the species was not particularly sensitive to increased salt concentrations, and the wetlands provide the seasonally fluctuating surface water levels that encourage the areas of bare ground that the species prefers. The prolific growth of both indigenous and exotic graminoid (herbaceous, grass-like) species is the biggest limiting factor for the existence and/or persistence of the species at the sites. In particular, the growth of Common Reed, Narrow-leaf Cumbungi and Broad-leaf Cumbungi at Edithvale Wetland is likely encouraged by stormwater inflows which carry sediments and nutrients from the surrounding residential developments. Sediment deposition following stormwater inflow can smother existing aquatic vegetation and provide a substrate for weed establishment and the increased nutrients supply can encourage the rapid growth and spread of these invasive species. Those areas of the wetland margins that are free from dense growth of both indigenous and exotic graminoids provide the most likely habitat for the species.

Swamp Everlasting, Pale Swamp Everlasting and Lacey River Buttercup

The prevalence of aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial weed species at the site is also considered to be a significant limiting factor to the existence and/or persistence of Swamp Everlasting, Pale Swamp Everlasting and Lacey River Buttercup at Edithvale Wetlands, however in the absence of targeted surveys for these species, the likelihood assessments as provided by Ecology Australia (2016) have been adopted for this assessment. Similar to River Swamp Wallaby-grass, Aquatic Herbland, Brackish Aquatic Herbland, and the Brackish Wetland Aggregate EVC’s provide the best available habitat for these species at the site,

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 65

Figure 12 Vegetation of Edithvale Wetland

66 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.3.4 Fauna habitat

Edithvale Wetland provides a mosaic of habitats which supports a broad range of animals (Ecology Australia 2016). Edithvale north includes areas of deeper, more permanent water surrounded by reed beds. The southern portion of Edithvale north and Edithvale south are shallow wetlands that are seasonally dry. All wetland cells grade to Tall Marsh at the fringes and patches of planted native woodland vegetation fringe the site. In summary, the diversity of habitat types includes:

 Deeper pools – these provide areas of open water for diving ducks and fishing habitat for cormorants, spoonbills, egrets and herons (Plate 11). Foraging habitat for wading birds is limited to the shallower margins.

 Shallow, more ephemeral wetlands – these areas provide a range of habitats including foraging habitat for shorebirds when mudflats are exposed and hunting habitat for egrets, herons, spoonbills and breeding habitat for Black Swan when inundated (Plate 12).

 Tall Marsh which fringes the wetland cells forms large expanses throughout the site and provides cover for species such as crakes, rails, Little Grassbirds, Australasian Bittern and Latham’s Snipe (Plate 12 and Plate 13).

 Planted/revegetated/remnant vegetation around the margins of the wetlands in the Ramsar Site which provides habitat for terrestrial animals, including birds of prey, rosellas, thornbills, pardalotes, and skinks.

The area in the vicinity of the bird hide is managed by Melbourne Water to maintain water and encourage bird presence (Melbourne Water pers comm.).

Plate 11 – Deeper pool (EN3), Edithvale Wetland north

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 67

Plate 12 – Edithvale South (ES1) viewed from the bird hide (conditions in July 2017)

Plate 13 – Tall Marsh and revegetated Damp Sands Herb-Rich Woodland, Edithvale Wetland north (July 2017)

Analysis of bird data collected at the wetland indicates that some species are more prevalent in some sections of the wetland than others. For instance since data was recorded on the basis of zones in January 2005, the majority of migratory shorebird species have been recorded in Zone 2 whilst the majority of threatened diving duck records have been attributed to Zone 7. Species habitat requirements and preferences are described in Appendix E. Appendix E also provides species distribution maps based on percentage of observations and overall abundance for key threatened and/or migratory bird species in Edithvale Wetland.

Tall Marsh is important habitat for Australasian Bittern and other threatened crakes and rails whilst mud flat habitat is essential for foraging for Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Curlew Sandpiper. The maintenance of both of these habitat types is therefore important. These key habitat features are shown in Figure 13 and Figure 14 below. Approximate reed bed extent within wetland cells is shown in Figure 13 based the interpretation aerial imagery taken from four months (roughly representative of seasons) across 2014. These figures demonstrate natural variation in reed bed at the wetland with new growth in spring and die-off in autumn-winter as part of the natural seasonal cycle of the wetland. Reed bed cover was highest in January and at its lowest in April. The results of reed bed mapping are consistent with expected patterns based on the typical lifecycle of the reeds with growth peaking at the height of summer when wetlands and shallow and margins are exposed providing vegetation with the opportunity to invade into new areas (Rogers, 2011; Hocking, 1989). The reeds then go

68 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems through a period of natural senescence in autumn and are often submerged in lower lying areas then they slowly build in extent into the next summer season. Management activities by Melbourne Water also contributed to the marked reduction in reed bed extent observed between January and April in Figure 13. Slashed areas of reed bed are clearly evident in the southern sections of both the northern and southern wetland cells of the April imagery. Slashed vegetation then appears to recover in the subsequent periods (August and November). Figure 14 shows the variability in extent of mudflat habitat available between years at a time when migratory shorebirds are present.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 69

Figure 13 Temporal change of reed beds across one year (2014), Edithvale Wetland

70 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |EcologicalImpact Assessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Ecosystems |71

Figure 14 Temporal change of mudflats during peak migratory shorebird visitation (January)

5.3.5 Fauna species

The Edithvale Wetlands support a high number of threatened and migratory bird species. Threatened and/or migratory fauna species are discussed in Section 5.3.6.

The wetlands also provide an area of habitat in an otherwise urban environment and, as such, are a haven for other non-threatened and terrestrial fauna species. The fauna of the wetlands is described below, drawing primarily on Ecology Australia (2016) which provides lists of species recorded in the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site.

5.3.5.1 Birds In total, 183 bird species have been recorded at Edithvale Wetland with a significant number of those species being reliant on the unique aquatic environs. Ecology Australia (2016) provides lists of bird species recorded at Edithvale Wetland separately for north and south (on p143 and p149 of Ecology Australia 2016 respectively). As such a detailed list of species is not repeated in this report.

Whilst highlighted and recognised predominately for its role in providing habitat for threatened and/or migratory species the wetland also provides regionally significant habitat for a range of common birds.

The importance of the wetland for other birds is perhaps best demonstrated by the diversity of birds of prey (raptors) it supports. Species observed at the wetlands include Swamp Harrier Circus approximans, Spotted Harrier Circus assimilis, Little Eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides, White Bellied Sea Eagle Haliaeetus leucogaster, Brown Goshawk Accipiter fasciatus, Collared Sparrowhawk Accipiter cirrocephalus, Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides, Australian Hobby Falco longipennis, Black-shouldered Kite Elanus axillaris, Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus and Barn Owl Tyto alba with such birds rarely sighted in suburban Melbourne.

Common waterbird species recorded in the highest abundance include Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio, Eurasian Coot Fulica atra, Chestnut Teal Anas castanea, Grey Teal Anas gracilis, Australian Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus australis, Black-winged Stilt Himantopus leucocephalus, and Black Swan Cygnus atratus. The site also provides occasional habitat for iconic species such as the Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia, Yellow Spoonbill Platalea flavipes and Australasian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus and provides a regionally rare opportunity to view such species.

Birds that prefer terrestrial woodland and scrub vegetation that were recorded at the wetlands include Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus, Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus, Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana, Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pusilla, White-browed Scrub-wren Sericornis frontalis, Superb Fairy Wren Malurus cyaneus, Silvereye Zosterops lateralis and Tree Martin Petrochelidon nigricans. Introduced birds are also common: Common Starling Sturnus vulgaris is the fourth most abundant species overall observed at the site (Birdlife Australia unpublished data).

72 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 14 – Superb Fairy-wren Plate 15 – Black-fronted Dotterel

Plate 16 – Spotted Pardalote Plate 17 – Black Swan.

5.3.5.2 Mammals A list of the 29 mammals that have been recorded within the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands is provided in Ecology Australia (2016, p.165). This includes database records and the results of microbat surveys undertaken in 2009 and 2010 by Parsons Brinckerhoff during which time nine species of bat were confirmed (via call detection) within Edithvale Wetland. Of particular note was the potential call detection (unconfirmed) of Eastern Bent-wing Bat Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis, a species listed under the FFG Act and considered to be vulnerable in Victoria (DEPI 2013b). Grey-headed Flying Fox Pteropus poliocephalus, a species recognised as threatened under Commonwealth and state legislation, has also been recorded. These threatened species are discussed further in Section 5.3.6. Additional native species recorded include Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus (a population was introduced to Edithvale South in 1985), Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor, Short- beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus and Brown Antechinus Antechinus stuartii. Water Rat or Rakali Hydromys chrysogaster has been more recently identified from footprints (Paul Rees, Melbourne Water, pers. comm. cited in Ecology Australia 2016) however it is unclear at this stage whether this observation was from the Edithvale or Seaford section of the Ramsar site. Exotic species recorded include cat Felis catus, dog Canis familaris, Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, Brown Hare Lepus europaeus, European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus, Brown Rat Rattus norvegicus, Black Rat Rattus rattus and House Mouse Mus musculus.

5.3.5.3 Reptiles No targeted reptile surveys are known to have been undertaken within the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site (Ecology Australia, 2016). Twenty-one reptile species are identified with potential to occur within the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site (Ecology Australia, 2016, p.165). This includes species recorded incidentally during other surveys undertaken at the site

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 73

or that have been previously recorded on the VBA. Of these, eight are known to have been recorded on site (SKM, 2011) including Marbled Gecko Phyllodactylus marmoratus, Common Scaly Foot Pygopus lepidopodus, Eastern Blue-tongue Lizard Tiliqua scincoides, Southern Grass Skink Pseudemoia entrecasteauxi and Eastern Brown Snake Pseudonaja textilis. SKM (2011) considered there to be potential habitat for Swamp Skink Lissolepis coventryi within the Ramsar site. Swamp Skink is discussed further in Section 5.3.6.

5.3.5.4 Frogs A list of 10 species of frogs recorded within the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site is provided in Ecology Australia (2016, p.165). Five species of amphibians were regularly recorded at the Edithvale Wetland during surveys completed for the Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project (BirdLife Australia, 2016). Species recorded include Common Froglet Crinia signifera, Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis, Striped Marsh Frog Limnodynastes peronii, Eastern Banjo Frog Limnodynastes dumerilii and Southern Brown Tree Frog Litoria ewingii. No variation in species detected was noted between the ten survey years on which formal survey reporting has been conducted though abundance was noted to change relative to water levels. Whilst not noted during the BirdLife Australia surveys, Common Spadefoot Toad or Sudell’s Frog Neobatrachus sudelli has also been recorded in the Ramsar site (SKM, 2011).

Two frog species were incidentally detected during fish surveys at Edithvale Wetland in July 2017 – Common Froglet and Southern Brown Tree Frog (refer to Appendix G).

Potential habitat was identified by SKM (2011) within the Ramsar site for Growling Grass Frog Litoria raniformis, Southern Toadlet Pseudophryne semimarmorata, Verreaux’s Tree Frog Litoria verreauxi, and Haswell’s Frog Paracrinia haswelli. The likelihood of Growling Grass Frog and Southern Toadlet is discussed further in Section 5.3.6.4.

5.3.5.5 Fish According to Ecology Australia (2016), no fish surveys are known to have been undertaken at the Edithvale Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. The only fish species known from the site is the exotic Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki.

Fish surveys completed as part of this EES investigation recorded four species. Flathead Gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps was the only native species recorded. This species is common in waterbodies within the local area such as Mordialloc Creek and the non-marine sections of the Patterson River. Exotic species recorded included the aforementioned Mosquitofish, Goldfish Carassius auratus and Oriental Weather-loach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus. No fish were detected in the southern wetland cells.

For further details on the outcomes of fish surveys refer to Appendix G.

5.3.5.6 Aquatic invertebrates Prior to this investigation there was little information available on the aquatic macroinvertebrate communities of Edithvale Wetland (Ecology Australia, 2016). A previous survey was largely focused on the Seaford component of the wetland and hence not considered to be of relevance (Ecology Australia 2016). Details of the aquatic ecology assessment undertaken at Edithvale Wetland as part of the EES investigations are provided in Appendix G and a summary is provided below.

Zooplankton (particularly Daphiniidae cladocerans and Calanoid copepods) and Chironominae (midge fly) larvae were the most abundant macroinvertebrates in Edithvale Wetland. The relative abundance of zooplankton was notably higher in the southern wetland cell. Here the most common and abundant benthic invertebrates were Chironominae and Tanypodinae larvae,

74 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

oligochaetes (worms) and ostracods. In the northern wetland cells Ceinidae amphipods and Ceratopogonidae (biting fly) larvae were the most common and abundant benthic invertebrate When comparing the wetland cells (north and south) the most notable difference was that oligochaetes and Tanypodinae larvae were prevalent in the south but notably less common in the northern cells. The wetland cell known as the Dog Pond had the lowest macroinvertebrate abundance of the cells sampled and zooplankton were not recorded. This cell is located within the Ramsar site boundary but outside the management fence where it is accessible to the public. The macroinvertebrates most available for foraging migratory wading birds are chironomid larvae, oligocaetes, amphipods and ostracods. Microcrustacean zooplankton is also an abundant potential food source. Zooplankton and benthic invertebrates were most abundant in the southern wetland. Variability in the macroinvertebrate community collected in each sample during the aquatic surveys suggests habitats and therefore the diversity and abundance of invertebrates are locally patchy, even within the same wetland cell. The invertebrate community composition was more consistent between samples in the southern wetland and generally had lower diversity. This is considered a reflection of the relatively uniform bathymetry, more pronounced wetting and drying cycle (more ephemeral nature), more uniform habitat and less saline water recorded during the EES investigations.

Generally the southern wetland cell is likely to be of greater importance than the northern cells for migratory bird species that feed on exposed or near exposed mudflats (i.e. sandpipers). The relative importance of the southern cell is reflected in the spatial distribution (abundance and observations) of Birdlife Australia data. Refer Appendix G for further details.

Terrestrial invertebrates may also be a component of bird diet, particularly at the interface of the terrestrial and aquatic environs, although they would likely make a smaller and less critical contribution to overall foraging resources. Migratory shorebirds visit the Edithvale Wetland for the aquatic habitat and specifically the aquatic food resources it provides. As such, the focus of the macroinvertebrate survey was on sampling the aquatic environs.

5.3.6 Threatened fauna Many threatened and/or migratory species have been recorded or are considered to have a moderate or greater likelihood of occurring at Edithvale Wetland. Most of these species are birds and have been categorised into key migratory and/or threatened species, other migratory species and other threatened species and are described in the sections below. The section on key species is relatively short as detailed descriptions and analysis of the BirdLife Australia data relating to those species is provided in Appendix E.

5.3.6.1 Key migratory and/or threatened bird species Key species of relevance/concern to the Edithvale Wetland are those which were the basis for the listing of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site and other species which are most dependent on wetland environments which could therefore be impacted by any changes to wetland environments associated with the level crossing removals. These species are all birds - Curlew Sandpiper, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Australasian Bittern and Latham’s Snipe.

Detailed descriptions and analysis of the data relating to these key migratory and/or threatened species are provided in Appendix E. Below is a summary of where the species has been recorded and a figure showing maximum counts from the BirdLife Australia data.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 75

Curlew Sandpiper

Curlew Sandpiper (listed as critically endangered and migratory under the EPBC Act, listed as threatened under the FFG Act); basis for listing under Ramsar criteria 2. Records of Curlew Sandpiper within the study area are restricted to Edithvale Wetland.

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 1987/1988 1988/1989 1989/1990 1990/1991 1991/1992 1992/1993 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017

Curlew Sandpiper Max Count

Figure 15 Curlew Sandpiper observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (listed as migratory under the EPBC Act); basis for listing under Ramsar criteria 6. Sharp-tailed Sandpipers have been observed from several locations within the study area. The majority of records are from within Edithvale Wetland with a small number of records from Edithvale Common and Wannarkladdin Wetlands.

76 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1987/1988 1989/1990 1991/1992 1993/1994 1995/1996 1997/1998 1999/2000 2001/2002 2003/2004 2005/2006 2007/2008 2009/2010 2011/2012 2013/2014 2015/2016

Sharp‐tailed Sandpiper max count

Figure 16 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016

Australasian Bittern

Australasian Bittern (listed as endangered under the EPBC Act, listed as threatened under the FFG Act); basis of listing under Ramsar criteria 2. Australasian Bitterns have been regularly recorded within Edithvale Wetland. Wannarkladdin Wetlands also provide potential habitat for this species.

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Australasian Bittern max count

Figure 17 Australasian Bittern observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 77

Latham’s Snipe

Latham’s Snipe (listed as migratory under the EPBC Act); also fits within the definition for meeting Criteria 6 although not included in the Ramsar listing. Latham’s Snipe are regularly observed at the Edithvale Wetland and have also been recorded at Wannarkladdin Wetlands.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1987/1988 1989/1990 1991/1992 1993/1994 1995/1996 1997/1998 1999/2000 2001/2002 2003/2004 2005/2006 2007/2008 2009/2010 2011/2012 2013/2014 2015/2016

Latham's Snipe Max count

Figure 18 Latham’s Snipe observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 – 2016

5.3.6.2 Other migratory bird species An additional 12 migratory shorebirds listed under the EPBC Act have been recorded at the Edithvale Wetland, albeit in small numbers. Appendix E provides an overview of these species, their abundance and location of frequency of observation within the Edithvale Wetland

Of the additional species Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis and Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis have been observed in the highest abundance at the Edithvale Wetland. The estimated EAAF population of these two species is 130,000 and 475,000 respectively (Hansen et al. 2016). Counts do not qualify the site as a nationally or internationally important site for either species (Hansen et al. 2016).

5.3.6.3 Other threatened birds An additional 15 threatened bird species have been recorded in the Edithvale Wetlands with some regularly observed in high numbers. These species, their abundance and location where they were most frequently recorded within the Edithvale Wetland are provided in Appendix F as an overview of how the species utilise the area. Of the species recorded in the highest numbers all belong to the family Anatidae (Ducks, Geese, and Swans). Most prevalent species were Australasian Shoveler Spatula rhynchotis (Plate 18), Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis, Hardhead Aythya australis and Musk Duck Biziura lobata (Plate 20). These species utilise the wetlands differently to migratory birds with most species preferentially using the deeper northern wetland cells (refer to Figure 49 and Figure 50 in Appendix F). This aligns with their preferences for deeper, open waterbodies.

78 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 18 – Australasian Shoveler (left) and Chestnut Teal pair, Edithvale Wetland south. Also of significance was a high number of Baillon’s Crake Zapornia pusilla recorded. The species typically remains in the cover of dense reed beds. Magpie Goose Anseranas semipalmata is a resident of the Edithvale Wetland and was observed on a dam in Rossdale Golf Course adjacent to Edithvale Wetland during ecological impact assessment (Plate 38). A maximum of eight birds have been observed in a single observation at Edithvale Wetland, though the species has been most often observed as a single individual or a pair. Magpie Goose is not common in southern Australia and attempts to reintroduce the species have been largely unsuccessful (Silcocks 2017).

Plate 19 – Magpie Goose Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula benghalensis australis was detected on four separate occasions at the Wetlands in 2008. The Australian Painted Snipe is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, threatened under the FFG Act, and critically endangered on the VROTS advisory list (DEPI, 2013b). However for each observation only one bird was observed and as such these records may represent one individual. The site is not considered to provide habitat of significance to the species.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 79

5.3.6.4 Other threatened species Excluding birds (detailed above), threatened species known to occur or are historically considered to have the potential to be present at Edithvale Wetland (SKM, 2011; Ecology Australia, 2016) are:  Grey-headed Flying-fox - listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, listed under the FFG Act and listed as vulnerable under the VROTs advisory list (DEPI, 2013b). Grey-headed Flying-fox has been recorded at Edithvale Wetland (VBA records). This species commonly disperses across suburban Melbourne from its camp at Yarra Bend and would only be expected to be present within the study area on an opportunistic and occasional basis. Trees within Edithvale Wetland provide foraging habitat for Grey-headed Flying-fox but not critical habitat for the species.

 Eastern Bent-wing Bat - listed under the FFG Act and vulnerable in Victoria in the advisory list (DEPI, 2013b). Ecology Australia (2016) cites an unconfirmed call detection of the species from microbat surveys undertaken in 2009 and 2010 by Parsons Brinckerhoff, however no records of the species were identified on the VBA for the study area. This record is considered unconfirmed on the basis that the species is not distinguishable from those in other bat groups / complexes on call alone. Eastern Bent- wing Bat primarily roost in caves but can at times be found in abandoned man-made structures such as culverts and buildings. Breeding occurs between spring and summer but at other times of the year individuals are known to disperse up to 300 km from their breeding colonies (OEH, 2017). Foraging habitat generally consists of forested areas where they hunt above the canopy (OEH, 2017). Despite the possible detection, the wetland is sub-optimal habitat for Eastern Bent-wing Bat and the species has a low likelihood of occurrence at the wetland (Rob Gration, EcoAerial, pers. comm.).

 Growling Grass Frog - listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, listed under the FFG Act and considered vulnerable in Victoria (DEPI, 2013b). A review of the VBA indicates that two Growling Grass Frogs were recorded at the wetland in 1988. While not a focus of the BirdLife Australia surveys, observations are noted for other species including frogs. Growling Grass Frog has not been incidentally recorded during those surveys. This species has a low likelihood of occurring at Edithvale Wetland.

 Southern Toadlet - considered vulnerable in Victoria (DEPI, 2013b). There is a relative paucity of Southern Toadlet records in the study area with only two records on VBA, the most recent of which dates back to 1990. This species is more cryptic than the aforementioned Growling Grass Frog and is considered to have a moderate likelihood at the Edithvale Wetland and a low likelihood within the broader study area. The species is typically found in ephemeral habitat within the flood zone of waterways and wetlands amongst moist leaf litter, logs and organic debris and in moist soaks (Byrne and Keogh, 2008; Howard et al. 2010). This habitat is scarce at Edithvale Wetland and largely absent in the broader study area.  Swamp Skink - listed under the FFG Act and vulnerable in Victoria (DEPI, 2013b). This species is also highly cryptic and is typically associated with densely vegetated freshwater swamps, watercourses, heaths sedgelands and saltmarshes (Robertson and Clemann, 2015). The species is considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence at the Edithvale Wetland, despite an absence of VBA records and incidental observations. The species is rare in the greater Melbourne area however management practices at Edithvale Wetland such as the exclusion of exotic predators which are a known threat to the species (Robertson and Clemann, 2015), may have allowed it to persist at the wetland.

80 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

 Dwarf Galaxias – listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, listed under the FFG Act and considered endangered in Victoria (DEPI, 2013b). The species was previously considered to have potential to be present at the site (SKM, 2011). Preferred habitat of this species is outlined in 4.3.3. This species was not detected during the fish surveys undertaken as part of the EES ecological investigations despite the methods employed aligning with prescribed survey guidelines for the species. This species is unlikely to occur at Edithvale Wetland.

All other threatened species are considered to be unlikely to occur or to have a low likelihood of occurrence at Edithvale Wetland.

5.3.7 Hydrological conditions

Seaford Wetland and Edithvale Wetland are separate features in terms of surface hydrology and hydrogeology; with the Patterson River forming a hydraulic divide between the wetlands. Prior to 1987, wetland remnants consisted of shallow, freshwater marsh and permanent open freshwater (DSE, 2012). Between 1987 and 1988, excavations in both the Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands pierced the natural clay layer (inaccurately referred to as peat layer in DSE, 2012) that was limiting the interaction between surface water and groundwater. This breach allowed the inflow of groundwater, and by the time of the Ramsar listing in 2001, some of the wetland cells had become brackish or saline (DSE, 2012).

The natural landform of the southern wetland was excavated to a very shallow depth in 1987 (GHD, 2006). This excavation altered the natural hydrology and surface water quality to one that is more saline.

The following section provides a summary of the existing hydrological conditions that are of particular relevance to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands as described in the EES Technical Report A Groundwater. It also draws upon the results of water quality sampling undertaken as part of the aquatic ecology surveys (fish and macroinvertebrates) where relevant.

5.3.7.1 Groundwater The stratigraphy beneath the level crossings near Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands is anticipated to comprise the units identified below (listed in order of increasing depth):

 Variable (anthropogenic fill)

 Quaternary coastal aeolian dune deposits

 Quaternary coastal swamp deposits

 Tertiary (Pliocene) Baxter Sandstone/Brighton Group sediments

 Tertiary (Miocene) Fyansford Formation sediments. These geological units are subdivided into aquifer/aquitard systems. The aquifer systems identified by the groundwater assessment (EES Technical Report A Groundwater) that could be intersected during construction near the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are summarised in Table 8.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 81

Table 8 Aquifer systems Period Sub period Geological formation Aquifer or aquitard Lithology unit Quaternary Holocene Alluvium/Aeolian Quaternary sand, gravel, clay, silt deposits Aquifer Tertiary Late Brighton Upper Tertiary calcareous, ferruginous Miocene to Group/Baxter Aquifer (fluvial) consolidated sands and Early Sandstone sandstones Pliocene Upper-Mid Fyansford Formation Upper-Mid clay, silt, marl (Miocene) Tertiary Aquitard (fractured rock) and minor sand

Shallow groundwater is likely to be brackish to saline within the low-lying areas surrounding the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands and associated drainage lines. Direct rainfall infiltration and artificial recharge to groundwater via stormwater runoff directed to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are largely responsible for recharging the local water table aquifer. These wetland areas are also likely to represent discharge features for local and regional flow systems. For deeper aquifer systems, groundwater discharge is to Port Phillip Bay.

5.3.7.2 Surface water The Edithvale Wetland is fed primarily from drains collecting stormwater runoff from the developed catchments to the north and the east, and discharges via a drain (Centre Main Drain) to Mordialloc Creek and then into Port Phillip Bay.

5.3.7.3 Water quality The in situ water quality of the Edithvale Wetlands was found to vary drastically between the different cells (Table 9 and Figure 5). Temperature ranged from 8.2 to 13.3 degrees Celsius although this may in part be related to the time of day and season that recordings were made. In the northern cells pH was relatively consistent and ranged from 7.9 to 8.2 but was lower south of Edithvale Road at 6.9 pH units. There was noticeably low dissolved oxygen at SM1 in the southern wetland (20.2 percent) compared with the northern cells that were all close to 100 percent. The electrical conductivity also varied with sampling locations NM2 (wetland cell EN2) and NM8 (Dog Pond) having markedly higher salinity. As a point of reference, the electrical conductivity of sea water is approximately 50,000 μS/cm (Agriculture Victoria 2017).

Table 9 In situ water quality sampling results July 2017

Site Wetland Temp Dissolved pH Electrical Turbidity Alkalinity cell (oC) Oxygen conductivit (NTU) (mg/L) y (µS/cm (mg/L) (%)

SM1 ES1 11.0 2.2 20.2 6.9 1,505 58 65

NM2 EN2 11.9 10.9 99.9 7.9 20,600 10 240

NM3 EN3 10.7 10.8 97.6 8.2 3,500 4 180

NM11 EN3a 13.3 10.8 103.4 8.1 1,111 8 80

NM8 Dog pond 8.2 11.5 97.1 8.1 51,400 33 420

Previous water quality monitoring from 2009 to 2015 is summarised in Ecology Australia (2016, Table 6, p74). According to Ecology Australia (2016), occasional surface water quality sampling

82 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

was undertaken at Edithvale Wetlands in 2009–2010 which showed water quality varied between wetland cells but was poor overall due to the source of the water. Wetland cells that received direct inputs of stormwater exhibited high turbidity and nutrients, but lower salinity. Cell EN2, which interacts with groundwater, had particularly high salinity (Ecology Australia 2016).

An extract of the summary of water quality sampling data for Edithvale Wetlands from Ecology Australia (2016) is provided in Table 10 below. The results of the in situ sampling in 2017 for electrical conductivity are also provided in the table for reference.

Table 10 Water quality sampling summary for salinity 2009-2015 (from Ecology Australia 2016) compared with in situ 2017 results

Wetland cell Min of EC Average of EC Maximum of EC 2017 EC (µS/cm) (µS/cm) (µS/cm) (µS/cm)

ES1 965 1839 3700 1505

EN2 20000 20000 20000 20600

EN3 1655 3029 4600 3500

EN3a 450 2213 4110 1111

The previous and current water sampling results indicate that there is considerable variation in salinity amongst the different wetland cells. The most notable water quality result is the saline water conditions in the northern cells. These differences in salinity are likely to be due to differences in connectivity with saline groundwater, although differences in water quality could also vary further depending on seasonal and spatial drying in ephemeral wetlands not maintained by groundwater.

5.3.8 Significance and listings Edithvale Wetland is a wetland of international importance for migratory shorebirds.

Important habitat for migratory shorebirds is defined by criteria outlined in the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention) and the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (DoE 2015). The EPBC Act is triggered when proposed actions are likely to have a significant impact on important habitat for migratory shorebirds.

5.3.8.1 Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds The Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (DoE, 2015) defines the terms of nationally and internationally important habitat based on the approach applied through the criteria adopted under the Ramsar Convention. Wetland habitat is considered internationally important if it regularly supports:

 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird or

 a total abundance of at least 20,000 birds. Wetland habitat is considered of national importance if it regularly supports:

 0.1% of the flyway population of a single species of migratory shorebird (with the exception of Latham’s Snipe, see below) or  2000 migratory shorebirds or

 15 migratory shorebird species.

In the case of Latham’s Snipe the threshold is 0.05%. For further details refer to Appendix G.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 83

5.3.8.2 East Asian - Australasian Flyway (EAAF) Australia is one of 23 countries which make up the EAAF and is part of the Partnership for the Conservation of Migratory Waterbirds and the Sustainable Use of their Habitats in the East Asian – Australasian Flyway (EAAF Partnership) which was launched in 2009 (Bamford et al. 2008; DoE 2015). The partnership has established a network of internationally important sites for migratory shorebirds. Of the 397 sites recognised to be internationally important for shorebird conservation in the EAAF, 188 occur in Australia (Bamford et al. 2008, DoE 2015). The Australian sites are comprised of 35 southward migration sites, 94 non breeding sites, 20 north migration sites and 17 breeding sites. The Edithvale-Seaford Wetland is one such internationally important site (non-breeding). It should be noted that DoE (2015) notes that there are likely to be many other unidentified migratory shorebird areas that meet the criteria for important habitat in Australia.

5.3.8.3 Ramsar listing A Ramsar wetland is a wetland that has been designated under Article 2 of the Ramsar Convention, or which has been declared by the Federal Environment Minister to be a declared Ramsar wetland under the EPBC Act. The Edithvale-Seaford Wetland was listed as a Ramsar site in August 2001, and is Australian Ramsar site number 57.

At the time of listing in 2001, the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands were shown to meet Ramsar site Criteria 1, 2 and 6 (Lane et al, 2001). The site was subsequently also considered to meet Criterion 3 in the management plan prepared in 2009 (KBR 2009b) and in the ecological character description prepared in 2012 (DSE, 2012) on the basis that it supports a high diversity of waterbird species and native vegetation that is typical of the bioregion. KBR (2009b) also considered the site to meet Criteria 4.

Hale and Butcher (2017) subsequently conducted a ‘more rigorous application of the Ramsar guidance’ and concluded the site continues to meet criteria 2, 4 and 6 but does not meet Criteria 1 or 3.

A summary of the criteria met by the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands at the time of listing in 2001 and considered to be met during subsequent reviews is summarised in Table 11. The criteria are then described in more detail below in the context of the most recent assessment by Hale and Butcher (2017).

Table 11 Summary of Ramsar criteria met by Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands since listing in 2001

Ramsar 2001 nomination 2009 Management 2012 Ecological 2017 addendum ECD criteria (Lane, 2001) Plan (KBR 2009b) Character Description (Hale and Butcher (DSE, 2012) 2017)

1 Yes Yes Yes No*

2 Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 No Yes Yes No*

4 No Yes No Yes

5 No No No No

6 Yes Yes Yes Yes

7 No No No No

84 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Ramsar 2001 nomination 2009 Management 2012 Ecological 2017 addendum ECD criteria (Lane, 2001) Plan (KBR 2009b) Character Description (Hale and Butcher (DSE, 2012) 2017)

8 No No No No

9 No No No No

*different (larger) biogeographic region used Criteria met - 2017

According to Hale and Butcher (2017), the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands meet Criteria 2, 4 and 6: These criterion are outlined below: Criterion 2 – A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.

This criterion is only applied to wetland dependent flora and fauna, and the site regularly supports two fauna species listed under the EPBC Act and/or International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (Hale and Butcher, 2017):  Australasian Bittern – Endangered (EPBC Act and IUCN). Foraging and breeding habitat are provided by the wetlands (DSE, 2012). It is one of 20 birds funded as a priority by the Australian Government to support the species recovery effort (DoEE, 2016).

 Curlew Sandpiper – Critically Endangered (EPBC Act). This species was not listed as threatened under the EPBC Act at the time of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands being listed as a Ramsar site. The species has been recorded in low abundance infrequently at Edithvale Wetland.

Refer to Appendix G for further information on these species. The single record of the Australian Painted Snipe Rostratula australis from Edithvale Wetland in 2008 (BirdLife Australia data) and a record of two Growling Grass Frogs Litoria raniformis from 1988 (VBA data) are considered to be insufficient to indicate that the site regularly supports these species (Hale and Butcher, 2017). Criterion 4 – A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their lifecycles or provides refuge during adverse conditions.

The ecological character description for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (DSE, 2012) does not describe the wetlands in relation to Criteria 4. KBR (2009a) considered the site to meet this criterion and Hale and Butcher (2017) concur that this criterion was met at the time of listing and continues to be met. Criterion 4 relates to common roles a wetland provides including providing drought refuge, supporting fauna during migration and supporting breeding and moulting in waterfowl (Hale and Butcher, 2017). Twenty species of waterbirds listed under international migratory agreements have been recorded within the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. This includes species which are residents and others that are occasional visitors to the site. Eight species of shorebirds are regularly supported and there are records of over 20 species of waterbirds breeding within the Ramsar site (Hale and Butcher, 2017; BirdLife Australia unpublished data). Breeding waterbirds include Black Swan Cygnus atratus and a range of ducks including Chestnut Teal Anas castanea and Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis (threatened in Victoria – DEPI 2013a). Other wetland dependent species recorded breeding in the Ramsar site have included Swamp Harrier Circus approximans, a wetland dependent raptor

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 85

and other wetland dependent birds such as Clamorous Reed Warbler Acrcocephalus stentoreaus (Hale and Butcher, 2017; BirdLife Australia unpublished data). Criterion 6 – A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.

The Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands regularly support 1% of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway population of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata (DSE, 2012; Ecology Australia, 2016). The definition of regularly in this application means that the 1% threshold must be achieved on two of three seasons or must be met by the mean of at least five maximum annual counts (Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2008). Hale and Butcher (2017) also concluded that Australasian Bittern met this criterion based on data provided by BirdLife Australia.

Refer to Appendix G for further information on these two species. Criteria not met - 2017

According to addendum to the Ecological Character Description (Hale and Butcher 2017), the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands do not (and did not) meet Ramsar Criteria 1 and 3. These criteria are outlined below: Criterion 1 - A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.

DSE (2012) considered the site to contain the last remaining representative examples of the Carrum Carrum Swamp, including the shallow freshwater marsh wetland type which at the time was depleted in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion by 70%. The wetlands also form an essential component of the regional drainage system and have critical flood storage capacity.

Hale and Butcher (2017) consider the appropriate biogeographic region for the site to be the South East Coast (Victoria) drainage division rather than the Gippsland Plain Bioregion, although it unclear why this approach was adopted. This bioregion is more extensive than the Gippsland Plain Bioregion and includes all of the coastline of Victoria and small portions of the southern NSW and South Australian coasts. Application of the terms ‘representative’ and ‘rare’ is difficult as there is no comprehensive wetland inventory for South East Coast (Victoria) drainage division. Hale and Butcher (2017) cites advice from the Convention which advises that in order to meet this criteria, a wetland should be one of the best examples of a wetland type within the bioregion and should be in near-natural condition.

Although the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are remnants of what was once the Carrum Carrum Swamp, Hale and Butcher (2017) considered it difficult to argue that the wetlands are rare, representative or near-natural as they are highly modified and part of a regional drainage system for storing stormwater from surrounding urban landscapes. On this basis, the site does not meet this criterion (Hale and Butcher, 2016). Criterion 3 - A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.

KBR (2009a) and DSE (2012) concluded that the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands met this criterion as 75 species of waterbird were recorded between 1989 and 2007 representing 85% of the waterbird species that were recorded from the Gippsland Plain Bioregion for the same period.

However, Hale and Butcher (2017) consider the relevant bioregion to be the larger South East Coast (Victoria) drainage division which has a number of Ramsar sites and significant wetland complexes which have higher species counts than the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. These

86 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

include Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula, Westernport, Corner Inlet, Gippsland Lakes. Also, Hale and Butcher (2017) considered the high diversity of vegetation communities suggested by DSE (2012) to be mostly terrestrial and highly modified which do not represent the best examples in the larger South East Coast (Victoria) drainage division bioregion. As such, Hale and Butcher (2017) consider the site does not meet this criterion and did not meet it at the time of listing.

The Hale and Butcher (2017) assessment that the Ramsar site meets Criteria 2, 4 and 6 has been adopted in the management plan (Ecology Australia 2016). The Scoping Requirements stipulate that the EES assess adverse impacts on aspects of the ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands, in the context of the relevant Ramsar listing criteria, including impacts on the four critical Components, Processes and Services (CPS) that are critical to the ecological character of the wetlands at the time of listing. Criteria 3 and 4 were not part of the Ramsar listing but relate to critical CPS. Criterion 1 may no longer be met according Hale and Butcher (2017) but was considered to be met at the time of listing (Lane, 2001). Critical CPS and how they relate to the Ramsar listing criteria is outlined in Section 5.3.9 below.

5.3.8.4 Protection under the EPBC Act Ramsar wetlands are recognised as a MNES under the EPBC Act and, as such, any action that has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar Wetland must be referred to the Minister and be subject to an environmental assessment and approval process. The Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant Impact Guidelines (DoE, 2013) provide significant impact criteria for wetlands of international importance (Ramsar sites). An action will be deemed to have the potential for a significant impact if it will result in:  ‘Areas of the wetland being destroyed or substantially modified

 A substantial or measureable change in the hydrological regime of the wetland, for example, a substantial change to the volume, timing, duration, and frequency of ground and surface water flows to and within the wetland

 The habitat or lifecycle of native species, including invertebrate fauna and fish species, dependent upon the wetland being seriously affected

 A substantial and measurable change in the water quality of the wetland- for example a substantial change in the level of salinity, pollutants, or nutrients in the wetland, or water temperature which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity, or human health, or

 An invasive species that is harmful to the ecological character of the wetland being established (or an existing invasive species being spread) in the wetland.’ (DoE, 2013, p13).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 87

5.3.9 Ecological character and limits of acceptable change

5.3.9.1 Ecological character description/critical components processes and services As a signatory to the Ramsar convention, Australia is expected to conserve and maintain the ecological character of all Ramsar wetlands in its territory. To achieve this, ecological character descriptions are being prepared for all Ramsar sites (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities [DSEWPaC] undated). Ecological character descriptions provide a benchmark against which to assess any future change in ecological character. They identify and describe the components, processes and services that are critical to the ecological character of the Ramsar site. They also set limits of acceptable change for each of the critical components, processes and services. Limits of acceptable change (LAC) are a tool by which change can be measured.

The ecological character description establishes LAC for the components, processes and services that are critical to the ecological character of the site. LAC provide a benchmark for monitoring change in ecological character and management effectiveness The ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands was first described in Description of the Ecological Character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site (DSE, 2012). This description provided a benchmark for monitoring the ecological condition of the site and provides an account of the ecosystem services that the wetlands provide that were used for the character description. These included (from DSE, 2012):

1. Wetland representativeness - the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are the last remaining representative example of Carrum Carrum Swamp. They are representative of shallow freshwater wetland, a depleted vegetation type in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion (relates to Ramsar Criteria 1).

2. Flood control and catchment drainage – the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands assist in the control of flooding (relates to Ramsar Criteria 1).

3. Supports threatened species, particularly waterbirds and Australasian Bittern (relates to Ramsar Criteria 2).

4. Regularly supports 1% of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway population for Sharp-tailed Sandpipers (relates to Ramsar Criteria 6).

5. Diversity of waterbird species (relates to Ramsar Criteria 3).

6. Supports vegetation characteristic of the bioregion - the wetlands support threatened ecological vegetation communities characteristic of the Gippsland Plains Bioregion (relates to Ramsar Criteria 3). The ecosystem components that are critical in maintaining the ecosystem services listed above are also discussed in DSE (2012), and include hydrology, sedimentation, salinity, vegetation, connectivity, productivity, climate, catchment and land use, soil type, wetland topography and waterbird habitat. Criterion 3 was added after the site was listed in 2001. DSE (2012) was drafted prior to the release of the national framework for describing the ecological character of Australian Ramsar wetlands (DEWHA, 2008) and, as such, it did not identify CPS. Hale and Butcher (2017) updated the description of ecological character and identified four CPS that are critical to the ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Ramsar Site:

 Threatened wetland species (also related to listing of the site under Ramsar criteria 2).

 Physical habitat for waterbirds

88 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems  Waterbird breeding (also related to listing of the site under Ramsar criteria 4).

 Waterbird diversity and abundance (also related to listing of the site under Ramsar criteria 6. These critical CPS are the primary concern in relation to the Ramsar site as change in the ecological character of the wetland will also affect those values which underpin the Ramsar listing criteria. The four critical CPS are described in Table 12 below on the basis of the summary provided in Hale and Butcher (2017) and information in Ecology Australia (2016) and DSE (2012). Limits of acceptable change have been defined for these critical CPS and are outlined in 5.3.9.2 below.

Table 12 Summary of critical CPS of Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands

Critical CPS Description (from Hale and Butcher (2017 p8) Related Ramsar criteria

Threatened Two threatened bird species occur regularly (albeit in low Criteria 2 wetland numbers) within the Ramsar site - Australasian Bittern and Curlew species Sandpiper.

Two other nationally threatened species have been recorded in the site but are not regularly supported:

 Australian Painted Snipe (single record from Edithvale in 2008)

 Growling Grass Frog (two records from 1988).

Swift Parrot and Orange-bellied Parrot have also been recorded at the Ramsar site – Swift Parrot at Seaford Wetland (observation of a single bird in each of 2004 and 2005) and Orange-bellied Parrot at Seaford Wetland (one record on the VBA from 1964) and Edithvale Wetland (one record on the VBA from 1977).

In addition to these, there are a number of bird species listed under the advisory list of threatened fauna for Victoria that have been recorded at the Ramsar site (DSE, 2012).

Physical The mosaic nature of the habitat is what encourages the diversity Criteria 6 habitat for of species. Hydrology and vegetation type are the most important waterbirds habitat components for supporting waterbirds at the Ramsar site (Tzaros and Silcocks 2004 cited in Hale and Butcher, 2017; Ecology Australia, 2016).

The wetlands have been divided into habitat zones and three zones are considered to be the most important areas for waders (Quinn et al. 2016 cited in Hale and Butcher 2017):

Edithvale:

 Edithvale North -deeper water for a number of duck species which is surrounded by tall reeds

 Edithvale South – shallow wetlands that provide foraging habitat for shorebirds, grading to tall marsh at the fringes which provides cover for species such as Australasian Bittern and Latham’s Snipe.

Seaford:

 Seaford North 2 Pool, Seaford Central West 1 and Seaford Central East 2 – mosaic of deeper water, tall

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 89 Critical CPS Description (from Hale and Butcher (2017 p8) Related Ramsar criteria

marsh, and deeper saline ponds important for all wetland bird species.

Maintaining a mosaic of habitat that comprises open water, emergent native vegetation (sedges, rushes and reeds) and exposed mudflats is important for maintaining the ecological character of the Ramsar site.

Waterbird Twenty species of wetland dependent birds have been recorded Criteria 4 breeding breeding within the Ramsar site. Of these, seven species are regularly recorded breeding:

 Black Swan

 Blue-billed Duck

 Chestnut Teal

 Dusky Moorhen

 Purple Swamphen

There are also breeding records of wetland dependent raptors and other wetland dependent birds.

Waterbird The rationale for this critical CPS in Hale and Butcher (2017) is Criteria 3 diversity and that Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands support a diversity and abundance abundance of waterbirds. Data from BirdLife Australia indicate the average numbers (1994 to 2015) in each waterbird guild (as defined by Kingsford et al. 2012) are as follows:

 Total waterbirds – 5400

 Migratory waders – 1900

 Australasian waders - 250

 Ducks - 1300

 Fishers - 400

 Large wading birds - 200

 Herbivores – 970

The Ramsar site regularly supports 1% of the population of two Criteria 6 species: Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and Australasian Bittern.

90 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 5.3.9.2 Limits of Acceptable Change Limits of Acceptable Change are defined in DSEWPaC (undated) as: the variation that is considered acceptable in a particular component or process of the ecological character of the wetland, without indicating change in ecological character that may lead to a reduction or loss of the criteria for which the site was Ramsar listed (modified from definition adopted by Phillips 2006).

An assessment of ecological character status for the Ramsar site was undertaken in 2016 (Hale and Butcher 2017). The results of the assessment indicate the CPS have not exceeded the LAC. An extract of the summary table from Hale and Butcher (2017) is provided here for reference (see Table 13) and is based on the four CPS that are critical to the ecological character of the Ramsar site.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 91 Table 13 Summary of assessment against Limits of Acceptable Change for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Ecosystems 92 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Critical CPS Limit of acceptable (Hale and Butcher 2017) 2016 assessment by Hale and Bucher (2017)

Waterbird diversity Abundance of waterbirds will not decline below the following Abundance of waterbirds (2011 – 2015) from Edithvale-Seaford and abundance (calculated as a rolling five year average of maximum annual Wetlands was as follows (BirdLife Australia unpublished data): count):  Total waterbirds – 7250  Total waterbirds – 2500  Migratory waders – 2700  Migratory waders – 900  Australasian waders – 300  Australasian waders – 125  Ducks – 1960  Ducks – 650  Fishers – 280  Fishers – 200  Large wading birds – 275  Large wading birds – 100  Herbivores – 1300  Herbivores – 450 LAC is met. LAC is based on a 50% decline in annual maximum counts by BirdLife Australia over a five year period to account for annual variability.

Abundance of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper will not decline below 0.5% Abundance of Sharp-tailed Sandpipers (2011 – 2015) from of the population as stated in the most recent Wetlands Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands was 3300 (BirdLife Australia, International Population estimate (based on a five year rolling unpublished data). This represents 1.8% of the population based on average of annual maximum counts). the latest data from Wetlands International (2012) and 3.6% of the 2016 population estimate by Hansen et al. (2016). To reflect the cryptic nature of Australasian Bittern, the LAC for this threatened species is based on presence (see LAC for LAC is met. threatened birds below). To reflect the cryptic nature of Australasian Bittern, the LAC for this threatened species is based on presence (see LAC for threatened birds below).

Waterbird Breeding recorded at least once every five years of: All species were recorded breeding more than once in the past five breeding years (2011-2015) (BirdLife Australia).  Black Swan LAC is met.  Blue-billed Duck

 Chestnut Teal Critical CPS Limit of acceptable (Hale and Butcher 2017) 2016 assessment by Hale and Bucher (2017)

 Dusky Moorhen LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |EcologicalImpact Assessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent  Purple Swamphen

 Swamp Harrier

Physical habitat for LAC is based on maintaining a mosaic of habitat that comprises The extent of Tall Marsh dominated by Common Reed has increased waterbirds open water, emergent native vegetation (sedges, rushes over the past two decades from 34 hectares in 1994 to 57 hectares and reeds) and exposed mudflats. in 2013 (Melbourne Water unpublished data). However, this does not dominate the wetland area and a mosaic of open water (deep and shallow), exposed mudflats and emergent vegetation is maintained.

LAC is met.

Threatened Presence of Australasian Bittern in at least three out of every five Data from BirdLife Australia (2011–2015) indicate: species: birds years.  Australasian Bittern has been recorded in four out of the past five Presence of Curlew Sandpiper in at least one out of every five years. years.  Curlew Sandpiper has been recorded in four out of the past five years.

LAC is met.

Key: CPS Critical ecosystem components, processes and services/benefits. Source: Hale and Butcher (2017) Ecosystems |93

5.3.10 Threats

Threats faced by the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site have been identified in SKM (2011) and Ecology Australia (2016); risks have been assessed by Jenny Hale (reported in Ecology Australia 2016). The threats/risks are primarily water-related and include:

 altered hydrology

 increased salinity  pollution, particularly increased loads of nutrients and suspended solids

 invasive exotic species (pest plants and animals)

 invasive/out-of-balance native species, particularly Common Reed and Cumbungi  activation of potential acid sulfate soils (or disturbance of acid sulfate soils in Seaford Wetland)

 human disturbance – recreational activities  climate change

 fire management. Of these, the threats of most relevance to the level crossing removal project are those that could be exacerbated by a change in groundwater which include: altered water regimes, increased salinity, activation of acid sulfate soils and climate change.

Threats to the ecological character of the Edithvale Wetland are discussed further below.

5.3.10.1 Altered hydrology (altered water regimes and/or increased salinity) Hydrology of a wetland relates to the source of water, quality of water (particularly salinity) and hydrodynamics (Boon 2013). Hydrodynamics are the spatial and temporal characteristics of the wetting and drying cycle of a wetland which include the frequency, duration and timing of inundation, rate of water rise and maximum water depth (Bedford 1996 cited in Boon 2013).

Frequency, timing and duration of inundation are all critical influences on the ecological character of a wetland (Boon 2013). Indeed, wetland loss and degradation as a result of change in water regime is considered a potentially threatening process under the FFG Act (DELWP 2016b).

Inadequate water levels at critical times are a key threat to the function of the wetlands as habitat. Adequate water levels of sufficient duration are required for swans and diving ducks to complete their breeding season and are also required for the duration of the feeding period for migratory shorebirds. If the wetlands dry out too quickly and/or too early in the season then breeding success may be compromised and migratory shorebirds are likely to disperse.

Increased salinity is also recognised as a threatening process for the Ramsar site. Increased salinity can occur as a result of changes in hydrology (e.g. interaction with groundwater, stormwater inputs, evaporation rates) and can lead to direct changes to flora and fauna communities within a wetland through direct toxic effects, changed chemical processes and the loss of habitat (Horrigan et. al., 2005). More saline environments generally have lower biodiversity and less dense, shorter vegetation (Rogers et al. 2015). Changes to water quality may also impact on the wetland by shifting the plants and animals to those species that can tolerate brackish or saline water, unless such species already dominate the vegetative composition. This could result in an overall decline in habitat diversity (Ecology Australia 2016).

Altered hydrology has the potential to adversely affect:

 quality, extent and distribution of vegetation and habitat

94 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems  waterbird diversity and abundance (and therefore impact on Ramsar criteria 4 and 6)

 waterbird breeding (and therefore impact on Ramsar criteria 4 and a critical CPS)  threatened species (Australasian Bittern and Curlew Sandpiper) (and therefore impact on Ramsar criteria 2)

 wetland function (drainage and flood mitigation services) Primarily these impacts are associated with changes to the habitat within the wetlands which could occur if water levels and/or water quality changes. Changes in hydrology could also affect the abundance and/or diversity of invertebrates as a food source for migratory shorebirds.

Habitat change

The diversity of habitats the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands support is critical to the values under which the wetlands are listed as a Ramsar site. Maintaining a mosaic of wetland habitats is important as the key species have different habitat requirements; shorebirds require recently exposed or near exposed mudflats while the Australasian Bittern requires reed beds, particularly those which are less dense and have up to 30 centimetre water depth (refer to Appendix E for more detail on habitat requirements of the key species). Mudflats

According to a recent literature review drawing information in relation to management of non- tidal ponds for shorebirds (Rogers et al. 2015), water depth is the habitat attribute of greatest importance to shorebirds. Foraging shorebirds will only use a pond within a narrow range of water depths; those depths vary according to the morphology of a particular species (Rogers et al. 2015). Birds with longer legs, beaks and necks can forage in deeper water than smaller birds. Generally, shorebirds prefer shallow wetlands. Abundance and diversity of waterbirds has been found to be greatest at water depths of 10-20cm and ponds with an overall bathymetry of 30-40cm provide the greatest habitat diversity (Rogers et al. 2015). Extensive areas of open, shallow water or mud only partially (less than 50 per cent) covered by vegetation is important (Helmers, 1992).

As a similar example, Melbourne Water’s strategy for managing the Western Treatment Plant is to keep some ponds deeply flooded in winter to prevent them becoming choked by vegetation and then draw down the water levels over summer so the waters become shallow enough for foraging shorebirds (Rogers et al. 2015).

A change in surface water volume, and therefore surface water level, would affect the exposure or inundation cycle of habitats e.g. the area of mud flats available to foraging shorebirds and/or the duration of availability of habitat. An increase in surface water levels would reduce the extent of mudflat. The duration of these increased surface water levels could mean the loss of mudflat habitat is permanent or loss of mudflat occurs at a time when migratory shorebirds are reliant on the resource. Surface water drawdown rates may be prolonged which would reduce the duration and shift the timing of habitat being available to later in the non-breeding period. Vegetation

Wetland vegetation requires specific hydrological regimes for growth and typically requires regular to semi-regular inundation to persist. Prolonged inundation can result in the loss of emergent macrophytes and aquatic herblands from wetlands in favour of more tolerant species such as Common Reed and Cumbungi (Rogers et al. 2015).

Increases in salinity could change the composition and diversity of submergent vegetation and promote more salt tolerant species.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 95

Most of the Tall Marsh vegetation of Edithvale Wetland is dominated by thick swards of Common Reed and occasionally Cumbungi. Common Reed has one of the widest hydrological niches of any Australian wetland plant (Ganf et al, 2010). Flooding has not been found to alter established stands but colonies will not be able to expand if water levels of 30 centimetres or more are maintained as runners are unable to anchor at these depths and seedlings are easily killed by flooding (Cross and Fleming 1989). Conversely, draining water from established stands can reduce plant vigour but degradation of a stand is likely to take several years (Cross and Fleming 1989). Common Reed is more salt tolerant than other emergent species and may be advantaged by increasing salinity (prompting its invasion of new areas). Abrupt change in salinity (e.g. salt water intrusion) can restrict Common Reed but only before stands are well established and thus able to cope with such change (Cross and Fleming 1989). It is conceivable that changes to groundwater and/or surface water flows in the vicinity of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands may significantly alter the hydro-period of these wetlands. Prolonged inundation could reduce the extent of the reed beds that currently encourage Australasian Bittern to persist at the site. Whilst these reed beds have the potential to impede wetland function and reduce the extent of habitat for shorebirds, their continued presence at the site is likely to be critical to the persistence of Australasian Bittern. In particular, the margins of reed beds in areas of shallow water are important for this species. Conversely, over-abundant reed beds within the wetlands have been recognised as a threat to the diversity of habitats (Ecology Australia 2016) (see Section 5.3.10). According to Rogers et al. (2015), vegetation encroachment is a problem for wetland management worldwide. Deep flooding is the preferred method for controlling vegetation although other measures such as grazing, burning, disc tilling and herbicides have been used. The preferred or most appropriate methods are site specific (Rogers et al. 2015).

Rogers et al. (2015) did not find references on studies into the use of salt water to control vegetation. Vegetation is however known to be less dense in saline water (Rogers et al. 2015).

Salinity levels within the wetland cells at Edithvale Wetland range from freshwater (ES1, EN3 and 3a through brackish (EN3) and saline (EN2) to salinity levels akin to sea water (Dog Pond) (refer to Table 10 above). The salinity tolerances of the dominant aquatic plants at Edithvale Wetland are summarised in Table 14.

Table 14 Dominant aquatic plants - salinity tolerance

Scientific name Common name Lower salinity level Upper salinity level

(mg/L) (mg/L)

Cyperus sp. Flat-sedge 230 25000

Eleocharis acuta Common Spike-sedge 1000 and above growth reduced, 7000 little mortality

Myriophyllum sp. Water-milfoil 280 4000

Phragmites australis Common Reed 280 15000

Typha domingensis Cumbungi 816 8000

Source: Morris et al. 2009.

Common Reed and flat-sedge have fairly broad tolerances to salinity while Cumbungi and other species prefer much lower salinity.

96 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems The most critical element is that a mosaic of wetland habitat is maintained. The ideal hydrology identified for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (Ecology Australia, 2016) to achieve this includes:

 inundation over winter and early-spring  slow drawdown from September to December to provide habitat for migratory waders

 maintenance of deeper pools as permanent water for waterfowl. Differences in bathymetry between the northern and southern wetlands allow competing hydrology requirements of the habitat mosaic to be met at the same time and is an important aspect of overall site hydrology and ecosystem function. Slow drawdown in the southern wetland cell from September to December is able to occur concurrently with maintenance of deeper pools in the northern cells.

Food availability for shorebirds

Food availability is likely to be a major influence on the presence and persistence of migratory shorebirds in a given area of habitat. According to Rogers et al. (2015), prey abundance profoundly affects numbers of foraging shorebirds.

Water levels and salinity can influence the diversity and abundance of invertebrates in benthic environments (Morris et al. 2009). A change in hydrology and water quality of the Edithvale Wetland therefore has the potential to alter the availability of food resources. The gradient of possible ecosystem response to such change ranges from positive transition to a different aquatic invertebrate community that maintains adequate food resources or it may result in catastrophic ecosystem collapse that fails to provide food resources. The degree of ecosystem response is controlled by the extent, duration, timing and temporal nature of changes.

With the exception of zooplankton, chiromonid larvae are the most abundant invertebrate at Edithvale Wetland (refer to Section 5.3.5.6 above). Chiromomid larvae are known to dominate shorebird diets in non-tidal wetlands worldwide (Rogers et al. 2015). These larvae are able to occur in high numbers in the habitats preferred by shorebirds as they are tolerant of a wide range of salinities, temperatures and water depths and they are capable of readily colonising new or re-flooded wetlands (Rogers et al. 2015). Larvae can grow rapidly where detritus and algae are readily available as food (Rogers et al. 2015).

Flooding ponds during winter and drawing down water levels gradually during summer increases the abundance of chironomid (midge) larvae (Rogers et al. 2015).

Changes in the structure of macroinvertebrate assemblages can occur at relatively low salinities. However, changes in systems already impacted to some degree by anthropogenic stressors and dominated by opportunistic taxa may be difficult to observe (Horrigan et al. 2005). The fastest and most dramatic shift between invertebrate groups with different salt tolerance occurs up to ~800-1000µS/cm according to Horrigan et al. (2005) or 1500 µS/cm as reported by Hart et al. (1991). Macroinvertebrate taxa recorded are generally tolerant of a wide range of water quality conditions. Habitat diversity and hydroperiod are perhaps more pertinent factors in governing the assemblage of macroinvertebrates in each of the Edithvale wetland cells. Salinity tolerances of dominant macroinvertebrate taxa at the wetland are presented in Table 15 below.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 97 Table 15 Dominant macroinvertebrate taxa - salinity tolerance

Taxa Median maximum Range salinity tolerance (expressed as EC (µS/cm)) (expressed as EC (µS/cm)) Lower Upper

Chironominae (Chironomus) 8,516 128 89,688

Tanypodinae 5,441 128 93,437

Oligochaeta 3,906 625 90,625

Ceinidae 42,188 169 97,188

Ostracoda 15,500 128 192,031

Source: Morris et al. 2009.

Salinity can also influence the quantity of food that shorebirds need to consume. Higher salinity imposes a greater energetic cost on shorebirds as they need to osmoregulate (excrete salt) via specialised salt glands (Rogers et al. 2015). Additional energetic costs mean birds foraging in more saline environments need to eat more. Benthic fauna in saline environments tend to be dominated by easily captured, soft-bodied species that have a high calorie content (Rogers et al. 2015). Shorebirds require fresh water to drink (Hannam et al. 2003 cited in Rogers et al. 2015).

Increasing nutrient levels are unlikely to have a negative effect on food resources for shorebirds. Benthic biomass and shorebird abundance have been found to be higher near sewage outfalls which suggest a positive correlation with high nutrient levels (Rogers et al. 2015).

5.3.10.2 Acid Sulfate Soils Potential acid sulfate soils occur in coastal and inland areas, including within the study area. These are soils that contain metal sulfide which, if exposed to oxygen, can form sulfuric acid resulting in the acidification of surrounding soils, groundwater and/or surface water and the liberation of toxic metals such as cadmium and lead (Ecology Australia 2016; Wilson et al. 1999).

Activation of coastal acid sulfate soils (CASS) can occur as a result of a lowering of the water table or through excavation of soils exposing them to the air. Soil sulfide levels are elevated in sediments at Seaford Wetland and require careful management (Ecology Australia 2016). Acid sulfate soils are discussed in more detail in EES Technical Report C Acid Sulfate Soils and Contamination.

5.3.10.3 Climate change Climate change is the pre-eminent issue facing the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site (Ecology Australia, 2016). The vulnerability and adaptive capacity of the Edithvale Wetland to climate change has been considered in a Decision Support Framework prepared by Jacobs (2016). The site specific scenario for Edithvale Wetland indicates that the wetland is highly exposed to:

 increased sea level

 increased storm surge activity

 higher temperatures – increase in the number of hot days

98 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems  lower average rainfall

 changes in season of rainfall (declines in winter and spring)

 more variable rainfall overall. Climate change has the potential to adversely affect (Ecology Australia, 2016):

 quality, extent and distribution of vegetation and habitat

 waterbird diversity and abundance (and therefore impact on Ramsar criteria 4 and 6)  waterbird breeding

 threatened species (Australasian Bittern and Curlew Sandpiper) (and therefore impact on Ramsar criteria 2)  other fauna

 wetland function (drainage and flood mitigation services) The capacity for the wetland to cope with impacts of climate change is influenced by pre- existing threats and constraints to management including (Jacobs 2016):

 Altered hydrology – changes to the natural wetting and drying cycles and frequency of inundation.

 Increasing salinity – saline intrusion that has already occurred as a result of excavations breaking through the underlying clay layer.

 Decreasing water quality – current inputs of poor quality urban stormwater and acid sulfate soils.

 Barriers to migration – there is little space to migrate into more landward areas as the wetland is surrounded by urban development and private land.

 Knowledge and data availability – understanding changes to groundwater dynamics and the pathways and resultant changes to CASS as climate changes.

 Future funding for biodiversity and therefore the capacity to implement measures to mitigate changes.

Previously, the emphasis has been on reduced rainfall and increased temperature (i.e. a drier climate) and the threat reduced water availability poses to the wetlands. However, sea level rise and storm surges are predicted to impact on water quality through saline incursion and, ultimately, inundation of the wetlands (Jacobs, 2016; Ecology Australia, 2016). This poses an ongoing and irreversible threat to the ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands. It is worth noting that the proposed level crossing removals at Edithvale and/or Bonbeach would not exacerbate the onset of saline incursion events caused by storm surges. Saline incursions are predicted to occur at Edithvale Wetland by 2030 as a result of sea level rise with increasing levels of inundation over time; a predicted sea level rise of 0.15 metres by 2030, 0.047 metres by 2070 and 0.82 metres by 2100 (Jacobs, 2016). Connecting channels (Patterson River and Mordialloc Creek) are likely to facilitate the incursion of sea water. Almost total inundation of the wetlands by 2100 is suggested by Ecology Australia (2016 p 92) in interpreting Jacobs (2016). Melbourne Water considers it possible to implement some mitigation of sea level rise at Edithvale (Ecology Australia, 2016).

A summary of the likely outcome of climate change for the components of the Edithvale Wetland identified in Jacobs (2016) is provided in Table 16.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 99 Table 16 Summary of likely outcome of climate change for components of the Edithvale Wetland (from Jacobs 2016) Dependent Ecosystems 100 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater

Wetland component Outcome of climate change based on sensitivity Adaptive Adaptive response capacity

Brackish Wetland• Increase in salinity as a result of reduction in freshwater inflows, Moderate Increased salinisation is unlikely to have immediate increased frequency of saline intrusion, increased evaporation. consequences. Although, changes to wetting and drying regimes (particularly increased exposure to seawater) will Saline intrusion into groundwater

ultimately cause a shift towards species more tolerant of Increased pressure from invasion by weeds - those species highly saline conditions. currently limited by temperature or those that will be advantaged by increased inundation and/or salinity)

Change in floristics - replacement of salt sensitive native species with more salt tolerate species

Freshwater Wetland Decreased rainfall leading to decreased frequency of freshwater Low Rapid shift in community composition is likely in response inundation from riverine flows to increased salinity as most freshwater species have low tolerance to increased salinity. Increased frequency of saline intrusion

Saline intrusion into groundwater

Shift from freshwater to brackish/saline wetland causing loss of freshwater habitat

Increase in salinity as a result of reduction in freshwater inflows, increased frequency of saline intrusion, increased evaporation.

Change in floristics - replacement of salt sensitive native species with more salt tolerate species

Increased pressure from invasion by weeds - those species currently limited by temperature or those that will be advantaged by increased inundation and/or salinity)

Swamp Scrub Increase in salinity as a result of reduction in freshwater inflows, Low Short term impacts likely to be small. Longer term increased frequency of saline intrusion, increased evaporation. response to increased salinisation and waterlogging is likely to cause a shift in community composition from Rise in saline conditions along riparian zone freshwater to species with a higher tolerance of salinity. Change in floristics - replacement with estuarine scrub as Wetland component Outcome of climate change based on sensitivity Adaptive Adaptive response capacity

a result of increased salinity LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |EcologicalImpact Assessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Increased pressure from invasion by weeds - those species currently limited by temperature or those that will be advantaged by increased inundation and/or salinity)

Saline intrusion into groundwater

Scrubs and Increase in salinity as a result of reduction in freshwater Unknown Short term impacts likely to be small. Response in Woodlands inflows, increased frequency of saline intrusion, increased the longer term is unknown and depends on the evaporation. magnitude of sea level rise. Impacts from sea level rise are more likely to be preceded by changes in Increased pressure from invasion by weeds - those groundwater salinity. species currently limited by temperature or those that will be advantaged by increased inundation and/or salinity)

Saline intrusion into groundwater Ecosystems |101

5.3.10.4 Other Other threats are outlined in Ecology Australia (2016). Two of these are of relevance to the level crossing removal projects:

Pest plants and animals (and pathogens) Invasive exotic species (pest plants and animals) include (Ecology Australia, 2016):

 Plants – 12 noxious weeds listed as regionally controlled under the CaLP Act. Of these, Spiny Rush Juncus acutus is the biggest threat to wetland values. At Edithvale, an additional 23 high threat and 21 medium threat weeds species are identified (Ecology Australia, 2016)  Grazing animals, although this is more of a concern for Seaford where European Rabbits Oryctolagus cuniculus are present

 Terrestrial predators namely domestic and feral cats Felis catus and Red Fox Vulpes vulpes

 Predatory fish – Mosquitofish.

Pathogens are not identified by Ecology Australia (2016) as a threat to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. However pathogens of relevance to the project include Chytrid Fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and Cinnamon Fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi.

Chytrid fungus is a waterborne fungus that adversely affects the respiratory/dermal surfaces of frogs. The fungus has been implicated in mass die off of amphibian populations worldwide (DSEWPaC, 2013).

Cinnamon Fungus is a soil borne fungus that attacks and destroys the root system of plants. Stress induced by the pathogen causes plants to decline in health and eventually die through a lack of nutrients (DSE, 2008).

The spread of both pathogens often occur through anthropogenic means, including contaminated construction plant.

Invasion by out-of-balance vegetation

Invasive/out-of-balance native species include (Ecology Australia 2016):

 Common Reed and Cumbungi which cover large areas and may be expanding their distribution. Reeds shade out smaller herbaceous plant species and simplify the structure of the vegetation and, as such, provide limited fauna habitat. They encroach on open wetland and mudflats reducing the extent of habitat favoured by waterbirds and, particularly, migratory shorebirds.

 Coast Tea-tree and Coast Wattle which can form dense stands and out-compete other indigenous plants.  Eastern Grey Kangaroo which have been increasing in number at Edithvale are beyond the recognised threshold of a sustainable population. Encroachment of reed beds on open, mudflat habitat is a threat of relevance to the level crossing removal project as this may be encouraged by changes to the hydrology and salinity of Edithvale Wetland.  A discussion of the tolerance of reeds to salinity and water level change is provided in Section 5.3.10.1 above. The extent of reed beds is shown to vary within and between years at Edithvale Wetland (refer Figure 13 and Figure 14 in Section 5.3.4).

102 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 5.3.11 Risks to critical CPS (ecological character) and Ramsar listing

Following is a summary of how the threats identified for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands in Section 5.3.10 relate to the critical CPS identified in the Ecological Character Description Addendum for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site (Hale and Butcher 2017). Refer to Section 5.3.9.1 for the description of the critical CPS. The summary below also makes reference to the criteria under which the wetlands were listed under the Ramsar convention (Criteria 1, 2 and 6) or are considered to be met by subsequent reviews (Criteria 3 and 4). Refer to Section 5.3.8.3 for the Ramsar criteria descriptions.

5.3.11.1 Risks to critical CPS The occurrence of threatened species (particularly Australasian Bittern and Curlew Sandpiper), the high diversity of waterbirds and physical habitat for waterbirds, and the regular occurrence of 1% of the EAAF of Sharp-tailed Sandpipers are related to maintenance of hydrology, wetland topography and waterbird abundance (DSE, 2012; Hale and Butcher, 2017). Waterbird diversity and abundance

Edithvale-Seaford Wetland is used as foraging, non-breeding habitat by numerous species of migratory shorebirds and as breeding habitat by a range of other species, particularly waterbirds. The diversity and abundance of species is related to the mosaic of habitats the Ramsar site supports, particularly the reed beds, mudflats and areas of open, deeper water.

Reed beds require specific hydrological regimes for growth, and typically require regular to semi-regular inundation to persist. Mudflats function optimally as habitat when inundated over winter and early-spring and gradually become exposed as water draws down from September through summer.

Change to the volume and quality of the groundwater that enters the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands has the potential to significantly impact the extent of mudflat and/or reedbed habitat and/or the availability of food resources for waterbirds. This change may result in the site exceeding the limit of acceptable change for this critical CPS and the site may no longer regularly support 1% of the population of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and/or Australasian Bittern which would affect listing of the site under Ramsar criteria 6. Waterbird breeding

Edithvale-Seaford Wetland is used as breeding habitat by a range of bird species, particularly waterbirds. Altered hydrological regime and/or water quality leading to a loss in the suitability of habitat as breeding habitat for waterbirds could result in failure of the site to meet the limit of acceptable change for a critical CPS (waterbird breeding). A reduction in the availability of breeding habitat could result in failure of the site to provide habitat for animal species at critical stages in their lifecycles and therefore meet Ramsar listing Criteria 4. Physical habitat for waterbirds

Hydrology and vegetation type are the most important habitat components for supporting waterbirds at the Ramsar site (Tzaros and Silcocks 2004 cited in Hale and Butcher 2017).

Change to the volume and quality of the groundwater that enters the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands has the potential to significantly impact the structure and extent of the different habitat types and therefore availability of habitat resources for waterbirds within the wetlands. Threatened species: birds

Change to the volume and quality of the groundwater that enters the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands has the potential to significantly impact the extent of mudflats utilised by the Curlew Sandpiper and/or the structure and extent of the reed beds for the Australasian Bittern. Whilst

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 103

these reed beds have the potential to impede wetland function, their continued presence at the site is likely to be critical to the persistence of Australasian Bittern. Changes to water volume and/or quality also have the potential to reduce the availability of macroinvertebrates as a food resource for waterbirds.

Altered hydrological regime and/or water quality resulting in change in the ecological character (habitat and/or reduction in food availability) to the extent Edithvale Wetland no longer supports Australasian Bittern and/or Curlew Sandpiper. Such a change could result in the LAC for this critical CPS being exceeded. This also relates to the site no longer meeting Ramsar listing Criteria 2.

5.3.11.2 Risks to Ramsar listing criteria The listing of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands as a Ramsar site is related primarily to the critical CPS identified in describing the ecological character of the wetlands (DSE, 2012; Hale and Butcher 2017). As such, the risks to critical CPS outlined above are also related to the risks to the Ramsar listing.

Capacity for the site to meet the Ramsar listing criteria is related to maintenance of hydrology, wetland topography and waterbird abundance, particularly the occurrence of threatened species and the regular occurrence of 1% of the EAAF of Sharp-tailed Sandpipers. Risks to the Ramsar criteria met according to Hale and Butcher (2017) are:

Risks to Criterion 2 – Refer to critical CPS: threatened species: birds.

Risks to Criterion 4 – Altered hydrology could lead to a change in habitat resources available for animal species at critical stages in their lifecycles (non-breeding foraging resources for migratory shorebirds and breeding habitat for other non-migratory species). A change in habitat resources could result in failure of the site to meet Ramsar listing Criteria 4. This risk is also related to the limit of acceptable change for a critical CPS (waterbird breeding).

Risks to Criterion 6 – Refer to critical CPS: waterbird diversity and abundance.

Risks to criterion which the site no longer meets or did not meet at the time of listing (according to Hale and Butcher 2017) are not considered further.

5.3.11.3 Summary of risks Altered hydrological regime and/or water quality could lead to a change in the ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site to the extent that the LAC for critical CPS are exceeded. Changed hydrology could also lead to failure of the site to meet criteria for listing under the Ramsar convention. If such a change were to occur this would be an internationally significant impact.

5.3.12 Management objectives Management priorities and actions are outlined in the management plan for the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands (Ecology Australia 2016). The primary focus of the management actions are the protection and enhancement of habitat for the diversity and abundance of waterbirds which are fundamental reasons for the Edithvale Wetland being regarded as a wetland of international significance. Those of particular relevance to maintaining the ecological character of the wetland include:  Extensive grooming of Tall Marsh to provide more open areas of mudflat for waders

 Improving understanding of the hydrology including identification of optimal flow regimes for the wetland cells

 Monitoring of groundwater (commenced at Seaford Wetlands in 2014)

104 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

 Monitoring of water level (monthly) and water quality (commenced at Edithvale Wetlands in 2009). Results of the investigations undertaken for the purpose of the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects, particularly information pertaining to hydrology and water quality sampling, will be provided to Melbourne Water to inform management of the Edithvale Wetland.

5.4 Wannarkladdin Wetlands

5.4.1 Overview The Wannarkladdin Wetlands have been identified as a site of biodiversity significance (Melbourne Water, 2013) are covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay under the Kingston Planning Scheme. Wannarkladdin Wetlands are part of the Carrum Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) program led by BirdLife Australia. A Key Biodiversity Area is a site that has been recognised as an area of international significance for bird conservation (BirdLife International, 2017). Wannarkladdin Wetlands are ecologically similar to Edithvale Wetland. They are dominated by Tall Marsh with a number of wetland cells which range from a deeper pool surrounded by reed beds (Wannarkladdin West) to shallow open water, bare soil or mud (Wannarkladdin East). The Wannarkladdin Wetlands provide habitat for a number of waterbirds and shorebirds (BirdLife Australia unpublished data) and are part of a nationally significant complex of wetlands which includes the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (Melbourne Water, 2017).

BirdLife Australia has been undertaking biodiversity surveys for Melbourne Water since 2013 - the Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. One of their survey sites is the Wannarkladdin Wetlands. Their surveys divide the wetlands into three sub-areas – north, west and east (Figure 13). Source: http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/melbourne-water-biodiversity- surveys.

5.4.2 Vegetation and habitat Seven EVCs have been described in Australian Ecosystems (2008) within the Wannarkladdin Wetlands:

 Brackish Herbland (EVC 538 – endangered in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion). Within the Wannarkladdin Wetlands this vegetation is dominated by low herbland species including Creeping Monkey-flower Mimulus repens now Thyridia repens, Shiny Mud-mat Selliera radicans and Streaked Arrowgrass Triglochin striata. It primarily occurs in the south which is intermittently and shallowly inundated after heavy rain.

 Brackish Sedgeland (EVC 13) which is dominated by Sea Rush and Salt Club-sedge. Wannarkladdin Wetlands support extensive high quality areas of this EVC, primarily in the southern section which is intermittently and shallowly inundated after heavy rain.

 Brackish Aquatic Herbland (EVC 537 – vulnerable in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion). This EVC occurs in semi-permanent to seasonal wetlands. It is dominated by aquatic herbs including Lake Water-milfoil Myriophyllum salsugineum, Water Ribbons, Small River Buttercup Rununculus amphitrichus, Creeping Monkey-flower and Many-fruited Sea Tassel Rupia polcarpa.

 Saline Aquatic Meadow (EVC 842 – rare within the Gippsland Plain Bioregion). This EVC is localised within the Wannakladdin Wetlands and is dominated by submerged herbs such as Many-fruited Sea Tassel Ruppia polycarpa and Stonewort Nitella sp.

 Tall Marsh (EVC 821 – endangered in the Gippsland Plain Bioregion) which is dominated by tall emergent sedges, rushes and reeds including Cumbungi Typha orientalis Narrow-

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 105

leaf Cumbungi Typha domingensis and Common Reed Phragmites australis. Herbs including Swamp Stonecrop Crassula helmsii and Slender Knot-weed Persicaria decipiens are also present. Tall marsh fringes the waterbodies and covers extensive areas throughout the Wannarkladdin Wetlands.

 Dwarf Floating Aquatic Herbland (EVC 949) is composed of small herbs including Pacific Azolla Azolla fliliculoides, Common Duckweed Lemna disperma and Small Duckweed Wolffia australiana and is often combined with other wetland EVCs.

 Unvegetated (open water/bare soil/mud) (EVC 990) which is devoid of vascular flora and may seasonally alternate with Dwarf Floating Herbland, Brackish Sedgeland and/or Brackish Aquatic Herbland depending on extent and duration of inundation.

Australian Ecosystems (cited in Ecology Australia, 2016) have further refined their EVC classifications at the Wannarkladdin Wetlands, mapping only three of original seven EVC’s- Tall Marsh (EVC 821), Brackish Wetland (EVC 656) and Brackish Aquatic Herbland (EVC 537). These are further classified as four vegetation zones to allow the application of the Index of Wetland (IWC) scoring. Melbourne Water have undertaken a revegetation program using native plants such as River Red Gum, wattles and sheoaks in order to increase fauna habitat and diversity in the wetlands area. The program was completed in June 2015 and ongoing maintenance was due to conclude in June 2017 (Melbourne Water, 2017).

Wannarkladdin Wetlands have moderate or higher potential to provide habitat for four threatened flora species (see Appendix C). Threatened plants are discussed further in Section 5.7.

106 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 19 Overview map of Wannarkladdin Wetlands

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 107

5.4.3 Threatened species

The likelihood of occurrence of threatened and/or migratory species recorded on the VBA and/or predicted by the PMST to occur (excluding some species not considered of relevance to the project, as outlined in Section 4.1.2) at Wannarkladdin Wetland is presented in Appendix D and summarised below.

5.4.3.1 Threatened flora River Swamp Wallaby-grass and Swamp Everlasting (both listed under the EPBC Act), Pale Swamp Everlasting and Lacey River Buttercup have a moderate likelihood of occurring at Wannarkladdin Wetlands. However like Edithvale Wetland, the growth of both indigenous and exotic graminoid (herbaceous, grass-like) plants is the biggest limiting factor for the persistence of these threatened plant species. In particular, the prolific growth of Common Reed, Narrow- leaf Cumbungi and Broad-leaf Cumbungi is likely encouraged by stormwater inflows which carry sediments and nutrients from the surrounding residential developments. Access to the wetlands is unrestricted and this is likely to exacerbate weed spread.

Wannarkladdin Wetlands are considered unlikely to support other threatened flora species.

5.4.3.2 Threatened and/or migratory fauna species BirdLife Australia has been monitoring birds (and incidentally other fauna) at the Wannarkladdin Wetlands since 2013. Based on analysis of BirdLife Australia data, Wannarkladdin Wetlands is known to provide habitat for 10 threatened and/or migratory species. Species recorded at the wetland are listed in Table 17 below. All species were recorded in low abundance and habitat appears more important for threatened duck species than migratory shore birds. An exception to this is Latham’s Snipe which was recorded on 14 occasions with a highest single count of15 in February of 2006.

Table 17 Summary of BirdLife Australia observations of significant birds at Wannarkladdin Wetland

Total Common Name Scientific Name EPBC FFG VROT Observations Count

Australasian Shoveler Spatula rhynchotis vu 11 6

Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis L en 40 16

Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia L nt 3 3

Great Egret Ardea alba L vu 14 13

Hardhead Aythya australis vu 9 5

Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia L en 2 2

Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii Mi nt 63 14

Little Egret Egretta garzetta L en 3 1

Musk Duck (Plate 18) Biziura lobata vu 17 17

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata Mi 2 1

Notes to table: mi – migratory under the EPBC Act, L - listed under the FFG Act, en – endangered, vu – vulnerable, nt – near threatened in Victoria (DEPI 2013b).

The likelihood of other threatened and/or migratory fauna species occurring at Wannarkladdin Wetland is outlined in Appendix D.

108 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 20 – Musk Duck – observed in Wannarkladdin Wetlands west (June 2017)

5.4.4 Hydrology Wannarkladdin Wetlands are part of a complex of wetlands which includes Edithvale Wetland and Edithvale Common. Centre Main Drain dissects Wannarkladdin Wetlands.

The hydrology of the Wannarkladdin Wetlands is described by Australian Ecosystems (2008) in terms of four sections:

 Semi-permanent to permanent fresh to brackish pools which receive stormwater from local drains. These pools are located in the north and east areas of the wetland and fluctuate between approximately 20 to 60 centimetre in depth.

 Extensive areas in the centre and north that are seasonally inundated to up to 40 centimetre depth.

 Deep permanent saline pool in the west of the wetland which fluctuates between approximately 60 and 100 centimetre in depth. This pool was excavated which exposed acid-sulfate soils in the peaty substrate.

 Extensive area in the south of the wetland which is intermittently inundated after heavy rain.

5.4.5 Threats As part of the one complex of wetlands, Wannarkladdin Wetlands are susceptible to similar threats as those faced by Edithvale Wetlands (see Section 5.3.6). According to Australian Ecosystems (2016), threatening processed at Wannarkladdin Wetlands are:  Competition: invasion by environmental weeds

 Grazing: introduced animals

 Human disturbance: vehicle access (motor bike tracks and jumps)

 Human disturbance: neighbours utilising reserve for private purposes, cubby house building

 Human disturbance: rubbish dumping.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 109

According to Jacobs (2016), Wannarkalddin Wetlands will be subject to saline intrusion from sea level rise and storm surges by 2030. Melbourne Water is undertaking control of Common Reeds and other noxious weeds including Blackberry and Spiny Rush within the Wannarkladdin Wetlands (Melbourne Water, 2017). The distribution of high threat priority weeds has been previously mapped by Australian Ecosystems (2016, Map 25.3 on p309).

Plate 21 – Tall Marsh and mown non-native areas – Wannarkladdin Wetlands north (June 2017)

Plate 22 – Semi-permanent wetland - Wannarkladdin Wetlands north (June 2017)

110 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 23 – Semi-permanent wetland - Wannarkladdin Wetlands east (June 2017)

Plate 24 – Deeper pool - Wannarkladdin Wetlands west (June 2017)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 111

Plate 25 – Sediment pond - Wannarkladdin Wetlands east (June 2017)

5.5 Other GDEs Other GDEs identified within the study area are described below. Their location is shown on Figure 6. The likelihood of occurrence of threatened and/or migratory species in these areas is presented in Appendix D and described in relation to each of the other GDEs outlined below where relevant.

It should be noted that whilst discussed in discrete parts, the sum of these GDEs may be valuable at a landscape scale. For instance, Bicentennial Park and Centre Main Drain form a network of habitat linking the high value GDEs of Wannarkladdin Wetland and Edithvale Wetland and the corridor of vegetation within the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve may also facilitate movement of fauna through the area.

Edithvale Common, Patterson River, some of the local golf courses and Chelsea Bicentennial Park all contain a small number of records of threatened animal species. Their use as habitat by such species is likely to be due to their proximity to Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands rather than the habitat they provide individually and in isolation of the wetland complex.

5.5.1 Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve (part) The Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve is a long coastal strip which is identified by the City of Kingston as a key Natural Resource Area (areas that contain remnant native vegetation). The reserve extends from Mordialloc Creek to Osprey Lane, Carrum (Kingston City Council (2017).

The reserve is characterised by three EVCs (Coast Banksia Woodland, Coastal Dune Scrub and Coastal Dune Grassland) which support a diverse range of flora and fauna (Biosis Research 2012; Kingston City Council, 2107; current assessment). Biosis Research (2012) was commissioned by the Kingston City Council to provide a VQA for the vegetation that occurs in the Kingston Foreshore Reserve. While their assessment covered a broader area than that addressed in this study, the dominant EVC’s of the coastal strip were consistent with that recorded during the current fieldwork. Of note is that the quality of the vegetation recorded during the current site assessment is significantly higher than that recorded by Biosis (2012). This likely to be a reflection of the effective management of the reserve by Kingston City Council.

112 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Local residents have formed the Friends of Bonbeach Foreshore to assist council maintain and protect the habitat value of the foreshore (Kingston City Council, 2017). One Coast Banksia in the foreshore reserve near the end of The Glade, Bonbeach is listed as a significant tree under Schedule 3 of the Environmental Significance Overlay of the Kingston Planning Scheme (2008) and on the Register of Significant Trees (City of Kingston, 2015). According to City of Kingston (2015), the tree is considered to be significant as it is remnant native vegetation and an important landmark to the local area.

All three EVCs (Coast Banksia Woodland, Coastal Dune Scrub and Coastal Tussock Grassland) and evidence of recent revegetation works were observed in the area assessed as part of this GDE impact assessment, and are described in more detail below. Maps of the extent of each EVC are provided in Figure 21 and Figure 22 below. The native vegetation in the coastal reserve is more extensive and intact around Bonbeach than it is around Edithvale. Below is a description of these EVCs as they were observed in the field. EVC 2 – Coast Banksia Woodland

Coast Banksia Woodland (see Plate 26 and Plate 27) was scarce within the assessment area, with only a single patch of the EVC assessed. This patch was identified by an overstorey of mature Coast Banksia Banksia intergrifolia, growing above a mid-stratum dominated by Coast Tea-tree Leptospermum laevigatum, as well as Coast Beard-heath Leucopogon parviflorus and Coast Wattle Acacia longifolia subsp.sophorae. Occasional Drooping She-oak Allocasuarina verticillata were also present but these are considered likely to have been planted during historic revegetation work given that the species is not traditionally associated with this EVC. The ground layer vegetation was typically dominated by grassy and broad-leaf weed species. Occasional native species Wallaby Grass Rytidosperma sp. and small patches of Black-anther Flax-lily Dianella admixta were observed. Whilst a number of other patches of vegetation assessed supported juvenile Coast Banksia, these were considered likely to have been revegetated and such patches were considered most synonymous with Coastal Dune Scrub.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 113

Plate 26 – Coast Banksia Woodland in the coastal Plate 27 – Coast Banksia (August 2017) reserve at Bonbeach (August 2017)

EVC 160 – Coastal Dune Scrub

Numerous patches of remnant Coastal Dune Scrub were recorded in the coastal reserve. Those patches of this EVC that hadn’t been subjected to recent revegetation improvement works were typically species-poor, and often comprised only of Coast Tea-tree, with a sparse ground layer consisting of Hairy Spinifex Spinifex sericeus, occasional Coast Tussock-grass Poa poiformis as well as introduced graminoid species (see Plate 28 and Plate 29). Those patches with greater species diversity also supported Coast Beard-heath and Boobialla Myoporum insulare.

The differentiation of this EVC from Coast Banksia Woodland was often difficult and open to interpretation, given that both EVCs are growing on the same sandy soil type, and are often represented by similar species. For the purposes of this assessment, the presence of multiple, mature Coast Banksia was considered to signify a patch of Coast Banksia Woodland.

Ground layer vegetation at the site was a mix of both exotic and native species. Hare’s-tail Grass Lagurus ovatus and Panic Veldt Grass Ehrharta erecta grew amongst broad-leaf weeds such as Galenia Galenia pubescens and Gazania Gazania sp. Indigenous species commonly observed include Coast Saltbush Atriplex cinerea, Rounded Noon-flower Carpobrotus rossii and Hedge Wattle Acacia paradoxa. Those patches which had been subject to revegetation works also supported species such as Spiny-headed Mat-rush Lomandra longifolia, Knobby Club- sedge Ficinia nodosa, White Correa Correa alba in the understorey (Plate 28 and Plate 29).

Like Coast Banksia Woodland, this vegetation was restricted to the linear strip of the coastal reserve, although some individual Coast Tea-trees occur within adjacent private properties.

114 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 28 – Coast Dune Scrub in the coastal reserve at Bonbeach (August 2017)

Plate 29 – Coast Dune Scrub in the coastal reserve at Edithvale (August 2017)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 115

EVC 879 – Coastal Dune Grassland

Coastal Dune Grassland, as observed within the project area, is almost solely dominated by Hairy Spinifex Spinifex sericeus. The EVC is structurally poor, although shrub species can sometimes be present within this EVC. Very occasionally, some of the smaller herb species that were recorded from within the Coastal Dune Scrub and Coast Banksia Woodland EVC’s have begun to colonise the Coastal Dune Grassland, including Rounded Noon-flower and Bidgee- widgee. The dynamism of the seaward facing side of the foredune system however, is considered likely to prevent the continued regeneration of such species. The introduced marram Grass Ammophila arenaria was also common within this EVC. Vegetation quality and habitat assessment

Vegetation quality assessments have been completed for the foreshore reserve. These are presented in Appendix H. The importance of the foreshore as an environmental asset is recognised by Section 21.08 of the Kingston Planning Scheme which aims to protect the foreshore for future generations and, where possible, restore natural ecosystems and minimise adverse environmental impacts. The establishment of a Friends group to help manage and revegetate the reserve at Bonbeach highlights the importance of this area for the local community.

The coastal vegetation is considered is considered unlikely to support threatened flora species. Species diversity was typically low, and factors such as noise, light spill, proximity to residential areas, and the associated disturbance by human and domestic animals utilising the beach, are likely to limit the habitat value of this vegetation for threatened species. Vegetation within the foreshore reserve is however considered to form a wildlife corridor in the landscape of the study area and its potential importance for the movement of birds, and as a possible landmark for migrating birds, cannot be dismissed. The foreshore reserve may augment and/or encourage the utilisation of the other wildlife corridor within the study area; the vegetation along the rail reserve which is described in EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

Threats

Threats to the foreshore reserve include the introduction and/or spread of weeds, climate change, and/or acts of public nuisance (such as lighting of fires, unpermitted vegetation clearance, firewood harvesting). Altered hydrology may also affect the ability for the native vegetation to persist in this environment. The extent to which the vegetation may be reliant on groundwater is discussed below.

Despite its relatively continuous nature along the foreshore reserve, native coastal vegetation is shown to be patchily distributed in the available EVC mapping, with much of the vegetation wrongly mapped within the surrounding ocean (Figure 32 in Appendix A). This is reflected in the mapping of GDEs (Figure 6) as the models are reliant on such desktop information. As such the sporadic occurrence of GDEs along the coast in the GDE mapping is not considered to be an accurate depiction of the extent of vegetation that is potentially groundwater dependent. It is considered likely the vegetation draws on groundwater on the basis of the information outlined below. However, the extent to which the foreshore vegetation is dependent on groundwater for continued vitality cannot be definitively determined and is likely to be variable in response to climatic factors including prevailing rainfall. A literature review presented in Kuginis et al. (2012) refers to studies that have been undertaken in relation to sandy substrates and/or coastal environments which report that:

 roots of plants in coastal environments can reach depths that exceed 10 metres

116 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

 roots have been recorded at depths of up to 15 metres and root to shoot ratios of 5:1 for plants less than 1.5 metres tall  most aquifers studied on the coastal plains in NSW have a depth to water table of less than 10 metres.

It is generally accepted in the literature that vegetation will preferentially utilise water sources that require the least energy to obtain (Serov et al, 2012). This suggests that any available moisture in the soil profile would be used first, with groundwater drawn upon as needed (through capillary action within the vadose zone) to supplement water requirements. Direct uptake by trees from the water table is also not thought to be common, with the majority of water taken up from the capillary fringe (Kuigins, et al. 2012). Roots are unable to function, in most instances, in a permanently saturated zone as oxygen is required for plant respiration (Serov et al, 2012). This may not be the case in coastal dune substrates where the water table is not confined and is likely to be subject to variation both in depth and quality at any given time. Groundwater levels within the coastal dune portion of the study area are likely to be highly dynamic, owing to local higher permeability of the Quaternary Aquifer along the coastal dune, and significant rainfall recharge response along the coastal dune (refer to EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

The dominant shrub species in the foreshore vegetation (Coast Tea-tree and Coast Wattle) were over one metre tall and the only tree species observed (Coast Banksia) grew up to 12 metres tall. Applying the 1:5 height to root ratio as detailed earlier, roots from these species could be reasonably expected to achieve depths of at least 5 metres below the base of the plant.

Figure 20 provides a conceptual schematic outlining the potential relative root depths on a per species basis, based on dominant EVCs, and the aforementioned inferences regarding root- depth ratio. The figure is used to illustrate the relative potential for the plants to be utilising groundwater. Plant heights shown are provided as an example only and are not representative of all individual plants of a given species with significant variation in plant height observed during vegetation surveys.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 117

Figure 20 Coastal dune plants and potential depth of roots

118 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 21 Native vegetation of the foreshore reserve - Edithvale

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 119

Figure 22 Native vegetation of the foreshore reserve - Bonbeach

120 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.5.2 Edithvale Common

Edithvale Common is a recreation reserve, immediately adjacent to the Edithvale Wetlands Ramsar site (Figure 9). It encompasses walking tracks and public open space with areas of revegetation and supports two wetland cells (EC1 and EC2) identified as part of the Edithvale Wetland but outside the Ramsar site (GHD, 2006; SKM, 2011). Edithvale Common is part of the Carrum Important Bird Area (IBA) program led by BirdLife Australia and is covered by an Environmental Significance Overlay under the Kingston Planning Scheme.

BirdLife Australia has been undertaking biodiversity surveys for Melbourne Water since 2013 as part of the Melbourne Water Regional Bird Monitoring Project. One of their survey sites is Edithvale Common (wetland cell EC1). BirdLife Australia last surveyed Edithvale Common on 12 April 2017 at which time 102 bird species were observed (Birdlife Australia 2017a) Most of Edithvale Common is mown exotic pasture grasses. Planted native trees occur throughout the reserve, particularly around the carpark, along the walking trails and Centre Main Drain. There are several mulched areas which have been recently planted. Wetland cell EC1 in the north (Plate 30) and EC2 in the centre (Plate 31) of Edithvale Common are a dense monoculture of Common Reed Phragmites australis. EC2 is labelled as a frog pond in GHD (2006) although there was no obvious ‘pond’ or standing surface water.

Plate 30 – Common Reed, Edithvale Common Plate 31 – Edithvale Common (wetland cell EC2, SKM (wetland cell EC1) – June 2017 2011) – August 2017

According to Ecology Australia (2016), Edithvale Common regularly supported good habitat for Latham’s Snipe, ducks and frogs, however drainage improvements have reduced the regularity of inundation and Edithvale Common now only provides good frog habitat during wet periods (Paul Rees, Melbourne Water, pers. comm. cited in Ecology Australia 2016). Small numbers of migratory shorebirds (Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos, Marsh Sandpiper, Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia and Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta) have been previously recorded at Edithvale Common (BirdLife Australia data).

According to Ecology Australia (2016):  EC1 is an ephemeral wetland which receives water from a diversion weir in the outfall pipeline from Centre Main Drain (Ecology Australia 2016). During winter and spring the wetland fills to 0.1 metres AHD but is generally dry by the end of November.  EC2 is a shallow depression filled by local run-off. This wetland only fills in wet years and is dry by the end of November.

Threats to Edithvale Common are similar to those outlined for Edithvale Wetland in Section 5.3.10. Of particular relevance are:

 Altered hydrology, although drainage improvements works have already changed the hydrology of Edithvale Common and reduced the quality of habitat.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 121

 Climate change with Edithvale Common predicted to be inundated by a 0.15 metre rise sea level rise by 2030 and storm surges and be completely inundated by 2100 (Jacobs 2016).

5.5.3 Patterson River

Patterson River is an artificial waterway that was created in 1876 to provide direct drainage to Port Phillip Bay from the Dandenong Valley catchment area (Parks Victoria, 2002). The river begins at the confluence of the Eumemmerring and Dandenong Creeks at the National Watersports Centre, Carrum. The banks of the Patterson River were largely artificial and comprised rocks or concrete retaining walls for most of the southern bank and for part of the northern bank in proximity to the Nepean Highway. Further upstream the northern bank was less artificial in appearance and supported patches of native vegetation. Fringing aquatic vegetation was absent and instream vegetation was limited to marine macro algae.

The vegetation lining the northern bank of the Patterson River is a mix of indigenous, non- indigenous and exotic species. On the southern side of the northern levee, revegetation works have been undertaken using non-indigenous native eucalypt species and Drooping She-oak Allocasuarina verticillata. These grow above a ground layer dominated by exotic graminoids, of which couch Cynodon dactylon is most abundant. Toward the eastern end of the northern levee bank these plantings begin to make way for regenerating native vegetation including coastal saltmarsh and swamp scrub. Common Reed is also abundant throughout this area.

The southern bank of the Patterson River is dominated by hard-stand car-parking for three boat launching ramps and residential properties. Between the car park/river and the private residences is the Dandenong Creek Trail which follows a large tract of open recreational land, which has been planted with scattered non-indigenous trees and shrubs such as Bottlebrush Callistemon sp., Paperbark Melaleuca sp. and eucalypts.

The Patterson River provides a foraging and shelter resource for a variety of birds, particularly waterbirds such as egrets, herons, cormorants and ducks. There are records on the VBA of the state significant Great Egret and Royal Spoonbill along Patterson River within the study area. Numerous fish species occur within the river and occasionally dolphins have been sighted (Parks Victoria, 2002).

Plate 32 – Patterson River – outlet from Wannarkladdin Plate 33 – Patterson River – outlet from Wetlands (June 2017) Wannarkladdin Wetlands (June 2017)

122 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plate 34 – Patterson River –view to mouth of river. Plate 35 – Patterson River – rail and road bridges and outlet to Port Phillip Bay

5.5.4 Centre Main Drain Centre Main Drain is a large, man-made linear drainage channel commencing at Mordialloc Creek and terminating at an outfall on the Patterson River. The northern extent of the drain is contained within a relatively linear easement running adjacent to the Long Beach Trail. South of Thames Promenade the trail and drainage easement diverge, meeting again just prior to the drain terminating at the banks of the Patterson River.

The drain is an open swale/retention basin with a pipe underground. Where the easement passes through low points in the landscape, surface water collects and can persist before feeding into stormwater pits that then discharge into the drain. The invert elevation of Centre Main Drain is lower than shallow groundwater, indicating that Centre Main Drain likely receives seasonal groundwater discharges (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

Macrophyte cover is present in a number of these pools, and as such they provide ephemeral habitat. The ecological value of this habitat varies in its composition and wetting and drying cycle with the highest quality and most permanent habitat present in proximity to the Edithvale Wetland. Habitat is likely to support common fauna including drought tolerant macroinvertebrate communities, crustaceans, common frogs and fish (made up of predominately exotic species i.e. Mosquitofish). The drain may also provide low quality habitat for water fowl but is not expected to provide important habitat for threatened and / or migratory species.

5.5.5 Golf courses There are several golf courses within the study area with sections that are identified as GDEs (Figure 6). These include Rossdale Golf Club (Plate 36), Chelsea Golf Club and Patterson River Golf Club (Plate 37). The Rossdale Golf Club and Chelsea Golf Club are located immediately adjacent to Edithvale Wetland and Edithvale Common and the Patterson River Golf Club is adjacent to Wannarkladdin Wetlands.

Golf courses were typically characterised by mown grass fairways, manicured greens, water bodies, sand bunkers and areas (often rows) of planted trees and shrubs. There may also have been some larger scattered trees which were not apparent from vantage points. The water hazards provide habitat for a diversity of waterfowl, particularly those species with a preference for deep, permanent habitat. This includes threatened ducks, such as Australasian Shoveller, Hardhead and Musk Duck, and Magpie Goose (observed on the large dam in Rossdale Golf Club during the EES ecological investigations).

Many of the water bodies of the golf courses (Rossdale and Patterson River in particular) are identified in the GDE mapping (Figure 6). However, it is not clear if groundwater plays a role in their hydrology.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 123

One tree within Rossdale Golf Course is recognised as a significant tree under Schedule 3 of the Environmental Significance Overlay under the Kingston Planning Scheme (2008). Chelsea Golf Course is covered by the Environmental Significance Overlay of the Kingston Planning Scheme as part of a larger area with Edithvale Wetland and Edithvale Common.

Plate 36 –Rossdale golf course, viewed from Edithvale Common (June 2017)

Plate 37 –Patterson River golf course, viewed from La Perouse Boulevard (June 2017)

124 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

5.5.6 Chelsea Bicentennial Park/Beazley Reserve

Chelsea Bicentennial Park is a large recreation reserve adjacent to Wannarkladdin Wetlands. Facilities in the reserve include shelters, BBQ’s, tables, walking trails, seating, toilets, play equipment, a skate park and two baseball pitches. The reserve also incorporates Beazley Reserve (sporting oval) and the Chelsea Heights community centre. Part of the reserve was formerly a landfill site. The reserve dominated by large expanses of manicured, exotic grassland (Plate 38). Some planted native trees are however incorporated into landscaping, particularly in the north eastern section of the park and along walking paths. A large dense stand of trees also exists to the south of Beazley Reserve.

Plate 38 – Chelsea Bicentennial Park (June 2017)

5.5.7 Residential areas/backyards

Residential streets within the suburbs of Aspendale, Edithvale, Bonbeach, Chelsea and Chelsea Heights typically comprised semi-mature and mature planted native trees of above manicured lawn nature strips. Street trees typically included White Cedar Melia azedarach, Giant Honey-myrtle, Prickly-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca styphelioides, Willow Myrtle Agonis flexuosa, Willow-leafed Hakea Hakea salicifolia, Narrow-leaved Black Peppermint Eucalyptus nicholii, Southern Mahogany Eucalyptus botryoides, Snow-in-Summer Melaleuca linariifolia and Callistemon species. Vegetation within residential lots is far more variable with some lots containing large ornamental gardens whilst others are dominated by hardstand areas. Tree species included ornamental native and exotic trees, shrubs and herbs and expanses of manicured lawn. Some of these trees may be utilising groundwater however they are in an urbanised environment where artificial water sources are readily available and, as such, the extent to which they are reliant on groundwater is unknown.

Collectively the canopy provided by trees throughout the residential areas represents an extensive area of foraging and resting habitat particularly for birds and possums. Grey-headed

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 125

Flying-fox is likely to forage throughout the residential area on an opportunistic and occasional basis although the resources are not critical habitat for the species. Largely the vegetation within these residential areas is not afforded protection under environmental legislation. However, it is possible that remnant trees such as large old Coast Banksia and eucalypts are on some residential lots scattered throughout the suburbs. A number of the residential lots within the study area are covered by Schedule 3 to the Environmental Significance Overlay under the Kingston Planning Scheme (2008). Schedule 3 identifies exotic, native and indigenous trees on private and public land that have been identified as having special significance on the City of Kingston Register of Significant Trees 2007.

126 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 5.6 Threatened and/or migratory species The likelihood of occurrence of threatened and/or migratory species recorded on the VBA and/or predicted by the PMST to occur (excluding those species that have no relevance to the project (see Section 4.1.2) is presented in Appendix C (threatened flora) and Appendix D (threatened and/or migratory fauna). No VBA records of threatened flora species occur within the GDE study area.

Conversely, there are a number of threatened and/or migratory fauna records within the study area and, as such, a number of species are considered to have a moderate or greater likelihood of occurring at Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands. A small number of individuals of some species may also occasionally utilise compatible habitat within other GDEs in the study area, particularly along the Patterson River, in the higher quality examples of waterbodies within golf courses or within large canopy trees that are scattered throughout the study area.

Discussion of the presence or otherwise of threatened and/or migratory fauna species is provided in the outlines of GDEs above where relevant and are discussed as MNES in Section 9, below.

5.7 Threatening processes

Threatening processes listed under the EPBC Act and/or FFG Act are listed in Technical Appendix D Ecology: Project Areas. Of these, those threatening processes that could be exacerbated by groundwater mounding and/or drawdown are:

 wetland loss and degradation as a result of change in water regime, dredging, draining, filling and grazing

 habitat fragmentation as a threatening process for fauna (associated with the vegetation of the coastal reserve, and the local habitat corridor formed by the wetland complexes combined)

 activation of CASS.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 127

6. Risk assessment

An assessment of risks to wetlands and GDEs posed by the projects was undertaken in accordance with the method described in Section 4.4.

The risks are listed in Table 18 for Edithvale and Bonbeach. The likelihood and consequence ratings applied during the risk assessment process are provided in Appendix J.

Risks were assessed for the construction and design/operation phases (where relevant). For the purposes of this risk assessment, these project phases are defined as:  Construction – the period during which construction works within the rail corridor are taking place, including the construction of the pile walls.  Operation– the period following completion of the pile walls. Changes to groundwater levels and flow paths could commence upon completion of the piled walls (which would obstruct groundwater throughflow).

In the case of wetlands and GDEs the risks are all associated with groundwater change related to the installation of the pile walls (construction) and subsequent changes in groundwater that are expected to continue through the operation phase. As such, these risks are considered in relation to the operation phase of the project rather than the construction phase. Groundwater changes could occur over a period of weeks to months depending on climatic conditions at the time (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

Risks considered in the risk assessment in relation to Edithvale Wetland largely align with those risks identified in Ecology Australia (2016). A discussion of threats is provided in Section 5.3.10 and these are recognised in the risk assessment in the context of the potential for the level crossing removal project to exacerbate those threats.

128 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Table 18 Risks to wetlands and other GDEs

Risk ID Risk name Risk pathway Initial EPR ID Initial risk level Final EPR ID Residual risk level LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |EcologicalImpact Assessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Edithvale Wetland

EG72 Edithvale-Seaford Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible Wetland Ramsar Site - hydrological regime and/or water quality resulting in Rail trench trench design EV a change in ecological character (habitat and/or design EPR GW2 – food availability) that exceeds the limit of acceptable Groundwater change for critical components, processes and performance systems to the extent that the Edithvale-Seaford outcomes Wetlands no longer meet criteria for listing as a Ramsar site. EPR GW3 – Groundwater Management and Mitigation Plan

EPR FF8 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Edithvale Wetland)

EG73 Listed migratory and/or Groundwater mounding resulting in altered EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible threatened bird species hydrological regime resulting in change in habitat Rail trench trench design - EV (wet grassland / mudflats) at Edithvale Wetland to design EPR GW2 – the extent that the site no longer regularly supports Groundwater listed migratory and/or threatened bird species. performance outcomes

Ecosystems |129 EG74 Native vegetation - EV Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible hydrological regime and/or water quality resulting in Rail trench trench design loss of native vegetation (patches and scattered design EPR GW2 – trees) within Edithvale Wetland leading to a Groundwater reduction in the extent of native vegetation in performance Victoria. outcomes Ecosystems 130 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0|Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Risk ID Risk name Risk pathway Initial EPR ID Initial risk level Final EPR ID Residual risk level

EPR FF8 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Edithvale Wetland)

EG75 Exacerbate sea level Groundwater mounding leading to altered hydrology EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible rise - EV which exacerbates or accelerates predicted effects Rail trench trench design of sea level rise (climate change) resulting in a loss design EPR GW2 – of habitat and change in ecological character of Groundwater Edithvale Wetland leading to failure to meet the LAC for critical CPS and/or Ramsar listing criteria.

EG76 Threatening process - Loss of Edithvale Wetland resulting in the EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible wetland loss - EV exacerbation of a threatening process listed under Rail trench trench design the FFG Act. design EPR GW2 – Groundwater performance outcomes

Aspendale – Carrum Foreshore Reserve

EG77 Coastal reserve – native Groundwater drawdown resulting in the loss of EPR GW1 - Minor EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible vegetation - EV native vegetation and fauna habitat along the Rail trench trench design coastal reserve leading to a reduction in the extent design EPR GW2 - of native vegetation in Victoria and increased risk of EPR FF7 - Groundwater erosion of the foreshore. GDE performance Monitoring and outcomes mitigation plan EPR GW3 – (Foreshore Groundwater Native Management and Vegetation) Monitoring Plan Risk ID Risk name Risk pathway Initial EPR ID Initial risk level Final EPR ID Residual risk level

EPR FF7 - GDE

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0|EcologicalImpact Assessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Monitoring and mitigation plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation)

EG78 Threatening process – Fragmentation of the narrow habitat corridor of the EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible habitat fragmentation - foreshore reserve, resulting in the exacerbation of a Rail trench trench design EV threatening process listed under the FFG Act. design EPR GW2 – EPR FF7 - Groundwater GDE performance Monitoring and outcomes mitigation plan EPR GW3 – (Foreshore Groundwater Native Management and Vegetation) Monitoring Plan

EPR FF7 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation)

EG83 Coastal reserve – native Groundwater drawdown resulting in the loss of EPR GW1 - Minor EPR GW1 - Rail Minor vegetation - BB native vegetation and fauna habitat along the Rail trench trench design coastal reserve leading to a reduction in the extent design EPR GW2 – of native vegetation in Victoria and increased risk of

Ecosystems |131 EPR FF7 - Groundwater erosion of the foreshore. GDE performance Monitoring and outcomes mitigation plan EPR GW3 – (Foreshore Groundwater

Native Management and Ecosystems 132 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent Risk ID Risk name Risk pathway Initial EPR ID Initial risk level Final EPR ID Residual risk level

Vegetation) Monitoring Plan

EPR FF7 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation)

EG84 Threatening process – Fragmentation of the narrow habitat corridor of the EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible habitat fragmentation) - foreshore reserve, resulting in the exacerbation of a Rail trench trench design BB threatening process listed under the FFG Act. design EPR GW2 – EPR FF7 - Groundwater GDE performance Monitoring and outcomes mitigation plan EPR GW3 – (Foreshore Groundwater Native Management and Vegetation) Monitoring Plan

EPR FF7 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation)

Other GDEs

EG79 Other vegetation / fauna Groundwater change leading to altered hydrological EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible habitat - EV regime and/or changes in water quality resulting in Rail trench trench design the loss of undocumented remnant vegetation design EPR GW2 – and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of Groundwater high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties). performance outcomes Risk ID Risk name Risk pathway Initial EPR ID Initial risk level Final EPR ID Residual risk level

EG85 Other vegetation / fauna Groundwater change leading to altered hydrological EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0|EcologicalImpact Assessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent habitat - BB regime and/or changes in water quality resulting in Rail trench trench design the loss of undocumented remnant vegetation design EPR GW2 – and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of Groundwater high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties). performance outcomes

Wannakladdin Wetlands

EG80 Wannarkladdin Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible Wetlands - BB hydrological regime and/or water quality resulting in Rail trench trench design loss of native vegetation and/or fauna habitat design EPR GW2 – associated with Wannarkladdin Wetlands. Groundwater performance outcomes

EPR GW3 - Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan

EG81 Exacerbate sea level Groundwater mounding leading to altered hydrology EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible rise - BB which exacerbates or accelerates predicted effects Rail trench trench design of sea level rise (climate change) resulting in a loss design EPR GW2 – of habitat and change in ecological character of Groundwater Edithvale Wetland leading to failure to meet the LAC performance for critical CPS and/or Ramsar listing criteria. outcomes

EG82 Threatening process - Loss of Wannarkladdin Wetlands resulting in the EPR GW1 - Negligible EPR GW1 - Rail Negligible Ecosystems |13 wetland loss - BB exacerbation of a threatening process listed under Rail trench trench design the FFG Act. design EPR GW2 – Groundwater performance

outcomes 7. Impact assessment

The installation of the pile walls for the rail trench would form an impermeable barrier which has the potential to alter the hydrology and/or quality of water on which wetlands and other GDEs within the study area depend. Changes to groundwater as a result of the level crossing removals could have an impact on GDEs through:  groundwater mounding - raising of the water table from the existing groundwater level. This can occur through increased recharge or by obstruction of the flow of groundwater.  groundwater drawdown - lowering of the water table from the existing groundwater level. This can occur through extraction of groundwater by pumping or obstruction of the flow of groundwater. These effects are relevant as the rail trench has the potential to cause drawdown on the coastal side of the project and mounding on the inland side towards the Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar site (Edithvale project) and Wannarkladdin Wetlands (Bonbeach project). The following section details the potential impacts resulting from the projects.

The impacts are discussed separately in relation to the Edithvale and Bonbeach project areas.

7.1 Edithvale Potential impacts from the rail trench were considered in the risk assessment given the potential for the groundwater mounding to impact Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site and the adjacent area known as Edithvale Common. Impacts to native vegetation along the coastal reserve to the west of the rail corridor (as a result in groundwater drawdown) were also considered.

7.1.1 Groundwater mounding Groundwater mounding could result in an altered hydrological regime and/or reduced water quality which could lead to:

 alteration to habitat to the extent that the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site: – exceeds the Limit of Acceptable Change (LAC) for critical CPS and no longer meets Ramsar listing criteria (risk EG72)

– no longer regularly supports a nationally significant population of Latham’s Snipe (risk EG73)  loss of native vegetation (patches and scattered trees) within Edithvale Wetland (Risk ID EG74).

 alteration of other GDEs in the study area including: – Edithvale Common which could result in the loss of a small area of vegetation and/or habitat (risk EG79)

– undocumented remnant vegetation and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties) to the east (inland) of the rail corridor (risk 79).

 exacerbation of a threatening process under the FFG Act (wetland loss) (risk EG76).

Impacts and pathways for these impacts are discussed in the following sections.

134 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 23 provides a conceptual model (cross section) of the ecosystems assessed in relation to impacts of the level crossing removal project at Edithvale – Edithvale Wetland and the foreshore reserve. The cross section indicates existing groundwater levels during wet and dry conditions (shown by the blue and red lines respectively).

The susceptibility of the Ramsar site and coastal vegetation to hydrological changes are outlined in the existing conditions in Section 5.3.7 and Section 5.5.1 respectively. This information was used to inform the assessment of likelihood and consequences of impact as part of the risk assessment process and is therefore not repeated here.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 135 Ecosystems 136 |LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision0 |Ecological ImpactAssessment: Wetlands andGroundwater Dependent

Figure 23 Conceptual cross section of Edithvale identifying GDEs in relation to existing groundwater conditions

7.1.1.1 Change to ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Edithvale Wetland provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife. This diversity is intrinsically linked to the range of habitats the wetland supports which in turn is linked to the prevailing hydrological regime and water quality. Ideal hydrology for the wetlands involves inundation over winter and early-spring with a slow drawdown from September to December to provide habitat for migratory waders. Maintenance of deeper pools as permanent water for waterfowl is also important. Changes to hydrology and water quality (particularly salinity) are recognised as threats to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands (refer to Section 5.3.10) and pose a risk to the critical CPS the wetlands provide and a risk to listing of the site under the Ramsar convention (refer to Section 5.3.11).

Groundwater mounding could alter the hydrological regime and/or water quality of Edithvale Wetland which could result in:  A change in the ecological character (habitat and/or food availability) that exceeds the limit of acceptable change for critical components, processes and systems to the extent that the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands no longer meet criteria for listing as a Ramsar site (risk EG72). The mechanisms for this could include:

o Edithvale Wetland no longer supporting Australasian Bittern and/or Curlew Sandpiper (relates to critical CPS threatened species and is also related to listing of the site under Ramsar Criteria 2)

o a reduction in waterbird species to an extent that the site (relates to critical CPS physical habitat for waterbirds) no longer regularly supports 1% of the individuals in the international population of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper and/or Australasian Bittern (relates to critical CPS waterbird diversity and abundance and is also related to listing of the site under Ramsar Criteria 6)

o loss of habitat for plants and/or animal species at critical stages in their lifecycles (relates to critical CPS waterbird breeding and is also related to listing of the site under Ramsar Criteria 4).

 change in habitat (wet grassland / mudflats) to the extent that the site no longer regularly supports listed migratory and / or threatened bird species including Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Latham’s Snipe, Australasian Bittern and Curlew Sandpiper (risk EG73). Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Curlew Sandpiper and Australasian Bittern are also considered by pathway risk EG72 (above) as they form a specific component(s) of the Ramsar listing. Latham’s Snipe does not form a specific component of the Ramsar listing but the wetland is considered to constitute nationally significant habitat for the species under the EPBC Act. The above listed species are discussed in detail in Appendix E.  loss of native vegetation (patches and scattered trees) within Edithvale Wetland which could reduce the extent of native vegetation in Victoria (risk EG74). Native vegetation provides habitat for wildlife and delivers a range of ecosystem services that make agricultural land more productive and contributes to human wellbeing (COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water 2012). Removal or destruction of native vegetation usually requires a permit in Victoria.  an acceleration, or exacerbation of the predicted effects of sea level rise through climate change leading to a change in the ecological character of Edithvale Wetland such that the site no longer meets the Ramsar listing criteria or limits of acceptable change for critical CPS (risk EG75).

 loss of Edithvale Wetland resulting in the exacerbation of a threatening process listed under the FFG Act (risk EG76).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 137

The assessment of impacts to the Edithvale Wetland is based on groundwater modelling predictions which are documented in EES Technical Report A Groundwater. Based on these predictions, the risk of groundwater mounding impacting on the habitat of Edithvale Wetland to the extent that waterbird diversity and abundance declines and the wetland no longer meets Ramsar listing criteria is negligible. Figure 24 illustrates the location of Edithvale Wetland in relation to groundwater mounding modelled as a result of installation of the trench for the level crossing removals.

Management and mitigation

In order to further reduce the risks associated with groundwater mounding at Edithvale, an EPR was developed to identify groundwater targets that the project must meet in order to lower the likelihood of mounding impacts occurring (EPR_GW2). A description of the groundwater management solution and the results of the groundwater modelling which validate the effectiveness of the solution are provided in EES Technical Report A Groundwater Appendix H.

Figure 25 illustrates the location of Edithvale Wetland in relation to modelled groundwater mounding with the addition of the design solution to address EPR_GW2. It shows that implementation of EPR_GW2 further reduces the already negligible risk to Edithvale Wetland to the extent that it is extremely unlikely for groundwater change to affect the wetland. Groundwater mounding of 0.1 metres not expected to extend closer than approximately 1100 metres toward Edithvale Wetland

A slight, occasional and short-term increase in water levels due to the project, that may have been realised following heavy rainfall events when the wetland is already at or close to capacity (i.e. in winter), would be avoided with implementation of EPR_GW2.

No change to water levels, duration of inundation, rate of drawdown over summer and/or water quality is predicted to occur as a result of the projects with the implementation of groundwater management measures for EPR_GW2. As such, the Edithvale project is not considered to present a risk to the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site.

Design of the level crossing removal project to minimise changes to groundwater levels (EPR_GW2) has resulted in a negligible risk of groundwater mounding impacting on the habitat of Edithvale Wetland. No further mitigation is therefore required.

Ecological monitoring at Edithvale Wetland is not proposed on the basis that:

 Change to surface or groundwater levels, duration of inundation, rate of drawdown over summer and/or water quality is extremely unlikely at the wetland as a result of the projects.  The ecological character of the site is already well documented (DSE, 2012) and the site is the subject of a comprehensive management plan (Ecology Australia, 2016). As such, further understanding of the ecological values of the site is not required.

 Bird monitoring is undertaken monthly by BirdLife Australia.  Edithvale Wetland is a dynamic system which already experiences significant and regular fluctuations in water level and quality due to stormwater inputs from the surrounding urbanised environment. The wetland is also exposed to a range of other pressures including climate change and pest plants and animals. As such, it will not be possible to definitively associate any changes in water level and/or quality from the project to a change in the diversity and/or abundance of birds or macroinvertebrates.

However, in consultation with the land manager, a GDE Monitoring and Mitigation Plan would still be developed for Edithvale Wetland (EPR_FF8). The plan would be implemented if criteria for groundwater change were identified through a Groundwater Management and Monitoring

138 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Plan which would be implemented for the project (EPR_GW3). The groundwater plan would include clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require the GDE Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to be implemented.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 139

Figure 24 Groundwater change post-trench installation at Edithvale (inland)

140 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 25 Groundwater change post-trench installation with groundwater management solution at Edithvale (inland)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 141

7.1.2 Alteration to, or loss of, other GDEs in the study area

Groundwater mounding could alter the hydrological regime and/or water quality of other GDEs in the study area (risk EG79) including:

 Edithvale Common

 undocumented remnant vegetation and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties) to the east (inland) of the rail corridor. Groundwater mounding could result in the loss of vegetation and habitat at Edithvale Common and/or in the residential areas east of the rail corridor through the prolonged saturation of the root zones. The risk of this occurring is greatest in close proximity to the project area as this is where groundwater mounding would be most pronounced.

Management and mitigation

No change to water levels, and/or water quality is predicted to occur at Edithvale Common as a result of the Edithvale project with the implementation of EPR_GW1. Groundwater mounding of 0.1 metres is predicted to occur no closer than 855 metres west of Edithvale Common.

No remnant vegetation is identified in the area that has been modelled to be affected by groundwater mounding however it is possible that remnant trees such as Coast Banksia and Eucalypt species exist within some residential lots. Collectively the canopy provided by trees throughout the residential areas (in gardens and along nature strips) represents an area of foraging and resting habitat particularly for birds and arboreal mammals.

The ecological consequence of losing scattered trees and other fauna habitats in this area is considered to be negligible given the highly urbanised environment within the area of potential groundwater mounding. The loss of these trees within the broader project area is not considered likely to result in significant ecological impact, given the low likelihood that these trees provide habitat for significant fauna species. The loss of such trees may be more significant from the perspective of the visual amenity they provide.

The Edithvale project presents a negligible risk to Edithvale Common and other vegetation and habitat in the study area.

Management and mitigation

The project would result in a negligible risk to other GDEs in the study area. Therefore, no further mitigation is required.

7.1.1.2 Exacerbation of threatening process (wetland loss) Wetland loss and degradation as a result of change in water regime is identified as a potentially threatening process under the FFG Act. The capacity for the level crossing removal project to exacerbate this threatening process is discussed in Section 7.1.1.1 above in relation to the Edithvale Wetland and Section 7.2.1.1 in relation to Wannarkladdin Wetland (risk EG76).

This risk pathway was considered separately to the EPBC Act (Ramsar) risk pathways above to reflect the different legislative trigger (FFG Act). The assessment of risk and impact for this pathway is consistent with the sections above.

Management and mitigation

Design of the level crossing removal project to minimise changes to groundwater levels (EPR_GW2) has resulted in a negligible risk of groundwater mounding impacting on the habitat of Edithvale Wetland. As such, the risk of a potentially threatening process listed under the FFG Act (wetland loss and degradation) being exacerbated by the Edithvale project is also negligible.

142 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

No further mitigation is therefore required.

7.1.3 Groundwater drawdown

Groundwater drawdown could result in altered hydrology which could lead to:  loss of native vegetation and fauna habitat along sections of the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve leading to a loss of native vegetation and fauna habitat and increased risk of erosion of the foreshore (risk EG77). The susceptibility of the foreshore vegetation to changes in groundwater is discussed in more detail in Section 5.1.

 exacerbation of a threatening process listed under the FFG Act (habitat fragmentation) (risk EG78).

 loss of undocumented remnant vegetation and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties) to the west (coast side) of the rail corridor (risk EG79).

Impacts and pathways are discussed in the following sections.

7.1.2.1 Loss of native vegetation of the foreshore reserve Groundwater drawdown could result in the loss of vegetation from the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve through a lowering of the water table beyond the reach of plant roots. Lowering of the water table could also lead to an increase in seawater intrusion and/or activation of CASS through exposing potential CASS to oxygen.

Seawater intrusion

Changes to the salinity of groundwater could occur due to changes in the behaviour of the groundwater/seawater interface. An increase in groundwater salinity could affect vegetation if the salt content of the groundwater that the plants are accessing rises to a level that the plants cannot tolerate.

The predicted change in the salinity of the groundwater as a result of the project is not expected to exceed that required for potable water to be of beneficial use as identified under State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Groundwaters of Victoria 1997 (EES Technical Report A: Groundwater).

The species composition of vegetation within the foreshore reserve has been historically influenced by its coastal setting. As such, these plants have a degree of tolerance to both salt- laden winds and groundwater with increased salt concentrations. Given the predicted change in groundwater salinity, impacts to the foreshore vegetation as a consequence of seawater intrusion are considered to be unlikely.

Acid sulfate soils

Activation of CASS could occur through exposure of areas of potential CASS to oxygen through a lowering of the groundwater. The lowering of groundwater in the coastal sediments has the potential to result in acidification of the soils which could lead to acidification of groundwater. Plant growth is favoured by a soil pH range of 5.5 - 8 (Foy, 1984). Where soil pH drops, as would happen if the acidification of soil is realised, aluminium becomes soluble. In soluble form, aluminium can retard root growth, restricting access to water and nutrients (Foy, 1984). This therefore could potentially exacerbate the impact of any groundwater drawdown.

No areas of potential acid sulfate soils are expected to be activated at Edithvale (EES Technical Report C Acid Sulphate Soils and Contamination). As such, acid sulphate soils are unlikely to impact on the native vegetation of the foreshore reserve.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 143

Native vegetation access to groundwater

The native vegetation in the foreshore reserve is likely to be accessing groundwater (as discussed in Section 5.5.1) however, as detailed in Orellana et al. (2011), the qualitative identification of vegetation that is dependent on groundwater remains subjective, with much of the research on this relationship drawing from studies that have observed vegetation decline following a lowering of the water table. Any detrimental impact to the health, composition and/or extent of this vegetation will be dependent on the current reliance of the vegetation on groundwater as well as the likely duration and speed of any changes to groundwater that may eventuate and seasonal or climatic conditions at the time of any changes. Gradual changes to the depth of the groundwater beneath the dunes may allow vegetation to adapt and are less likely to result in immediate vegetation loss than sudden changes which may induce a stress response (particularly for vegetation with a high degree of groundwater dependence) (Serov et al, 2012). It should be noted that whilst gradual change in groundwater depth has been reported to be better tolerated by groundwater dependant vegetation, a certain degree of impact has often been observed with altered hydrological regime shown to alter floristic composition (Froend & Sommer, 2010). It may take years or even decades to see changes in vegetation community composition and health (Le Maitre et al. 1999). A loss of native vegetation within the foreshore reserve would result in a net loss native vegetation in Victoria. Native vegetation provides habitat for wildlife and delivers a range of ecosystem services that make agricultural land more productive and contribute to human wellbeing (COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water 2012). Loss of vegetation would also increase the risk of erosion of the foreshore with coastal vegetation playing a significant role in sand retention and dune stability.

Figure 26 shows the areas of likely groundwater drawdown identified in Technical Report A Groundwater in relation to remnant vegetation within the foreshore reserve resulting from installation of the trench for the level crossing removals

Initial modelling indicated an area of influence that supports approximately 2.4 hectares of native vegetation. Groundwater performance outcomes defined for the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing projects (EPR_GW2) has encouraged the development of a design solution that has reduced the area of influence and the magnitude of groundwater drawdown under the foreshore reserve at Edithvale. The extent of native vegetation within the area that may be influenced by any realised groundwater drawdown is reduced to 0.9 hectares, thereby lowering the risk from minor to negligible at Edithvale. As simulated through modelling presented in EES Technical Report A Groundwater, groundwater level fluctuations in the order of 2 metres were predicted to occur during the 20 year model period. These fluctuations are the result of seasonal and longer term climatic trends (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

While plants within the foreshore reserve have persisted through these fluctuations and it could be inferred that the plants are capable of adapting to such variability, the speed at which drawdown could occur and the duration of a lower water table level could influence the capacity of the plants to adapt to change. Modelling suggests that during model Year 5 (wet year), groundwater drawdown at the foreshore reserve could range from 0.1 metres to 0.2 metres, while during model Year 12 (dry year), groundwater drawdown at the foreshore reserve is not predicted to occur.

A definitive determination of the potential for vegetation to be lost as a consequence the maximum drawdown of 0.2 metres being realised is unable to be made. Impacts may be related to a change in floristic composition and/or health rather than a total loss of native vegetation of the foreshore reserve. For example, based on the root to height ratio depicted in Figure 20

144 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

(Section 5.5.1), ground cover species such as Hairy Spinifex and establishing shrubs and trees (if accessing groundwater) are likely to be most susceptible to a lowering of groundwater as these plants have the shallowest potential root depths. That being said, these plants may be naturally less reliant on groundwater and more reliant on rainfall in the first instance.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 145 Figure 26 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation at Edithvale (coastal)

146 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Management and mitigation

The implementation of measures to manage groundwater and reduce mounding impacts at Edithvale (EPR_GW2) also reduce the risks associated with groundwater drawdown. Figure 27 shows the extent of predicted changes in depth to groundwater as a result of implementing EPR_GW2. The magnitude of change has been reduced from 0.8 metres drawdown (Figure 26) to a 0.2 metre drawdown at the foreshore reserve (Figure 27) and as a result the extent of native vegetation within the revised area of influence has been reduced from 2.4 hectares to 0.9 hectares. The risk of native vegetation loss at Edithvale is therefore negligible. To confirm the performance of the rail trench design in mitigating impacts to GDEs a Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan would be implemented (EPR_GW3). The plan would include clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require mitigation plans to be implemented. A GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for the Foreshore Native Vegetation (EPR_FF7) would be developed in consultation with the land manager. The plan would only be implemented if the criterion for groundwater change was met. The monitoring program would inform whether changes in the condition and/or extent of vegetation were occurring and what, if any, contingency measures should be implemented to mitigate any impact.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 147

Figure 27 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation with groundwater management solution at Edithvale (coastal)

148 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

7.1.2.2 Exacerbation of threatening process (habitat fragmentation) Any loss of vegetation within the area of influence could affect the narrow corridor of habitat which extends along the foreshore reserve resulting in the exacerbation of a threatening process listed under the FFG Act – habitat fragmentation (risk E78). The vegetation is unlikely to support threatened species on a regular basis, and common native species that regularly utilise this habitat are considered to be resilient to, and tolerant of, this change. The potential for groundwater drawdown to fragment vegetation in the foreshore reserve is a negligible risk.

Management and mitigation

To confirm the performance of the rail trench design in mitigating impacts to GDEs a groundwater management and monitoring program would be implemented (EPR_GW3). The plan would include clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require mitigation plans to be implemented. A GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for the Foreshore Native Vegetation (EPR_FF7) would be developed in consultation with the land manager. The plan would only be implemented if the criterion for groundwater change was met. Refer to Section 7.2.2.1 for an outline of this program. Whilst the monitoring program would allow changes in the condition and/or extent of vegetation and the need for further mitigation to be identified, it is not in itself a mitigation measure (i.e. it does not reduce the risk).

7.1.2.3 Loss of other vegetation and habitat Groundwater drawdown could also result in the loss of vegetation in residential areas between the foreshore reserve and rail corridor through a lowering of the water table beyond the reach of roots, an increase in saline intrusion and/or activation of CASS (risk EG79). The risk of this occurring is greatest in close proximity to the project areas as this is where groundwater drawdown would be most pronounced.

No remnant vegetation is identified in the area of drawdown however it is possible that a small number of remnant trees such as large old Coast Banksia and eucalypts are on some residential lots. Collectively the canopy provided by trees throughout the residential areas (in gardens and along nature strips) represents foraging and resting habitat for local non- threatened fauna species, particularly birds and possums.

Like the foreshore reserve (see Section 7.1.2.1), the degree of vegetation dependence on groundwater and the potential extent of impacts is difficult to determine. However, the consequence of losing scattered trees and fauna habitat in this area is considered to be negligible given the highly urbanised environment within the area of potential groundwater drawdown.

Management and mitigation

The unavoidable loss of other vegetation and habitat that may occur as a result of groundwater drawdown is considered to be a negligible risk given the context of the project in a modified, urban environment.

The implementation of EPR_GW2 to reduce changes to groundwater level and quality has reduced the extent of area that may be affected by groundwater change even further making the risk of loss of other vegetation and habitat even lower.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 149

7.2 Bonbeach

Potential impacts of the Bonbeach level crossing removal were considered in the risk assessment in relation to the Wannarkladdin Wetlands - a high value GDE identified within the study area (refer to Section 5.4). Impacts are closely aligned with those described for Edithvale, however the legislative consequence of impacts is lower than Edithvale Wetland as the site is not recognised as being of international importance under the Ramsar convention and is already subject to higher pressures of unrestricted public access (i.e. they are not managed specifically for conservation purposes). Potential impacts on Wannarkladdin Wetlands are therefore not considered in the same detail as Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands.

7.2.1 Groundwater mounding Groundwater mounding could result in altered hydrology and water quality which could lead to:  alteration to, or loss of, Wannakladdin Wetlands (risk EG80)

 alteration to, or loss of, undocumented remnant vegetation and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties) to the east (inland) of the rail corridor (risk EG85).

 exacerbation of a threatening process listed under the FFG Act (wetland loss) (risk EG82).

The susceptibility of Wannarkladdin Wetlands and coastal vegetation to hydrological and/or water quality changes are outlined in the existing conditions in Section 5.4 and Section 5.5.1 respectively. This information was used to inform the assessment of likelihood and consequences of impact as part of the risk assessment process and is therefore not repeated here.

7.2.1.1 Alteration to, or loss of, Wannarkladdin Wetlands A specific cross section for Wannarkladdin Wetland has not been developed, however there is potential for the degree of impact to be similar to that predicted for Edithvale Wetland prior to the implementation of EPR_GW1 to reduce mounding impacts. This potential is based on the similar distance of both these GDEs to the trenching works.

Potential impacts of groundwater mounding on the Wannarkladdin Wetlands need to be considered in the context of values present, the current threats to the wetlands and the degree to which they are currently managed. Wannarkladdin Wetlands are considered to be high quality GDE on the basis that it provides habitat for threatened and/or migratory birds. However, unlike Edithvale Wetland, these wetlands are not specifically managed for the purposes of conservation. Access to the wetlands by people and domestic animals is unregulated and no fencing exists to exclude pest animals. No change to water levels is predicted to occur at Wannarkladdin Wetlands (refer to Technical Appendix A Groundwater) with groundwater mounding of 0.1 metres not expected to extend closer than 1,400 metres toward Wannarkladdin Wetlands. Figure 28 indicates the location of Wannarkladdin Wetlands in relation to groundwater mounding modelled as a result of installation of the trench for the level crossing removals.

150 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 28 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation at Bonbeach (inland)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 151

7.2.1.2 Alteration to, or loss of, other GDEs in the study area Groundwater mounding could alter the hydrological regime and/or water quality relied upon by undocumented remnant vegetation and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties) to the east (inland) of the rail corridor (risk EG79).

The risk is considered the same for Bonbeach as at Edithvale and is not repeated here. Refer to Section 7.1.2.3.

7.2.1.3 Exacerbation of threatening process (wetland loss) Wetland loss and degradation as a result of change in water regime is identified as a potentially threatening process under the FFG Act. The capacity for the level crossing removal project to exacerbate this threatening process is discussed in Section 7.1.1.2 above in relation to Wannarkladdin Wetland (risk EG82) and is not repeated here.

7.2.2 Groundwater drawdown Groundwater drawdown could result in altered hydrology, saline intrusion and potential activation of CASS which could lead to:

 loss of native vegetation and fauna habitat along sections of the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve leading to a loss of native vegetation and fauna habitat and increased risk of erosion of the foreshore (risk EG83). This is discussed in more detail in Section 7.1.2.1. Vegetation in the area of potential influence (worst case) was assessed via a VQA, the results of which are presented in Appendix H.

 loss of undocumented remnant vegetation and/or planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties) to the west (coast side) of the rail corridor (risk EG85). This is discussed previously for Edithvale in Section 7.1.2.3 and is not repeated here.

7.2.2.1 Loss of native vegetation of the foreshore reserve Groundwater drawdown could result in the loss of vegetation through a lowering of the water table beyond the reach of plant roots. Lowering of the water table could subsequently lead to an increase in seawater intrusion and/or activation of CASS through exposing potential CASS to oxygen. These mechanisms and the basis of potential impacts are explained in Section 7.1.2.1 above and discussed as they relate to Bonbeach below.

Seawater intrusion

Impacts to the foreshore vegetation as a consequence of seawater intrusion are considered to be unlikely as it is anticipated the plants would have a natural degree of salt tolerance and the predicted change in groundwater salinity does not exceed that required for potable water to be of beneficial use (EES Technical Report A Groundwater).

Acid sulfate soils

A number of small areas of potentially acid sulfate soils at Bonbeach could be activated as a result of the Bonbeach project (EES Technical Report C: Acid Sulfate Soils and Contamination). While any acidification may reduce or dissipate by the time it reaches the area of foreshore vegetation, it is not possible to completely rule out the potential for acidification of the groundwater and/or soil to affect the health of the foreshore vegetation.

Native vegetation access to groundwater

There is potential that the remnant native vegetation in the foreshore reserve is reliant on groundwater, as discussed in Section 5.5.1.

152 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Modelling suggests that during model Year 5 (wet year), groundwater drawdown at the foreshore reserve could range from 0.1 metres to 0.4 metres, while during model Year 12 (dry year), groundwater drawdown at the foreshore reserve is predicted to range from 0.1 metres to 0.2 metres.

The area of drawdown/influence supports approximately 1.6 hectares of native vegetation. A definitive determination of the potential for vegetation to be lost as a consequence the maximum drawdown of 0.4 metres being realised is unable to be made. Groundwater drawdown is thus considered a minor risk of the level crossing removal project as it could result in a change in the condition and/or extent of native vegetation within this area of influence. As previously detailed in 7.1.2.1, uncertainty remains as to the impact that drawdown may have on the coastal vegetation. At Bonbeach, groundwater modelling suggested that a design solution was not required in order for the project to achieve the performance outcomes identified in EPR_GW2 (Technical Report A Groundwater). Broadly, the modelling determined that the natural hydrology beneath the Bonbeach project area is such that it is less susceptible to impacts of groundwater change (when compared to the Edithvale project area).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 153

Figure 29 Extent of groundwater change post-trench installation at Bonbeach (coastal)

154 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Management and mitigation

The potential for groundwater drawdown to affect the native vegetation in the foreshore reserve remains a minor ecological risk as it cannot be definitively determined that the vegetation relies on groundwater for its continued persistence or that the acidification of the groundwater and/or soil would not affect the health of the foreshore vegetation. The implementation of a monitoring program does not mitigate the risk of the vegetation being lost, however it would inform whether changes in the condition and/or extent of vegetation were occurring and what, if any, contingency measures should be implemented to mitigate any impact.

To confirm the performance of the rail trench design in mitigating impacts to GDEs a groundwater management and monitoring program would be implemented (EPR_GW3). The plan would include clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require mitigation plans to be implemented. A GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for the Foreshore Native Vegetation (EPR_FF7) would be developed in consultation with the land manager. The plan would only be implemented if the criterion for groundwater change was met.

The risk of mobilisation of sand from any loss of deeper-rooted vegetation could be mitigated by an enhanced revegetation program should the monitoring reveal any drawdown-related impacts.

The monitoring program could include biannual monitoring in times of high and low surface water availability (i.e. winter and summer). A summer monitoring event could be scheduled as this is typically when surface water is least available to plants. This therefore represents when GDEs would be most likely to draw on groundwater resources and signs of vegetation impact would be most observable. A monitoring event could be scheduled for winter in order to provide an ongoing temporal comparison to the benchmark monitoring event (winter 2017).

GDE monitoring and control transects could be established within the foreshore reserve and permanently marked with star pickets to ensure replicability over subsequent assessments. Three example approaches are briefly described below that could be employed to determine vegetation impacts. There are a number of alternative approaches that could be explored should a monitoring program be established: Leaf Area Index: Leaf Area Index is defined as the area of leaves per unit area of soil surface and is used generally to quantify canopy density and biomass. Leaf Area Index is calculated using an AccuPAR LP-80 meter, which measures Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) above canopy and below canopy, and incorporates other variables such as canopy architecture and position of the sun to give LAI. For the purposes of this monitoring, LAI is used as a proxy to determine impacts, if any, to health of GDEs within the groundwater drawdown area. The premise behind using the LAI method is if vegetation is being impacted by reduced availability to groundwater due to drawdown, vegetation senescence will occur and the structure of the vegetation will become more open. This effect is likely most observable in summer months when surface water is least available and groundwater may be utilised. Quadrat Sampling: Quadrats representative of each EVC could be established. Within each quadrat flora species and their respective life form percentage cover would be collected. Percentage weed cover would also be recorded. The detail to be collected within each quadrat should be based on a survey design developed in consultation with Kingston City Council, but should be undertaken by an experienced botanist. Photo point monitoring: Photo point monitoring could be conducted within each monitoring transects to enable any visually observable changes in vegetation quality to be documented. DGPS locations for each photo monitoring points should be taken to ensure replicability, and photos should be repeated during each of the biannual monitoring events.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 155

The program would also outline the:

 criteria for determining whether a change in extent or condition is attributable to the projects, including reference to monitored groundwater depth and quality  contingency measures should an impact be detected.

156 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

8. Environmental performance requirements

The EPRs required for the projects are summarised in Table 19 below. The EPRs are applicable to the final design and construction approach and provide certainty regarding the environmental performance of the projects.

Table 19 Edithvale and Bonbeach environmental performance requirements EPR ID Environmental Performance Requirement Stage

EPR GW1 Rail trench design Detailed design The projects will be designed as rail trenches to meet applicable design standards and comply with the EPRs developed for the projects.

EPR GW2 Groundwater performance outcomes Detailed design The tanked rail trenches at Edithvale and Bonbeach Construction must be designed to ensure that changes to ground water levels as a result of the projects do not result in: Operation a. groundwater mounding that increase water logging at ground level b. groundwater drawdown that could cause ground subsidence and adverse impact to subsurface structures c. degradation to groundwater quality that would preclude protected beneficial uses of groundwater (salinity, contaminants, coastal acid sulfate soils) d. changes to groundwater that would have significant impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems. The performance of the installed rail trench will be monitored to confirm it is not having any impacts on groundwater levels and quality beyond those set out above (EPR reference GW3). Further monitoring and mitigation measures would be implemented if a change to groundwater level or quality that is not in accordance with this EPR is observed (EPR references FF7, FF8, CL5).

EPR GW3 Groundwater Management Plan Construction Prepare and fund the implementation of a Operation Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan to the satisfaction of the EPA and relevant water authorities to manage predicted and potential impacts to groundwater following construction of the piled trench walls. The Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan must be prepared prior to the construction of the pile walls and must include: a. detailed monitoring parameters including timing and location of monitoring bores b. duration of the monitoring program c. clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require mitigation plans to

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 157

EPR ID Environmental Performance Requirement Stage be implemented. The following plans for the monitoring and mitigation of impacts to specific environmental assets must be prepared prior to handover of the constructed asset to the rail infrastructure asset manager: a. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (foreshore native vegetation) (EPR reference FF7) b. Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Edithvale Wetland) (EPR reference FF8) c. Groundwater Quality Mitigation Plan (EPR reference CL5) The plans would be implemented if trigger levels for changes to groundwater level and quality were identified by the groundwater monitoring program. The Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan must include a program of monitoring for at least 10 years.

EPR FF7 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring Operation and Mitigation Plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation) Prepare and fund the implementation of a Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation) in consultation with the land manager. The plan must: a. identify areas of coastal vegetation potentially impacted by a change to groundwater quality and/or levels as a result of the projects b. include a process to monitor groundwater to confirm any changes to groundwater quality and/or levels that could result in a loss of coastal native vegetation if required. c. include a process for monitoring coastal native vegetation developed by a suitably qualified ecologist. d. include criteria for determining whether a change in the extent or condition of coastal native vegetation is attributable to the projects. e. include contingency measures to mitigate potential impacts attributable to the projects. f. include the frequency and duration of monitoring if required. The plan would be implemented if trigger levels for changes to groundwater level and quality were identified by the groundwater monitoring program (see EPR reference GW3).

EPR FF8 Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Edithvale Wetland) Prepare and fund the implementation of a Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (Edithvale Wetland) in consultation with the Department of Environment and Energy, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, and the land manager. The plan must

158 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

EPR ID Environmental Performance Requirement Stage include: a. monitoring of groundwater level and water quality at representative and strategic locations within and around the Edithvale Wetland if required b. the frequency and duration of monitoring if required c. monitoring of surface water quality at representative and strategic locations within the wetlands to differentiate temporal trends from long term changes to groundwater if required d. criteria (levels and quality) for groundwater and surface water in and around the Edithvale Wetland for determining whether a change in groundwater levels and/or quality is attributable to the projects e. response measures in the event groundwater and surface water change criteria are met, such as: i. a process for ecological assessment developed by a suitably qualified ecologist to assess changes in aquatic fauna, birds and vegetation and consider whether these can be attributable to groundwater or surface water changes. ii. criteria for determining whether a change in the extent or condition of the wetlands is attributable to the projects iii. contingency measures developed by a suitably qualified ecologist that would be implemented to mitigate potential impacts attributable to the projects. iv. include the frequency and duration of monitoring The plan would be implemented if trigger levels for changes to groundwater level and quality were identified by the groundwater monitoring program (see EPR reference GW3).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 159

9. Matters of National Environmental Significance

9.1 Overview In order to provide necessary commentary on the likelihood of significant impacts specific to MNES identified in the determination for the project under the EPBC Act, the section below consolidates the discussion within this technical report and provides an assessment of the potential mechanisms through which impact on those MNES as a result of the level crossing removal projects at Edithvale and Bonbeach could have been realised.

The likelihood of significant impacts to these MNES within the level crossing removal project areas at Edithvale and Bonbeach is considered in EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

9.1.1 Listed migratory species A total of 20 bird species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act are considered to have at least moderate likelihood of occurrence within the study area. This determination is supported by formal bird surveys completed by Birdlife Australia (ongoing since 1987) at Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands, and data from the VBA and PMST. These likelihood assessments are presented in Appendix D.

Targeted surveys for migratory birds were not undertaken for the purposes of preparing the EES. The level of survey effort by BirdLife Australia (surveys providing 30 years of records) gives a detailed and invaluable insight into the historical presence and regularity of occurrence of migratory species within the high value GDEs of the study area. This provides highly credible information for considering the presence and use of habitat by these birds and for identifying important habitat for migratory shorebirds that is in keeping with national survey guidelines (DoEE 2017a; 2017d).

BirdLife Australia data has been relied upon for the discussion of potential impacts of the project, and given the temporal scale and regularity of these surveys, additional site-based assessment is unlikely to contribute any additional information of significance to this assessment.

Migratory species considered to make the most significant use of suitable habitats within the study area are:

 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper  Latham’s Snipe.

These species are listed migratory shorebirds under the EPBC Act and are discussed in more detail in Appendix E. Other species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act that are considered to have at least a moderate likelihood of occurrence include wader species such as egrets, predominately aerial species such as Fork-tailed Swift Apus pacificus, and other migratory shorebird species recorded less frequently such as Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos and Curlew Sandpiper. Curlew Sandpiper is also listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and, as such, this species is discussed under listed threatened species in Section 9.1.2 below. A number of habitats for listed migratory species occur within the study area. Core habitat is provided by the Edithvale Wetland, and the large aggregations of migratory species that occur within this wetland are testament to its value for migratory shorebirds. Wannarkladdin Wetlands

160 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

also provide habitat for migratory shorebirds and are recognised as part of the Carrum Key Biodiversity Area of importance for bird conservation. Less favourable habitat is provided by the vegetation along the northern bank of the Patterson River, anthropogenic waterbodies within golf courses and the Centre Main Drain. These areas provide low quality habitat and may be visited by migratory species on an occasional and opportunistic basis. They do not represent significant or important habitat for migratory species.

9.1.2 Listed threatened species

The likelihood of occurrence of threatened species recorded on the VBA and/or predicted to occur by the PMST (excluding those species not considered of relevance to the project, see Section 4.1.2) is presented in Appendix C (threatened flora) and Appendix D (threatened and/or migratory fauna). Two flora species and five fauna species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are considered to have at least a moderate likelihood of occurrence:

 River Swamp Wallaby-grass

 Swamp Everlasting  Australasian Bittern

 Curlew Sandpiper (also listed as migratory under the EPBC Act)

 Bar-tailed Godwit (species also listed as migratory under the EPBC Act)

 Australian Painted Snipe

 Grey-headed Flying-fox.

With the sole exception of Grey-headed Flying Fox no listed threatened species are considered likely to occur outside of the high value habitat provided by Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands.

Targeted surveys for threatened bird species commensurate with survey guidelines under the EPBC Act were not undertaken as the survey effort completed by BirdLife Australia was considered sufficient for detecting the threatened bird species (DoEE, 2017c).

River Swamp Wallaby-grass and Swamp Everlasting

River Swamp Wallaby-grass and Swamp Everlasting are both considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence at Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands, but are unlikely to persist within the remainder of the study area due to historical and ongoing disturbance impacting any potential remaining habitat. Targeted surveys for these species were not completed for preparation of the EES, primarily because the project is now considered unlikely to impact either of these wetlands.

Australasian Bittern

Australasian Bittern is present at Edithvale Wetland and is considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence at Wannarkladdin Wetlands. Within the broader study area, the species has a low likelihood of occurring due to an absence of suitable habitat. While the study area beyond the high value GDEs may provide foraging habitat, it is not considered critical to the local persistence of the species. The Ramsar listing of the Edithvale Wetland recognises the significance of the presence of Australasian Bittern. An outline of the species status at Edithvale Wetland and in the remainder of the study area is provided in Appendix E.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 161

Curlew Sandpiper

Curlew Sandpiper is known to occur within Edithvale Wetland on an infrequent basis. However, the species has not been recorded in sufficient numbers to consider the wetland to be of either international or national significance for the species. Curlew Sandpiper has not been recorded at the Wannarkladdin Wetlands however there is suitable habitat available and the species may occur there on an occasional basis. The species is considered to have a low likelihood elsewhere in the study area.

Bar-tailed Godwit

Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica is a migratory shorebird that has been recorded at Edithvale Wetland by BirdLife Australia on four occasions in 1987 with a maximum of three individuals observed in one count. The species has not been recorded at Edithvale Wetland since. More than one subspecies of Bar-tailed Godwit exists; the nominate species, Limosa lapponica, and two subspecies - Bar-tailed Godwit (Western Alaskan) Limosa lapponica baueri and Bar- tailed Godwit (Northern Siberia) Limosa lapponica menzbieri. The BirdLife Australia data does not distinguish between the two subspecies however birds that occur in south-eastern Australia and New Zealand are thought to be subspecies baueri (DoEE, 2017b). Bar-tailed Godwit (Western Alaskan) is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act and Bar-tailed Godwit (Northern Siberia) is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act. Both subspecies were identified in the PMST search but for the purpose of this report the species is addressed as a whole rather than on a subspecies basis.

Bar-tailed Godwit is considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence within Wannarkladdin Wetland and a low likelihood elsewhere in the study area. Habitat within the Edithvale Wetland is not considered to be nationally or internationally significant for Bar-tailed Godwit give the paucity of records within the wetland.

Australian Painted Snipe

The Australian Painted Snipe has been recorded at Edithvale Wetland and is considered present, although this determination is based on a single individual recorded on four occasions in 2008 within the BirdLife Australia data (refer to Section 5.3.6). It has not been recorded since. The species has a moderate likelihood of occurrence at Wannarkladdin Wetlands and a low likelihood at other GDEs. No significant habitat for the species is considered to occur in the study area.

Grey-headed Flying-fox

Grey-headed Flying Fox has been recorded at Edithvale Wetland and is considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence at other GDEs. The species disperses from its camp in Yarra Bend across suburban Melbourne to forage. Grey-headed Flying-fox is likely to forage throughout the study area on an opportunistic and occasional basis. Foraging resources identified during the assessment include suitable vegetation within nature strips, backyards and recreation reserves such as fruit-bearing trees and flowering eucalypts. Such resources within the study area are not considered critical for the species persistence within the broader Melbourne region. Identification of past records, camp locations and foraging habitat for the species is commensurate with the national survey guidelines for determining habitat value for the species (DEWHA 2010). In addition to the above listed species Dwarf Galaxias was initially considered as having potential to occur within the Edithvale Wetland. Targeted Dwarf Galaxias surveys were carried out with reference to state and national survey guidelines for the species but the species was not detected. Following survey, the species likelihood was revised to unlikely. For further details refer to Section 4.3.6.

162 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

9.1.3 Ramsar wetland

The Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site occurs within the study area. It is located approximately 1.3 kilometres east of the Edithvale project area and approximately 2 kilometres north-east of the Bonbeach project area (refer to Figure 3).

Edithvale Wetland supports a diversity of habitat for a range of flora and fauna species. It provides potential habitat for significant flora species and is known to support a high diversity of significant birds including shorebirds listed under international migratory agreements and wetland-dependent birds listed under the EPBC Act. Edithvale Wetland is described in detail in Section 5.3 and the key threatened and migratory species supported by the wetland are also discussed in detail in Appendix E and summarised in Section 9.1 above.

The Seaford Wetland section of the Ramsar site is hydrologically and hydrogeologically separated from Edithvale Wetland by the Patterson River. Seaford Wetland will not be impacted by the project (Technical Report A Groundwater) and, as such, is not discussed in this report.

9.2 Significant impact assessment

The project is considered unlikely to result in a significant impact to a MNES listed under the EPBC Act. Potential mechanisms of impact on MNES considered in this assessment include groundwater change, noise and vibration, acid sulfate soils and contamination (including waste production), dust and air quality, surface water change and sedimentation, light spill. These mechanisms are associated with works undertaken within the project areas but, as no MNES are considered to be supported by the project areas (refer to Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas), it is the potential for them to have an indirect impact on MNES beyond the project footprint which is the primary concern of the project. As such, the discussion of potential impacts of the project in relation to MNES is provided in this technical report rather than in Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

It is unlikely that works undertaken within the project areas will have a significant impact on MNES. This is based on:

 the absence of suitable habitat for threatened and/or migratory species immediately adjacent to the project areas

 the distance of high value GDEs which are known to support threatened and/or migratory species from the project areas

 the discussion provided below in relation to groundwater change and quality, and noise and vibration, which are considered to represent the mechanisms with the greater potential to affect MNES within the study area considered in this technical report.

9.2.1 Groundwater change and quality Detailed regional groundwater modelling (refer to Technical Appendix A Groundwater) indicates that groundwater mounding during the construction and operational phases of the project will not interact with any habitats considered to support MNES. No change to groundwater level or quality is predicted to occur at Edithvale Wetland or Wannarkladdin Wetlands. The 0.1 metre groundwater mounding contour occurs approximately no closer than 1100 metres to the west of the Edithvale Wetland (refer to Figure 25 in Section 7.1.1.1) and 1,400 metres to the west of Wannarkladdin Wetlands (refer to Figure 28 in Section 7.2.1.1). As these areas of habitat are not likely to be affected by groundwater change, the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects are not likely to have a significant impact on the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site, Wannarkladdin Wetlands, nor the threatened flora or threatened and/or migratory fauna species they are known to support.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 163

Further discussion is provided in Section 7.1.1.1 in relation to Edithvale Wetland and Section 7.2.1.1 in relation to Wannarkladdin Wetlands. The project has established a number of EPRs avoid, minimise and/or mitigate potential project related impacts to GDEs and therefore MNES. Measures to avoid or minimise groundwater change are a requirement of EPR_GW1 and EPR_GW2, and EPR_GW3 requires the implementation of a groundwater monitoring program to ensure project performance as it relates to the extent and degree of alteration of groundwater is met. These EPRs are presented in Section 8. Change in groundwater quality as it relates to acid sulfate soils, waste production and contamination during the construction and operation stages of the project are dealt with in EES Technical Report C Acid Sulfate Soils and Contamination. This report considers spoil, industrial waste, the presence and activation potential of Acid Sulfate Soils, and chemical use and storage associated with the project. A number of EPRs are identified to mitigate impacts including EPR_CL1 Spoil Management Plan, EPR_CL2 Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan and EPR_CL3 Waste Management and EPRs that relate specifically to groundwater quality such as EPR_CL4 and EPR_CL5 which deal with acidification and/or contamination risk during construction and operation.

9.2.2 Noise and vibration Noise and vibration impacts of the project are considered in EES Technical Report H Noise and Vibration and EPRs are provided to avoid or minimise those impacts. Noise and vibration levels sufficient to cause disturbance to amenity are not expected to extend more than 100 metres beyond the rail corridor.

No impacts to MNES are anticipated as a consequence of construction or operational noise or vibration associated with the level crossing removals. This is due to:

 the distance of the project areas from primary habitats considered to support MNES within the study area - Edithvale-Seaford Wetland (approximately 1.1 kilometres) and Wannarkladdin Wetlands (approximately 1.4 kilometres)

 the location of those habitats within a heavily urbanised area of Melbourne where there are existing sources of noise pollution. These include, but are not limited to, light and heavy vehicle traffic on the local road network with the most notable roads being Nepean Highway, Edithvale Road (which dissects the Edithvale Wetland) and the M11 (approximately 700 metres east of Edithvale Wetland and approximately 600 metres east of Wannarkladdin Wetlands).

Noise associated with construction within the level crossing removal project areas is unlikely to represent an additional or notable source of disturbance to threatened and/or migratory species utilising habitat within the study area. Noise associated with operation following the level crossing removals is not anticipated to increase to an extent that it would affect MNES. EPRs designed to further mitigate impacts include NV1 operational noise, NV2 construction noise and NV3 construction vibration.

9.2.3 Other Alternative mechanisms considered in preparation of the EES included surface water and sedimentation, dust and air quality, and light spillage. These topics are considered in relation to construction and operation stages of the project in the following EES technical reports:

 EES Technical Report E Surface Water

164 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

 EES Technical Report I Air Quality

 EES Technical Report J Landscape and Visual

These reports include EPRs to avoid, minimise and/or mitigate project-related impacts which incorporate design elements and management plans and procedures. As such, detailed discussion is not provided here. Instead a summary of the mechanisms, technical reports and EPRs is provided in Table 20 below for ease of reference.

Table 20 Summary of other potential mechanisms of impact

Mechanism Technical report EPRs

Surface water EES Technical Report E SW1 stormwater management construction, and Surface Water considers water quality operation sedimentation the drainage network for SW3 drainage network construction new rail infrastructure, changes to the drainage SW4 drainage network operation network and flood SW5 flood protection construction protection. SW6 flood protection operation

Dust and air EES Technical Report I Air AQ1 air quality construction quality Quality AQ2 air quality management

Light spillage EES Technical Report D FF5 Protection of retained/adjacent Ecology: Project Areas vegetation includes directional lighting as a measure to minimise unintended impacts on adjacent vegetation or habitat to be included in the CEMP.

EES Technical Report J LV3 light spillage Landscape and Visual

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 165

10. Conclusion

This ecological impact assessment of the Edithvale and Bonbeach level crossing removal projects has detailed the ecological values of wetlands and GDEs within the study area and the likelihood and extent of project related impacts on significant ecological assets. Monitoring and mitigation options to reduce these impacts have also been identified. The focus of this report was on the Edithvale Wetland section of the broader Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site as part of a wetland recognised as being of international importance for migratory shorebirds. Seaford Wetland is not considered by this report as it located more than two kilometres from the Bonbeach project area, is physically and hydrologically separated from Edithvale Wetland by Patterson River and was not expected to be affected by the Edithvale or Bonbeach level crossing removals.

Existing conditions

A number of potential GDEs were modelled to occur within the study area. These included two high value GDEs:  Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. The wetland supports remnant vegetation and a diversity of habitat for a range of flora and fauna species. It provides potential habitat for significant flora species and is known to support a high diversity of significant birds including shorebirds listed under international migratory agreements and wetland-dependent birds listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

 Wannarkladdin Wetlands are ecologically similar to Edithvale Wetland. The wetland cells range from a deeper pool surrounded by reed beds (Tall Marsh EVC is dominant) to shallow open water, bare soil or mud. The Wannarkladdin Wetlands provide habitat for a number of waterbirds and shorebirds and are part of a nationally significant complex of wetlands (which includes the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands).

The other GDEs identified within the study area are not as ecologically significant as Edithvale Wetland and Wannarkladdin Wetlands however their collective contribution may be valuable at a landscape scale.

The Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve is identified by the City of Kingston as a key natural resource area. The reserve contains remnant native vegetation which supports a diverse range of flora and fauna and forms a corridor of vegetation that is likely to facilitate the movement of fauna through the area. Impact assessment – Edithvale

No impacts are expected at Edithvale Wetland and no changes to wetland function or character are anticipated as a result of the level crossing removal at Edithvale. Detailed regional groundwater modelling indicated that groundwater mounding would not extend to the Edithvale Wetland. As such, impacts on the extent of habitat and associated impacts on waterbird diversity and abundance and capacity to meet Ramsar listing criteria of the Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site are not expected as a result of the level crossing removal project at Edithvale and risk to the wetland is negligible.

In order to further reduce the risk of groundwater changes occurring, an EPR was added to limit the change in groundwater levels upstream and downstream of the rail trench. This EPR would lower the risk to the Edithvale Wetland even further.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 166

Implementing measures to address EPR_GW2 would also minimise the extent of native vegetation that may be affected in the Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve. The groundwater model identified a risk to the native vegetation associated with drawdown of groundwater within the foreshore reserve. The extent of native vegetation which may be affected would be 0.9 hectares. Based on this extent, the Edithvale project presents a negligible risk to the native vegetation of the foreshore reserve. Impact assessment - Bonbeach

No impacts are expected at Wannarkladdin Wetland and no changes to wetland function or character are anticipated as a result of the level crossing removal at Bonbeach. Groundwater changes as a result of removing the level crossing could result in a decline in quality and extent of native vegetation within the section of Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve at Bonbeach. This in turn could lead to fragmentation of the habitat corridor along the foreshore. The extent of native vegetation which could be affected at Bonbeach is 1.6 hectares which represents a minor risk for the project.

Environmental Performance Requirements The current design of the level crossing removal projects (EPR_GW1), combined with the addition of measures to manage groundwater at Edithvale (EPR_GW2), would result in a negligible risk to most GDEs in the study area.

The risk of groundwater drawdown impacting on the native vegetation of the foreshore reserve is negligible at Edithvale and minor at Bonbeach based on the extent of vegetation which could be affected.

To confirm the performance of the rail trench design in mitigating impacts to GDEs following construction of the piled walls, a groundwater management and monitoring program would be implemented (EPR_GW3). The plan would include clear trigger levels for changes in groundwater level and quality that require mitigation plans to be implemented. A GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for Foreshore Native Vegetation (EPR_FF7), and a GDE Monitoring and Mitigation plan for Edithvale Wetlands (EPR_FF8) would be developed in consultation with the land manager. The plans would only be implemented if the criterion for groundwater change was met.

167 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

11. References

AECOM-GHD JV (2016). Groundwater Preliminary Impacts – Ecological Assessment. Report prepared for the Level Crossing Removal Authority, Melbourne.

Agriculture Victoria (2017). Measuring the Salinity of Water. Available at: http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/farm-management/soil-and-water/salinity/measuring-the- salinity-of-water.

Australian Ecosystems (2008). Drought impact assessment for wetland Sites of Biodiversity Significance around Greater Melbourne. Report for Melbourne Water by Australian Ecosystems Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne.

Australian Ecosystems (2016). Melbourne Water Sites of Biodiversity Significance Vegetation Assessments 2014 – 2015. Report prepared for Melbourne Water by Australian Ecosystems Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne. Allen, G., Midgley, S. and Allen, M. 2002. Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia AZA Charadriiformes Taxon Advisory Group. (2014). Shorebirds (Charadriiformes) Care Manual. Silver Spring, MD: Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

Baldwin, D. S., Nielsen, D., Bowen, P. and Williams, J. L. (2005). Recommended methods for monitoring floodplains and wetlands. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G. and Wahl, J. (2008). Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands Inter-national - Oceania. Canberra, Australia.

Beck, R. G. (1985). Field observations upon the dwarf galaxiid Galaxiella pusilla (Mack) (Pisces:Galaxiidae) in the South-east of South Australia, Australia. South Australian Naturalist, 60(1), 12–22.

Biosis Research (2012). Assessment of City of Kingston natural reserves (Stage 4): Kingston Foreshore Reserve (Mordialloc Creek to Bonbeach, Carrum). Unpublished report for Kingston City Council. Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Port Melbourne.

BirdLife Australia (2016) Australian IBAs. Web page available at: http://birdlife.org.au/projects/important-bird-areas/iba-maps BirdLife Australia (2017a). Melbourne Water biodiversity surveys. Available at: http://www.birdlife.org.au/projects/melbourne-water-biodiversity-surveys. BirdLife Australia (2017b). Species profiles. Accessed online @ http://www.birdlife.org.au/ August 2017.

BirdLife International (2017). World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. Managed by BirdLife International on behalf of the KBA Partnership. Accessed online at http://www.keybiodiversityareas.org/home

BoM (2015). Recent rainfall, drought and southern Australia's long-term rainfall decline. Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology issued April 2015 and available online at (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.shtml

BoM (2016). National Atlas of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Administered by the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology. Available at: http://www.bom.gov.au/water/groundwater/gde/index.shtml [Accessed 22 June 2017]

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 168

Boon, P.I. (2013). Hydrology of urban freshwater wetlands. In Workbook for managing urban wetlands in Australia. Edited by Paul, S. Sydney Olympic Park Authority, Sydney. Available at: http://www.sopa.nsw.gov.au/resource_centre/wet_ebook_workbook_for_managing_urban_wetl ands_in_australia Bray, D. J. (2016). Eastern Dwarf Galaxias, Galaxias pusilla (Mack 1936). Retrieved October 19, 2016, from http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/3393 Bull, M. and Stolfo, G. (2014). Flora of Melbourne: A Guide to the Indigenous Plants of the Greater Melbourne Area. Fourth edition. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Byrne, P.G and Keogh J.S. Extreme sequential polyandry insures against nest failure in a frog. School. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 2009, vol 276, pg 115-120.

Cadwallader, P. L., & Backhouse, G. N. (1983). A Guide to Freshwater Fish of Victoria. Melbourne Vic, Australia: Victorian Government Printing Office, on behalf of the Fisheries and Wildlife Division, Ministry for Conservation.

Chessman, B. C. (2003). SIGNAL 2.iv – A Scoring System for Macroinvertebrates (“Water Bugs”) in Australian Rivers. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Chessman, B., Hardwick, L. and Driver, P. (2001). Draft IMEF method 20 – Wetland macroinvertebrate sampling. NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation. Document No. IMM20. City of Kingston (2015). City of Kingston – Register of Significant Trees, June 2015. City of Kingston, Cheltenham. Available at: http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Property-and- Development/Vegetation-Tree-Removal/Significant-Tree-Register COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water 2012. Australia’s Native Vegetation Framework. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/76f709dc-ccb3-4645-a18b- 063fbbf0a899/files/native-vegetation-framework.pdf Cogger, H. 2014. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Coleman, R. A., Raadik, T. A., Pettigrove, V., & Hoffmann, A. A. (2016). Taking advantage of adaptations when managing threatened species within variable environments: the case of the dwarf galaxias, Galaxiella pusilla (Teleostei, Galaxiidae). Marine and Freshwater Research - http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF15332.

Colvin, C., D. Le Maitre, S. Hughes, and CSIR Environmentek. 2003. Assessing terrestrial groundwater dependent ecosystems in South Africa. WRC Report 1090-2/2/03 Cross, D.H. and Fleming, K.L (1989) Control of Phragmites or Common Reed. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.4.12. DECC (2008). Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs. Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW. DELWP Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. Version 3.1.0. Administered by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Available at: https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba/#/ [Accessed 27 September 2016].

DELWP Biodiversity Interactive Map. Version 3.2. Administered by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, State of Victoria. Available at: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment- and-wildlife/biodiversity/biodiversity-interactive-map [Accessed 27 September 2016]. DELWP (2016a). Procedure statement for translocation of threatened native fauna in Victoria. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne. Available at:

169 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0024/27375/Procedure-Statement-for-the- Translocation-of-Threatened-Native-Fauna-in-Victoria-2016-information-for-proponents.pdf DELWP (2016b). Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Processes List - December 2016. Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne. Available at: https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/50241/201612-FFG- Processes-list.pdf DELWP (2016c). Benchmarks for wetland Ecological Vegetation Classes in Victoria – June 2016. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria DELWP (2017a). Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation – December 2017. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne, Victoria. DELWP (2017b). Translocation of wildlife. Webpage: https://www.wildlife.vic.gov.au/managing- wildlife/translocation-of-wildlife [Viewed 25/05/2017]

DELWP (2017c). Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Mapping for the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA. Administered by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Available at https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/potential-groundwater- dependent-ecosystem-gde-mapping-for-the-port-phillip-and-westernport-cma [Accessed on 1 June 2017]

DEPI (2013a). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Boundary Description Technical Report. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne, Victoria

DEPI (2013b). Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria - 2013. Victorian Government Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne

DEPI (2014). Advisory list of rare or threatened plants in Victoria. Department of Environment and Primary Industries. East Melbourne, Victoria.

DEWHA (2008). National Framework and Guidance for Describing the Ecological Character of Australia’s Ramsar Wetlands. Module 2 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWHA (2010). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth of Australia. Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra.

DoE (2013). Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Department of the Environment, Canberra. DoE (2015). Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds. Commonwealth of Australia Department of the Environment, Canberra. DoEE EPBC Act online Protected Matters Search Tool. Administered by the Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. Available at [Accessed 3 July 2017]. DoEE (2016). Botaurus poiciloptilus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. DoEE (2017a). EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 - Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species. Commonwealth of Australia. Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra.

DoEE (2017b). Species Profiles and Threats Database – species profiles. Accessed online @ http://www.environment.gov.au August 2017.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 170

DoEE (2017c). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened birds: Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth of Australia. Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. DoEE (2017d). Directory of Important Wetlands. Administered by the Department of the Environment and Energy, Canberra. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/wetlands/search.pl?smode=DOIW [Viewed 27 July 2017] Doody, T.M., Barron, O.V., Dowsley, K., Emelyanova, I. Fawcett, J., Overton, I.C., Pritchard, J.L., Van Dijk, A.I.J.M. and Warren, G. (2017). Continental mapping of groundwater dependent ecosystems: A methodological framework to integrate diverse data and expert opinion. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 10 (2017) 61–81 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.01.003

DSE (2004). Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual–Guidelines for applying the habitat hectares scoring method. Version 1.3. Victorian Government. DSE (2005). Framework for describing the Ecological Character of Ramsar Wetlands – Including a description of the ecological character of the Barmah Forest Ramsar Site. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria. DSE (2006). Ministerial guidelines for the assessment of environmental effects under the Environmental Effects Act, 1978 (7th edition). Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria DSE (2008). Victoria’s Public Land Phytophthora cinnamomi Management Strategy. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne.

DSE (2009). Advisory list of threatened invertebrate fauna in Victoria. Department of Sustainability and Environment. East Melbourne, Victoria.

DSE (2010). Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit. Department of Sustainability and Environment. East Melbourne, Victoria.

DSE (2012). Description of the ecological character of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne, Victoria.

DSEWPaC (undated). Limits of Acceptable Change Fact Sheet. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

DSEWPaC (2013). Chytridiomycosis (Amphibian chytrid fungus disease). Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

Ecology Australia (2016). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan. Prepared for Melbourne Water. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield, Victoria. Eamus, D. (2009). Identifying groundwater dependent ecosystems: a guide for land and water managers. Research Report. Published by Australian Government, Land and Water Australia, ACT. Eamus, D., Hatton, T., Cook, P., & Colvin, C. (2006). Salinisation: an ecohydrological perspective. In Ecohydrology - Vegetation function, water and resource management (p. 348). Collingwood, VIC: CSIRO Publishing, Australia. EPA Victoria (2003). Guideline for Environmental Management - Rapid Bioassessment Methodology for Rivers and Streams. Publication Number 604.1. Environment Protection Authority Victoria, Melbourne. Foy (1984) Physiological effects of hydrogen, aluminum, and manganese toxicities in acid soil. In: Pearson, RW, Adams, F (eds) Soil Acidity and Liming- (2nd edition). Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy (57-97)

171 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Freond, R. and Sommer, B. (2010) Phreatophytic vegetation response to climatic and abstraction-induced groundwater drawdown: Examples of long-term spatial and temporal variability in community response. Centre for Ecosystem Management, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drv, Joondalup 6027, WA, Australia Ecological Engineering 36 (2010) 1191– 1200. Ganf, G., White, S. and Oliver, R. (2010). Allocating water to the wetlands of the Murray Valley to maximise aquatic plant species diversity. In Ecosystem response modelling in the Murray- Darling Basin. Edited by N Saintilan and I Overton. Pp 279-299. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Geosciences Australia (2017). Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Australian Government Geosciences Australia. Available from: http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific- topics/water/groundwater/understanding-groundwater-resources/groundwater-dependant- ecosystems [Viewed 18 July 2017].

GHD (2006). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands – review of wetlands operations. Prepared by GHD in association with Aquatic System Management Pty Ltd for Melbourne Water. Hale, J. and Butcher, R. (2017). Addendum to Ecological Character Description for the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. East Melbourne.

Hansen, B.D., Fuller, R.A., Watkins, D., Rogers, D.I., Clemens, R.S., Newman, M., Woehler, E.J. and Weller, D.R. (2016). Revision of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Population Estimates for 37 listed Migratory Shorebird Species. Unpublished report for the Department of the Environment. BirdLife Australia, Melbourne.

Hart, B. T., Bailey, P., Edwards, R., Hortle, K., James, K., McMahon, A. and Swadling, K. (1991). A review of the salt sensitivity of the Australian freshwater biota. Hydrobiologia, 210, 105–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00014327

Hawking, J. (2000). A guide to keys and zoological information to identify invertebrates from Australian inland waters. Identification Guide No. 2, 2nd Edition. Thurgoona, NSW.

Helmers, D.L. (1992). Shorebird Management Manual. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Manomet, MA. 58pp. Hero, H-M, Littlejohn, M. and Marantelli, G. (1991). Frogwatch Field Guide to Victorian Frogs. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne.

Higgins, P.J. and Davies, S.J.J.F. (1996). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 3, Snipe to Pigeons. Melbourne Oxford University Press. Hocking, P.J. (1989). Seasonal dynamics of production, and nutrient accumulation and cycling by Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Stuedel in a nutrient-enriched swamp in Inland Australia. I. Whole Plants. Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 421-444.

Horrigan, N., Choy, S., Marshall, J., & Recknagel, F. (2005). Response of stream macroinvertebrates to changes in salinity and the development of a salinity index. Marine and Freshwater Research, 56, 825–833. Howard, K., Cleeland, C. and Clemann, N. (2010). Assessment of the status of the threatened Bibron’s Toadlet and Southern Toadlet in areas affected by the Kilmore East-Murrindindi fires: Black Saturday Victoria 2009 - Natural values fire recovery program. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria.

Jacobs (2016). Coastal Wetlands and Climate Change: Decision Support Framework – Edithvale Wetland. Unpublished report prepared for Melbourne Water. Jacobs, Melbourne.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 172

James, K.R., B.T. Hart, P.C.E. Bailey and D.W. Blinn (2009). Impact of secondary salinisation on freshwater ecosystems: effect of experimentally increased salinity on an intermittent floodplain wetland, Marine and Freshwater Research. 60(3):246-258

KBR (2009a). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site: Literature Review. Report prepared for Melbourne Water by Kellogg Brown & Root Pty Ltd., Melbourne. KBR (2009b). Edithvale-Seaford Ramsar Site Management Plan. Unpublished report prepared for Melbourne Water by Kellogg, Brown and Root, Melbourne. Kefford, B. J. (1998). The relationship between electrical conductivity and selected macroinvertebrate communities in four river systems of south-west Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Salt Lake Research 7(2), 153–170.

Kingston City Council (2017). Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve. Available at: http://www.kingston.vic.gov.au/Places-and-Spaces/Foreshore-and-Natural- Environment/Bushland-and-Natural-Areas/Aspendale-to-Carrum-Foreshore-Reserve

Kingston Planning Scheme (2008) Schedule 3 to the Environmental Significance Overlay. Available at http://s3.dpcd.vic.gov.au/planning_scheme_history/f41670b62eb13c19847db781389c2a64.pdf

Kuginis, L., Byrne, G., Serov, P., Williams, J.P. (2012). Risk assessment guidelines for groundwater dependent ecosystems: Volume 3 - Identification of high probability groundwater dependent ecosystems on the coastal plains of NSW and their ecological value. Office of Water Department of Primary Industries, Sydney.

Lane B. A., Bezuijen M.R., Orsheg C.K., Todd J.A. and Carr G.W. (2000). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands: Ramsar Management Plan. Unpublished report for Melbourne Waterways and Drainage Group. Ecology Australia Pty Ltd, Fairfield, Victoria.

Le Maitre, D.C. Scott, D.F. and Colvin, C. (1999). A review of information on interactions between vegetation and groundwater in Water SA Vol 25 No 2. Available at: http://www.wrc.org.za

McDowell, R. M. (1996). Freshwater Fishes of South-Eastern Australia. Sydney: Reed Books.

Melbourne Water (2013). Waterways Sites of Biodiversity Significance Plan 2013. Melbourne Water.

Melbourne Water (2017). Wannarkladdin Wetlands weed control and revegetation (Patterson Lakes). Available at: https://www.melbournewater.com.au/whatwedo/projectsaroundmelbourne/pages/wannarkladdin -wetlands-weed-control-and-revegetation.aspx Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2010). Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press. Morcombe, M. (2004). Field Guide to Australia Birds. Steve Parish Publishing, Australia.

Morris, K. Bailey, P. and Boon, P. (2009). The Australian Biodiversity Salt Sensitivity Database. Department of Land and Water, Commonwealth of Australia. Morris, L., Petch, D., May, M. & Steele, W. (2017). Monitoring for a specific management objective: protection of shorebird foraging habitat adjacent to a waste water treatment plant. Environ Monit Assess (2017) 189:208

OEH (2017). Eastern Bentwing-bat – Profile. Office of Environment and heritage, NSW available online at www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=10534

173 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Orellana, F, Verma, P, Loheide, S.P, and Daly, E (2011) Monitoring and modelling water- vegetation interactions in groundwater dependant ecosystems. Review of Geophysics 50(RG3003) 1-24. Parks Victoria (2002). Patterson River - Visitors Guide. Park note prepared by Parks Victoria. http://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/bays-rivers-and-ports/patterson Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (2012). Field Guide to the Birds of Australia 9th Ed. Harper Collins, Australia.

Priest, B., Straw, P. & Weston, M. (2002). Supplement to Wingspan, vol. 12, no. 4, December 2002. Ramsar Convention Secretariat (2008). Strategic Framework and guidelines for the future development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971). Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland. Available at: http://archive.ramsar.org/pdf/key_guide_list2009_e.pdf

Robertson, P. and Clemann, N. (2015). Guidelines for management activities in Swamp Skink Habitat on the Mornington Peninsula. Unpublished report. Available at: http://www.swifft.net.au/resources/Swamp%20Skink%20management%20guidelines%20Robert son%20and%20Clemann.pdf

Rogers, K. (2011). Vegetation. In 'Floodplain Wetland Biota in the Murray-Darling Basin: water and habitat requirements.' Eds K. Rogers and T.J. Ralph. pp. 17− 82. (CSIRO Publishing: Melbourne.)

Rogers, D.I., Stamation, K., Lyon, R.H. and Menkhorst, P. (2015). Literature Review: Management of Non-Tidal Ponds for Shorebirds. Technical Report Series No. 264. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, Melbourne.

Saddlier, S., Jackson, J., & Hammer, M. (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Dwarf Galaxias Galaxiella pusilla. Melbourne Vic, Australia.

SCFFA (1997). Australian code of electrofishing practice. Canberra.

Serov P, Kuginis L, Williams J.P., (2012). Risk assessment guidelines for groundwater dependent ecosystems, Volume 1 – The conceptual framework, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Office of Water, Sydney

Silcocks, A. (2017). Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands Bird Survey Project 2015-16. Unpublished consultancy report prepared for Melbourne Water by BirdLife Australia, Melbourne.

SKM (2011). Environmental water requirements and associated capital works for the Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands. Prepared for Melbourne Water. TSCC (2011). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Botaurus poiciloptilus (Australasian Bittern). Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra, ACT In effect under the EPBC Act from 03-Mar-2011. Tyler, M.J. and Knight, F. (2009). Field Guide to the Frogs of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Tzaros, C. and Silcocks, A. (2004). Bird habitat values at the Edithvale and Seaford Wetlands. Birds Australia, Melbourne, Victoria. Prepared for Melbourne Water by BirdLife Australia, Melbourne.

Victorian Government (2015). Ministerial Guidelines for Groundwater Licensing and the Protection of High Value Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. Issued by the Hon Lis Neville MP, Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water on 13 April 2015. Available at:

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems | 174 https://waterregister.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Guidelines%20for%20Groundwater%20Lice nsing%20and%20the%20Protection%20of%20High%20Value%20Groundwater%20Dependent %20Ecosystems.pdf Wager, R. and Jackson, P. (1993). Action Plan for Australian Freshwater Fishes. Environment Australia, Canberra. Wetlands International, (2012). Waterbird Population Estimates, Fifth Edition. Summary Report. Wetlands International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available at: https://www.wetlands.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Waterbird-Populations-Estimates-Fifth- Edition.pdf Wilson, B.P., White, I. and Melville, M.D. (1999). Floodplain hydrology, acid discharge and change in water quality associated with a drained acid sulfate soil. Marine and Freshwater Research 50: 149-157. Wilson, S. and Swan, M. (2013). The Complete Guide to the Reptiles of Australia. New Holland.

175 | LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Appendix A – Database results Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems databases National Atlas of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

The Atlas output below identifies GDEs reliant on surface expression of groundwater and subsurface groundwater (vegetation). Most were categorised as ‘identified in previous study (desktop)’. These areas correspond with:

 Edithvale Wetland section of the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site.

 Patterson River  Wannarkladdin Wetland

 Wannarkladdin Wetland sediment pond

 Rossdale Golf Course  Centre Main Drain

 Chelsea Bicentennial Park

 Beazley Reserve

 Patterson River Golf Course

No subterranean GDEs (caves and aquifers) were identified.

Source: BoM, 2016

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem (GDE) Mapping for the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA

Mapping from DELWP (2017b) below indicates the presence of potential GDEs within the area of influence/area of interest for Edithvale and Bonbeach.

Hatched polygons represent areas of potential GDEs. Extracts below were obtained using snipping tool.

Source: DELWP (2017b)

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Biodiversity databases

Victorian Biodiversity Atlas

Appendix D provides the results of the VBA search for records of flora and fauna listed as threatened under the EPBC Act, listed under the FFG Act and/or considered Victorian Rare or Threatened Species (VROTS) (DEPI, 2013b; 2014) after the exclusions outlined in Section 4.1.2 have been applied. The likelihood of those species occurring within Edithvale Wetland, Wannarkladdin Wetland and the other GDEs within the study area is also indicated. The distribution of records from this search is presented in EES Technical Report D Ecology: Project Areas.

An extract of the data to identify species recorded within the wetlands and GDEs study area identifies:

 no threatened flora species have been recorded within the GDE study area.  twenty-six threatened vertebrate fauna species have been historically recorded within the study area. In addition, 47 fauna species are recognised as migratory and/or marine under the EPBC Act. The location of threatened species records within the study area is shown in Figure 30 (threatened fauna) and Figure 31 (migratory species).

Biodiversity Interactive Map

DELWP EVC modelling identifies six EVCs within the study area. These EVC’s and their Biodiversity Conservation Status (BCS) in the Gippsland Plain bioregion are listed in Table A-1 and mapped in Figure 32.

Table A-1 EVCs within the study area2

EVC No. EVC name BCS

1 Coastal Dune Scrub/Coastal Dune Grassland Mosaic Depleted

2 Coast Banksia Woodland Vulnerable

48 Heathy Woodland Least Concern

125 Plains Grassy Wetland Endangered

904 Coast Banksia Woodland/Swamp Scrub Mosaic Vulnerable

921 Coast Banksia Woodland/Coastal Dune Scrub Mosaic Vulnerable

2 Derived from DELWP BIM

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Protected Matters Search Tool

The PMST identified a number of Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) that may occur, or for which suitable habitat may occur within the study area. Results of the PMST search are summarised in Table A-2 below.

Table A - 2 Summary of PMST results

MNES Number of occurrences

World Heritage Properties None

National Heritage Places None

Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) 1

Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands

Commonwealth Marine Area None

Listed threatened ecological communities 2

Natural Damp Grassland of the Victorian Coastal Plains

Seasonal Herbaceous Wetlands (Freshwater) of the Temperate Lowland Plains

Listed Threatened Species 52 species consisting of:

 44 listed fauna species

 8 listed flora species

Listed Migratory Species 43

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 30 VBA threatened fauna species records

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 31 VBA migratory fauna species records

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Figure 32 Modelled EVCs

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Appendix B – PMST search results

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 03/07/17 12:31:36

Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements

This map may contain data which are ©Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

Coordinates Buffer: 1.0Km Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: None Wetlands of International Importance: 1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Area: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: 2 Listed Threatened Species: 52 Listed Migratory Species: 43

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land: None Commonwealth Heritage Places: None Listed Marine Species: 57 Whales and Other Cetaceans: 7 Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None Commonwealth Reserves Marine: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

State and Territory Reserves: None Regional Forest Agreements: None Invasive Species: 48 Nationally Important Wetlands: 1 Key Ecological Features (Marine) None Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) [ Resource Information ] Name Proximity Edithvale-seaford wetlands Within Ramsar site

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ] For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps. Name Status Type of Presence Natural Damp Grassland of the Victorian Coastal Critically Endangered Community likely to occur Plains within area Seasonal Herbaceous Wetlands (Freshwater) of the Critically Endangered Community likely to occur Temperate Lowland Plains within area Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater [82338] Critically Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [64458] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea antipodensis gibsoni Gibson's Albatross [82270] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [89221] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross [89223] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [64456] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable Species or species Name Status Type of Presence habitat likely to occur within area Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Limosa lapponica baueri Bar-tailed Godwit (baueri), Western Alaskan Bar-tailed Vulnerable Species or species habitat Godwit [86380] likely to occur within area

Limosa lapponica menzbieri Northern Siberian Bar-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit Critically Endangered Species or species habitat (menzbieri) [86432] may occur within area

Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel, Southern Giant Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot [747] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pachyptila turtur subantarctica Fairy Prion (southern) [64445] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross [1075] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera Gould's Petrel, Australian Gould's Petrel [26033] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sternula nereis nereis Australian Fairy Tern [82950] Vulnerable Breeding likely to occur within area Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [64460] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche bulleri platei Northern Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [82273] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche cauta cauta Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross [82345] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta steadi White-capped Albatross [82344] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross [66491] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross, Campbell Black-browed Albatross Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related [64459] behaviour likely to occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross [64463] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Fish Galaxiella pusilla Eastern Dwarf Galaxias, Dwarf Galaxias [56790] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nannoperca obscura Yarra Pygmy Perch [26177] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling [26179] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Frogs Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog, Southern Bell Frog, Green and Vulnerable Species or species habitat Golden Frog, Warty Swamp Frog [1828] known to occur within area

Mammals Antechinus minimus maritimus Swamp Antechinus (mainland) [83086] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Isoodon obesulus obesulus Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern), Southern Brown Endangered Species or species habitat Bandicoot (south-eastern) [68050] may occur within area

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Petauroides volans Greater Glider [254] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Plants Amphibromus fluitans River Swamp Wallaby-grass, Floating Swamp Vulnerable Species or species habitat Wallaby-grass [19215] may occur within area

Caladenia orientalis Eastern Spider Orchid [83410] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Dianella amoena Matted Flax-lily [64886] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Glycine latrobeana Clover Glycine, Purple Clover [13910] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon Leek-orchid, Slaty Leek-orchid, Stout Leek- Endangered Species or species habitat orchid, French's Leek-orchid, Swamp Leek-orchid likely to occur within area [9704] Name Status Type of Presence Pterostylis cucullata Leafy Greenhood [15459] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thelymitra epipactoides Metallic Sun-orchid [11896] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Xerochrysum palustre Swamp Everlasting [76215] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Sharks Carcharodon carcharias White Shark, Great White Shark [64470] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardenna carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Shearwater Species or species habitat [82404] likely to occur within area

Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [89221] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross [89223] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel, Southern Giant Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross [1075] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sternula albifrons Little Tern [82849] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [64460] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Thalassarche cauta Tasmanian Shy Albatross [89224] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross [66491] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Migratory Marine Species Balaena glacialis australis Southern Right Whale [75529] Endangered* Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Caperea marginata Pygmy Right Whale [39] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Carcharodon carcharias White Shark, Great White Shark [64470] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky Dolphin [43] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lamna nasus Porbeagle, Mackerel Shark [83288] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Migratory Terrestrial Species Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail [592] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Migratory Wetlands Species Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species Name Threatened Type of Presence habitat known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint [861] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Philomachus pugnax Ruff (Reeve) [850] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper [829] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank [833] Species or species habitat known to occur within area Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint [861] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Charadrius ruficapillus Red-capped Plover [881] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [64458] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [89221] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross [89223] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea gibsoni Gibson's Albatross [64466] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely Name Threatened Type of Presence to occur within area Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [64456] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt [870] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail [682] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot [744] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel, Southern Giant Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch [609] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot [747] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pachyptila turtur Fairy Prion [1066] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Name Threatened Type of Presence Philomachus pugnax Ruff (Reeve) [850] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross [1075] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Shearwater Species or species habitat [1043] likely to occur within area

Recurvirostra novaehollandiae Red-necked Avocet [871] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail [592] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sterna albifrons Little Tern [813] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross [64460] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche cauta Tasmanian Shy Albatross [89224] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross [66491] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross, Campbell Black-browed Albatross Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related [64459] behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross [64463] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche sp. nov. Pacific Albatross [66511] Vulnerable* Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche steadi White-capped Albatross [64462] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper [829] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank [833] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Mammals Name Threatened Type of Presence Arctocephalus forsteri Long-nosed Fur-seal, New Zealand Fur-seal [20] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Arctocephalus pusillus Australian Fur-seal, Australo-African Fur-seal [21] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Whales and other Cetaceans [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Mammals Caperea marginata Pygmy Right Whale [39] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Delphinus delphis Common Dophin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin [60] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky Dolphin [43] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Tursiops aduncus Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted Bottlenose Species or species habitat Dolphin [68418] likely to occur within area

Tursiops truncatus s. str. Bottlenose Dolphin [68417] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Extra Information Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of Presence Birds Acridotheres tristis Common Myna, Indian Myna [387] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Alauda arvensis Skylark [656] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard [974] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch [403] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch [404] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Passer domesticus House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Passer montanus Eurasian Tree Sparrow [406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul [631] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling [389] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Turdus merula Common Blackbird, Eurasian Blackbird [596] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Turdus philomelos Song Thrush [597] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mammals Bos taurus Domestic Cattle [16] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Canis lupus familiaris Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Capra hircus Goat [2] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lepus capensis Brown Hare [127] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mus musculus House Mouse [120] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat, Norway Rat [83] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rattus rattus Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sus scrofa Pig [6] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Plants Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed [11620] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine, Jalap, Lamb's-tail, Mignonette Vine, Species or species habitat Anredera, Gulf Madeiravine, Heartleaf Madeiravine, likely to occur within area Potato Vine [2643] Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern, Ground Asparagus, Basket Fern, Species or species habitat Sprengi's Fern, Bushy Asparagus, Emerald Asparagus likely to occur within area [62425] Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Florist's Species or species habitat Smilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473] likely to occur within area

Asparagus scandens Asparagus Fern, Climbing Asparagus Fern [23255] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Austrocylindropuntia spp. Prickly Pears [85132] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carrichtera annua Ward's Weed [9511] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera Boneseed [16905] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. rotundata Bitou Bush [16332] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area Name Status Type of Presence Cytisus scoparius Broom, English Broom, Scotch Broom, Common Species or species habitat Broom, Scottish Broom, Spanish Broom [5934] likely to occur within area

Eichhornia crassipes Water Hyacinth, Water Orchid, Nile Lily [13466] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Genista linifolia Flax-leaved Broom, Mediterranean Broom, Flax Broom Species or species habitat [2800] likely to occur within area

Genista monspessulana Montpellier Broom, Cape Broom, Canary Broom, Species or species habitat Common Broom, French Broom, Soft Broom [20126] likely to occur within area

Genista sp. X Genista monspessulana Broom [67538] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle grass [67699] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock, Yass River Tussock, Yass Tussock, Species or species habitat Nassella Tussock (NZ) [18884] likely to occur within area

Olea europaea Olive, Common Olive [9160] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Opuntia spp. Prickly Pears [82753] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Protasparagus densiflorus Asparagus Fern, Plume Asparagus [5015] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Species or species habitat Sterile Pussy Willow [68497] likely to occur within area

Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze [7693] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nationally Important Wetlands [ Resource Information ] Name State Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands VIC Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of International and National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and if time permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with point locations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental data layers.

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04 or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull); or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mapping process (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliable distribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Coordinates

-38.072868 145.119697,-38.021111 145.095786,-38.021111 145.095786,-38.021111 145.095786,-38.012707 145.120555,-38.055683 145.151454,-38.072868 145.119697 Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales -Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia -Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory -Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland -Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia -Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT -Birdlife Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -South Australian Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence Forestry Corporation, NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns -eBird Australia -Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre -Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory -Australian Government National Environmental Science Program -Australian Institute of Marine Science -Reef Life Survey Australia -American Museum of Natural History -Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania -Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

© Commonwealth of Australia Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia +61 2 6274 1111 Appendix C – Threatened flora species likelihood of occurrence assessment

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Table C1 Threatened flora species likelihood of occurrence assessment

Scientific name Common name EPB FFG DELWP Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 C Act advisor Act y list Edithvale Wannarkladdi Other GDEs Wetland n Wetlands

Amphibromus fluitans River Swamp VU 2 (1993) Inhabits both natural and Moderate Moderate Low Wallaby-grass PMST constructed water-bodies, including swamps, lagoons, billabongs and dams. Numerous populations exist in northern Victoria, near the Murray River and its tributaries, such as Ovens River and Broken River between

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Kerang and Tallangatta. In southern Victoria, it is known from several localities in south Gippsland, including Rosedale, Meeniyan and Wonthaggi areas, as well as in the Melbourne (Lysterfield, Tyabb, Frankston), Ballarat, and Portland–Casterton areas.

Austrostipa rudis Veined Spear-grass r 1 (1985) Moist to dry soils in open forests. Low Low Low subsp. australis

Avicennia marina Grey Mangrove r 1 (2010) Saltwater Swamps and Estuaries Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely subsp. australasica

Burnettia cuneata Lizard Orchid r 1 (1902) Dense, wet, heathy, vegetation in Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely near-coastal areas from near

Ecosystems Portland in the west to Mallacoota areas in the east. Disjunct occurrence near the Grampians

Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Scientific name Common name EPB FFG DELWP Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence C Act advisor Act y list Edithvale Wannarkladdi Other GDEs Wetland n Wetlands

Caladenia orientalis Eastern Spider Orchid VU L e PMST Coastal heathland and heathy Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely woodlands between the Mornington Peninsula and Yarram, on well drained sandy soils.

Caladenia venusta Large White Spider- r 1 (1887) Typically coastal woodlands but Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent orchid also found in the Grampians.

Coronidium Pale Swamp v 3 (2001) Occurs within lowland swamps Moderate Moderate Low gunnianum Everlasting and wetlands, usually on black cracking clay soils.

Correa alba var. Velvet White Correa r 1 (1904) Coastal areas from the lower Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely pannosa Glenelg River to Port Phillip Bay, usually on calcareous substrates.

Dianella amoena Matted EN L e PMST Associated with plains grassland, Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Flax-lily grassy wetland and plains woodlands (red gum woodland). Most records are north-west and west of Melbourne. Also occurs north-east of Melbourne around Yarra Glen and in the south-east near Cranbourne.

Diuris punctata Purple Diuris L v 2 (1998) Moist areas in box, red gum and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely sclerophyll woodlands, grassy low open forest.

Glycine latrobeana Purple Clover, Clover EN L v PMST Endemic in Victoria and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Glycine sporadically dispersed. Grows mainly in grasslands and grassy Scientific name Common name EPB FFG DELWP Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence C Act advisor Act y list Edithvale Wannarkladdi Other GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Wetland n Wetlands

woodlands. Native grasslands, dry sclerophyll forests, woodlands and low open woodlands with a grassy ground layer

Lachnagrostis Purple Blown-grass L r 9 (2001) Scattered in wet marshes and Low Low Low punicea subsp. filifolia slightly saline swamps and depressions across the Victorian Volcanic Plain Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Philydrum Woolly Waterlily v 2 (2007) Scattered and very localised Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely lanuginosum throughout lowland Victoria in shallow freshwater swamps. Considered extinct from suburban areas.

Ranunculus amplus Lacey River Buttercup r 3 (2005) Aquatic or semi-aquatic Moderate Moderate Low perennial, scattered through Victoria, but mostly in the south- west in stream verges or swamps.

Prasophyllum frenchii Maroon Leek-orchid EN L e PMST Grasslands, grassy woodlands Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely and heaths. Predominantly in or near coastal swamps. Rarely occupies sites more than 10 km inland. Ecosystems

Pterostylis cucullata Leafy Greenhood VU L v PMST Widely distributed but disjunct, Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely mostly occurring in coastal areas, rarely inland. Recent records

from volcanic soils. Coastal Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Scientific name Common name EPB FFG DELWP Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence C Act advisor Act y list Edithvale Wannarkladdi Other GDEs Wetland n Wetlands

populations occur on stabilised sand dunes under open to closed scrub of Coast Tea-tree or Moonah.

Salsola tragus subsp. Coast Saltwort r 1 (1938) Grows in saline coastal areas. Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely pontica

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Thelymitra Metallic Sun-orchid EN L e PMST Small colonies in mainly coastal Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely epipactoides areas on fertile loams, but also inland in scrubby heaths, grassland and woodlands or near swampy depressions.

Xerochrysum palustre Swamp Everlasting VU L v 1 (2005) Sedge-rich lowland swamps and Moderate Moderate Low PMST wetlands, usually on black cracking clay soils.

Legend EPBC Act FFG Act VROTS Record CR – Critically Endangered L – Listed c – Critically Endangered # (####) – VBA results: number of records (year of last record) EN – Endangered N – Nominated for listing e – Endangered PMST – Protected Matters Search Tool VU – Vulnerable I – Invalid or ineligible v – Vulnerable D – Delisted r – Rare

Note: The descriptions of preferred habitat for threatened flora species have been generated based on published species accounts – particularly from the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) database of DoEE (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl) and Flora of Victoria available online via the VicFlora website (https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/) - and reference books including, but not limited to, Flora of Melbourne: A Guide to the Indigenous Plants of the Greater Melbourne Area (Bull and Stolfo, 2014). Appendix D – Threatened and/or migratory fauna species likelihood of occurrence assessment

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Table E2 Threatened and/or migratory fauna species likelihood of occurrence assessment Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006

Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Birds

Accipiter Grey Goshawk L vu 2 (1990) Various forests and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely novaehollandiae woodlands, especially tall novaehollandiae closed forests, including rainforests, tall woodlands

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent and timbered watercourses; disperse to more open country in autumn-winter

Actitis hypoleucos Common Mi vu 41 (2013) Edges of saltwater to fresh Low (not recorded Low (not Low Sandpiper waterbodies and wetlands, recorded) (recorded by including estuaries, lakes, BL drainage lines, tidal Patterson watercourses and mudflats; River / occasionally beaches and Lakes) rocky headlands; mainly spring-summer non-breeding migrant

Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler Mi 1 (2003) Inhabits various wetlands, Low Low Low preferring large, well- vegetated freshwater swamps and wetlands.

Anas rhynchotis Australasian vu 240 Inhabits various wetlands, Present Present Present Shoveler (2013) preferring large, well- (Bonbeach vegetated freshwater Golf swamps and wetlands. Also Course) estuaries, coastal inlets and artificial waterbodies (e.g. dams, sewage ponds). Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Anseranas Magpie Goose L nt 73 (2013) Natural populations no longer Present Likely Present semipalmata occur in Victoria. Birds (Rossdale released back into the wild golf course) favour wetter coastal plains, large seasonal wetlands and open pastures. Breed colonially in platform nests over open water.

Anthochaera phrygia Regent CR L cr 1 (1947) Widespread but with an Unlikely Unlikely Low

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Honeyeater extremely patchy distribution. Its range extends from south- east Queensland to central Victoria. Most sightings originate from a few sites in north-east Victoria, along the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range in NSW, and the Central Coast of NSW. Depends on nectar and insects from Box Ironbark eucalypt forests. Only breeding habitat lies in north- east Victoria (Chiltern-Albury) and more eastern parts of NSW at Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba region. Ecosystems Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Mi 7 (2008) Aerial over a wide range of Present High High PMST habitats, from inland to coast; spring-summer non-breeding

migrant Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Mi 109 Freshwater wetlands and Present Present High (2013) watercourses, pastures and PMST croplands, especially where drainage is poor. Occasionally also tidal flats and estuaries.

Ardea intermedia Intermediate L en 16 (2008) Freshwater swamps, Present Present High Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Egret intertidal mudflats, inland lakes and floodplains, well vegetated rivers; also farm dams, pastures and artificial wetlands

Ardea alba / Ardea Great Egret / L vu 136 Freshwater and brackish Present Present Present modesta Eastern Great (2015) wetlands and watercourses, Egret PMST intertidal mudflats, inland lakes, swamps and rivers; also farm dams, irrigation drainages and artificial wetlands.

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone Mi vu 3 (1988) Typically only found in Low Low Moderate coastal areas along beaches and on exposed rocks / reef.

Aythya australis Hardhead vu 163 Deep, permanent open Present Present Present (2013) freshwater wetlands and waterbodies with dense fringing vegetation. Sometimes artificial wetlands (dams, sewage ponds), especially during dry periods Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common) inland.

Biziura lobata Musk Duck vu 119 Permanent freshwater and Present Present High (2013) brackish swamps and wetlands with dense vegetation, more open waters in non-breeding season; occasionally coastal areas and estuaries.

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian EN L en 101 Occurs mainly in densely Present Moderate Low Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Bittern (2014) vegetated freshwater PMST wetlands and, rarely, in estuaries or tidal wetlands. Favours wetlands with tall dense vegetation, where it forages in still, shallow water up to 0.3 m deep, often at the edges of pools or waterways, or from platforms or mats of vegetation over deep water. Prefers permanent and seasonal freshwater habitats, particularly those dominated by sedges, rushes and/or reeds growing over muddy or peaty substrate. Further detail is provided in Ecosystems Appendix E.

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Mi 312 Margins of brackish Present Present Low Sandpiper (2010) waterbodies with emergent

sedges grassland, saltmarsh Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

PMST or similar vegetation Further detail is provided in Appendix E.

Calidris alba Sanderling Mi nt 2 (2001) Found only on the coast on Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely sandy beaches exposed to open swell, sandbars, pits and shingle banks. They Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent roost behind bare sand on the beach, clumps of seaweed, coastal dunes and rocky reefs.

Calidris canutus Red Knot EN, PMST Usually associated with Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Mi coastal intertidal habitats such as mudflats, sandy beaches and inlets. Less commonly observed in terrestrial saline wetlands.

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper CR, en 63 (2006) Margins of freshwater and Present Moderate Low Mi PMST brackish wetlands, sewage ponds, saltmarshes, dams and sometimes tidal flats and estuaries.

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Mi nt 35 (2008) Shallow freshwater or Present Moderate Low Sandpiper PMST brackish wetlands, including swamps, flooded grasslands, sewage ponds, occasionally tidal flats and saltmarshes.

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint Mi 126 Typically found in coastal Present Moderate Low (2010) areas in a diversity of Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common) PMST habitats from sheltered beaches, rocky reefs and shallow wetlands. Forages on intertidal mudflats or in very shallow areas.

Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint Mi nt 7 (2008) Mainly margins of shallow, Present Moderate Low PMST freshwater or brackish, vegetated wetlands, including sewage ponds and

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent occasionally tidal mudflats and estuaries; spring- summer non-breeding migrant.

Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Mi 36 (2010) Typically found in proximity to Present Moderate Low Plover PMST coastal and riverine areas. Occurs across a diversity of habitats including beaches, dunes, open grassland and muddy margins of lakes, lagoons, swamps and rivers.

Chlidonias White-winged Mi nt 16 (2010) Estuaries, freshwater lakes Present Moderate Low leucopterus Black Tern and wetlands, sewage ponds, coastal lakes and salt fields; spring-summer non- breeding migrant.

Ecosystems Coturnix chinensis King Quail L en 1 (1899) Dense grasslands, Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely victoriae shrublands or heathy vegetation, often near or on

edges of wetlands, Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

sometimes in more disturbed areas such as pastures.

Egretta garzetta Little Egret L en 17 (2008) Tidal mudflats, brackish and Present Present High nigripes saltwater wetlands, including saltmarshes, estuaries, littoral habitat and mangroves; less often Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent freshwater wetlands and occasionally sewage ponds.

Falco subniger Black Falcon vu 5 (2008) Woodland, scrub, shrubland Low Low Low and grassland types in arid and semi-arid zones.

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe Mi nt 135 Wet grasslands and Present Present Present (2013) pastures, open and wooded PMST swamps; spring-summer non-breeding migrant

Grantiella picta Painted VU L vu PMST Open box-ironbark forests, Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Honeyeater eucalypt and casuarina woodlands and well vegetated watercourses, particularly where trees are infested with mistletoe; mainly spring-summer migrant to south-eastern Australia

Grus rubicunda Brolga L vu 1 (1899) Largely associated with Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely PMST ephemeral freshwater and brackish wetlands, grasslands, floodplains, Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common) irrigated pastures and saltmarsh.

Haliaeetus White-bellied L vu 6 (2008) Found through India, south- Present High High leucogaster Sea-Eagle PMST east Asia and Australia. In Australia it occupies all coastal areas extending inland through main waterways, coastal islands, coastal lakes and along

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent some inland rivers. It forages primarily for fish over large areas of open water.

Hirundapus White-throated Mi vu 27 (1999) Aerial, mainly eastern Low Low Low caudacutus Needletail PMST Australia often associated with coastal and mountain regions; spring-summer non- breeding migrant.

Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern Mi L nt 15 (2008) Coastal, sub-coastal and Present Present Moderate inland saltwater, brackish and fresh waterbodies and waterways, beaches, lakes and sheltered estuaries. Occasionally reservoirs and artificial wetlands.

Ixobrychus minutus Little Bittern L en 18 (2008) Shallow well-vegetated Present Moderate Low Ecosystems dubius freshwater swamps, fresh or brackish lakes and rivers, favouring water with low emergent vegetation.

Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot CR L en 2 (1984) Breeds in Tasmania, late Unlikely Unlikely Low PMST spring-summer; occurs as non-breeding migrant to mainland south-eastern Australia mainly autumn- early spring. Generally prefers Box-Ironbark forests

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent and woodlands inland of the Great Dividing Range; sometimes also other forests and woodlands in coastal and sub-coastal areas.

Lewinia pectoralis Lewin's Rail L vu 4 (2007) Well vegetated wetlands and Present High Moderate pectoralis waterbodies, particularly swampy woodlands and wet heathlands, estuaries, saltmarshes, sedgelands, reedbeds and densely vegetated swamps.

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Mi 11 Bar-tailed Godwit is a non- Present Moderate Low (1988)# breeding migratory visitor to Australia. The species occurs Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit VU PMST in coastal areas around baueri (Western Australia mainly on intertidal Alaskan) sand and mudflats and beaches. More than one Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit CR PMST subspecies of Bar-tailed menzbieri (northern Siberia) Godwit exists; the nominate species, L. lapponica, and two sub-species – L. l. baueri and L. l. menzbieri. Birds that Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common) occur in south-eastern Australia and New Zealand are thought to be subspecies baueri. One of the nine sites of identified in Australia as being of international importance for this species is Corner Inlet in Victoria. #It is not possible to distinguish records on the

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent VBA as to whether they are L. l. menzbieri or L. l. baueri. However, the EPBC Act listing status nominated in the VBA for Bar-tailed Godwit is vulnerable which is consistent with birds in south- eastern Australia being considered to be L. l. baueri.

The PMST search lists both subspecies with potential to occur in the search area. L. l. menzbieri is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act.

For the purpose of this assessment, Bar-tailed Godwit records are Ecosystems considered to represent Bar- tailed Godwit (Western Alaskan) Limosa lapponica

baueri. Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Mi vu 7 (1996) Coastal, sub-coastal and Present Moderate Low Godwit PMST inland wetlands and waterbodies, including estuaries, lakes, tidal flats, sewage ponds and saltworks, river margins and spits; mainly spring-summer non-

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent breeding migrant

Lophocroa Major Mitchell's L vu 1 (1986) Singly, in pairs or small flocks Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely leadbeateri Cockatoo in arid eucalypt, mulga, casuarina or native pine woodlands and shrublands of arid and semi-arid areas; occasionally in saltbush and grasslands adjacent to woodlands. Often near fresh water; require large hollow trees for breeding.

Melanodryas Hooded Robin L nt 13 (1988) Lowlands and foothills. Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely cucullata cucullata Inhabit a range of vegetation, particularly with fallen timber and logs, including open eucalypt forests and box- ironbark woodlands, mallee and mulga woodlands, cypress pine woodlands, mallee heaths with scattered trees and often clearings adjacent to woodlands and forests. Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common)

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Mi 1 (2007) An insectivorous monarch Low Low Low Monarch PMST normally found foraging in denser mid-level parts of forests. The species is typically noted for rainforest, vine thickets and similar closed forests, though known also for softwood scrub dominated by Brigalow (Leach 1995) and for Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent mangroves. Upland and lowland rainforests and gully forests with tall, dense midstorey shrubs. Spring- summer migrant to south- eastern Australia.

Monarcha melanopsis Yellow Wagtail Mi 2 (2006) Grassland habitat subject to Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely PMST inundation

Neophema Orange-bellied CR L cr 3 (1988) Coastal saltmarshes, small Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely chrysogaster Parrot PMST islands and peninsulas, sometimes on adjacent dunes, grasslands or shrublands; sometimes on golf courses and coastal pastures; autumn-winter non- breeding visitor to mainland Ecosystems south-eastern Australia; in wild breeds only in Tasmania.

Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Ninox strenua Powerful Owl L vu 1 (1995) Foothill and coastal forests Unlikely Unlikley Unlikely where they favour gullies with Peppermint and Manna Gum forests; some dispersal to lowland areas, including parks and gardens with large trees in autumn-winter

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Numenius Eastern Curlew CR, vu 7 (2001) Coastal lakes, estuaries, tidal Low Low Low madagascariensis Mi PMST mudflats and sandflats, mangroves and saltmarshes; occasionally fresh or brackish lakes near coast; mainly spring-summer non-breeding migrant

Numenius minutus Little Curlew Mi 2 (1988) Rarely occurs in Victoria and Present (one record Moderate Low there are widespread but 1990) scattered records on the east coast of Australia. Most often found feeding in short grassland / sedgelands with scattered, shallow freshwater pools or areas seasonally inundated.

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel Mi vu 2 (1988) Coastal lakes, estuaries, tidal Low Low Unlikely mudflats and sandflats, mangroves and saltmarshes; occasionally fresh or brackish lakes near coast; mainly spring-summer non-breeding Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common) migrant

Onychoprion Bridled Tern Mi 2 (1998) Marine, pelagic and Low Low Unlikely anaethetus occasionally coastal habitats

Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck L en 193 Well vegetated freshwater Present Present Low (2014) swamps, large dams, lakes. Typically on more open waters in winter.

Pandion haliaetus Osprey Mi PMST Coastal wetlands Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Pezoporus wallicus Ground Parrot L en 1 (1854) Coastal and near-coastal Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely wallicus heathlands and heathy woodlands, swampy areas, moorlands and adjacent grasslands, including recently burnt areas; seriously declined in south-eastern Australia

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Mi 2 (2006) Mainly at sea but sometimes Low Low Unlikely Phalarope recorded at coastal and inland lakes and swamps including highly saline artificial waterbodies such as salt-works.

Philomachus pugnax Ruff Mi 6 (1988) Fresh brackish and saline Low Low Unlikely PMST wetlands, swamps, pools and

Ecosystems tidal rivers. Species has been observed at sewage farms and saltworks. Typically forages on exposed mudflats

Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Mi nt 41 (2008) Mainly margins of freshwater Present High Moderate wetlands and nearby grasslands and pastures; sometimes estuaries and brackish lakes. Mainly spring- summer breeding migrant to south-eastern Australia.

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Mi vu 14 (2005) Coastal lakes, estuaries, tidal Present (1987) High Low Plover mudflats and sandflats, mangroves and saltmarshes; occasionally fresh or brackish lakes near coast; mainly spring-summer non-breeding migrant

Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover Mi en 1 (1988) Coastal estuaries, tidal Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely mudflats and reefs, rocky shorelines and saltmarshes; mainly spring-summer non- breeding migrant

Polytelis anthopeplus Regent Parrot VU L vu 1 (2008) Mallee, River Red Gum and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely monarchoides other eucalypt woodlands and timbered watercourses; sometimes in orchards, clearings and wooded farmland and often killed on roads when feeding on spilt grain

Pomatostomus Grey-crowned L en 31 (2002) Inland open forests, Unlikely Unlikely Low temporalis temporalis Babbler woodlands and scrublands, Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common) particularly with an open shrub layer, little ground cover and plenty of fallen timber and leaf litter, including along roadsides and around better vegetated farms. Serious declines in settled areas of south- eastern Australia.

Porzana pusilla Baillon's Crake L vu 53 (2008) Well vegetated freshwater to Present High Low Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent palustris brackish swamps, typically with dense floating vegetation.

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail Mi 15 (2013) Typically occurs in dense Present High High PMST forests such as rainforests, wet sclerophyll forests, mangroves and riparian vegetation with a preference for a shrubby understory. Inhabits and breeds in wet eucalypt forests and rainforests, particularly gullies and in dense undergrowth. Seasonal (mainly autumn- winter) dispersal to more open habitat (e.g. woodlands,

Ecosystems parklands with areas of dense undergrowth, box ironbark forests).

Rostratula australis Australian Painted EN L cr 5 (2008) Lowland shallow freshwater Present Moderate Low Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Snipe PMST swamps and wetlands with dense emergent vegetation, including lignum swamps; sometimes in flooded saltmarshes.

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail L nt 2 (1990) Open grassy eucalypt or Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely cypress pine woodlands,

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent acacia shrublands and edges of farmland or grassland close to wooded or lightly timbered areas. Often in wooded areas close to watercourses.

Sterna albifrons Little Tern Mi L vu PMST Coastal estuaries, bays and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely inlets, saltwater and brackish lakes; also coastal saltfields and sewage ponds; mainly spring-summer migrant to south-eastern Australia

Sterna hirundo Common Tern Mi 14 (2005) Marine, pelagic and coastal Present High Moderate habitats

Sternula nereis nereis Australian Fairy VU L en PMST Coastal estuaries, bays and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Tern inlets, saltwater and brackish lakes; also coastal saltfields and sewage ponds

Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck L en 16 (2008) Large, well vegetated Present High Moderate swamps and wetlands, including ephemeral open lakes when inundated Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common)

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper Mi vu 55 (2008) Margins of freshwater and Present High Low PMST brackish wetlands, sewage ponds, saltmarshes, dams and sometimes tidal flats and estuaries; spring-summer non-breeding migrant.

Tringa nebularia Common Mi vu 65 (2002) Margins of freshwater and Present High Low Greenshank PMST brackish wetlands, sewage ponds, saltmarshes, dams and sometimes tidal flats and Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent estuaries

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper Mi vu 44 (2006) Margins of freshwater and Present High Low PMST brackish wetlands, sewage ponds, saltmarshes, dams and sometimes tidal flats and estuaries

Dry open pasture, grassland, Low Low Unlikely saltmarsh, sometimes near Buff-breasted swampy areas. Rarely Tryngites subruficollis Sandpiper Mi 2 (1987) observed on mudflats.

Typically found in inland Present Moderate Low regions and rarely in south East Victoria. Preferred habitat consists of grasslands Red-chested and woodlands in arid and

Ecosystems Turnix pyrrhothorax Button-quail L vu 1 (2000) semi-arid areas/

Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper Mi L en 1 (1988) Coastal estuaries, sand spits, Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely rocky headlands, mangroves,

tidal mudflats, sandflats and Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

low tidal samphire herblands; spring-summer non-breeding migrant; uncommon in southern Australia

Mammals

Antechinus minimus Swamp VU L nt PMST Located in the south of the Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely martimus Antechinus central highlands, Wimmera Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent and alpine regions of Victoria and the extreme south of SA around Mt. Gambier. Some also range through Tasmania including Sunday Island, King Island and Flinders Island. Habitat includes closed health, wet dense health, open forest, open health, swampy drainages and tussock grassland with bracken and sedge growth.

Isoodon obesulus Southern Brown EN L nt 5 (1989) Heathy forest, heath and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely obesulus Bandicoot PMST coastal scrub.

Miniopterus Eastern Bent- L V EA 2006 Distribution includes the Unconfirmed call Low Low schreibersii wing Bat entire southeastern seaboard detection oceanensis of Australia. Roosts in caves, abandoned goldmines, concrete bunkers and lava tubes. Forages in open areas and above the canopy.

Petauroides volans Greater Glider Vu vu PMST Eucalypt forests and Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common) woodlands. Typically found in old growth, hollow bearing, montane, moist diverse eucalypt forests.

Pseudomys fumeus Smoky Mouse En L en PMST A variety of vegetation Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely communities, ranging from coastal heath to dry ridgeline forest, sub-alpine heath and, occasionally, wetter gullies. Except for the wetter sites, a Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent consistent feature of Smoky Mouse habitats is the diversity of heath and bush- pea species present, combined with potential shelter sites in the form of woody debris or rocks. The vegetation at capture sites varies widely in age post-fire.

Pteropus Grey-headed VU L vu 6 (2016) Requires foraging resources Present (occasional Moderate Moderate poliocephalus Flying-fox PMST and roost sites which differ in opportunistic basis) (occasional (occasional their characteristics and opportunistic opportunisti therefore location. Roost basis) c basis) sites commonly occur in gullies, in vegetation with dense canopy cover and close to water. Foraging Ecosystems resources include blossom from eucalypts (preferred food) and a range of

Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

rainforest fruits, commercial fruit crops and introduced trees in urban areas. The species is highly mobile and commutes daily from roost sites to foraging areas.

Reptiles

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Lissolepis coventryi Swamp Skink L V SKM Associated with densely Moderate Low Low (2011) vegetated freshwater swamps, watercourses, heaths and sedgelands.

Amphibians

Litoria raniformis Growling Grass VU L en 11 (2006) Permanent lakes, swamps, Low Low Low Frog PMST dams and lagoons or very wet areas in woodland and shrubland; often in waterbodies with dense standing and floating vegetation.

Pseudophryne Southern Toadlet vu 2 (1990) Inhabits sclerophyll forests, Moderate Low Low semimarmorata woodlands, heathlands and grasslands. Often found under litter, logs and rocks in damp areas.

Fish

Galaxiella pusilla Dwarf Galaxias VU L vu PMST Swamps, pools, back waters Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely and lake margins among rocks and vegetation. Slow Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ry list Common) flowing and still, shallow, permanent and temporary, freshwater habitats (swamps, drains and backwaters of streams and creeks, often containing dense aquatic macrophytes and emergent plants.

Nannoperca obscura Yarra Pigmy VU L vu PMST Streams and small lakes, Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Perch prefers flowing water with Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent abundant cover of aquatic and emergent vegetation. Often cohabitates with Southern Pygmy Perch N. australis. Patchy distribution West Gippsland east through southern Victoria and in south-eastern South Australia, as far west as near the mouth of the Murray River.

Protectorates Australian VU L vu PMST Spends part of its life cycle in Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely maraena Grayling freshwater in rivers, typically in gravel bottom pools. Often forming aggregations below barriers to upstream movement such as Ecosystems waterfalls.

Invertebrates

Scientific name Common name EP FF DELW Record Preferred habitat Likelihood of occurrence Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 BC G P Edithvale Wetland Wannarkladdin Other Act Act adviso (including Edithvale GDEs ry list Common)

Plectrotarsus Caddisfly sp. vu 1 (1915) Preferred habitat information Unknown Unknown Unknown gravenhorstii not available.

Legend EPBC Act FFG Act VROTS Record CR – Critically Endangered L – Listed cr – Critically Endangered # (####) – VBA results: number of records (year of last record) EN – Endangered N – Nominated for listing e – Endangered PMST – Protected Matters Search Tool Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent VU – Vulnerable I – Invalid or ineligible vu – Vulnerable Mi – Migratory D – Delisted nt – Near Threatened

Note: The descriptions of preferred habitat for threatened, migratory and/or marine species have been generated based on published species accounts - particularly from the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) database of DoEE (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl) and the Viridans Atlas and Field Guide to Plants and Animals of Melbourne Area (https://viridans.com/wtajammel/) – and reference books including, but not limited to, the Handbook of Australian and New Zealand and Antarctic Birds (HANZAB) Volumes 1 to 7 (1990-2006) and field guides to the mammals of Australia (Menkhorst and Knight, 2010), birds of Australia (Morcombe, 2004; Pizzey and Knight, 2012), frogs of Victoria (Hero et al, 1991) and Australia (Tyler and Knight, 2009), reptiles of Australia (Cogger, 2014; Wilson and Swan, 2013) and fish of Australia (Wager and Jackson, 1993; Allen et al, 2002).

Appendix E – Key threatened and/or migratory birds

This appendix provides a detailed description of the key species and analysis of the BirdLife Australia raw bird count data from 1987 to 2017.

Migratory shorebird species East Asian – Australasian Flyway

Australia is one of 23 countries listed in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway (EAAF) which spans from Alaska, United States of America in the north to New Zealand in the south. A flyway is a term used to describe the migratory pathway of a group of migratory shorebirds. This range includes breeding, stop-off (rest) and over-wintering locations. The EAAF is one of nine major flyways recognised internationally and the only one that involves visitation to Australia (Bamford et al. 2008). In total, 54 distinct species are considered to utilise the flyway but not all these species enter Australia.

Shorebird species of the EAAF typically breed at the high latitudes of the northern hemisphere and move south to overwinter, effectively chasing an endless summer, highly productive ecosystems and abundant food resources (Bamford et al. 2008). Breeding typically occurs from May to August, southward migration August to November, non-breeding period December to February and northward migration March to May.

The boundary of the flyway represents the maximum distribution typically utilised by the grouping of migratory birds, although actual distance and timing of movement varies from species to species. For instance whilst some individuals and or species breed in the EAAF northern-most extent inclusive of the Artic, Sub-artic Russia and Alaska, others (such as Latham’s Snipe) breed in southern areas of the flyway such as Japan (Bamford et a.l, 2008). Two species breed only in the Southern Hemisphere, with one of these species breeding predominately in northern Australia (Australian Pratincole) and the other predominately in the northern island of New Zealand (Double-banded Plover). Further juvenile birds often have different patterns of movement to sexually mature individuals, incapable of making the flight to breeding grounds they often move shorter distances to preferred, but non–breeding, habitats to build their endurance for future years (Bamford et al. 2008).

Whilst some isolated breeding of some species occurs in Australia its primary role in the EAAF is the provision of non-breeding habitat; 87 percent of important non-breeding sites occur in Australia (Bamford et al. 2008). Thirty-seven species of migratory shorebirds in the EAAF regularly visit Australia during the non-breeding period (Hansen et al. 2008). Thirty-three of these species are commonly present in Australia with population counts of 28 species often higher than five percent of the flyway population estimate (Bamford et al. 2008). Critical to its role as a non-breeding habitat is the provision of food to allow birds to increase their body mass and prepare for their northward migration back to their breeding grounds. During the period directly proceeding migration, birds often double in mass, building large stores of fat needed to support days of non-stop flight (Priest et al. 2002). Migratory shorebirds in Australia

The 37 migratory shorebird species that regularly visit Australia each year are listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act. As migratory shorebirds are present in relatively stable numbers over a three month period (December to February) in Australia, this provides a valuable opportunity to assess changes in populations numbers year to year and over longer time scales (DoE, 2015).

Population estimates are important as the EPBC Act considered whether a significant impact could occur to important habitat for migratory shorebirds. Shorebird habitat is considered

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

internationally important if it regularly supports one percent of EAAF population of a migratory shorebird or a total abundance of at least 20,000 waterbirds (DoE, 2015; Hansen et al. 2016). Wetland habitat is considered nationally important if it regularly supports 0.1 percent of the EAAF population of a single species of migratory shorebird (Hansen et al. 2016) or 2000 migratory shorebirds or 15 migratory shorebird species (DoE, 2015). The exception to this is Latham’s Snipe, for which the threshold for national importance is 0.05 percent (Hansen et al. 2016) or 18 individuals (DoE, 2015).

Estimates of population sizes were completed in 2008 (Bamford et al. 2008) and have been recently updated by Hansen et al (2016). These estimates suggest that the populations of many migratory bird species are declining rapidly (Hansen et al. 2016). As such, there is an increasing need to mitigate threats to areas of identified important habitat. Due to the species’ migratory nature, efforts can only be effective if the approach is collaborative across their global distribution.

Of the 37 migratory shorebirds that visit Australia, 14 species have been recorded at the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands and surrounding aquatic environs in the last 20 years. Species of key concern are dealt with on a species by species basis below.

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata

Status

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is a shorebird listed as migratory and marine under the EPBC Act. The species is also listed under four bilateral migratory agreements - JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA and the Bonn convention. Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is not listed under the FFG Act or the VROTS advisory list (DEPI, 2013b). It is listed as least concern on the IUCN Red List of threatened species (DoEE, 2017b).

The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is considered to be one of 11 migratory species confined to the EAAF and an estimated 90 percent of the world population of the species overwinters in Australia. The species is recorded as a vagrant in other parts of the world such as South- Western Asia, Europe and North America (Bamford et al. 2008).

Recent estimates indicate an EAAF population of 85,000 individuals (Hansen et al. 2016). This number is significantly lower than the previous estimate of 160,000 individuals in 2008 (15,000 of which were estimated to overwinter in coastal Victoria) (Bamford et al. 2008).

Based on the current EAAF population estimates, an internationally significant site is one that regularly supports 850 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (one percent of the EAAF population) and a nationally significant site is one that regularly supports 85 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (0.1 percent of the EAAF population) (DoE, 2015; Hansen et al, 2016). Forty-nine wetlands are identified as sites of international importance for the species with 39 of those sites occurring in Australia (Bamford et al. 2008). Edithvale Seaford Wetland is one such site (site code 39) with a maximum count of 3000 attributed to the wetland from February 2008 (Bamford et al. 2008). Six of these internationally important sites for Sharp-tailed Sandpiper occur within 150 km of Melbourne (Bamford et al. 2008). Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands represent the closest site to Melbourne, although the nearby sites of Eastern Port Phillip Bay and Lake Murdeduke in Winchelsea have been recorded to support higher numbers of the species with maximum counts of 5,971 in 1995 and 4,500 in 1983 respectively (Bamford et al. 2008). Description

The Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is a small to medium wading bird with an overall length typically ranging from 17–22 centimetre and a weight of roughly 65 grams. The species is similar in appearance to other sandpipers but is identifiable by its flat back, rounded abdomen, a lack of

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

clear division in plumage between breast and belly, olive legs and chestnut head with white markings above the eye (Morecombe, 2004; DoEE, 2017b; Silcocks, 2017). The species does not display sexual dimorphism (i.e. differences in appearance between males and females) but plumage is noted to vary in appearance on the one individual across the year and between individuals. Sharp-tailed Sandpiper typically occurs at the edge of wetlands in shallow water on a mud / sand substrate which the birds utilise for both foraging and roosting. The species can also be found in a range of other habitats including inundated saltmarsh, grasslands, saltpans, salt- works and water / sewage treatment plants and are also occasionally observed on sandy beaches, coastal mudflats and rocky shores.

Sharp-tailed Sandpipers breed in Siberia and migrate south to Australia to ‘overwinter’. The birds are typically found in Australia between August and February where their distribution is highly variable from year to year and is dependent on habitat and food availability (Bamford et al. 2008; Silcocks, 2017). The species is omnivorous with a diet of plant seeds and small invertebrates such as worms, molluscs crustaceans and insects. The species typically feeds by probing wet or submerged sediments with their beaks. Method of capture does not rely on visual cues but is rather thought to be associated with tactile methods such as chemoreception, mechanical detection of vibrations or self-induced pressure signals (Higgins et al. 1996). This is aided by Herbst corpuscles near the beaks tip (Higgins et al. 1996; AZA, 2014). They have also been observed to opportunistically feed on dead fish (DoEE, 2017b).

Plate 39 – Sharp-tailed Sandpiper at Edithvale Wetland (January 2018)

BirdLife Australia data analysis

Edithvale Wetland

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is the most abundant bird species at Edithvale Wetland with a total count of 85,782 birds observed at the Edithvale Wetland from 163 observations since 1987. The species is regularly recorded at the wetland with records at Edithvale Wetland in 28 of 30 surveyed non-breeding periods. The highest maximum count of 5,006 individuals occurred in

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

January 2005. The birds on this occasion occurred across two zones of the wetland (refer to Figure 38 – Zone 2 in the south (5,000 total birds) and Zone 5 in the north (6)). Observations of 5000 birds were also made in October and February 1987. This number is higher than the 3000 recorded at Edithvale-Seaford Wetland in February 2000 as documented in Bamford et al. (2008). Based on the most recent EAAF population estimate and associated threshold of 850 birds (Hansen et al. 2016) for site to be of international significance, the Edithvale Wetland has:

 supported an internationally significant population of Sharp-tailed Sandpiper on 28 occasions in 12 of the 30 non-breeding periods monitored since 1987 (Figure 33). Since the highest maximum count of 5006 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper in the 2005/2006 season, the one percent population threshold has been met in the 2006/2007, 2011/2012 2012/2013, 2013/2014 and 2015/2016  met or exceeded the threshold for a nationally significant wetland for Sharp-tailed Sandpiper in 27 of the 30 overwintering seasons monitored since 1987 (Figure 33). Timing of occurrence of the species at Edithvale Wetland varied from as early as August to as late as April (114 birds were recorded in April 2017), with peak numbers usually present from November through February (with some exceptions). The period of occupancy was also variable. For instance in 2001 they were recorded in seven consecutive monthly counts but in other years they were only observed once or twice.

Figure 33 below shows Sharp-tailed Sandpiper observations at Edithvale Wetland over time and how those numbers relate to the thresholds for nationally and internationally significant numbers. For each non-breeding period the maximum total count was used. Figure 33 demonstrates that site has regularly supports an internationally significant population of the species.

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1987/1988 1989/1990 1991/1992 1993/1994 1995/1996 1997/1998 1999/2000 2001/2002 2003/2004 2005/2006 2007/2008 2009/2010 2011/2012 2013/2014 2015/2016

Sharp‐tailed Sandpiper max count Nationally significant Internationally significant

Figure 33 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper abundance (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland plotted against population estimates in Hansen et al. 2016.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

When plotted against rainfall and water level (Figure 34 and Figure 35) no obvious correlations between were found rainfall and water level and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper numbers with the exception of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 which were the only years the species was not recorded at Edithvale Wetland. These periods coincide with the breaking of millennium drought (BOM, 2015) and represent the third highest and highest (respectively) periods of rainfall over the monitored period. This absence may be due to high water levels covering the mudflats and rendering the habitat unsuitable for those seasons. I\it is also possible that the birds on their migration from northern to southern Australia encountered suitable habitat which in drier years is usually unsuitable (dry) and did not continue to move further south; Sharp-tailed Sandpiper is known to be particularly responsive to ecological change, and in years of inland flooding, will utilise the banks of inland floodplains preferentially over travelling thousands of kilometres further south in search of coastal wetland habitat (BirdLife Australia, 2017b). Water level data for this period was not collected for Edithvale Wetland so hypothesis on the impact of rainfall on wetland water levels cannot be validated. The absence of correlation between rainfall and water level is likely to be due to variation in population size, movement and extent of dispersion being influenced by multiple factors across the species range (inclusive of breeding, non-breeding range and migration pathways) (Bamford et al. 2008).

6000 1400.0

5000 1200.0

1000.0 4000 800.0 3000 600.0 2000 400.0

1000 200.0

0 0.0

Sharp‐tailed Sandpiper max count Rainfall (sum)

Figure 34 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper maximum counts compared with rainfall at Edithvale Wetland 1987 - 2017

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0 1/07/2011 1/07/2012 1/07/2013 1/07/2014 1/07/2015 1/07/2016

Rain (mm/100) Water level Sharp‐tailed Sandpiper (#/1000)

Figure 35 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper maximum counts compared with rainfall and water level at Edithvale Wetland 2011 - 2017

Edithvale Wetland mudflat extent analysis

The following provides an analysis of approximate mud flat extent as first presented and discussed in Section 5.3.4.

Of the years mapped, the highest Sharp-tailed Sandpiper numbers (in terms of total count) were observed in the 2013/2014 non-breeding period (6,669), with fewer birds observed in 2015/2016 (4,236) and no birds observed in 2010/2011 (which corresponded with the break in the aforementioned millennial drought). Timing of bird visitation was different when comparing 2013/2014 and 2015/2016 non breeding periods. Bird numbers by month for these two periods are shown in Figure 36 and total rainfall by month is shown in Figure 37. It is hypothesised that in dry years mudflat at the site would be expected to eventually reach a point of desiccation at which point food is no longer available. This may explain timing of occurrence in 2015/2016 with birds not observed after December compared with 2013/2014 when habitat was available into February with later rainfall likely to have maintained wetland water levels / mudflat moisture. Heavy rainfall and inundation of previously exposed mudflat January 2016 (after the aerial image was captured) may have also contributed.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 September October November December January February

Sharp‐tailed Sandpiper abundance 2013/2014 Sharp‐tailed Sandpiper abundance 2015/2016

Figure 36 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper total count by month 2013/2014 and 2015/2016

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0 September October November December January February

Rainfall 2013/2014 Rainfall 2015/2016

Figure 37 Total monthly rainfall during overall period of bird visitation 2013/2014 and 2015/2016

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Remainder of the study area

Birdlife data from the broader study area contains 2299 birds from just eight observations. Of these 6 observations totalling 2297 birds occurred in Edithvale Common/Memorial (Parkland directly abutting the Ramsar site). This includes a single observation of 1,500 birds on January 2002. The remaining observation of two birds was collected at Wannarkladdin Wetland in December of 2015.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 38 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper abundance

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 39 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper observations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Status

Curlew Sandpiper is a migratory shorebird species listed as critically endangered, migratory and marine under the EPBC Act. The species is listed as threatened under the FFG Act and endangered under the VROTS advisory list (DEPI, 2013b). The species is also listed under four bilateral migratory agreements - JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA and the Bonn convention - and is listed as least concern on the IUCN Red list of threatened species (DoEE, 2017b). Recent estimates indicate an EAAF population of 90,000 individuals (Hansen et al, 2016). This number is significantly lower than the previous estimate of 180,000 individuals (Bamford et al. 2008). Based on the current EAAF population estimates, an internationally significant site is one that regularly supports 900 Curlew Sandpiper (1% of the EAAF population) and a nationally significant site is one that regularly supports 90 Curlew Sandpiper (0.1 percent of the EAAF population) (DoE, 2015; Hansen et al. 2016).

Thirty-eight sites of international significance are identified for the Curlew Sandpiper in the EAAF (Bamford et al. 2008). Of these, 24 sites occur in Australia with five sites located within 150 kilometre of Melbourne. Four of those sites correspond to habitats identified as being of international importance for Sharp-tailed Sandpiper. Edithvale Seaford Wetlands is not recognised as a site of international importance for the species (Bamford et al. 2008). Description

Curlew Sandpiper breed exclusively in northern Siberia and non-breeding habitat typically extends to as far south as Australia (however the species has on occasion been recorded at low densities in New Zealand). Approximately 13 percent of the global population occurs in the EAAF of which more than 60 percent overwinter in Australia (Bamford et al. 2008).

The Curlew Sandpiper is a small, slight bird with a length of 18-23 centimetres and a weight of approximately 57 grams (DoEE, 2017b). The species is similar to other sandpipers but can be characterised by a downward curved black bill (more pronounced in females), black legs and feet. Plumage is variable and changes significantly between breeding and non-breeding seasons with change often gradual. In breeding plumage the Curlew Sandpiper is differentiated from other sandpiper species by its bright chestnut-red plumage, black barred wings, a dusky loral stripe (region between the eyes and nostrils specific to birds) and white markings around the base of the bill (Morcombe 2004; BirdLife Australia, 2017; DoEE, 2017b). The back and upper rump are typically a bright brown in colour with a prominent white square across the lower rump. Non-breeding plumage is less descript with a pale white-grey to brown plumage. A white wing-bar is visible in flight (Morcombe, 2004; BirdLife Australia, 2017).

Curlew Sandpiper predominantly occur on intertidal mudflats and sheltered coastal environments such as bays, inlets and lagoons, estuaries, swamps and ponds including salt works and sewage treatment ponds (DoEE, 2017b). They also occur, albeit less commonly, in inland environments particularly those with a mud and sand margin such as dams, ephemeral and permanent lakes and grasslands subject to prolonged inundation (Morecombe, 2004; BirdLife Australia 2017; DoEE 2017c).

Curlew Sandpipers typically forage by probing for invertebrates, crustaceans and seeds on exposed and shallow mudflats to a depth of 15 – 30 millimetres but have been observed wading as deep as 60 millimetres (DoEE, 2017b). The species is noted to have a particular preference for polychaete worms (BirdLife Australia 2017).

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Data analysis

Edithvale Wetland

BirdLife Australia data confirms the assertion that the Edithvale Wetland (in isolation) does not constitute internationally significant habitat for Curlew Sandpiper. The species has been irregularly recorded at Edithvale Wetland with 40 observations over 19 the 30 seasons of monitoring. Generally these observations were represented by a small number of individuals (10 birds or less). The highest maximum count at Edithvale Wetland was 250 Curlew Sandpipers observed in November 1991 and prior to that a maximum count of 150 was recorded in the 1987/1988 season. Other notable observations have been limited to a maximum count of 60 birds in the 1994/1995 and 26 in the 2014/2015 non-breeding periods.

Although Edithvale Wetlands do not meet the definitions for a site of international or national importance for Curlew Sandpiper (DoE, 2015; Hansen et al. 2016), it is the presence (rather than population size) of the species at the wetlands that is part of the listing of Edithvale- Seaford Wetlands under Ramsar Criteria 2. Figure 40 below shows Curlew Sandpiper observations at Edithvale Wetland over time and how those numbers relate to the thresholds for nationally and internationally significant numbers. For each breeding period the maximum total count was taken. Figure 40 demonstrates that site does not support an internationally significant population of the species and does not regularly support a nationally significant population.

900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1987/1988 1988/1989 1989/1990 1990/1991 1991/1992 1992/1993 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017

Curlew Sandpiper Max Count Nationally significant Internationally significant

Figure 40 Curlew Sandpiper abundance (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland plotted against population estimates in Hansen et al. 2016.

Remainder of the study area

Birdlife data from the broader study area does not contain any records of the species.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 41 Curlew Sandpiper abundance

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 42 Curlew Sandpiper observations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii

Status

Latham’s Snipe is a migratory shorebird species listed as migratory and marine under the EPBC Act and near threatened on the VROT Advisory List (DEPI, 2013b). The species is also listed under three bilateral migratory agreements - JAMBA, ROKAMBA and the Bonn convention. The species occurs exclusively in the EAAF with the most recent population estimate at 30,000 individuals (Hansen et al. 2016). Based on this estimate, an internationally significant population of this species would usually be 300 individuals or one percent of the EAAF and a nationally significant population would be 0.1 percent of the EAAF population or 30 individuals (DoE, 2015; Hansen et al. 2016). However, the species is highly cryptic, highly dispersive and does not typically congregate in large numbers making determining global population size problematic. As such, an exemption applies specifically to Latham’s Snipe when defining significant populations. According to Hansen et al. (2016), the threshold for a nationally significant population would be 0.05 percent of the EAAF population or 15 individuals. The Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (DoE 2015) and, subsequently, the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines for Migratory Shorebirds define important habitat for the species as ‘areas that have previously been identified as internationally important for the species or areas that support at least 18 individuals of the species’ (DoEE 2017a, p10). Hansen et al (2016) does not provide a threshold for international importance under the exemption for Latham’s Snipe. If the approach adopted for national significance is applied, then it would be reasonable to define this as 0.5 percent of the EAAF population or 150 individuals.

Identifying specific sites of significance for the species outside of its breeding distribution is difficult (Bamford et al, 2008). Historically Victoria was thought to provide important habitat across the six regions of Shepparton, Sale, Wonthaggi, Port Phillip Bay and Warrnambool DoEE (2017c). Bamford et al (2008) identifies only one site of international significance in Australia; Cedar Hill and Hexham Swamp (coastal NSW) in which a maximum count of 500 birds was observed in 1998. Bamford et al. (2008) also refers to a historic observation of up 50 birds per hectare and a total count of 200 birds in 1983 at Seaford Swamp, though notes that habitat values at this location have since declined. It is believed that Seaford Swamp referenced is the former Seaford/Carrum Carrum Swamp the remnants of which now form the Edithvale Seaford Wetland however this text is not referenced within Bamford et al. (2018).

Description

Latham’s Snipe predominantly breeds in Japan and also the coastal areas of eastern Russia. It is thought that the entire population migrates to Australia during the species non breeding period, although some isolated records occur in New Zealand at this time (DoEE 2017c). In Australia, Latham's Snipe usually inhabit permanent and ephemeral open, freshwater wetlands with low, dense vegetation including swamps and flooded grasslands where they feed primarily on seeds, plant material and invertebrates (DoEE 2017c). They can also occur in habitats with brackish or saline water and in habitats located close to human activity (DoEE 2017c).

Latham’s Snipe is highly cryptic and is often only seen in flight when actively flushed, often flushing briefly and returning to cover of the reed or grassland habitat quickly. The species does not typically congregate in large numbers (DoEE 2017c).

Latham’s Snipe is the largest snipe species in Australia with a wingspan of up to 54 centimetres and a length of up to 33 centimetres (DoEE 2017c). The species has a largely brown plumage that allows it to effectively camouflage itself within reed and grassland habitat. Unlike most wader species plumage is not noticeably variable between breeding and non-breeding periods. Plumage is irregularly patterned with various shades of black, brown and white. The tip of the

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

tail is rufous while the belly and underwings are predominately white. In flight its legs, which are olive grey, are folded flush to the body so the tips of the toes do not extend past the tail. The beak is prominent, long and straight, and the eyes are brown to black. A single straight brown line runs from the beak through the eye transitioning into a double line behind the eye (Morecombe 2004). Latham’s Snipe are omnivorous and feed predominately on seeds, plant material, and invertebrates (DoEE 2017c; BirdLife Australia 2017). Arrival of the species at a given wetland usually aligns with peak monocotyledon fruiting periods and evaporative draw down areas exposing muddy sites with established invertebrate prey types. Prey items are typically captured by probing soft sediments (DoEE 2017c). BirdLife Australia data analysis

Edithvale Wetland

Latham’s Snipe are understood to be commonly observed at the Edithvale Wetland. BirdLife Australia reports and count data indicate that a total of 1,672 birds have been recorded over 253 observations at the wetlands since 1987. The greatest single count of 68 (combined count of Edithvale South and North) occurred in January 2000. Counts of 18 individuals or higher have been documented at Edithvale Wetlands on 33 occasions since 1987 and counts of 15 or more individuals have been documented on 43 occasions.

The Edithvale Wetland represents nationally significant habitat for the species in the EAAF (Hansen et al 2016) and significant habitat for the species under the EPBC Act (DoEE, 2017b). The thresholds for nationally significant habitat have been exceeded in the six most recent consecutive non-breeding periods. Given the paucity of sites identified as being of international significance for the species (Bamford et al. 2008), the importance of Edithvale Wetland at this scale cannot be discounted.

Figure 43 below shows maximum counts of Latham’s Snipe at Edithvale Wetland over time and how those numbers relate to the thresholds for nationally significant (Hansen et al. 2016) and significant habitat under the EPBC Act (DoE, 2015). Figure 44 and Figure 45 show the abundance and number of observations of Latham’s Snipe respectively within the monitoring zones at Edithvale Wetland.

Remainder of the study area

BirdLife Australia data from the broader study area contains 81 observations with the majority of individuals observed within the Wannarkladdin Wetlands. The largest observation at the Wannarkladdin Wetland comprised of 15 individuals in February 2006.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 1987/1988 1988/1989 1989/1990 1990/1991 1991/1992 1992/1993 1993/1994 1994/1995 1995/1996 1996/1997 1997/1998 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017

Latham's Snipe Max count Nationally significant Significant (EPBC Act)

Figure 43 Latham’s Snipe abundance (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland plotted against population estimates in Hansen et al. 2016.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 44 Latham’s Snipe abundance

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 45 Latham’s Snipe observations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Threatened non-migratory bird species

Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus

Status

Australasian Bittern is listed as endangered under the EPBC Act, threatened under the FFG Act and listed as endangered under the VROTS advisory list (DEPI, 2013b). In 2010, the estimated total population of the species was 250 – 800 individuals with estimates suggesting the area of occupancy had declined by over 50 per cent over the last three generations (16.5 years) (TSSC, 2011). Description

Australasian Bittern is highly elusive and cryptic but typically inhabits densely vegetated freshwater wetlands in temperate regions. The species forages at night on a range of aquatic / terrestrial vertebrates and insects include small birds and mammals, fish, frogs, snails, spiders and yabbies and nests within tall emergent beds of sedges, rushes and reeds located in still water to around 30cm in depth (TSCC, 2011). Method of capture ranges from slow stalking to active pursuit, with side to side movement similar to that of a heron helping to conceal the species in moving reeds and distract and confuse prey (BirdLife Australia, 2017). The Australasian Bittern is a large stocky bird up to 76 centimetres in length weighing between 900 (adult female) and 1,400 (adult male) g. Wingspan is typically between 1,050 and 1,180 centimetres. Plumage is adapted for camouflage with brown to black patterned plumage concealing it within reed habitat. The bill is dull yellow and the legs olive green to dull yellow (Morecombe 2004; BirdLife Australia 2017). The species typically nests within tall emergent beds of sedges rushes and reeds located in still water to around 30 centimetres in depth. Whilst considered sedentary the species can be observed in pairs and in dispersed aggregations of up to 12 birds (TSCC, 2011).

Breeding typically occurs from October to February but has also been reported to occur on an opportunistic basis following flooding of inland habitats (TSSC, 2011; BirdLife Australia 2017). Reproduction usually occurs in solitary pairs but aggregations of nests have been noted. Nests are a rough platform of sticks and reeds constructed in dense emergent macrophyte vegetation water to a depth of approximately 30 centimetres (TSSC 2011; Morecombe 2004). Males advertise to females and other males in spring summer emitting a loud, deep booming sound.

BirdLife Australia data analysis

Edithvale Wetland

Australasian Bittern have been regularly recorded at Edithvale Wetland. An analysis of Birdlife data reveals that 336 Australasian Bittern have been recorded from 170 separate observations, the species 25 of the 31 years monitored. The highest count of Australasian Bittern at Edithvale Wetland is 12 individuals (combined count from north and south wetlands on the same day) observed in August of 1997. It is unclear if these records represent birds seen or heard or both. BirdLife Australia acknowledges that the diurnal bird surveys as routinely conducted are not ideal for the detection of the species which is typically most active at dusk and dawn and highly cryptic (BirdLife Australia, 2015). Records of Australasian Bittern over time are shown in Figure 46.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1/07/1987 1/07/1988 1/07/1989 1/07/1990 1/07/1991 1/07/1992 1/07/1993 1/07/1994 1/07/1995 1/07/1996 1/07/1997 1/07/1998 1/07/1999 1/07/2000 1/07/2001 1/07/2002 1/07/2003 1/07/2004 1/07/2005 1/07/2006 1/07/2007 1/07/2008 1/07/2009 1/07/2010 1/07/2011 1/07/2012 1/07/2013 1/07/2014 1/07/2015 1/07/2016

Australasian Bittern

Figure 46 Australasian Bittern observations (max. counts by BirdLife Australia) at Edithvale Wetland 1987 - 2016

Remainder of the study area

Records of Australasian Bittern within the broader study area are limited to one individual at Lake Illawong, Patterson Lakes in April 2005. It is unclear if the bird was observed within the wetland or overflying. However, it is unlikely the species would make significant use of Lake Illawong. Wannarkladdin Wetlands provide suitable habitat for this species.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 47 Australasian Bittern abundance

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 48 Australasian Bittern observations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Appendix F – Other migratory and/or threatened birds – Edithvale Wetland

Table F - 1 Summary of BirdLife Australia data for other migratory and/or threatened species at Edithvale Wetland

Number of EPBC FFG Total Max. Maximum Most recent Occurrence in Edithvale Common Name Scientific Name VROT observation Act Act Count record Date year Wetland s

Migratory bird species

Common Predominantly observed in greenshank Tringa nebularia Mi 152 61 12 12-Apr-96 2013 Edithvale South and Zone 2. Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Double-banded plover Charadrius bicinctus Mi 2 2 1 1990/1991 1991 Edithvale Wetlands north

Golden plover Pluvialis fulva Mi 2 2 1 Nov-87 1987 Not specified

Little curlew Numenius minutus Mi 1 1 1 17-Aug-90 1990 Edithvale Wetlands South

Long-toed stint Calidris subminuta Mi 2 2 1* 2000/2002 2002 Edithvale Wetlands south

Predominantly observed in Marsh sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Mi 412 55 35 19-Mar-94 2015 Edithvale South and Zone 2.

Predominantly observed in Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos Mi 62 28 8 16-Jan-15 2017 Edithvale South and Zone 2.

Mainly the south but also observed in the North. Post Red-necked stint Calidris ruficollis Mi 317 38 100 6-Oct-87 2017 2015 Zone 2 only.

Predominantly observed in Wood sandpiper Tringa glareola Mi 133 63 9 19-Mar-94 2017 Edithvale South and Zone 2.

Threatened and migratory bird species

November/ Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica Vu, Mi 10 4 3* 1987 December All birds counted in 1987, Number of EPBC FFG Total Max. Maximum Most recent Occurrence in Edithvale Common Name Scientific Name VROT observation Act Act Count record Date year Wetland s

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 1987 location not specified

Red knot Calidris canutus En, Mi e 2 1 2 17-Nov-91 1991 Edithvale Wetlands North

Threatened bird species (non-migratory)

Australasian Mainly south but sometimes Shoveler Spatula rhynchotis vu 6088 299 370 12/05/1994 2017 north

Australian Little Bittern Ixobrychus dubius L e 17 12 3 20/12/2007 2013 Dispersed

Rostratula Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Australian Painted benghalensis Snipe australis VU L cr 4 4 1 2008 2008 Zone 2

Ballion's Crake Zapornia pusilla L vu 233 96 14 14/112012 2015 Both south and both cells

Both sections of the Wetland but north prevalent particularly Blue-billed Duck Oxyura australis L e 1805 298 30 23/08/2001 2017 Zone 7

Only Edithvale South or Zone Caspian Tern Hydroprogne caspia L nt 9 7 2 15/09/2007 2015 2

Eastern Great Even split between northern Egret Ardea alba L vu 158 122 7 18/01/2012 2017 and southern wetlands

Both sections of the Wetland but north prevalent particularly Freckled Duck Stictonetta naevosa L e 336 28 32 26/01/2016 2017 Zone 7 Ecosystems Northern Wetland - Zone 5 Hardhead Aythya australis vu 1978 186 80 23/09/2011 2017 and 7

Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Number of EPBC FFG Total Max. Maximum Most recent Occurrence in Edithvale Common Name Scientific Name VROT observation Act Act Count record Date year Wetland s

Both south and North Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia L e 6 5 2 20/10/1999 2006 Wetlands

Lewin's Rail Lewinia pectoralis L vu 2 2 1 n/a 2014 Northern Wetland - Zone 7

Both south and North Little Egret Egretta garzetta L e 8 1 1 n/a 2012 Wetlands

Anseranas Variable north and south

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Magpie Goose semipalmata L nt 132 99 8 30/12/2014 2017 Zones, 2, 5 and 7 prevalent

Northern Wetland - Zone 5 Musk Duck Biziura lobata vu 671 248 10 13/05/1996 2017 and 7

White Bellied Sea- Haliaeetus Records from both north and Eagle leucogaster L vu 3 3 1 n/a 2016 south

Legend EPBC Act FFG Act VROTS CR – Critically Endangered L – Listed cr – Critically Endangered EN – Endangered N – Nominated for listing e – Endangered VU – Vulnerable I – Invalid or ineligible vu – Vulnerable Mi – Migratory D – Delisted nt – Near Threatened Figure 49 Threatened diving ducks: abundance

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Figure 50 Threatened diving ducks: observations

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Appendix G – Aquatic fauna survey results

The results of the aquatic surveys undertaken at Edithvale Wetland are provided below. The survey methods are outlined in Section 4.3.3 above.

Macroinvertebrates

The results of sweep sampling for macroinvertebrates are presented in Table 3; zooplankton relative abundance estimates presented in Table 4 and macroinvertebrates collected in core samples presented in Table 5. Precluding the zooplankton, the most abundant macroinvertebrate collected in both sweep samples and core samples were Chironomidae larvae (mainly from two subfamilies- Chironominae, Tanypodinae). These midge fly larvae collected included the relatively abundant and large bodied Chironomus genus, which are commonly known as bloodworms due to their red colour. The macroinvertebrate samples collected from both the northern and southern wetland cells includes samples that have low diversity suggesting poor aquatic ecosystem conditions, and also samples that comprise a much higher diversity that might indicate a rich ecosystem. The difference in macroinvertebrate diversity appears to be related to individual samples, rather than consistent across a particular wetland or pool.

There are some distinct differences in the most common and abundant taxa collected in sweep and core samples. The sweep samples (Table 3) from the southern wetland cell reveal the most common and abundant macroinvertebrates are Chironominae and Tanypodinae larvae. Although these taxa were also common in the northern wetland cells, the most abundant and common macroinvertebrate were Ceinidae amphipods. A similar pattern was evident in core samples (Table 5). The core samples from the southern wetland cell reveal a relatively consistent macroinvertebrate community, dominated by Chironominae larvae, oligochaetes (worms) and ostracods. In the northern wetland cells, oligochaetes and Tanypodinae larvae were notably less common, and Ceinidae amphipods and Ceratopogonidae larvae (biting fly midge) collected more frequently. There are some other taxa that were collected more frequently in northern wetland samples, (e.g. Leptoceridae, Coenagrionidae, Lestidae) although the abundances of these families are considerably less than the key macroinvertebrate taxa collected.

There are also notable differences in the relative abundance of zooplankton between the two wetlands. In the southern wetland samples, the dominance of zooplankton within the sweep samples was notable. In 4 of the 5 sweep samples from the southern wetland, zooplankton was classified as Abundant (Table 4). For example, while collecting macroinvertebrates or dip netting for fish in southern wetland, the entire sweep net surface could be clogged by zooplankton at some sites. Only in sample SM2 (wetland cell ES1), which was collected mostly amongst senescent submerged vegetation were the zooplankton abundances somewhat lower, but still considered Common. The dominant zooplankton was Daphiniidae cladocerans, and Calanoid copepods. Various species within these groups are capable of growing to a size potentially suitable as food source for wading birds, but despite their abundance, the majority are relatively small compared to the other invertebrates collected in sweep samples.

The relative abundance of zooplankton in the northern wetlands was notably lower than in the southern wetland cell (Table 4). The same dominant types of zooplankton were recorded, but the abundances observed were considerably lower. In these sweep samples zooplankton was not dominant and the abundance rating for these samples were Occasional or Frequent.

Zooplankton were present in each of the northern wetland cells, expect for NM8 (Dog Pond) samples, which lies outside the main wetlands property and appears to have a different management regime. The Dog Pond (NM8) also had the lowest macroinvertebrate abundance.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Fish

A list of fish species retrieved from each site in the Edithvale Wetland (based on all survey methods) is included in Table 6. A total of four fish species were found in the wetlands. The most common and abundant fish was the native Flathead Gudgeon, followed by exotic pest Mosquitofish.

No fish were found in the southern wetland.

Amphibians

Two species of frog were detected from the Edithvale Wetland (Table 6). Common Froglet were collected during fish surveys in the southern wetland cell, and Southern Brown Tree Frog was collected during fish surveys in NF8 (wetland cell EN3a). Incidental observations of frog calls from the southern wetland also indicate the presence of Common Froglet.

Dwarf Galaxias Targeted Surveys

No Dwarf Galaxias were found during the surveys.

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Table G1 Benthic aquatic invertebrates collected in sweep samples

SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 SM5 NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 NM5 NM6 NM7 NM8 NM9 NM10 NM11 LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Chironominae 24 6 18 30 1 13 15 13 4 7 10 11 23

Ceinidae 5 1 1 22 30 4 13 12 30 13 3 3 2

Tanypodinae 6 7 7 22 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 5 4

Mites 2 8 5 5 3 13 5 5 2 2 4

Ceratopogonidae 8 7 7 14 4 8 1

Corixidae 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 14 3 15

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Leptoceridae 2 1 5 6 1 7

Coenagrionidae 14 1 5 2 5 2 2

Lestidae 3 12 8 4

Hydridae 2 5 5

Caenidae 5 1 4

Ostracoda 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Dytiscidae(Larva) 1 2 2 1 1

Atyidae 1 1 2 1

Glossiphoniidae 1 2 1 1

Orthocladiinae 1 2 1 Ecosystems

Hydrophilidae(Larva) 2 2

Planorbidae/Physidae 1 1 1 3

Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 SM5 NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 NM5 NM6 NM7 NM8 NM9 NM10 NM11

Dytiscidae 1 1 1

Notonectidae 3

Oligochaeta 1 2

Hydrophilidae 1 1

Paramelitidae 1 1

Scirtidae(Larva) 2 Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Baetidae 1

Hebridae 1

Naucoridae 1

Stratiomyidae 1 Table G2 Zooplankton collected in sweep samples

SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 SM5 NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 NM5 NM6 NM7 NM8 NM9 NM10 NM11 LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ACFOR abundance Rating* A C A A A O O O F O F O ND O O O

Daphniidae 82% 78% 55% 24% 73% 25% 100% 75% 71% 58% 90% 100% 83% 100%

Chydoridae 6% 9% 8%

Calanoida 18% 17% 36% 76% 27% 75% 10%

Cyclopoida 29% 33% 17%

Copepoda 100% 25%

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent A=Abundant, C=Common, F=Frequent, O=Occasional, R=Rare, ND = not detected Ecosystems

Table G3 Aquatic invertebrates collected in core samples Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006

SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 SM5 NM1 NM2 NM3 NM4 NM5 NM6 NM7 NM8 NM9 NM10 NM11

Chironominae 136 240 136 72 92 24 6 92 111 48 8 32 100 5 860

Oligochaeta 12 36 136 248 15 7 4 2 20

Ostracoda 196 12 8 28 37 24 14 4 1 12 4 4 1 50 20

Ceinidae 4 56 44 14 45 28 56 13

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Ceratopogonidae 12 16 2 4 9 4 8 36 20 10 10

Tanypodinae 60 16 4 13 28 1

Hydrobiidae 40

Hydroptilidae 4 4 20

Physidae 12

Leptoceridae 2 1 8

Mites 4 1

Hydridae 5

Lymnaeidae 5

Glossiphoniidae 4

Hemicorduliidae 2 1

Orthocladiinae 1 Table G4 Fish and amphibian species collected in the Edithvale Wetland

Common Name Scientific Name SF1 SF2 SF3 N1 N2 N3 N4 N5 N6 N7 N8 LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Flathead Gudgeon Philypnodon grandiceps 52 12 22 51 22 14 11 40

Mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki 3 33 22

Goldfish Carassius auratus 1

Oriental Weatherloach Misgurnus anguillicaudatus 1

Southern Brown Tree Frog Litoria ewingii 2

Common Froglet Crinia signifera 3 3 2 Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Appendix H – Vegetation assessment results

Edithvale Wetland Flora species

Table H1, below, lists the flora species observed at Edithvale Wetland during the vegetation quality assessment on 21 and 26 July 2017.

Table H3 Flora species observed Edithvale Wetland, July 2017

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status

Acacia mearnsii Black Wattle

Acacia melanoxylon Blackwood

Allocasuarina sp. Sheoak

Azolla sp. Azolla

Banksia integrifolia Coast banksia

Banksia sp. Banksia

Brassica sp.* Mustard

Callitriche stagnalis* Common Water‐starwort

Cenchrus clandestinus* Kikuyu

Cirsium vulgare* Spear Thistle

Clematis microphylla s.l. Small‐leaved Clematis

Cotula coronopifolia* Water Buttons

Cycnogeton procerum Water Ribbons

Cynara cardunculus* Artichoke Thistle

Cynodon dactylon var. dactylon* Couch

Cyperus eragrostis* Drain Flat‐sedge

Dactylis glomerata* Cocksfoot

Distichlis distichophylla Australian Salt‐grass

Eleocharis acuta Common Spike‐sedge

Eucalyptus botryoides Southern Mahogany

Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red‐gum

Eucalyptus cladocalyx# Sugar gum

Eucalyptus ovata Swamp Gum

Eucalyptus viminalis subsp. pryoriana Coast Manna‐gum

Galium aparine* Cleavers

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status

Helminthotheca echioides* Ox‐tongue

Hypochaeris radicata* Flatweed

Isolepis inundata Swamp Club‐sedge

Juncus kraussii subsp. australiensis Sea Rush

Lachnagrostis filiformis s.l. Common Blown‐grass

Lemna disperma Common Duckweed

Lolium perenne* Perennial Rye‐grass

Melaleuca ericifolia Swamp Paperbark

Myriophyllum aquaticum* Parrot's feather

Myriophyllum salsugineum Lake Water‐milfoil

Paspalum distichum* Water Couch

Phragmites australis Common Reed

Phytolacca octandra* Red‐ink Weed

Plantago coronopus* Buck's‐horn Plantain

Poa sp. Tussock‐grass

Portulaca oleracea Pigweed

Ranunculus spp.* Buttercup

Romulea rosea* Onion Grass

Rumex crispus* Curled Dock

Senecio hisidulus s.s.* Rough Fireweed P

Sisyrinchium iridifolium* Striped Rush‐leaf

Solanum nigrum s.l.* Black Nightshade

Sonchus asper s.l.* Rough Sow‐thistle

Symphyotrichum subulatum* Aster‐weed

Thyridia repens Creeping Monkey‐flower

Typha domingensis Narrow‐leaf Cumbungi

# denotes native species outside of natural range * denotes exotic species P – Protected under the FFG Act

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Habitat zone mapping

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Figure 51 Edithvale Wetland native vegetation habitat zones and EVCs

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Habitat hectare calculations - patches

Table H4 Habitat hectare calculations Edithvale Wetland Habitat Zone (HZ) HZ1 HZ2 HZ3 HZ4 HZ5 HZ6 HZ7 Bioregion GipP GipP GipP GipP GipP GipP GipP EVC number 55 53 55 653 821 653 821 Large old trees 10 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a Tree canopy 5 0 3 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a cover Lack of weeds 15 0 4 2 13 13 13 13 Understorey 25 5 5 5 5 15 10 5 Recruitment 10 0 5 5 3 0 3 0 Organic litter 5 0 5 3 5 5 5 5 Logs 5 3 n/a 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a

Site condition components components Site condition Total site score 75 8 22 15 26 33 31 23 Standardiser 1 1.25 1 1.36 1.36 1.36 1.36 Standardised score 8 25.3 15 35.36 44.88 42.16 31.28 Landscape context score 25 1 2 2 3 8 3 4 Habitat score 100 9 29.5 17 38.36 52.88 45.16 35.28 Habitat points = Score/100 1 0.09 0.29 0.17 0.38 0.53 0.45 0.35

Total Area (ha) 1.3297 0.4077 9.0082 0.2828 14.0069 0.2503 14.6692

Habitat Zone (HZ) HZ8 HZ9 HZ10 HZ11 HZ12 HZ13 HZ14 Bioregion GipP GipP GipP GipP GipP GipP GipP EVC number 537 53 537 55 537 537 2 Large old 10 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 trees Tree canopy 5 n/a 0 n/a 5 n/a n/a 0 cover Lack of 15 7 4 13 0 13 4 0 weeds Understorey 25 10 5 5 5 10 5 5 Recruitment 10 3 5 3 5 3 6 5 Organic litter 5 5 5 5 3 5 5 2 Logs 5 n/a n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 Total site

Site condition components components Site condition 75 25 19 26 18 31 20 12 score Standardiser 1.36 1.25 1.36 1 1.36 1.36 1 Standardised score 34 23.75 35.36 18 42.16 27.2 12 Landscape context score 25 4 2 3 5 5 5 5 Habitat score 100 38 25.75 38.36 23 47.16 32.2 17

Habitat points = Score/100 1 0.38 0.26 0.38 0.23 0.47 0.32 0.17

Total Area (ha) 1.6309 0.4563 0.6484 0.1266 6.1021 0.3688 0.0384

Notes to table: EVC 2 – Coast Banksia Woodland EVC 653 – Aquatic Herbland EVC 53 – Swamp Scrub EVC 537 – Brackish Aquatic Herbland EVC 55 – Plains Grassy Woodland EVC 821 – Tall Marsh

Habitat hectare calculations – scattered trees

Total area 2.18 ha

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Aspendale to Carrum Foreshore Reserve (Edithvale and Bonbeach) Flora species

Table H5 Flora species observed – foreshore reserve

Scientific Name Common Name

Indigenous

Trees

Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia

Banksia marginata Silver Banksia

Shrubs

Acacia longifolia subsp. sophorae Coast Wattle

Leptospermum laevigatum Coastal Tea-tree

Leucopogon parviflorus Coast beard-heath

Correa alba White Correa

Olearia axillaris Coast Daisy Bush

Rhagodia candolleana subsp. candolleana Seaberry Saltbush

Monotoca elliptica Tree Broom-heath

Chrysanthemoides monilifera* Boneseed

Coprosma repens* New Zealand Mirror-bush

Herbs

Tetragonia implexicoma Bower Spinach

Dichondra repens Kidney weed

Disphyma crassifolium subsp. clavellatum Rounded Noon-flower

Plantago coronopus* Bucksthorn Plantain

Centaurium tenuiflorum* Slender Centaury

Sonchus oleraceus* Common Sow-thistle

Ranunculus sp.* Buttercup

Gazania sp.* Gazania

Ferns

Pteridium esculentum Austral Bracken

Graminoids

Spinifex sericeus Hairy spinifex

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Scientific Name Common Name

Ficinia nodosa Knobby Club-sedge

Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush

Poa poiformis Coast Tussock-grass

Distichlis disticophylla Australian Salt-grass

Dianella sp. Flax-lily

Ehrharta erecta.* Panic Veldt-grass

Ammophila arenaria* Marrum Grass

Habitat hectare calculations

Table H6 Habitat hectare calculations – foreshore reserve

Habitat Zone (HZ) HZ1 HZ2 HZ3

Bioregion GipP GipP GipP EVC number 160 2 879

Bioregional Conservation Status (BCS) V V V

Large Old Trees 10 n/a 8 0

Tree Canopy Cover 5 n/a 5 0

Lack of weeds 25 9 9 6

Understorey 15 15 15 15

Recruitment 10 6 3 6 Site Condition Organic Litter 5 5 5 5

Logs 5 n/a 2 0

Total Site Score 75 35 47 32

Standardiser (X 1.36) - 1.36 1 1.36 Standardised Score 47.6 47 43.52 Landscape Context Score 25 6 6 6 Habitat Score 100 53.6 53 49.52

Habitat Points = Score/100 1 0.54 0.53 0.50

Area of habitat within area assessed 4.412 0.325 3.425 Habitat Hectares within area assessed 2.382 0.172 1.713 Notes to table: EVC 2 – Coast Banksia Woodland EVC 879 – Coastal Dune Grassland EVC 160 – Coastal Dune Scrub

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Appendix I – Bathymetric survey locations

Dots represent locations taken with handheld GPS to supplement data where the Z-boat could not access. Lines show transects of the Z-boat. Colours represent depths relative to surface level. Edithvale South ES1

Edithvale North

EN1

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems EN2

EN3

EN3a

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Dog pond

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems

Appendix J – Risk assessment – wetlands and GDEs

Table J - 1 Guide to quantification of likelihood

Qualitative descriptions Probability over a given time period

A. Certain 1 (or 0.999, 99.9%)

B. Almost certain 0.2 – 0.9

C. Highly probable 0.1

D. Possible 0.01

E. Unlikely 0.001

F. Very unlikely 1 x 10-4

G. Highly improbable 1 x 10-5

H. Almost impossible 1 X 10-6

Source: extract from EES Attachment II Environmental Risk Report

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Table J - 2 Consequence table used for wetlands and GDEs risk assessment

Qualitative Negligible Minor Moderate Major Extreme LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 descriptor

Consequence Minimal, if any impact for Low level impact for some High level of impact for High level of impact for High level of impact State- description some communities. communities, or high some communities, or communities area-wide wide Potentially some impact for impact for a small number moderate impact for a small number (<10) of (<10) of individuals communities area-wide individuals

0.1 0.3 1 3 10 30 100 300 1000

ENVIRONMENT Insignificant loss of Minor loss of endangered Moderate loss of Substantial loss of Significant loss of endangered endangered or very high or very high conservation endangered or very high endangered or very high or very high conservation Native vegetation conservation significance significance native conservation significance conservation significance significance native vegetation

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent native vegetation (<0.1 ha) vegetation (>0.1 – 0.5 ha) native vegetation (>0.5 – 5 native vegetation (>5 – 10 (>10 ha) or or ha) ha) or total loss of native total loss of native or or total loss of native vegetation vegetation (<0.5 ha). vegetation (>0.5 – 5 ha). total loss of native total loss of native (>15 ha). vegetation (>5 – 10 ha). vegetation (>10 – 15 ha).

ENVIRONMENT Changes to species habitat Change to habitat extent Change to habitat extent Change to habitat extent Change to habitat extent that Indigenous extent not detectable that is significant at a that is significant at a GDE that is significant at a is significant at a State and/or flora/fauna species outside natural variation. project or GDE study area study area or Local bioregional level. National level. level. Government Area) (LGA).

ENVIRONMENT Changes to threatened Loss to the area of Loss to the area of Loss to the area of Loss to the area of threatened Threatened ecological communities not threatened ecological threatened ecological threatened ecological ecological community that is ecological detectable outside natural community that is >1%, but community that is >10% of, community that is >30% of, >50% of its extent within the communities variation. <10%, of its extent within but <30% of its extent but <50% of its extent LGA. the LGA. within the LGA. within LGA

ENVIRONMENT No exacerbation of a Exacerbation of threatening Exacerbation of threatening Exacerbation of threatening Exacerbation of threatening

Ecosystems Threatening threatening process. process leading to impacts process leading to impacts process leading to impacts process leading to impacts to processes to associated ecological to associated ecological to associated ecological associated ecological values values within the project values within the GDE values within the bioregion. within at the State and/or area. study area or LGA. National level.

Qualitative Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Negligible Minor Moderate Major Extreme descriptor

ENVIRONMENT Ecosystem change not Measurable changes to the Measurable changes to the Measurable changes to the Long term and possibly

Ecosystem detectable outside natural ecosystem components ecosystem components ecosystem components irreversible damage to one or function variation / occurrence. with a minor change in with a moderate change in with a major change in more ecosystem function. function (no loss of function (some loss of function. components or introduction components or introduction of new species that affects of new species that affects ecosystem function). ecosystem function).

ENVIRONMENT No measurable change in Minor change in ecological Moderate change in Major change in ecological Extreme change in ecological Ramsar site ecological character. character. ecological character. character. character. Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent Limit of acceptable change Limit of acceptable change Limit of acceptable change Limit of acceptable change Limit of acceptable change not met for Critical CPS: not met for Critical CPS: not met for Critical CPS: met. met. - physical habitat for - waterbird diversity and - threatened bird species waterbirds. abundance (Ramsar (Ramsar Criteria 2 and 6). and/or Criteria 4). and/or - waterbird diversity and and/or - Sharp-tailed Sandpiper abundance (Ramsar - physical habitat for abundance (Ramsar Criteria Criteria 6). waterbirds (Ramsar Criteria 6). 4).

ENVIRONMENT No notable change in Loss of or impact to a GDE Loss of or impact to a GDE Loss of or impact to a GDE Loss of or impact to a GDE Groundwater condition and/or extent of that is of significance within that is of significance within that is of significance within that is of significance within dependent surface expression GDE the study area. the local area. the bioregion. the State and/or National ecosystems (GDE) (wetland). context.

Source: extract from EES Attachment II Environmental Risk Report Table J - 3 Wetland and GDE risks

Risk Initial risk EPR ID Residual risk

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ID (final) Risk name Risk pathway EPR ID (initial) Likelihood Consequence Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk

Edithvale Wetland

EG72 Edithvale-Seaford Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail Wetland Ramsar hydrological regime and/or water quality trench design trench design Site - EV resulting in a change in ecological character EPR GW2 – (habitat and/or food availability) that Groundwater exceeds the limit of acceptable change for critical components, processes and systems EPR GW3 – to the extent that the Edithvale-Seaford Groundwater Wetlands no longer meet criteria for listing Management and

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent as a Ramsar site. Monitoring Plan

EPR FF8 - GDE

Monitoring and

mitigation plan (Edithvale Wetland) Almost impossible Almost Extreme Negligible impossible Almost Extreme Negligible

EG73 Listed migratory Groundwater mounding resulting in altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail and/or threatened hydrological regime resulting in change in trench design trench design bird species - EV habitat (wet grassland / mudflats) at EPR GW2 – Edithvale Wetland to the extent that the site Groundwater no longer regularly supports listed migratory and/or threatened bird species. EPR GW3 – Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan

Ecosystems EPR FF8 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Edithvale

Wetland) Almost impossible impossible Almost Extreme Negligible impossible Almost Extreme Negligible Risk Initial risk EPR ID Residual risk Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ID (final) Risk name Risk pathway EPR ID (initial) Likelihood Consequence Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk

EG74 Native vegetation Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail

- EV hydrological regime and/or water quality trench design trench design resulting in loss of native vegetation EPR GW2 – (patches and scattered trees) within Groundwater Edithvale Wetland leading to a reduction in the extent of native vegetation in Victoria. EPR GW3 – Groundwater Management and

Monitoring Plan Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent EPR FF8 - GDE

Monitoring and

mitigation plan (Edithvale Wetland) Almost impossible Almost Extreme Negligible impossible Almost Extreme Negligible

EG75 Exacerbate sea Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail

level rise - EV hydrology which exacerbates or accelerates trench design trench design predicted effects of sea level rise (climate EPR GW2 – change) resulting in a loss of habitat and Groundwater change in ecological character of Edithvale

Wetland leading to failure to meet the LAC for critical CPS and/or Ramsar listing criteria. Almost impossible Almost Extreme Negligible impossible Almost Extreme Negligible

EG76 Threatening Loss of Edithvale Wetland resulting in the EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail process - wetland exacerbation of a threatening process listed trench design trench design loss - EV under the FFG Act. EPR GW2 –

Groundwater Almost impossible Almost Extreme Negligible impossible Almost Extreme Negligible Risk Initial risk EPR ID Residual risk ID (final) Risk name Risk pathway EPR ID (initial) Likelihood Consequence Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Aspendale – Carrum Foreshore Reserve

EG77 Coastal reserve – Groundwater drawdown resulting in the loss EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail native vegetation of native vegetation and fauna habitat along trench design trench design - EV the coastal reserve leading to a reduction in EPR FF7 – GDE EPR GW2 - the extent of native vegetation in Victoria Monitoring and Groundwater and increased risk of erosion of the mitigation plan foreshore. EPR GW3 – (Foreshore Groundwater Native Management and Vegetation) Monitoring Plan Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent

EPR FF7 - GDE

Monitoring and mitigation plan

(Foreshore Native Vegetation) Almost certain Almost Moderate Minor certain Almost Minor Negligible

EG78 Threatening Fragmentation of the narrow habitat corridor EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail process – habitat of the foreshore reserve, resulting in the trench design trench design fragmentation - exacerbation of a threatening process listed EPR FF7 – GDE EPR GW2 - EV under the FFG Act. Monitoring and Groundwater mitigation plan EPR GW3 – (Foreshore Groundwater Native Management and Vegetation) Monitoring Plan

EPR FF7 - GDE

Monitoring and

Ecosystems mitigation plan

(Foreshore Native Vegetation) Possible Minor Negligible Possible Minor Negligible

Risk Initial risk EPR ID Residual risk Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ID (final) Risk name Risk pathway EPR ID (initial) Likelihood Consequence Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk EPR GW1 - Rail EG83 Coastal reserve – Groundwater drawdown resulting in the loss EPR GW1 - Rail

trench design native vegetation of native vegetation and fauna habitat along trench design EPR GW2 - - BB the coastal reserve leading to a reduction in Groundwater EPR FF7 the extent of native vegetation in Victoria EPR GW3 – Groundwater and increased risk of erosion of the Management and foreshore. Monitoring Plan

EPR FF7 - GDE Monitoring and

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent mitigation plan

(Foreshore Native Vegetation) Moderate Minor Almost certain Almost Moderate Minor certain Almost

EG84 Threatening Fragmentation of the narrow habitat corridor EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail process – habitat of the foreshore reserve, resulting in the trench design trench design fragmentation) - exacerbation of a threatening process listed EPR FF7 EPR GW2 - BB under the FFG Act. Groundwater

EPR GW3 – Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan

EPR FF7 - GDE Monitoring and mitigation plan (Foreshore Native Vegetation) Possible Possible Moderate Negligible Possible Moderate Negligible

Other GDEs Risk Initial risk EPR ID Residual risk ID (final) Risk name Risk pathway EPR ID (initial) Likelihood Consequence Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 EG79 Other vegetation / Groundwater change leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail fauna habitat - EV hydrological regime and/or changes in water trench design trench design quality resulting in the loss of EPR GW2 -

undocumented remnant vegetation and/or Groundwater planted vegetation and habitat outside of

high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties). Minor Negligible Possible Minor Negligible Possible

EG85 Other vegetation / Groundwater change leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail fauna habitat - BB hydrological regime and/or changes in water trench design trench design quality resulting in the loss of EPR GW2 - Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent undocumented remnant vegetation and/or Groundwater planted vegetation and habitat outside of high value GDEs (i.e. on residential properties). Possible Possible Minor Negligible Possible Minor Negligible

Wannarkladdin Wetlands

EG80 Wannarkladdin Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail Wetlands - BB hydrological regime and/or water quality trench design trench design resulting in loss of native vegetation and/or EPR GW2 – fauna habitat associated with Groundwater Wannarkladdin Wetlands. performance outcomes

EPR GW3 - Groundwater Management and Monitoring Plan lmost impossible impossible lmost impossible lmost Ecosystems A Negligible A Negligible Moderate Moderate Moderate

Risk Initial risk EPR ID Residual risk Ecosystems 0 | Revision LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 ID (final) Risk name Risk pathway EPR ID (initial) Likelihood Consequence Risk Likelihood Consequence Risk

EG81 Exacerbate sea Groundwater mounding leading to altered EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail

level rise - BB hydrology which exacerbates or accelerates trench design trench design predicted effects of sea level rise (climate EPR GW2 – change) resulting in a loss of habitat and Groundwater change in ecological character of Edithvale performance Wetland leading to failure to meet the LAC outcomes for critical CPS and/or Ramsar listing criteria. lmost impossible impossible lmost impossible lmost Negligible Negligible A Negligible A Extreme Extreme Extreme

Ecological ImpactAssessment: andWetlands Groundwater Dependent EG82 Threatening Loss of Wannarkladdin Wetlands resulting in EPR GW1 - Rail EPR GW1 - Rail process - wetland the exacerbation of a threatening process trench design trench design loss - BB listed under the FFG Act. EPR GW2 – Groundwater performance eme eme outcomes r lmost impossible impossible lmost impossible lmost A Negligible A Negligible Extreme Extreme Ext

Note: Changes in risk levels (between initial and residual) depicted in this table are not derived from descriptive terms. Rather they are based on numerical ratings used in the risk assessment process detailed in EES Attachment II Environmental Risk Report. The risk report provides the detailed workings on the basis of which each risk was assessed and derived. Appendix K – Independent peer reviewer assessment

LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 | Ecological Impact Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems 88 B Station Street, Fairfield VIC 3078 T: (03) 9489 4191 E: [email protected] W: www.ecologyaustralia.com.au

6/02/2018

Rachel Harding AECOM GHD Joint Venture Collins Square, Level 10, Tower Two 727 Collins Street, Melbourne VIC 3008

CONFIDENTIAL Peer Review summary: Edithvale and Bonbeach LX removal EES report

1. Purpose and scope Attachment 1. Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Environment Effects Statement – Independent Peer Review, Terms of Reference.

2. Dr Matthew Dell – experience summary

Position: Principal Botanist – Ecology Australia Pty Ltd Doctor of Philosophy (Ecology) - Deakin University 2004–2009 Qualifications: Bachelor of Environmental Science (Conservation Ecology) (Honours) - Deakin University 2001–2003 Diploma in Natural Resource Management - Swinburne University 1998–1999 Cert IV in Training and Assessment (TAE) - Swinburne University 2013–2014

 Flora surveys and identification Areas of specialist  Plant ecology expertise:  Vegetation management plans  Vegetation mapping  Biodiversity and conservation significance assessments  Data management and analysis  Monitoring program design and implementation  Environmental legislation and policy  Project management  Threatened species monitoring and management Technical Reviews Experience: Matt has over 20 years of botanical experience and over 15 years of experience as a consultant botanist. Over his career, he has gained extensive experience undertaking flora surveys within south-eastern Australia. He is experienced with the application of biodiversity policy in Victoria, and has provided reviews of draft policy and delivered training to public and private sector professionals on Victoria’s native vegetation policy. Matt routinely provides expert advice on threatened species, biodiversity values, weed management, impact mitigation, ecosystem restoration and management of natural systems. He has managed or led assessments for a range of major projects including

1

assessment against the EPBC Act and relevant state legislation and policy. This includes precinct-level biodiversity assessments and impact assessments for large infrastructure projects, as well as regional flora surveys for State government biodiversity management planning. Matt has appeared at VCAT as an expert witness and contributed to various technical groups. In addition to consulting work, he has planned and facilitated industry seminars on biodiversity planning with leading consultants, planners and academics. Matt is actively involved with ecological research and is a supervisor of both honours and PhD students in botany.

3. Other contributions to the peer review Dr Darren Quin – Senior Zoologist, Ecology Australia Andrew McMahon – Director, Ecology Australia

4. Implementation of scope

4.1 Review of draft methodology LXRA-LX31-00-PA-MEM-0018 Revision A Received – 7 July 2017 Review response in letter report – Ecology Australia 28 July 2017

4.2 Risk Assessment Workshop LXRA-LX31-00-PA-MEM-0018 Revision A Workshop date – 4 September 2017 Review response in letter report – Ecology Australia 8 September 2017

4.3 Review of revised methodology LXRA-LX31-00-PA-MEM-0018 Revision B Received – 24 August 2017 Review response in letter report – Ecology Australia 8 September 2017

4.4 Review of Technical report – Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Projects – Environment Effects Statement, Technical report- Ecological Impacts Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision A Received – 17 October 2017 Review response in letter report – 26 October 2017 and marked report copy

4.5 Review of Technical report – Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Projects – Environment Effects Statement, Technical report- Ecological Impacts Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision B Received – 12 December 2017 (13 Dec comment register) Review response in comments register – 20 December 2017

5. Documents used for the review The following documents were reviewed, including consideration of content or referenced in the review. 5.1 AECOM GHD Joint Venture (2017a) - Draft methodology LXRA-LX31-00-PA-MEM-0018 Revision A 5.2 AECOM GHD Joint Venture (2017b) - Draft methodology LXRA-LX31-00-PA-MEM-0018 Revision B 5.3 AECOM GHD Joint Venture (2017c) Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Projects – Environment Effects Statement, Technical report- Ecological Impacts Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision A 5.4 AECOM GHD Joint Venture (2017d) Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Projects – Environment Effects Statement, Technical report- Ecological Impacts Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision B

2

5.5 AECOM GHD Joint Venture (2017e) Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Projects – Environment Effects Statement, Technical report- Ecological Impacts Assessment: Wetlands and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems. LXRA-LX31-00-PA-EES-0006 Revision 0 5.6 AECOM GHD Joint Venture (2017e) – Memorandum LXRA-LX31-18-GE-MEM-1001 Revision A 5.7 Department of Sustainability and Environment (2006) Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 – 7th Edition. State of Victoria, Dept of Sustainability and Environment. 5.8 Kingston City Council (2017) Kingston Planning Scheme. http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/kingston 5.9 Frankston City Council (2017) Frankston Planning Scheme. http://planning-schemes.delwp.vic.gov.au/schemes/frankston 5.10 Department of Environment and Primary Industries (2013) Permitted clearing of native vegetation, Biodiversity Assessment Guidelines (September). State of Victoria, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne. 5.11 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017) Working draft scoping requirements for Edithvale and Bonbeach Level Crossing Removal Project – Environment Effects Statement. State of Victoria, DELWP Impact Assessment Unit, Planning, East Melbourne. 5.12 Department of Environment and Primary Industries (2013), Biodiversity Assessment Handbook: Permitted clearing of native vegetation. Version 1.0. State of Victoria, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne. 5.13 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017) Native Vegetation Information Management (NVIM) https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/native-vegetation/native-vegetation-information-management 5.14 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017) NatureKit. http://maps.biodiversity.vic.gov.au/viewer/?viewer=NatureKit 5.15 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017) Victorian Biodiversity Atlas. https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/biodiversity/victorian-biodiversity-atlas 5.16 Ecology Australia (2016) Edithvale Seaford Wetlands Ramsar Site Management Plan. Report to Melbourne Water. 5.17 Department of the Environment and Energy (2017) Protected Matters Search Tool. http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf 5.18 Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (2017) Bioregions and EVC benchmarks. https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/biodiversity/bioregions-and-evc-benchmarks 5.19 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008) Approved Conservation Advice for Amphibromus fluitans (River Swamp Wallaby-grass). Canberra: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/19215-conservation-advice.pdf. 5.20 Carter, O., & N. Walsh (2011) National Recovery Plan for the Swamp Everlasting Xerochrysum palustre. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans/national-recovery-plan-swamp- everlasting-xerochrysum-palustre. 5.21 Department of the Environment (2015) Conservation Advice Calidris ferruginea curlew sandpiper. Canberra: Department of the Environment. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/856-conservation-advice.pdf. 5.22 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011). Approved Conservation Advice for Botaurus poiciloptilus (Australasian Bittern). Canberra, ACT: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/1001-conservation-advice.pdf. 5.23 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Threat abatement plan for predation by the European red fox. DEWHA, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/predation-european-red-fox. 5.24 Commonwealth of Australia (2015). Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds. Canberra, ACT: Department of the Environment. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/wildlife-conservation-plan-migratory-shorebirds- 2016.

3

5.25 Clemann, N. & G.R. Gillespie (2012). National Recovery Plan for the Southern Bell Frog Litoria raniformis. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Melbourne. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans/national-recovery-plan-southern- bell-frog-litoria-raniformis. 5.26 Commonwealth of Australia (2013) Matters of National Environmental Significance – significant impact guidelines 1.1, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment, Canberra. 5.27 Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened frogs. Guidelines for detecting frogs listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 5.28 Commonwealth of Australia (2010) Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened birds. Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 5.29 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008) National framework and guidance for describing the ecological character of Australian Ramsar wetlands. Module 2 of the National Guidelines for Ramsar Wetlands – Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. 5.30 DSE (2013) Advisory list of threatened vertebrate fauna in Victoria - 2013. (Department of Sustainability and Environment: East Melbourne) 5.31 DEPI (2014) Advisory list of rare or threatened plants in Victoria – 2014. (Department of Sustainability and Environment: East Melbourne)

6. Key issues identified and resolved as part of the review

The scope of the review was initially focused on the implications of changes to ground water at Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands on the ecological character of the wetland. Subsequent modelling by AECOM/GHD JV concluded that changes to ground water at the wetlands and their immediate surrounds would be negligible, and therefore a negligible risk to the ecological character of the wetland and associated Ramsar values. A summary of the model outputs and implications of groundwater were presented at the AECOM/GDH JV risk assessment workshop. It should be noted that the methodology behind the modelling and its performance are not part of our review of the technical document.

The review remained focused on general considerations of the ecological assessments for the wetlands and was broadened to include a review of foreshore (dune) vegetation within the study area. These foreshore areas were modelled to have greater change to ground water compared with Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands, notably the amount of drawdown. The potential implications for associated ecological consequences have been speculated from this change to groundwater. The review of EES methods and outcomes considered that there is inadequate information regarding impacts to coastal vegetation due to groundwater drawdown in south-eastern Australia, and none which to directly compare potential impacts. The technical report (AECOM GHD Joint Venture 2017e) concludes that for EG77 and EG83 there is almost certain likelihood of some impact to the vegetation, although the extent cannot be easily ascertained. The technical report recommends that a monitoring program be developed with appropriate actions to offset impacts should they occur in the future. The risk assessment indicates some level of impact—in the context of the EES—with minor residual consequence for Edithvale coastal reserve and moderate residual consequence for Bonbeach; I agree that this is a reasonable assessment. The residual risk to native vegetation due to modelled groundwater influence, potential impacts and with consideration to proposed Environmental Performance Requirements at Edithvale is negligible and for Bonbeach is minor.

A number of review items were provided for consideration by AECOM/GHD JV. Several of these were items requiring clarification or further information about matters which do not have significant implications for the main focus of the review (effect of groundwater changes to relevant ecosystems). For example, some minor amendments were made to the technical report to include vegetation condition assessment data, survey methodology, species origins and threatened species nomenclature. These recommendations were made for due diligence in the technical reporting process, however individually the recommendations should not affect planning consideration about impacts to ecological values or changes to ecological character.

4

7. Conclusion The peer review provided a number of items for reconsideration by AECOM / GHD JV which have been responded to via a comments register. In some cases changes were made to the draft technical report and others have been retained with rationale provided for the content of the final draft. The technical report provides a comprehensive analysis including various ecological assessments. It considers other key reports and available datasets which are current and relevant to the study area. In my opinion the technical report provides adequate content to address the relevant scoping requirements. Items which may arise from planning submissions are unlikely to be significant considerations relating to the ecological character of Edithvale-Seaford Wetland. They are also unlikely to amount to significant impacts to ecological values not already identified in the technical report.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if further clarification is required on any of the above items.

Yours faithfully,

Dr Matthew Dell Peer Reviewer – Ecology Edithvale and Bonbeach LX removal EES Ecology Australia Pty Ltd

5