DELWP) Issued 26Th May 2020

FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT, AND NET LOSS REPORTING – RUTHERGLEN LAKE ROWING CLUB, LAKE MOODEMERE

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Rutherglen Lake Rowing Club, Lake Moodemere

Submitted to: Bruce Braines Project Manager – Capital Works Indigo Shire Council

Submitted by: Steve Hamilton Hamilton Environmental Services 2345 Benalla-Tatong Rd. TATONG VIC 3673

Version 1, 14th June 2020

Privileged: The information herein is of a privileged and private nature, and as such, all rights thereto are reserved.

This document shall not, in part or whole, be lent, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any shape or form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, verbal, left in exposed and/or unattended position or otherwise used without the prior permission of Hamilton Environmental Services or their duly qualified agents in writing.

Cover Photo: The Rowing Club Shed at Lake Moodemere.

ii Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Background ...... 1 2.1 Location and Description ...... 1 2.1.1 Bioregion and Ecological Vegetation Class ...... 1 2.1.2 Land Tenure and Planning Scheme Overlays ...... 2 3. Method ...... 6 3.1 Desktop Review ...... 6 3.2 Field Assessment ...... 6 3.3 Taxonomy ...... 7 3.3.1 Flora ...... 7 3.3.2 Fauna ...... 7 4. Flora and Fauna Assessment ...... 7 4.1 Vegetation ...... 7 4.2 Fauna ...... 9 4.3 Significant Trees ...... 9 4.4 Patches ...... 12 4.5 Vegetation Quality Assessment ...... 12 5. Net Gain and Loss Reporting ...... 13 5.1 Avoid and Minimise ...... 13 5.2 Quantification of Loss ...... 13 5.3 Offset requirements ...... 13 6. Meeting the Offset Requirement ...... 13 7. References ...... 14 7.1 Personal Communication ...... 15 Appendix A Flora Inventory of area around Rutherglen Lake Rowing Club, Lake Moodemere . 16 Appendix B Observed or Inferred Fauna of area around Rutherglen Lake Rowing Club, Lake Moodemere ...... 18 Appendix C EVC Benchmark Description ...... 20 Appendix D Significant Tree Locations ...... 23 Appendix E EPBC and Victorian Threatened Species and Likelihood of Occurrence ...... 26 Appendix F Native Vegetation Removal Report (DELWP) Issued 26th May 2020 ...... 32 Appendix G Third Party Offset Quote from Vegetation Link...... 33

iii Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

1. INTRODUCTION

Indigo Shire are seeking to rebuild the Rutherglen Lake Rowing Club shed on the shores of Lake Moodemere; while the new shed will be built on the site of the existing shed, it will slightly exceed the existing shed dimensions, and this will result in the likely loss of some adjacent River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) on the south-western corner of the proposed development. Hamilton Environmental Services (HES) was provided with the opportunity in April 2020 to undertake the site assessment and preparation of this Report through Indigo Shire. Dr. Steve Hamilton (HH129) undertook field evaluation at the site on the 4th May 2020 to assess the extent of indigenous vegetation on the site and determine the condition of the vegetation, to inform avoidance and minimisation of native vegetation loss. Following the compilation of field assessment findings, and after consideration of minimisation of native vegetation loss, mapping of the likely native vegetation losses were submitted to the EnSym NVR Support Team from the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP), and a Biodiversity report provided. This report outlines the Net Loss of native vegetation proposed, the process followed in terms of native vegetation loss avoidance and minimisation, and arrangements put in place to meet the offset requirements. 2. BACKGROUND 2.1 Location and Description The Rutherglen Lake Rowing Club shed on the shores of Lake Moodemere is located 6.9 km west of the Rutherglen within the Lake Moodemere Reserve (Fig. 2-1; VicRoads 34 H2); the shed is accessible from Lake Road as it approaches the parking area near the lake’s edge (see Figures 2-2 and 2-4), and the existing shed is approximately 20 m from the edge of Lake Moodemere to the east, and is elevated approximately 2-3 m from the water’s surface While the area in the vicinity of the existing shed has been predominantly cleared of woody vegetation, the shed maintains some mature and immature River Red Gums on its north-eastern side between the shed and the lake, a patch of immature River Red Gums on its south-western corner. The ground layer surrounding the shed on all sides is dominated by opportunistic introduced annual species, with only a low abundance of indigenous ground layer species. The proposed expansion will push towards the west and north (see Fig. 2-3), and this patch of immature River Red Gums on the south-western corner of the existing shed is therefore a likely loss as a consequence of the shed replacement (Bruce Braines pers. comm. 2020). The Plan of Existing Conditions and proposed layout for the new rowing shed is shown in Fig. 2-3. 2.1.1 Bioregion and Ecological Vegetation Class The proposed development is found wholly within the Victorian Riverina Bioregion (DELWP 2020a). In Victoria, DELWP have developed an on-line mapping layer that categorises pre-1750 and 2005 natural vegetation communities into Ecological Vegetation Classes (EVCs), and have developed EVC Benchmark Statements for each of these EVCs that represent the best known example of this EVC. Prior to European settlement, the vegetation of the proposed development area is projected to have been wholly Sedgy Riverine Forest Ecological Vegetation Class [EVC](EVC 816; Biodiversity Conservation Status [BCS] Vulnerable)(DELWP 2020a and 2020b).

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Ground-truthing was able to confirm the former presence of this EVC based on the remaining native vegetation in the vicinity of the existing rowing shed. The relevant EVC Benchmark Statement can be seen in Appendix C. 2.1.2 Land Tenure and Planning Scheme Overlays The existing rowing shed (and proposed shed) are across two land parcels – Allotment 18 Section B PP3323 and Allotment 20 Section B PP3323 - Parish of Norong, Indigo Shire Council, and is wholly Public Conservation and Resource Zone and subject to the Schedule to the Public Conservation and Resource Zone. The actual area of native clearance is within Allotment 18 Section B PP3323 only. Both parcels - in the location of the existing shed - have an Environmental Significance Overlay and Environmental Significance Overlay – Schedule 2, and Floodway Overlay and Floodway Overlay Schedule; the site is also considered an Area of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Sensitivity (DELWP 2020d).

Figure 2-1 Aerial image of the assessed area, outlined with a solid red border and location indicated with a white arrow (Image from Google Earth 2020).

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Figure 2-2 Aerial image of the assessed area (Image from Department of Sustainability and Environment [DSE] 2006 with an inset from Google Earth dated 10/6/17). 3

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Figure 2-3 The Plan of Existing Conditions and proposed layout for the new rowing shed at Lake Moodemere (Oxley and Co dated 1/10/2016).

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Figure 2-4 Aerial image of the assessed area (Image from Google Earth dated 10/6/17).

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

3. METHOD

3.1 Desktop Review The following desktop information was gathered on the assessed area before field evaluation:  Aerial imagery;  Planning information;  Both pre-1750 and current EVC mapping;  Relevant EVC benchmark documents;  Threatened species sightings within a 10 km radius of the site using the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP 2020c), NatureKit (DELWP 2020b), and the Matters of National Environmental Significance search tool (Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment [DAWE] 2020). Following assessments, derived flora and fauna lists were checked against reference lists of rare and threatened species in Victoria (DSE 2009 and 2013, and Department of Environment and Primary Industries [DEPI] 2014).

3.2 Field Assessment On the 4th May 2020, Dr. Steve Hamilton visited the proposed clearance area to undertake the assessment. On the day of observation, air temperatures were between 15 and 16C, the sky was clear, and there was no wind (Bureau of Meteorology 2020). The property was traversed by foot, with continuous active searching for flora and fauna conducted over a total period of ½ hour, with the following assessments undertaken:  Compilation of a detailed flora species list, across the assessed area, including the attribution of cover/abundance to each species;  Casual sightings of fauna noted;  The individual recording of any significant indigenous trees (i.e. > 3 m in height) across the site, including their geo-location by GPS, diameter at breast height (dbh), their health, and presence of hollows. A Scattered Tree is a native canopy tree that does not form part of a Patch (DELWP 2017);  A Patch of native vegetation is either: an area of vegetation where at least 25 % of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native, or any 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 and these areas were mapped (DELWP 2017);  A Vegetation Quality Assessment was completed if any Patches were defined in order to determine the potential Net Loss under the 2017 Native Vegetation Removal Guidelines;  Recording and location of any specific instances related to land management, such as noxious weed or pest animal infestations, etc. Thirty eight (38) images were taken the property during assessment.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

3.3 Taxonomy 3.3.1 Flora For plants that could not be identified in the field, specimens and images were collected for identification using the Flora of Victoria (Walsh and Entwisle 1994, 1996 and 1999), and PlantNet Flora On-line (Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria 2020). 3.3.2 Fauna Lists of fauna present across the site were compiled, with the nomenclature based variously on the compilations of Hero et al. (1991), Menkhorst (1995), Cogger (1996) and Simpson and Day (1998), and utilising Triggs (1996) for identification using indirect methods, such as the presence of scats or tracks. 4. FLORA AND FAUNA ASSESSMENT

4.1 Vegetation The inventory of species noted across the areas of evaluation by Zone, is recorded in Appendix A. A total of 22 vascular plant species were recorded across the assessed site; 14 of these species were introduced, and 8 were indigenous (Appendix A). As indicated previously, while the area in the vicinity of the existing shed has been predominantly cleared of woody vegetation, the shed maintains some mature and immature River Red Gums on its north-eastern side between the shed and the lake, a patch of immature River Red Gums on its south- western corner. The ground layer surrounding the shed on all sides is dominated by opportunistic introduced annual species such as Capeweed, Wild Oat, Common Heliotrope, Barley Grass, Prickly Lettuce, Plantain, Kikuyu Grass, Milk Thistle, Paterson’s Curse, Great Brome, Cat’s Ear, Paspalum and Water Couch (70 % projective foliage cover counting cured annual plant material), with only a low abundance of indigenous ground layer species, such as Curly Windmill Grass, Warrego Summer Grass, Swamp Dock, Brown-backed Wallaby-grass and Rigid Panic (5 % projective foliage cover; Appendix A). The proposed expansion will push towards the west and north (see Fig. 2-3), and this patch of immature River Red Gums on the south-western corner of the existing shed is therefore a likely loss as a consequence of the shed replacement (Bruce Braines pers. comm. 2020). There were no rare or threatened species observed at the site (DEPI 2014). Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, NatureKit and Matters of National Environmental Significance searches revealed that there were records of twenty one (21) threatened flora species recorded or likely to occur within a 10 km radius of the property. Likelihood analysis based on site, and the highly disturbed and degraded habitat of the assessed area and the level of site disturbance, as well as the lack of recent records for many species, indicates that none of these species are unlikely to be found on-site; twelve of these species are unlikely to have ever been found in such an EVC and its available habitats because they prefer wetland or seasonally inundated environments, and while they made be found in Lake Moodemere or on its shoreline, they are unlikely to be found on the proposed development area (DELWP 2020c, DAWE] 2020; Appendix E). Matters of National Environmental Significance searching also identified as the nationally critically endangered White Box-Yellow Box-Blakely’s Red Gum Grassy Woodland and Derived Grassland community and the Natural Grasslands of the Murray Valley Plains community and the nationally endangered Grey Box Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia community, Weeping Myall Woodlands and the Buloke Woodlands of the Riverina and Murray-Darling community could occur within a 10 km radius of the proposed clearance area (DAWE 2020). It is certain

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______that the entire area would have been dominated in pre-European times by a River Red Gum community; this is not a threatened community.

Plate 4-1 A range of views across the assessed site: the existing shed from the south (top left), Tree 2 (top middle), the south-eastern corner of the shed (top right), the north-eastern corner of the shed from the north (middle left), the existing shed from the north looking south (middle right), and the River Red Gum patch near the south-western corner of the existing shed (bottom).

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

4.2 Fauna There were only 6 species of fauna observed or their presence inferred during the assessment – all indigenous. Details of those species noted or inferred over the assessment periods are detailed in Appendix B. The species that were noted across the site are typically those observed in peri-urban environments, such as the indigenous Australian Magpie, Australian Raven, Australian Wood Duck, Crimson and Eastern Rosella and Sulphur-crested Cockatoo; the presence of a predator such as Red Fox is likely, and this may limit the range of indigenous fauna that can potentially occupy the site. There were no rare or threatened fauna species observed at the site (DSE 2009 and 2013). Victorian Biodiversity Atlas, NatureKit and Matters of National Environmental Significance searches revealed that there were records of fifty six (56) threatened fauna (excluding fish species) within a 10 km radius (DELWP 2020c, DAWE 2020; Appendix E). The likelihood of the presence of these species and their likelihood of utilisation of the proposed clearance area was considered, and rated based on the habitat preferences of the species, prevailing habitat and habitat quality of the site, the poor landscape connectivity, and known records for species, and the composition and structure of the indigenous vegetation in the assessed area (Appendix E). Lake Moodemere itself is an important habitat resource regionally, and is directly connected to the Murray River corridor, and many of the 56 threatened fauna recorded within 10 km have actually been recorded within the Lake Moodemere Reserve; many of these species are aquatic-dependent species such as waterfowl, turtles, etc. Indeed, 34 of these species would possibly utilise the Lake Moodemere habitat (Appendix E). However, as the proposed shed development is to occur in a significantly modified area away from the lake and any areas of significant aquatic habitat, there are likely only 10 that are terrestrial species that would potential be impacted by any vegetation loss associated with the new shed construction – Azure Kingfisher, Barking Owl, Black Falcon, Brown Treecreeper, Diamond Firetail, Grey Goshawk, Hooded Robin, South-eastern Long-eared Bat, Spotted Harrier and Yellow- bellied Sheathtail Bat. There are 14 indigenous River Red Gums proposed for removal, most of which are immature (two individuals are 47 and 36 cm dbh, but all others are ≤ 20 cm dbh), and all of which are non-hollow- bearing. The removal of these trees will have no impact on any of these threatened terrestrial fauna species.

4.3 Significant Trees There were 24 trees separately assessed across the site, and the details of these trees can be seen in Appendix D; all of these trees were indigenous River Red Gums. The location of all of these trees can be seen in Fig. 4-1, and can be seen in Plate 4-2. Trees 1 and 2 are Large Trees according to the benchmark diameter for Large Trees for Sedgy Riverine Forest EVC (90 cm dbh; Appendix C); all other trees are Small Trees. Trees 11 to 24 (14 trees) are contained within the designated native vegetation Patch proposed for loss on the south-western corner of the existing shed. Construction projects that involve earthworks or soil disturbance can cause indirect losses of native vegetation that are retained during construction due to root damage and soil modification within the zone where roots occur. Of particular concern is the longer-term impact of soil compaction and excavation (e.g. trenching for pipelines) close to trees and the effects of this on immediate and longer-

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Figure 4-1 Aerial image of the assessed area showing the indigenous trees; numbers refer to the table of tree characteristics in Appendix D (Image from Google Earth dated 10/6/17).

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

2 1 1 3 10 4 5 8

21 11 16

Plate 4-2 Images of the assessed trees: Trees 1 and 2 (right to left; top left), Trees 3 to 10 (left to right; top right), and the native vegetation Patch proposed for loss - Trees 11 to 24 (left to right; bottom). Tree numbers are shown in white. term tree health. The DSE (now DELWP) has provided guidance and clarity on this issue, and has defined an acceptable distance for tree retention in order to prevent indirect losses of native vegetation during and after construction activities as a guiding principle. These designated Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) should be implemented for the duration of construction activities (DSE 2011) as part of the development conditions. A TPZ is a specific area above and below the ground, with a radius 12 times the Diameter at Breast Height (dbh; 1.3 m) of any individual tree; the TPZ of trees should be no less than 2 m or greater than 15 m, and it is recommended that physical barriers be erected to delineate the TPZ during construction activities (DSE 2011). Should a development impinge on the TPZ area for > 10 % of its area, the tree shall be considered a loss, and will have to be offset (DSE 2011). The TPZs of Trees 1 to 10 on the north-eastern border of the existing shed have all be avoided with the proposed development; care will need to be taken in avoiding the TPZs of these trees to ensure that they are not impacted more than is projected during the construction and development. A Scattered Tree is a native canopy tree that does not form part of a Patch (DELWP 2017); there are no Scattered Trees proposed for loss.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

4.4 Patches A Patch of native vegetation is either: an area of vegetation where at least 25 % of the total perennial understorey plant cover is native, or any 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 and these areas were mapped (DELWP 2017). - identified across the proposed development area according to the definition (DELWP 2017). Trees 11 to 24 (14 trees) are contained within this Patch and all trees within it are Small Trees according to the benchmark diameter for Large Trees for Sedgy Riverine Forest EVC (90 cm dbh; Appendix C). The location of the Patch can be seen in Fig. 4-1. The Patch was assessed using the Vegetation Quality Assessment method (Habitat Hectares)(DSE 2004) by Steve Hamilton (HH128), and the findings of this can be seen in Sec. 4.5.

4.5 Vegetation Quality Assessment Under the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (DELWP 2017) there are two categories of native vegetation: Scattered Trees or Patches. There is one defined native vegetation Patch – of an extent of 0.020 ha - identified across the proposed development area according to the definition (DELWP 2017), that is a proposed loss. The Habitat Quality of the proposed clearance Patch can be ascertained using the Vegetation Quality Assessment method (DSE 2004), and this was evaluated using this methodology by Steve Hamilton (VQA Competency HH129). Table 4-1 Calculated Habitat Score for the defined Patch within the proposed development area (DSE 2004).

Patches 1

1 EVC Sedgy Riverine Forest Approximate area (ha) 0.020 Large trees 0 Tree canopy cover 0 Understorey 5 Lack of weeds 0 Recruitment 1 Organic litter 4 Logs 0

Landscape Context Score 14 Habitat Score 24

1. EVC is Ecological Vegetation Class, from DELWP (2020a).

The Habitat Score for this Patch was 24 (see Table 4-1). The score strongly reinforced observations made in the field that: • The Patch did not maintain any mature trees;

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

• The Patch did not maintain an indigenous shrub layer and a minimal ground layer; • The Patch maintained a predominantly introduced-derived litter layer; • The Patch did not maintain any fallen wood on the ground or standing dead trees; • The Patch is well connected within the landscape (landscape context). 5. NET GAIN AND LOSS REPORTING

5.1 Avoid and Minimise The design of the new rowing shed has provided for construction with a larger footprint than the existing shed that moves further north and west than the footprint of the existing shed; this is a deliberate decision to minimise the loss of the two Large Trees and patch of trees to the north-east of the existing shed – and for the loss of a smaller patch of Small Trees in the south-western corner of the existing shed - and to not expand the development footprint closer to the lake. As the TPZs of Trees 1 to 10 on the north-eastern border of the existing shed have all been avoided with the proposed development, care will need to be taken in avoiding the TPZs of these trees to ensure that they are not impacted more than is projected during the construction and development.

5.2 Quantification of Loss No Scattered Trees will be cleared. There is defined native vegetation Patch for likely loss – of an extent of 0.020 ha – containing 14 trees, all of which are Small Trees according to the benchmark diameter for Large Trees for Sedgy Riverine Forest EVC (90 cm dbh; Appendix C).

5.3 Offset requirements Mapping files outlining the habitat scoring and precise location of the native vegetation Patch proposed for clearance across the property were submitted to the EnSym NVR Team Support in the outlined format following scenario-testing to clarify the requirements for offset to develop the application. The Native Vegetation Removal Report for the likely native vegetation clearance for the proposed development on the site (Appendix F; DELWP 2020e) was received on the 26th May 2020, and provided the following assessment:

 The outlined proposed clearance was assessed as being an Basic Assessment Pathway;  The Location Category for the losses are mapped as Location 1;  The total extent of the clearance is 0.020 ha, comprising one native vegetation Patch. None of the trees within the Patch is a Large Tree;  A General Offset of 0.006 General Habitat Units (GHUs) is required for the proposed clearance based on a 1.5x multiplier, with no Large Trees;  There are no Specific Offsets;  The Offset Site must be within the North East Catchment Management Authority catchment (or Local Government Area – Indigo Shire Council);  The Offset must have a minimum overall Strategic Biodiversity Value of 0.599. 6. MEETING THE OFFSET REQUIREMENT

A third party offset quote to satisfy the offset requirement from a credit broker is attached in Appendix G.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

7. REFERENCES

Bureau of Meteorology (2020). Rutherglen climate data for 4th May 2020. Retrieved 12th June 2020 from: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/202005/html/IDCJDW3071.202005.shtml Cogger, H.G. (1996). Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia, 5th edition. Read Press, Sydney. Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE)(2020). Species Profile and Threats Database. Retrieved 3rd May 2020 from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI)(2014). Advisory List of Rare or Threatened Plants in Victoria – 2014. Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries, East Melbourne. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP)(2017). Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. December 2017. Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne. DELWP (2020a). EVC bioregional conservation status and benchmark data. Retrieved 3rd May 2020 from: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrence.nsf/LinkView/6FB4886C86D894CACA256F1F00224A8C806 2D358172E420C4A256DEA0012F71C DELWP (2020b). DELWP NatureKit, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. Retrieved 3rd May 2020 from: http://maps.biodiversity.vic.gov.au/viewer/?viewer=NatureKit DELWP (2020c). Results from specific 10 km radius searches of the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas from the centre of the property. Retrieved 3rd May 2020 from: https://vba.dse.vic.gov.au/vba/login.jsp#/ DELWP (2020d). Various property planning reports. Retrieved 3rd May 2020 from: http://services.land.vic.gov.au/maps/pmo.jsp DELWP (2020e). NVR_Report_Lake_Moodemere_20200526. EnSym NVR Tool Support, Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, East Melbourne. Department of Primary Industries (2008). Declared Noxious Weeds – Listed by Common Name. Landcare Note March 2008. Department of Primary Industries, East Melbourne. Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE)(2004). Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual – Guidelines for Applying the Habitat Hectares Scoring Method. Version 1.3. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. DSE (2009). Advisory List of Threatened Invertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2009. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. DSE (2011). Native vegetation – Technical Information Sheet. Defining an acceptable distance for tree retention during construction works. Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. DSE (2013). Advisory List of Threatened Vertebrate Fauna in Victoria – 2013. Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne. Hero, J., Littlejohn, M. and Marantelli, G. (1991). Frogwatch Field Guide to Victorian Frogs. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne. Hnatiuk, R.J. (1990). Census of Australian Vascular Plants. Australian Flora and Fauna Series Number 11. Bureau of Flora and Fauna, Canberra.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Menkhorst, P. (ed.)(1995). Mammals of Victoria. Distribution, Ecology and Conservation. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria (2020). Flora of Victoria On-line. https://vicflora.rbg.vic.gov.au/ Simpson, K. and Day, N. (1998). The Claremont Field Guide to the Birds of Australia, 5th edition. Penguin Books, Sydney. Triggs, B. (1996). Tracks, Scats and Other Traces: a Field Guide to Australian Mammals. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Walsh, N.G. and Entwisle, T.J. (eds)(1994). Flora of Victoria. Volume 2. Ferns, Conifers, and Monocotyledons. Inkata Press. Walsh, N.G. and Entwisle, T.J. (eds)(1996). Flora of Victoria. Volume 3. Dicotyledons. Winteraceae to Myrtaceae. Inkata Press. Walsh, N.G. and Entwisle, T.J. (eds)(1999). Flora of Victoria. Volume 4. Dicotyledons. Comaceae to Asteraceae. Inkata Press.

7.1 Personal Communication Baines, Bruce (2020). Indigo Shire Council, Beechworth.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

APPENDIX A FLORA INVENTORY OF AREA AROUND RUTHERGLEN LAKE ROWING CLUB, LAKE MOODEMERE

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Vascular flora has been recorded for presence across the assessed area, and using a cover- abundance scale that is shown in the Table immediately below. An asterisk denotes an introduced species. Each plant species present were assessed for cover-abundance using the scale outlined below. Nomenclature and taxonomy of plants based variously on Hnatiuk (1990), and Walsh and Entwistle (1994, 1996 and 1999). Visual assessment of cover/abundance Symbol Description + rare, cover < 5% 1 Uncommon, cover < 5 % 2 Very common, cover < 5 % or cover 5-25 % with any number of individuals 3 Cover 25-50 % with any number of individuals 4 Cover 50-75 % with any number of individuals 5 Cover 75-100 % with any number of individuals

Common name Scientific name Lifeform# Assessed area Capeweed Arctotheca calendula* MH 2 Wild Oat Avena fatua* LTG 2 Great Brome Bromus diandrus* MTG 2 Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare* LH 2 Paterson’s Curse Echium plantigeneum* MH 1 Curly Windmill Grass Enteropogon acicularis MTG 1 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis T 2 Common Heliotrope Heliotropium europeum* MH 2 Barley Grass Hordeum leporinum* MTG 2 Cat's Ear Hypochaeris radicata* MH 2 Blown Grass Lachnagrostis filiformis MTG 1 Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola* LH 1 Warrego Summer Grass Paspalidium jubiflorum LTG + Paspalum Paspalum dilitatum* LNG + Water Couch Paspalum distichum* MNG 1 Kikuyu Grass Pennisetum clandestinum* MNG 2 Weeping Pittosporum Pittosporum angustifolium MS + Plantain Plantago lanceolata* MH 2 Swamp Dock Rumex brownii MH + Brown-backed Wallaby-grass Rytidopserma duttoniana MTG 1 Milk Thistle Sonchus oleraceus* LH 2 Rigid Panic Walwhalleya proluta MTG 2 Indigenous species projective foliage cover (%) 5 Introduced species projective foliage cover (%) 50 Litter cover (%) 40 Bare earth (%) 5

# abbreviations for lifeform for indigenous species are T = tree, MS = medium shrub, SS = small shrub, LH = large herb, MH = medium herb, SH = small herb, LTG = large tufted graminoid, MTG = medium tufted graminoid, STG = small tufted graminoid, MNG = medium non-tufted graminoid, SC = scrambler/climber, P = parasite.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

APPENDIX B OBSERVED OR INFERRED FAUNA OF AREA AROUND RUTHERGLEN LAKE ROWING CLUB, LAKE MOODEMERE

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

Observed or inferred fauna at the property between 12.00 and 12.30 pm on the 4th May 2020.

An asterisk indicates an introduced species.

Common name Scientific name Mode of observation1

Birds Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen A,V Australian Raven Corvus coronoides A Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata A,V Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans A,V Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius V Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita A

1. Method observed: V is visual observation; C is call heard; N indicates a nest observed; Sc is scat found.

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

APPENDIX C EVC BENCHMARK DESCRIPTION

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere ______

APPENDIX D SIGNIFICANT TREE LOCATIONS

Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

Tree Tree location2 Common name Scientific name Diameter1 number Easting Northing 1 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 160 444584 6009593 2 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 170 444577 6009607 3 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 30 444563 6009624 4 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 35 444567 6009621 5 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 30 444569 6009621 6 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 20 444570 6009619 7 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 40 444568 6009618 8 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 35 444571 6009617 9 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 15 444570 6009615 10 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 25 444570 6009613 11 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 47 444554 6009589 12 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 15 444551 6009585 13 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10 444556 6009586 14 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 18 444556 6009585 15 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 18 444559 6009585 16 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 15 444558 6009584 17 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10 444557 6009583 18 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 8 444557 6009581 19 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 20 444559 6009581 20 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10 444560 6009582 21 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10 444558 6009580 22 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 10 444560 6009579 23 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 36 444562 6009580 24 River Red Gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 20 444561 6009578

24 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

1. DBH is diameter at breast height over bark (dbhob; 1.30 m); 2. Location data are northings and eastings of MGAz55 coordinates.

25 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

APPENDIX E EPBC AND VICTORIAN THREATENED SPECIES AND LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE

26 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

List of threatened flora species recorded by the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas and NatureKit in a 10 km radius around the property, and by Matters of National Environmental Significance search of the district, their status, and their likelihood of occurrence on the subject land (DELWP 2020b and 2020c; DAWE 2020).

Victorian Commonwealth Records Last Appropriate Likelihood of Scientific name Common Name status1 status2 within 10 km3 record4 habitat5 presence6

Allocasuarina luehmannii Buloke e,L 4 1999 Yes Unlikely

Amphibromus fluitans River Swamp Wallaby-grass V 0 No Highly unlikely

Amyema linophylla ssp. orientalis Buloke Mistletoe v 5 2002 Yes Unlikely

Brachyscome muelleroides Mueller's Daisy e,L V 0 No Highly unlikely

Brasenia schreberi Water Shield v,L 1 1860 No Highly unlikely

Caladenia tensa Rigid Spider-orchid v E 0 No Highly unlikely Calotis anthemoides Cut-leaf Burr-daisy L 3 2011 Yes Highly unlikely

Cardamine moirensis Riverina Bitter-cress r 2 1985 Yes Highly unlikely

Ceratophyllum demersum Hornwort k 1 1965 Yes Highly unlikely

Desmodium varians Slender Tick-trefoil k 2 2011 Yes Unlikely

Dianella tarda Late-flower Flax-lily v 1 2011 Yes Unlikely

Hydrilla verticillata Hydrilla r 1 1965 No Highly unlikely

Hypsela tridens Hypsela k 1 1959 No Highly unlikely

Myoporum montanum Waterbush r 20 2005 Yes Unlikely

Nymphoides crenata Wavy Marshwort v,L 1 1986 No Highly unlikely

Prasophyllum validum Sturdy Leek-orchid e V 0 No Highly unlikely

Rytidosperma richardsonii Straw Wallaby-grass v 1 2017 Yes Unlikely

Sclerolaena muricata var. semiglabra Dark Roly-poly k 1 2002 Yes Unlikely

Sclerolaena napiformis Turnip Copperburr e,L E 0 No Highly unlikely

Swainsona recta Small Purple-pea e,L E 0 No Highly unlikely

Wahlenbergia planiflora ssp. planiflora Flat Bluebell v 1 1967 Yes Unlikely

27 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

1. x = presumed extinct in Victoria; e = endangered in Victoria; v = vulnerable in Victoria; r = rare in Victoria; k = insufficiently known in Victoria; L = listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (from DEPI 2014); 2. CE = critically endangered nationally; E = endangered nationally; V = vulnerable nationally (DAWE 2020); 3. As recorded in the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP 2020c); 4. As recorded for the species in the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP 2020c); 5. Determination based on known habitat preferences for the species and the assessed habitat characteristics of the site, from Royal Botanic Gardens Victoria (2020) and Walsh and Entwisle (1994, 1996 and 1999); 6. Based on known habitat preferences for the species and the assessed habitat characteristics of the site, known records for the species, and their proximity and time of record.

28 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

List of threatened fauna species recorded by the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas and NatureKit in a 10 km radius around the property, and by Matters of National Environmental Significance search of the district, their status, and their likelihood of occurrence on the subject land (DELWP 2020b and 2020c; DAWE 2020).

Records Victorian Commonwealth Last Appropriate Likelihood of Scientific name Common Name within 10 status1 status2 record4 habitat5 presence6 km3 Struthidea cinerea Apostlebird L 16 2018 Yes Possible

Spatula rhynchotis Australasian Shoveler v 35 2019 Yes Possible

Ardeotis australis Australian Bustard ce,L 1 1950 Yes Highly unlikely

Ceyx azureus Azure Kingfisher nt 16 2019 Yes Possible

Porzana pusilla Baillon's Crake v,L 1 1950 Yes Highly unlikely

Vermicella annulata Bandy Bandy v,L 1 2018 No Highly unlikely

Ninox connivens Barking Owl e,L 15 2018 Yes Possible

Falco subniger Black Falcon v,L 4 2005 Yes Possible

Chrysococcyx osculans Black-eared Cuckoo nt 1 1977 Yes Unlikely

Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck e,L 11 2019 Yes Possible

Antigone rubicunda Brolga v,L 9 2017 Yes Possible

Pseudophryne bibronii Brown Toadlet e,L 4 1964 Yes Highly unlikely

Climacteris picumnus Brown Treecreeper nt 97 2019 Yes Possible

Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale v,L 5 2008 No Highly unlikely

Burhinus grallarius Bush Stone-curlew e,L 2 1997 Yes Unlikely

Geopelia cuneata Diamond Dove nt,L 2 1979 Yes Highly unlikely

Stagonopleura guttata Diamond Firetail nt,L 8 2019 Yes Possible

Chelodina longicollis Eastern Snake-necked Turtle dd 8 2009 Yes Possible

Stictonetta naevosa Freckled Duck e,L 6 2005 Yes Possible

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis nt 6 2017 Yes Possible

Ardea alba Great Egret v,L 35 2011 Yes Possible

Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey Goshawk v,L 2 2018 Yes Possible

Pomatostomus temporalis Grey-crowned Babbler e,L 49 2019 No Highly unlikely

29 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

Records Victorian Commonwealth Last Appropriate Likelihood of Scientific name Common Name within 10 status1 status2 record4 habitat5 presence6 km3 Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox v,L V 0 Yes Possible

Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog e,L V 6 1967 Yes Highly unlikely Aythya australis Hardhead vu 48 2019 Yes Possible

Melanodryas cucullata Hooded Robin nt,L 2 2001 Yes Possible

Varanus varius Lace Monitor en 4 2018 Yes Possible

Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe nt 6 2005 Yes Unlikely

Turnix velox Little Button-quail nt 1 2016 Yes Possible

Egretta garzetta Little Egret e,L 1 2011 Yes Possible

Anseranas semipalmata Magpie Goose nt,L 8 2019 Yes Possible

Emydura macquarii Murray River Turtle vu 10 2009 Yes Possible

Biziura lobata Musk Duck vu 15 2007 Yes Possible

Nycticorax caledonicus Nankeen Night-Heron nt 12 2017 Yes Possible

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater v,L V 0 Yes Highly unlikely Phalacrocorax varius Pied Cormorant nt 12 2019 Yes Possible

Aprasia parapulchella Pink-tailed Worm-lizard e,L V 0 No Highly unlikely Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer v,L CE 0 No Highly unlikely

Ornithorhynchus anatinus Platypus N 1 1982 Yes Highly unlikely

Ardea intermedia plumifera Plumed Egret e,L 15 2018 Yes Possible

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater MTS Yes Unlikely

Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater ce,L CE 1 2014 No Highly unlikely Platalea regia Royal Spoonbill nt 19 2019 Yes Possible

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher MTS 0 No Highly unlikely Crinia sloanei Sloane's Froglet E 2 2010 Yes Highly unlikely Nyctophilus corbeni South-eastern Long-eared Bat e,L V Yes Possible

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus Spot-tailed Quoll e,L E 1 1895 Yes Highly unlikely

30 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

Records Victorian Commonwealth Last Appropriate Likelihood of Scientific name Common Name within 10 status1 status2 record4 habitat5 presence6 km3 Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier nt 1 2005 Yes Possible

Petaurus norfolcensis Squirrel Glider e,L 3 2008 Yes Possible

Polytelis swainsonii Superb Parrot e,L V 1 1998 Yes Unlikely Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot e,L CE 1 2005 Yes Unlikely Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern nt 3 2005 Yes Possible

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle v,L 35 2019 Yes Possible

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail v,L V 3 1994 Yes Possible Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat dd,L 1 2018 Yes Possible

1. x = presumed extinct in Victoria; rx = regionally extinct;ce = critically endangered in Victoria; e = endangered in Victoria; v = vulnerable in Victoria; r = rare in Victoria; dd = data deficient; k = insufficiently known in Victoria; N = nominated under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (from DEPI 2014); L = listed under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (from DEPI 2014); 2. CE = critically endangered nationally; E = endangered nationally; V = vulnerable nationally; MTS = Migratory Terrestrial Species; MMB = Migratory Marine Bird (DAWE 2020); 3. As recorded in the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP 2020c); 4. As recorded for the species in the Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (DELWP 2020c); 5. Determination based on known habitat preferences for the species and the assessed habitat characteristics of the site, from various State and Commonwealth conservation advice and listings, recovery plans, etc.; 6. Based on known habitat preferences for the species and the assessed habitat characteristics of the site, landscape connectivity of the site, known records for the species, and their proximity and time of records.

31 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting – Lake Moodemere

APPENDIX F NATIVE VEGETATION REMOVAL REPORT (DELWP) ISSUED 26TH MAY 2020

32 Native vegetation removal report

This report provides information to support an application to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation in accordance with the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation. The report is not an assessment by DELWP of the proposed native vegetation removal. Native vegetation information and offset requirements have been determined using spatial data provided by the applicant or their consultant.

Date of issue: 26/05/2020 Report ID: HAE_2020_038 Time of issue: 11:00 am

Project ID Lake_Moodemere

Assessment pathway

Assessment pathway Basic Assessment Pathway

Extent including past and proposed 0.020 ha

Extent of past removal 0.000 ha

Extent of proposed removal 0.020 ha

No. Large trees proposed to be removed 0

Location category of proposed removal Location 1 The native vegetation is not in an area mapped as an endangered Ecological Vegetation Class (as per the statewide EVC map), sensitive wetland or coastal area. Removal of less than 0.5 hectares in this location will not have a significant impact on any habitat for a rare or threatened species

1. Location map

Page 1

Native vegetation removal report

Offset requirements if a permit is granted

Any approval granted will include a condition to obtain an offset that meets the following requirements:

General offset amount1 0.006 general habitat units

Vicinity North East Catchment Management Authority (CMA) or Indigo Shire Council

Minimum strategic biodiversity value 0.599 score2 Large trees 0 large trees

NB: values within tables in this document may not add to the totals shown above due to rounding Appendix 1 includes information about the native vegetation to be removed Appendix 2 includes information about the rare or threatened species mapped at the site. Appendix 3 includes maps showing native vegetation to be removed and extracts of relevant species habitat importance maps

1 The general offset amount required is the sum of all general habitat units in Appendix 1.

2 Minimum strategic biodiversity score is 80 per cent of the weighted average score across habitat zones where a general offset is required

Page 2

Native vegetation removal report

Next steps

Any proposal to remove native vegetation must meet the application requirements of the Basic Assessment Pathway and it will be assessed under the Basic Assessment Pathway.

If you wish to remove the mapped native vegetation you are required to apply for a permit from your local council. Council will refer your application to DELWP for assessment, as required. This report is not a referral assessment by DELWP.

This Native vegetation removal report must be submitted with your application for a permit to remove, destroy or lop native vegetation.

Refer to the Guidelines for the removal, destruction or lopping of native vegetation (the Guidelines) for a full list of application requirements This report provides information that meets the following application requirements: • The assessment pathway and reason for the assessment pathway • A description of the native vegetation to be removed (met unless you wish to include a site assessment) • Maps showing the native vegetation and property • The offset requirements determined in accordance with section 5 of the Guidelines that apply if approval is granted to remove native vegetation.

Additional application requirements must be met including: • Topographical and land information • Recent dated photographs • Details of past native vegetation removal • An avoid and minimise statement • A copy of any Property Vegetation Plan that applies • A defendable space statement as applicable • A statement about the Native Vegetation Precinct Plan as applicable • An offset statement that explains that an offset has been identified and how it will be secured.

© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning Disclaimer Melbourne 2020 This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability licence. You are free to re-use the work under that licence, on the condition that for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from you relying on you credit the State of Victoria as author. The licence does not apply to any any information in this publication. images, photographs or branding, including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the Department of Environment, Land, Water Obtaining this publication does not guarantee that an application will meet the and Planning logo. To view a copy of this licence, visit requirements of Clauses 52.16 or 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/34.0/au/deed.en Victorian planning schemes or that a permit to remove native vegetation will be granted. Authorised by the Victorian Government, 8 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne. Notwithstanding anything else contained in this publication, you must ensure that For more information contact the DELWP Customer Service Centre 136 186 you comply with all relevant laws, legislation, awards or orders and that you obtain and comply with all permits, approvals and the like that affect, are applicable or are necessary to undertake any action to remove, lop or destroy or otherwise deal with any native vegetation or that apply to matters within the scope of Clauses 52.16 or 52.17 of the Victoria Planning Provisions and Victorian planning schemes. www.delwp.vic.gov.au

Page 3

Appendix 1: Description of native vegetation to be removed

All zones require a general offset, the general habitat units each zone is calculated by the following equation in accordance with the Guidelines: General habitat units = extent x condition x general landscape factor x 1.5, where the general landscape factor = 0.5 + (strategic biodiversity value score/2) The general offset amount required is the sum of all general habitat units per zone.

Native vegetation to be removed

Information provided by or on behalf of the applicant in a GIS file Information calculated by EnSym

BioEVC Extent Large Partial Condition Polygon SBV HI Zone Type BioEVC conservation without Habitat Offset type tree(s) removal score Extent score score status overlap units

1-A Patch vriv0816 Vulnerable 0 no 0.240 0.020 0.020 0.749 0.006 General

Page 4

Appendix 2: Information about impacts to rare or threatened species’ habitats on site

This is not applicable in the Basic Assessment Pathway.

Page 5

Appendix 3 – Images of mapped native vegetation 2. Strategic biodiversity values map

3. Aerial photograph showing mapped native vegetation

Page 6

4. Map of the property in context

Yellow boundaries denote areas of proposed native vegetation removal.

Page 7 Flora and Fauna Assessment and Net Loss Reporting –Lake Moodemere ______

APPENDIX G THIRD PARTY OFFSET QUOTE FROM VEGETATION LINK

3 June 2020 Our Reference: VLQ-5743 Your Reference: Lake Moodemere Steve Hamilton Hamilton Environmental Services Email: [email protected]

Dear Steve,

RE: Quotation for the supply of Native Vegetation Credits

Vegetation Link is an accredited offset provider with the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP). We offer a specialised brokerage service to enable permit holders and developers to identify suitable native vegetation credits to meet their planning permit offset requirements.

Based upon the information you provided, I understand you require the following native vegetation offset: Min. Strategic General Habitat Large Offset Type Attributes Biodiversity Value Units (GHU) Trees (SBV) General North East CMA 0.006 0.599 0

To meet your offset requirements, you can purchase native vegetation credits from a third party as per the options quoted below1. This quotation is valid for 14 days, subject to credit availability and landholder pricing.

Fixed Price Trade Pathway – offset site located in the Towong Shire area (approx. 2-3 week turnaround from acceptance of quote) Cost of Native Vegetation Credits $900.00 Transaction Fees $790.00 Total (ex GST) $1,690.00 Total (Inc. GST) $1,859.00

If you would like to purchase credits let us know that you accept the quote, and return the attached Purchaser Details Form by email. If more than one quotation option is provided above, specify which option you choose. Upon receipt of the form, we will begin the trade process. Further details of the process for credit allocation is in the FAQ below.

Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us on (03) 5470 5232 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,

Lisa Gormley Biodiversity Offset Broker

1 Note that the Transaction Fee includes DELWP NVOR transfer and allocation fees and a Vegetation Link fee VEGETATION LINK PTY LTD ABN 92 169 702 032

PO Box 10 Castlemaine VIC 3450 T (03) 5470 5232 E [email protected] W www.vegetationlink.com.au

FAQs:

What is a third party offset? A third party offset is an offset site owned by another landowner who manages and protects native vegetation on their land. Landowners who establish these offset sites are required to:  Enter into a Landowner Agreement for the specified offset site. A landowner agreement is in perpetuity and is binding upon the current and future landowners of the site. It permanently restricts use of the site for many purposes.  Implement a detailed 10-year Management Plan endorsed by the DELWP Native Vegetation Offset Register to manage and improve the biodiversity values of the site.

How is the price of Native Vegetation Offset Credits (GHUs, GBEUs etc.) determined? Landowners who own offset sites set their own price for native vegetation credits. They determine the price based on numerous factors. This includes but not limited to site establishment, the cost to manage the site in perpetuity (e.g., maintain fencing, control pest species), foregone use cost, and administrative costs. Depending on how the site is registered, the credit fee may be paid to either DELWP or directly to the landowner. Further information about the work some of our landowners are doing can be found here: https://www.vegetationlink.com.au/landowner-profiles Further information on pricing can be found here: https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0030/329466/Info-sheet-Pricing- native-vegetation-credits.pdf

What is the process after I accept the Quote? After you accept the quote and return the Purchaser Table, the following steps will be undertaken: 1. We will set up a contract between the parties involved and send the contract out for signing by all parties. 2. Once the contract is signed by all parties, invoices will be issued for the fees listed in the quotation. We will send you two invoices, one for our transaction fee invoiced by Vegetation Link and one for the credit fee, usually to be paid to DELWP or the landowner. We recommend providing remittances for your payments. 3. Once payments are received, Vegetation Link will send you an Allocated Credit Extract from the Native Vegetation Offset Register and your Executed Contract as evidence that you have purchased the offset.

How long will the process take? When will I get my credits? Generally the process from quote acceptance to having evidence of allocated credits takes between 2-6 weeks. This is dependent on a range of factors including the type of landholder

agreement, contract types and organisational workflows. We work as quickly as possible to get your credits to you within this time period. We note that you cannot remove vegetation until you have been given permission by the Responsible Authority (usually the Council that has issued your permit).

What happens if I don’t have a permit yet? When people are buying credits before a permit is issued the following three options are most common: 1. You can pay for the offsets before the planning permit is available, and then the offsets are allocated to the permit when it is available. This will incur an additional $50 fee from DELWP. When considering this option, it is important to realise that your estimated offset requirements may be different than the actual permit requirements. 2. You can wait for the planning permit to be approved first and then request a quote to meet the requirements in your permit. Should credits be available, you can then start the offset purchase process. We then use the planning permit number for allocating the credits. Allocating credits to the permit is evidence that you have purchased your offset. 3. You can request a quote to confirm availability and to get an idea of the cost of offsetting before you apply for a permit. Once you receive the planning permit you can request an updated quote. It is at this point that you can then go through the offset purchase process. We cannot guarantee credit availability until a) contracts are executed, or b) credits have been held via a pending trade lodged with DELWP Native Vegetation Offset Register. We cannot guarantee price until a) a quote has been accepted within 14 days, and b) a Credit Trading Agreement is signed within 21 days, and c) the invoice for the Credits is paid within 28 days of the date the invoice is issued.

If I sign the contract, does that mean I MUST pay for the credits? Yes, you have entered into a contract agreeing to pay for the offset credits therein and are required to pay for those credits. The Credits must be paid for within 28 days of the date of the invoice.

Can you hold the credits for me, as I want to pay later? We are unable to hold credits for later payment. Please also see ‘What happens if I don’t have a permit yet?’ above.

For further information, see our website or look at the DELWP website: http://www.vegetationlink.com.au/ OR https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/native- vegetation/native-vegetation/offsets-for-the-removal-of-native-vegetation

24 March 2020

Bruce Braines Project Manager – Capital Works Indigo Shire Council 2 Kurrajong Way Beechworth, VIC 3747

Dear Bruce

Heritage letter of advice for Rutherglen Rowing Club boat shed replacement works

Our reference: 31463

Biosis Pty Ltd (Biosis) was engaged by Indigo Shire Council to provide heritage advice for the proposed replacement of the existing Rutherglen Rowing Club shed, located at 22 Lake Road, Lake Moodemere, Norong, Victoria, 3685 (the study area).

A site inspection was undertaken on 5 February 2020 to clarify the scope of works, in conjunction with a search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) to determine the presence of any registered Aboriginal places within the study area, including any areas of cultural heritage sensitivity (CHS). Consultation was undertaken with Wade Morgan, NRM Manager from Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (YYNAC), the Registered Aboriginal Party for the study area.

This letter of heritage advice determines that the proposed activity is exempt from requiring a mandatory cultural heritage management plan (CHMP) in accordance with Regulation 46 (3) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018. A review of the land use history of the study area, previous archaeological studies and a site inspection determined the likelihood of Aboriginal cultural material surviving the land disturbance and natural floodplain processes within the study area to be low, therefore a voluntary CHMP is not recommended. Recommendations in accordance with consultation with YYNAC are advised.

Further information regarding these conclusions is included below. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Kylie McFadyen Consultant Archaeologist

Biosis Pty Ltd Melbourne Resource Group

38 Bertie Street Phone: 03 9646 9499 ACN 006 175 097 Port Melbourne VIC 3207 Fax: 03 9646 9242 ABN 65 006 175 097 Email: [email protected] biosis.com.au

Definitions

'study area' – Rutherglen Rowing Club, 22 Lake Road, Lake Moodemere, Norong, VIC. See Appendix A for the study area location maps. 'activity' – proposed rowing club extension works (Appendix A).

Proposed activity

The following activity description, including plans and activity methodology was provided by Bruce Braines, Indigo Shire Council via email on 23 December 2020. Activity plans are provided in Appendix A.

• Removal of existing rowing shed.

• Replacement of existing rowing shed with a new structure which will be one (1) metre larger on each side of the existing shed footprint.

• Excavation for a new septic tank and new water tank.

Under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018 the proposed activity is considered to be a ‘high impact’ activity under Regulation 46 (1bxix) Buildings and works for specified uses – a recreational boat facility.

While the proposed activity assessed within this report does meet the definition of a high impact activity under Regulation 46 (1bxix) of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018, this activity is exempt under Regulation 46 (3):

Despite subregulation (1), the construction of a building or the construction or carryout out of works on land is not a high impact activity if it is for, or associated with, a purpose listed under subregulation (1)(b) for which the land was being lawfully used immediately before May 2007.

A review of the land use history of the study area provides historical evidence that rowing club facilities have been located within the study area, and in particular, within the area of the proposed activity, prior to May 2007.

Therefore, the works are not considered to be a high impact activity.

Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register search

A search of the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Register (VAHR) was conducted on 3 February 2020. The search confirmed that the study area is located within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity associated with Lake Moodemere, being Regulation 26 Waterways, under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018.

The search determined that there are no registered Aboriginal places within the study area, however several registered places are located within the vicinity of the study area, including a number of scarred trees within 200 metres of the study area such as those discussed below.

Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 1 (VAHR 812-0359) was recorded in 2011 by Aboriginal Victoria staff. It comprises a River Red Gum located on an alluvial terrace described as being in fair condition.

Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 19 (VAHR 8125-0375) comprises a River Red Gum in fair condition. Recorded as part of a 2011 heritage study by Aboriginal Victoria staff, the place is situated on an alluvial terrace amongst remnant and modified native vegetation.

Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 17 (VAHR 8125-0374) was recorded in 2011 by Aboriginal Victoria staff. It comprises a River Red Gum located on a floodplain described as being in good condition.

The following Figure 1 shows the location of the study area in relation to the area of cultural heritage sensitivity and registered Aboriginal places in the vicinity. The study area is represented by red star.

Figure 1 Study area and registered Aboriginal places in vicinity (ACHRIS 2020)

Study area overview (land use history)

Ethnohistory and contact history Through dispossession of land and subsequent loss of many oral histories, many historians have only been able to piece together splintered accounts of Aboriginal life through mainly nineteenth century European ethnographic observations and some oral histories. Aboriginal People recorded in the Wahgunyah and Lake Moodemere area have variously been described as being associated with Yorta Yorta, Waveroo and Wiradjuri groups. Individual named groups recorded in the area include the Gilla Matong, Balung-Karar, Emu Mudjug, and Unorring. It would appear, however, that Wahgunyah and the Lake Moodemere area had become a place of congregation for Aboriginal tribes or named groups from distant areas at the time of European recording. For Example, Reid records four groups, the Weeroo, Gilla Matong, Kiewa and Unorring. In Wahgunyah in 1860. These groups appear to have been associated with the upper Murray, the larger Murray/Ovens region, the Kiewa Valley and the Wodonga Area respectively. Their presence in the area is probably due to this being a centre of European activity, and therefore supply station, and the impact of the Moodemere Reserve (Wesson 2000: 58-64).

The post-contact history of the Aboriginal people in the Murray region is eventful. In 1839, an Aboriginal protectorate scheme was introduced. The role of the protectorates was to provide food and shelter, record information and population and to Europeanise the Aboriginal people. When European people moved into Victoria to run stock, the traditional hunting and gathering lands of the Aboriginal people were taken by pastoralists, who wanted the Aboriginal people to leave. In many cases they were forcibly removed.

An Aboriginal reserve was established on Lake Moodemere near the river, which was known as Wahgunyah or Lake Moodemere. This reserve operated from 1891 to 1937. The land for the Wahgunyah Reserve, Carlyle, was reserved on 10 March 1891 and revoked on 3 November 1897 (Felton 1981:211; Hanrahan 1984:8). The Board for the protection of Aborigines noted in its 1902 report that the reserve was still occupied, but that the area had been reduced to 8 acres. (BPA Report 1902:4). A number of Aboriginal people and families who originally occupied land in the study area were forcibly moved to other parts of Victoria or New South Wales. Many were relocated to missions at Mitchellstown, Maloga, Cumeragunga and particularly to Coranderrk where many children were sent (Atkinson & Berryman 1983).

Among the inhabitants of the Lake Moodemere Reserve was “Tommy Mcrae, (c.1835–1901), an Aboriginal artist, whose Aboriginal names have been recorded as Yackaduna or Warra-euea, and who was probably from the Kwatkwat people, whose country stretched south of the Murray River near the junction of the Goulburn River in Victoria. He lived in or close to the Upper Murray all his life; one early twentieth-century report described him as 'a well-known identity throughout the country from Albury to Yarrawonga'. On the evidence of his art and at least one contemporary account, his early years were spent in a relatively undisturbed, traditional lifestyle. During his life he witnessed (and recorded in drawings) the establishment of pastoral settler society in his country.

Historical period In 1838 Joseph Hawdon and Charles Bonney passed through the Barmah Forest (Craib 1991: 46) whilst travelling along the Murray River from Goulburn to Adelaide. A few months later, Charles Sturt herded his cattle along the Murray from Albury to Adelaide. He mainly used the north bank of the Murray until he reached the Barmah Forest, when he forded to the south bank.

A number of squatters brought their stock to the Murray River and selected their properties, to the detriment of the Aboriginal population.

The Lake Moodemere area was not alienated from the Crown, most likely due to its flood prone nature. Adjacent land was sold in the 1850s, with the nearest block sold to F Fardel, While John Hikins occupied a large property south of the Moodemere Road, and gave his name to a local road, a bend in the river and a locality. The 1880s saw the end of squatting and free selection of land for runs and parcels of land were leased or auctioned (LCC 1982: 36). The remaining Crown land was river frontage, which were retained to provide access to the water for all and as navigation easements.

Lake Moodemere, was reserved as a wildlife sanctuary in 1912 and was a local venue for fishing and boating from the later nineteenth century. It gained prominence in the post-World War Two period as a venue for speed-boating, waterskiing and competitive rowing. From as early as 1863 Lake Moodemere has played host to the Lake Moodemere rowing regatta, the oldest continually run regatta in Australia. The study area has been the site of the Rutherglen Rowing Club facilities dating to the early 1900s. While the current boat club dates to circa 1950s It is likely that a structure used for boat storage and club use has been on site in various capacities for significantly longer. In 1914, the Rutherglen Sun and Chiltern Valley Advertiser describes the Lake Moodemere Recreation Reserve as containing ‘a shelter shed, sanitary conveniences, and a jetty used in connection with the great event of the season.’

Environmental context

Lying adjacent to Lake Moodemere, the study area is associated with Holocene-aged unnamed alluvial deposits. It is located within the Murray Valley Riverine Plain geomorphic unit and consists of the present flood plain landform. Soils within the study area are typically grey clays, gravel, silt and sands. Lake Moodemere was created as a result of the shifting of the Murray River across the landscape and is a remnant of a prior channel. It is a 14 hectare natural shallow basin which has been filled by the overflow of the Murray River.

The study area is situated within the Victorian Riverina bioregion. Ecological Vegetation Classes present within the study area pre-1750 would have comprised Sedgy Riverine Forest and Floodplain Riparian Woodland. River Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), a variety of wattles and native grasses such as Wallaby-grass (Austrodanthonia spp.) would have provided Aboriginal communities with a number of floral resources. The riverine environment would have provided habitat for a range of bird, mammal and reptile species such as white faced heron, white egret, little egret, ibis and spoonbill, snake necked tortoise, quail, yabbies, platypus and water rat.

Previous archaeological investigations

There have been several archaeological investigations, including cultural heritage management plans (CHMPs) undertaken within the Lake Moodemere locality. The following provides a summary of those assessments that are relevant to the more immediate study area.

Grinter and Bell (2012) completed a voluntary CHMP no.11947 for the Lake Moodemere Master Plan Foreshore Development, North East Victoria for Parks Victoria. The area of assessment comprised six hectares of land within Crown Allotment 6, Section 13 within the Parish of Carlyle and is approximately 60 metres north-west of the current study area. The desktop assessment determined that three registered Aboriginal places are located within the CHMP activity area: Lake Moodemere Earth Feature (VAHR 8125-

0354), Lake Moodemere Earth Feature 2 (VAHR 8125-0356) and Lake Moodemere Artefact Scatter 1 (VAHR 8125-0355). One historical reference was located within 200 metres of the activity area which included the Lake Moodemere Aboriginal Reserve. A review of the wider geographic region identified 62 Aboriginal places comprising 49 scarred trees, seven artefact scatters, two earth features, two burials, one historic place and one object collection. The standard assessment could not relocate the three registered places within the activity area. It was determined that these places no longer exist due to natural earth processes. No new Aboriginal heritage places or areas of archaeological potential were located during the standard assessment (ground survey) and no need for further archaeological testing was recommended.

Vines (2007) prepared CHMP no.10126 for a proposed regulating weir at Hiskins Bend near Moodemere. The activity area for this CHMP is located approximately 1.7 kilometres north-west of the current study area. The Desktop Assessment did not identify any registered Aboriginal places within the study area, however a number of places, including scarred trees and the historic place the Lake Moodemere Aboriginal Reserve was located within two kilometres of the study area. The field survey was undertaken with a focus on the proposed regulator structure on the channel connecting Forrest Swamp and the Murray River. No Aboriginal cultural heritage place or areas of potential were identified and the assessment determined that the proposed activity would not impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage. The lack of Aboriginal places located during the assessment was attributed to the floodplain landform. Because of the preponderance of swamps, and flood prone areas on the Murray River floodplain, the higher archaeological site densities are generally associated with elevated sandy soil adjacent to waterways where these areas have not been disturbed by farming practices (Vines 2007:21).

Vines and Berelov (2017) completed CHMP no.14337 for the Wahgunyah to Lake Moodemere walking trails. The five kilometres of walking trails assessed in this CHMP are located approximately two kilometres north- west of the study area, located within entirely within the Murray River alluvial floodplain. No previously recorded Aboriginal places were located within the CHMP activity area; scarred trees being the predominant site type within a five kilometre search of the activity area due to preservation within a floodplain landform. The Desktop Assessment determined that other site types such as artefact scatters, isolated artefact sites, hearths and burials would be unlikely due to the area being regularly subject to inundation of floodwaters. Four new Aboriginal places were recorded as a result of the field survey comprising one Low Density Artefact Distribution and three scarred trees. Wahgunyah Flats LDAD (VAHR 8125-0426) comprised 11 quartz fragments on an elevated area exposed on an eroded four wheel drive track. The recorded scarred trees included two previously unrecorded and one previously recorded, registered as Wahgunyah broken scar tree (VAHR 0428), Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 21 (VAHR 0408) and Wahgunyah small scar tree (VAHR 0429). Archaeological testing was considered unnecessary as further surface and near-surface archaeological deposits if present, would not be impacted by the proposed works.

Summary Site types that have been recorded in the wider vicinity of the study area consist exclusively of scarred trees. The exclusivity of the sites in the region is a reflection of factors in site formation and preservation. For example the river floods produce large quantities of sediment that bury surface sites, and also cause regular scouring and erosion of banks and channels which destroy the artefact scatter sites. Scarred trees however, often survive these impacts, although some are washed out from banks, or the base of the trees can be buried in sediment.

Because of the flood prone areas on the Murray River floodplain, the higher archaeological site densities are generally associated with elevated sandy soil adjacent to waterways, where these areas have not been disturbed by farming practices and recreational activities.

Site visit of the study area

A site visit of the study area was conducted by Meaghan Aitchison, Heritage Advisor, Biosis on 5 February 2020. The purpose of the site visit was to further discuss the scope of activity with Bruce Braines, view the study area for any evidence of significant ground disturbance and locate any areas of archaeological potential. The purpose of the site visit was not to determine the presence of Aboriginal cultural heritage as this requires a survey notification to be submitted to Aboriginal Victoria and is outside the scope of the project.

The study area is located on a flood plain adjacent Lake Moodemere in a relatively disturbed context due to the use of the site for the Rutherglen rowing club rowing regattas and recreational use dating to the 1860s. Areas within the study area have been previously cleared for the construction of the existing rowing club shed and associated services. A cleared area for a carpark and access track is located adjacent the study area. Mature trees including Red Gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) were present within the study area. The existing rowing club shed comprises a corrugated iron building (circa 1940s-50s) with a brick toilet facility addition (circa 1960s-70s).

There is evidence of significant ground disturbance in the form of levelling of land, the erection of the existing shed and installation of services within the study area, namely from the use of the site for recreational boating activities. No areas of archaeological sensitivity were observed and the likelihood of Aboriginal cultural material surviving the land disturbance and natural floodplain processes within the study area is low.

Photographs 1-7 show the study area and the location of the proposed activities.

Photograph 1 Study area including existing rowing shed facing south-east (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Photograph 2 Study area including existing rowing shed facing north-west (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Photograph 3 Study area including existing rowing shed facing south-west (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Photograph 4 Study area including existing rowing shed facing west (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Photograph 5 Study area including existing rowing shed facing north- west (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Photograph 6 Study area including existing rowing shed facing west (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Photograph 7 Study area including existing rowing shed facing west (M.Aitchison 5/02/20)

Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation consultation

As the Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP) for the study area, Yorta Yorta Nation Aboriginal Corporation (YYNAC) was consulted as part of the preparation of this letter of heritage advice. Wade Morgan, NRM Manager and Tyrone Miller of YYNAC were informed of the proposed activity via phone and email on 28 January 2020 and invited to attend the site inspection. A copy of site location and activity plans were provided.

A meeting with Wade Morgan was conducted on 24 February 2020 to discuss the findings of this letter of advice and the statutory requirements of the project. Mr Morgan requested that YYNAC elders review the letter report. A copy of this letter of advice was sent to YYNAC for confirmation of any recommendations to be implemented prior to the works commencing. On 24 March 2020 YYNAC advised Biosis that they would like a representative from YYNAC to be in attendance on site during excavation works associated with the installation of the new septic tank and new water tank.

Conclusions

Is a mandatory cultural heritage management plan required?

Under Section 46 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, a mandatory cultural heritage management plan is required if the regulations require the preparation of the plan for the activity. Under Regulation 7 of the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018, a cultural heritage management plan is required for an activity if all or part of the activity area for the activity is an area of cultural heritage sensitivity AND all or part of the activity is a high impact activity.

A search of the VAHR has determined that the proposed activity will be located within an area of cultural heritage sensitivity associated with Lake Moodemere, being Regulation 26 Waterways, under the Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2018.

Recommendations

• While a mandatory CHMP is not proposed for the activity, the procedures for unexpected finds (Appendix B) must be adhered to, kept on site during all ground breaking works and all contractors informed of this procedure.

• Care must be taken to avoid registered places within the vicinity of the study area – namely Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 1 (VAHR 812-0359), Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 19 (VAHR 8125-0375) and Lake Moodemere Scarred Tree 17 (VAHR 8125-0374). This includes avoiding the area with movement of vehicles and machinery during works.

• If the scope of works, including the study area boundary changes as part of the project, further assessment may be required prior to works commencing.

• Prior to works YYNAC are to be contacted at least 10 working days in advance to organise a representative to be on site during excavation works associated with the installation of the new septic tank and new water tank.

References

ACHRIS. (2020). Office of Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Retrieved from Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Register and Inventory System: https://applications.vic.gov.au/apps/achris/public/home.

Atkinson, W. and A. Berryman (1983). Aboriginal Association with the Murray Valley Study Area. Report to the Land.

Bell, J. and Grinter, B. (2012) Lake Moodemere Master Plan Western Foreshore Development, North East Victoria Cultural Heritage Management Plan No. 11947. Prepared for Parks Victoria.

Bonhomme, T., 1990, An Archaeological Survey of the Barmah Forest, Occasional report o. 34, Victoria Archaeological Survey.

Felton, P. 1981, Victoria: land reserved for the benefit of Aborigines 1835-1971. In Peterson, N. (ed.) Aboriginal Land Rights: A Handbook.

Hanrahan J. 1984, Sites of National Estate Significance in Victoria, unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra.

1914 'Lake Moodemere Recreation Reserve', Rutherglen Sun and Chiltern Valley Advertiser, 13 November, p.5. http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article121009486

Land Conservation Council, 1983, Aboriginal Association with the Murray Valley Study Area, Report on the Murray Valley Area, Wayne Atkinson and Annette Berryman, Land Conservation Council, Melbourne.

Spreadborough, R. and Anderson, H. 1983, Victorian Squatters, Red Rooster Press, Ascot Vale.

Vines, G. and Berelov, I. (2017) Wahgunyah to Lake Moodemere walking trails: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No.14337. Prepared for Indigo Shire Council.

Vines, G. (2007) Hiskins Bend, Victoria: Cultural Heritage Management Plan No.10126. Prepared for North East Catchment Management Authority.

Wesson, S. 2000, An Historical Atlas of the Aborigines of Eastern Victoria and Far South-eastern New South Wales.

Appendix A Activity Plans

Appendix B Procedure for Unexpected Finds

15 Possible Aboriginal object or human remains identified

STOP WORK

All activity in the vicinity must cease. The object/remains must be left in place, and protected from harm or damage.

Contact heritage advisor to assess find.

If Aboriginal object found, notify Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC). If suspected human skeletal remains, contact Victoria Police and the State Coroner's Office immediately.

Human Remains Aboriginal Objects

STOP ALL ACTIVITY Is an Impact likely to occur?

Notify State Coroner’s Office and Victoria

Police No - Recommence work with caution If Aboriginal Ancestral Remains, the person or responsible for activity report their existence to Yes - Seek further Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council in accordance advice from heritage with section 17 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006. advisor and DPC

Recommence work upon written authorisation from Secretary DPC

Planning and Approvals – Hume Region 1 McKoy Street WODONGA VICTORIA 3680 0436 639 580 [email protected]

Our Ref: SP471294 Contact: Simon Hollis Date: 27/07/2020

Mr Bruce Braines Project Manager Indigo Shire Council

Dear Bruce,

RE: REQUEST FOR PUBLIC LAND MANAGER CONSENT PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 36.03-3 OF THE INDIGO PLANNING SCHEME

PROPOSAL: PROPOSED REPLACEMENT ROWING SHED & CLUBHOUSE, LAKE MOODEMERE LAKE RESERVE (LAKE MOODEMERE ROWING CLUB)

I refer to your request for Public Land Manager Consent to apply for a planning permit to enable the construction of a proposed replacement rowing shed and clubhouse at Lake Moodemere Lake Reserve. It is understood that the planning permit application is to be made on behalf of the Lake Moodemere Rowing Club and will seek to replace the existing rowing shed within the Lake Moodemere Lake Reserve with a new rowing shed and clubhouse. This reserve is managed by Parks Victoria.

The revised version of the proposal represents an improvement on initial proposal as it will now avoid detrimental impacts on the large trees along the lake margin. These trees and their Tree Protection Zones (TPZ’s) will however need to be protected during the construction period to ensure there are no detrimental impacts.

The Department of Environment Land Water and Planning (DELWP) and Parks Victoria is prepared to provide Public Land Manager Consent pursuant to Clause 36.03-3 of the Indigo Planning Scheme for this proposal, however DELWP requires the planning application to be referred so that appropriate conditions can be placed on the permit. Public Land Manager Consent is provided subject to the following comments and conditions:

Comments General A very clear plan will need to be provided with the planning application showing: • The total extent of works and their impact, including new shed, removal of old shed, all services, trenching etc; • Native vegetation to be retained on or close to work site; • Native vegetation to be removed for proposed works; • All protection and mitigation measures to be implemented on site during works/construction stages, including native vegetation protection, protection of water- body, erosion and sediment control.

• An assessment of native vegetation to be removed in accordance with Clause 52.17 and Guidelines will be required and an offset strategy and evidence that a compliant offset is available will also need to be provided.

Primary Approval Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 Parks Victoria must provide an approval under the Parks Victoria Act 2018 to authorise the proposal within the Parks Victoria estate, before the proposed activity can commence. This approval will be in the form of 17B Crown Land (Reserves) Act license.

This authority will be issued via Justin Fiddes, Regional Coordinator Land Use and Statutory Planning, Northern Region to the proponent following confirmation that all necessary conditions and relevant approvals have been obtained (as indicated below). For further information contact Justin Fiddes on Ph 8427 2455 or via email

Secondary Approvals Native Title Act 1993 Parks Victoria must ensure compliance with the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) (NTA) when considering the use of Crown land. If the proposal is valid under the NTA, Parks Victoria must notify the native title claimants via First Nations Legal and Research Services and seek their advice. In this instance the proposed activity is located within an area where Native Title has been extinguished, consequently there are no procedural requirements under the NTA.

Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 The proponent must meet all obligations under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006, including the possible requirement for an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP). In this instance there will need to be confirmation of the specific location of all proposed earthworks, including the new building, septic tank so that Parks Victoria can assess whether or not the proponent will require a mandatory CHMP, approved by the relevant Registered Aboriginal Party (RAP), or by Aboriginal Victoria (AV).

To confirm this requirement the proponent may also need to gain written advice from Aboriginal Victoria (AV), by forwarding AV a completed Preliminary Aboriginal Heritage Test (PAHT) form. The PAHT should facilitate a definitive response from AV within 21 days as required under the Act. Parks Victoria recommends engaging a recognised Heritage Consultant to assist with development of a PAHT, and a CHMP if required. Note, that any additional associated works outside the PV estate, will also need to be included in the PAHT.

Copies of the completed PAHT sent to AV and/or AV’s advice, must be provided to Parks Victoria, Regional Aboriginal Heritage Co-ordinator (RAHC), Marlon Parsons, before the proposed activity can commence.

If applicable, prior to developing a CHMP, the proponent must submit a notice of intent to the relevant RAP, AV, Parks Victoria and the relevant Municipal Council, as specified under the Act. If the relevant RAP declines to evaluate the CHMP, or fails to respond to the notice within 14 days, the proponent must immediately notify AV.

Also, if applicable, copies of the notice of intent, and all draft CHMPs submitted to the relevant RAP or AV, and the final approved CHMP, must be emailed to the Parks Victoria, Regional Aboriginal Heritage Co-ordinator (RAHC), Marlon Parsons, before the proposed activity commences. In particular, Parks Victoria must have an opportunity to comment on all draft CHMPs before the document is approved by the relevant RAP or AV. For further information contact the Regional Aboriginal Heritage Co-ordinator via email [email protected] or tel. 03 8427 2432.

Regardless, if the proponent doesn’t have an approved Contingency Plan, as part of an approved CHMP which includes the Parks Victoria managed land, there is a requirement to cease all works immediately if any suspected Aboriginal heritage is uncovered within the Parks Victoria estate. When this occurs, the proponent must leave the heritage in place, protect it from harm or damage and immediately contact Parks Victoria (Andrew McDougall) via 03 8427 3335 for further advice.

Pre-Commencement Conditions for Land Owner Consent/Public Land Manager Consent

Siting and Design Guidelines 1. The exterior colours of the new building and associated shipping container and water tank are subject to approval from the Parks Victoria, Area Chief Ranger, and must match the surrounding natural environment within the Lake Moodemere Lake Reserve.

Notification of Conditions 2. Before the proposed activity commences, the proponent must ensure that all persons undertaking the proposed activity on site are advised of all relevant conditions.

Site Meeting & Contractor Induction 3. The proponent or nominated Site Manager, must participate in an on-site contractor induction with the Parks Victoria Ranger Team Leader Kris Hermans (Wangaratta), before the proposed activity commences.

The Ranger Team Leader must be contacted on mobile 0459 174 530 at least seven days before the proposed meeting date.

Safe Method Work Statement 4. The proponent must provide a copy of a Safe Method Work Statement (aka Job Safety Analysis) to the Parks Victoria Ranger Team Leader, before the proposed activity commences. As a minimum requirement all works areas are to be taped off within high visibility plastic webbing, whilst works are in progress.

Zone Marking 5. All designated zones (Work Zones/ Parking & Storage Zones/Work Exclusion Zones) must be correctly and clearly marked to the satisfaction of the Parks Victoria Ranger Team Leader as requested at the on-site meeting, before the proposed activity commences.

Temporary Buildings 6. Similarly, installation and use of on-site offices, ablution blocks, toilets or accommodation will require prior approval from the Parks Victoria Ranger Team Leader, and may be subject to Municipal Council regulations

Weed and Pathogen Management 7. To reduce the spread of weeds and pathogens, all earthmoving equipment must be free of soil and seed by pressure washing and then sprayed with Phytoclean before entering Parks Victoria managed land.

Environmental Management Plan

8. The proponent must provide a draft Environmental Management Plan for approval by Parks Victoria, via DELWP, RPA, before the proposed activity can commence. This Plan must include proposed management actions to manage and minimise potential environmental impacts from sewerage and stormwater.

Landscape & Rehabilitation Plan 9. The proponent must also provide a draft Landscape and Rehabilitation Plan for approval by Parks Victoria, via DELWP before the proposed activity can commence.

This Plan must include provision for parking and stabilisation around the proposed building site, to cater for both club members and the general public.

Asset Maintenance Plan 10. The proponent will own and be responsible for ongoing maintenance, and subsequent replacement or decommission of all proposed new fixed assets. The proponent must provide a draft Asset Maintenance Plan for approval by Parks Victoria, via DELWP before the proposed activity can commence.

Operational Conditions for Land Owner Consent/Public Land Manager Consent

Vehicle and Other Machinery Access 1. Vehicle and other machinery access must be via existing Parks Victoria roads, unless otherwise approved by the Parks Victoria, Ranger Team Leader.

2. The site is not to be accessed with vehicles or other machinery during or after periods of heavy rainfall or flooding to avoid significant track and site damage, and works cannot recommence until agreed by the Ranger Team Leader.

3. Any damage to existing tracks, other PV assets or off-track caused by the proponent, must be repaired as soon as possible at the proponent’s expense, and to the satisfaction of Ranger Team Leader.

4. No refuelling or maintenance of vehicles or machinery is to be undertaken on Parks Victoria managed land. Spill kits must be on hand at all times.

5. The proposed activity must not occur on days of Total Fire Ban or Code Red to avoid significant bushfire risks.

Avoiding Disturbance to Native Vegetation 6. No native vegetation removal, destruction or lopping is permitted by the proponent, unless pre-approved by Parks Victoria, with advice from DELWP, Natural Environment Programs.

7. There is to be no stockpiling of material or storage of machinery/equipment on vegetated sections of Crown land, except within Work, Parking or Storage Zones pre-approved by Parks Victoria, with advice from DELWP, Natural Environment Programs.

Avoiding Disturbance to Native Fauna 8. To reduce impacts on ground fauna, all excavated trenches are to be backfilled as soon as possible. No trenches are to be left open overnight.

Weed and Pathogen Management 9. To reduce the spread of weeds and pathogens, all earthmoving equipment must be free of soil and seed by pressure washing, and then sprayed with Phytoclean before leaving Parks Victoria managed land, at a site approved by the Ranger Team Leader.

10. Materials imported to the site for infill or bedding must be classified as clean fill according to EPA Industrial Waste Guidelines. Any unused fill brought onto the site must be removed at the completion of the works.

Rehabilitation 11. The site must be rehabilitated to the satisfaction of the Parks Victoria, Ranger Team Leader, within seven days of completing the proposed activity. Where possible, rehabilitation must be progressively implemented whilst the proposed activity is being undertaken.

12. Whilst trenching, either topsoil or track gravel (100mm deep) is to be stockpiled separately from sub soil, so that topsoil/track gravel can be reinstated on top of sub soil after backfilling. Fill is to be compacted in layers to reduce the risk of erosion.

13. All surplus infrastructure and materials must be all removed from Parks Victoria managed land, and the site left in a clean and tidy condition by the proponent, as part of the rehabilitation process. . If you have any questions or further correspondence regarding this matter, please quote our reference number which is listed at the top of this letter. Simon Hollis can be contacted at the Wodonga office of the Department on (02) 437900 or email [email protected] .

Yours sincerely

Kathy Richardson Program Manager – Planning and Approvals DELWP - Hume Region