Preliminary Documentation for the Ravenhall Industrial Precinct (EPBC 2015/7486)

Prepared for

Department of the Environment (DoE) on behalf of Melrose Land Sales

April 2016

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd Ref.: 7514

MELBOURNE: 292 Mt Alexander Road, Ascot Vale VIC 3056 GEELONG: 230 Latrobe Terrace, Geelong West Vic 3218 BRISBANE: Level 22, 127 Creek Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 ADELAIDE: 22 Greenhill Road, Wayville SA 5034 CANBERRA: PO Box 6067, O’Connor ACT 2602 SYDNEY: Level 5, 616 Harris Street, Ultimo, NSW, 2007 www.ehpartners.com.au | (03) 9377 0100

Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION ...... 4 2.1 Response ...... 4 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE ...... 5 3.1 General Description ...... 5 3.2 Additional Information ...... 5 3.3 Response ...... 6 3.3.1 Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana ...... 6 3.3.2 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ecological community 8 3.3.3 Small Golden Moths orchid (Diuris basaltica) ...... 9 3.3.4 Spiny Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens) ...... 10 3.3.5 Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) ...... 11 4 RELEVANT IMPACTS ...... 12 4.1 Assessment of Potential Impacts ...... 12 4.2 Additional Information ...... 12 4.3 Justification of Impacts ...... 12 4.4 Response ...... 12 4.4.1 Golden Sun Moth ...... 13 4.4.2 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ...... 13 4.4.3 Small Golden Moths orchid ...... 15 4.4.4 Spiny Rice-flower ...... 15 4.4.5 Striped Legless Lizard ...... 16 5 ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES ...... 17 5.1 Response ...... 17 6 PROPOSED AVOIDANCE, MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 18 6.1 Specific measures proposed to avoid, mitigate and manage impacts ...... 18 6.1.1 Response ...... 18 6.2 Conservation Management Plan (CMP)...... 18 6.2.1 Response ...... 18 6.3 Procedures for Striped Legless Lizard ...... 18 6.3.1 Response ...... 18 6.4 Salvage and translocation measures for Striped Legless Lizard ...... 19 6.4.1 Response ...... 19 6.5 Fire buffer ...... 19

6.5.1 Response ...... 19 6.6 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) ...... 19 6.6.1 Response ...... 19 7 PROPOSED OFFSETS ...... 20 7.1 Offset Management Strategy ...... 20 7.2 Additional Information ...... 20 7.3 Response ...... 21 8 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ...... 28 8.1 Response ...... 28 9 ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD 0F PERSONS PROPOSING TO TAKE THE ACTION ...... 30 9.1 Response ...... 30 10 OTHER APPROVALS AND CONDITIONS ...... 30 10.1 Response ...... 30 REFERENCES ...... 31 FIGURES ...... 33

Document Tracking

Response versions Comments Date submitted Response 1 - 16/03/2016 Additional information regarding calculation outcomes from EPBC Act Response 2 08/04/2016 offset calculator (Section 7) Response 3 Additional information regarding off-site offset sites (Section 7) 14/04/2016 Response 4 Additional information regarding response provided by Reeds (Section 2.1) 29/04/2016

1 Introduction Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd were commissioned by Melrose Land Sales to prepare a response to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DoE) request for Preliminary Documentation for the Ravenhall Industrial Precinct (the study area) (EPBC 2015/7486). It has been determined that the proposed action to develop an industrial development at Ravenhall, Victoria will have a significant impact on ‘Listed threatened species and communities (section 18 & section 18A)’ which is protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act. It has also been determined that the proposed action will be assessed by preliminary documentation.

The following information is additional to that outlined in the EPBC Act referral, as requested by DoE. It must be noted that the entire information request has been included (below), with responses provided in sections titled ‘Response’.

2 Description of the Action The preliminary documentation must provide a detailed description of the proposed action. The description must include a summary of all components of the action (e.g. warehouses, roads, storage spaces and other industrial facilities proposed), a description of the activities associated with the potential nine stages of the subdivision of the three land parcels, and plans or maps to delineate the position of the subdivision. Information should outline the proposed construction activities associated with the development.

2.1 Response

Response provided by Reeds Consulting: The proposed action is in accordance with Planning Permit PA2013/4050/1 which allows for the multi-lot staged subdivision, removal of native vegetation, subdivision of land adjoining a Road Zone – Category 1, creation of reserves and removal of easements. The actions as allowed under Planning Permit PA2013/4050 will be undertaken by the proponent, however any future building works (i.e. warehouses, offices, car park works, etc.) on the lots created will be by the future owners of the allotments and subject to the approval of the City of Melton.

The Proposed Subdivision Plan (Ver P) clearly defines the stages of the industrial land subdivision, which is proposed to commence in the north of the site (stage 1). Road works external to the site are required to be undertaken prior to the issuance of a Statement of Compliance for stage 1, in accordance with Condition 29 on Planning Permit PA2013/4050. The mandatory works include the upgrade of Palm Springs Road and the intersection of Western Highway/Caroline Springs Boulevard/Christies Road. The commencement of these works should not trigger the need to source offsets for the removal of native vegetation as the works lie outside of the subject site. In order for these works to be undertaken, however, construction site sheds would need to be established on the subject site itself, which is standard practice. It is proposed to allow an area in stage 6 to be set aside for the establishment of site sheds accessed via a temporary track that traverses through stages 2 and 3. The allocated area and access track have been positioned to avoid impact on mapped vegetation on the property and will be appropriately fenced to avoid impacts.

As this is an industrial land subdivision, the development of the estate is dependent upon market demands for this use. In order to distribute the cost burden of the native vegetation off-site offsets across the life of the project, it is suggested that the staging of the subdivision be connected to the provision of offsets, i.e. offsets to be obtained for stages 1-3, stages 4-6 ad finally stages 7-9.

3 Description of the Environment and Matters of National Environmental Significance

3.1 General Description The preliminary documentation must provide a general description of the environment of the development site, as well as the surrounding areas that may be impacted by the action both in the short and long term. This section must specifically address the following matters: a) A description of the MNES, which may be affected by the proposal. This section must address, but need not be limited to, the following matters:

 Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana) - critically endangered  Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ecological community - critically endangered

 Small Golden Moths Orchid (Diuris basaltica) - endangered  Spiny Rice-Flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens) - endangered

 Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) - vulnerable.

3.2 Additional Information This section must provide the following:

a) Information detailing known populations (and records) or habitat for the relevant species within five kilometres of the proposed action area; b) Information about the resources used to identify and assess the environmental values of the site (i.e. was consultation or advice sought from fauna experts in regard to the potential presence of threatened species); and c) An assessment of the adequacy of any surveys undertaken (including survey effort and timing), in particular the extent to which these surveys were undertaken in accordance with the Department's Significant Impact Guidelines. In particular, please provide the following:  Consistency with Department's Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Spiny Rice-flower (significant impact guidelines) and the total number of Spiny Rice-Flower plants present at the proposed action area;  Further information on the suitability of surveys undertaken for Small golden moths orchid with reference to the Department's Draft Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Orchids, 2013;

 Clarity on the suitability of timing of surveys for the Golden Sun Moth flying season/conditions; and

 Quantification of the extent of non-native habitat for the Golden Sun Moth at the proposed action site.

3.3 Response

3.3.1 Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana

Known populations or habitat

There are multiple records of Golden Sun Moth from the local area (VBA 2010; AVW 2009), predominantly west and south-east of the study area. However, the most recent records of the species were identified in January 2011 during surveys along Christies Road (C. Gates Foale pers. obs. 8 February 2011; Figure 4). This species is more likely to occupy habitats within the study area that support a high percentage of wallaby grass Rytidosperma spp. and needle grass Nassella spp., namely areas that are mapped as patches of native grassland (Figure 2).

Despite these areas being targeted for Golden Sun Moth surveys, the species was not detected within the study area during targeted surveys undertaken in 2009 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010a) and 2012/13 (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2014). As such, based on the results of the targeted survey (which were undertaken during optimal survey conditions when the species was known to be flying in the local area) there is a low likelihood that a resident population of the species occurs within the study area.

Resources used to assess the environmental values of the site

Site assessments and targeted surveys were conducted by experienced ecologists. In addition to site assessments, the following literature, online resources and databases was reviewed:

 The Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) (formerly DEPI) Biodiversity Interactive Map (DEPI 2014a);  The VBA (DSE 2011), Flora Information System (FIS) (Viridans 2011a) and Atlas of Victorian Wildlife (AVW) (Viridans 2011b) for previously documented flora and fauna records within the project locality;  The Federal Department of the Environment (DoE) (former Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) (SEWPaC 2011);  The Victorian Department of Transport, Planning and Linear Infrastructure (former Department of Planning and Community Development) Planning Maps Online to ascertain current zoning and environmental overlays (DPCD 2011);  Previous ecological assessments within the study area, including:

o Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2011. Flora and Fauna Assessment, and Preliminary Net Gain Analysis for the proposed Ravenhall Railway Station Precinct, Ravenhall, Victoria.

o Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2006. Flora and fauna assessment and Net Gain advice for a revised gas pipeline alignment, Christies Road, Ravenhall, Victoria. o Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010a Ecological Review for the proposed Caroline Springs Railway Station, Victoria.

o Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010b Targeted Flora and Fauna Surveys for the Proposed Caroline Springs Railway Station, Caroline Springs, Victoria. o Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011. Melton Line Upgrade Project: Flora and Fauna Assessment, and Net Gain Analysis, Melton to Sunshine, Victoria. o Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2005. Flora and Fauna Review Study and Net Gain Assessment for the Proposed Deer Park Bypass. o Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2006. Deer Park Bypass Alignment Option 2: Spring Flora Assessment. o Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2010. Laverton Creek Development Services Scheme (North Section), Christies Road – Western Highway, Ravenhall: Environmental assessment. o Practical Ecology Pty Ltd 2010. Vegetation Assessment for Lots 1, 2 and 6 Western Highway, Ravenhall, Victoria.

Assessment of the adequacy of surveys undertaken Targeted Golden Sun Moth surveys were conducted by ecologists experienced in the identification of Golden Sun Moth and in targeted surveys for the species. The surveys were undertaken over four separate days (7, 18 and 31 December 2012 and 7 January 2013), between 10am and 3pm on calm, warm sunny days (over 20°C), during the species’ core flight period, in accordance with the Golden Sun Moth Significant Impact Guidelines (DEWHA 2009a). Golden Sun Moth was known to be flying at reference sites in the vicinity of the study area at the time of the targeted surveys across the study area.

3.3.2 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP) ecological community

Known populations or habitat

One nationally listed ecological community was recorded within the study area (NTGVVP), listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act (Table 1). This community was located in areas identified as Plains Grassland and Degraded (Modified) Treeless Vegetation throughout the study area (Figure 2).

Table 1. Condition Thresholds for Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain

Trigger Criteria NTGVVP Patches (Figure 2) The grassland is either Plains Grassland (EVC 132) or EVC Criteria Met Creekline Tussock Grassland (EVC 654)

Grassland is in the Victorian Volcanic Plain or near to the Bioregion Victorian Volcanic Plain (Central Victorian Uplands, Criteria Met Dundas Tablelands and Otway Plain Bioregions)

If grassland remnant is ≤1 hectare, grassland patch needs to be at least 0.05 hectare in size with no more Criteria Met than 5% canopy cover of trees or shrubs. Size of Patch If grassland remnant is >1 hectare, grassland patch needs to be at least 0.5 hectare in size with no more Criteria Met than 2 trees per hectare. The grassland is associated with Quaternary basalt soils Criteria Met within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion. Key Diagnostic At least one of the following grass genera is the Features Criteria met, high cover of Kangaroo Grass, dominant native species in the ground layer: Kangaroo Spear Grasses and Wallaby Grasses. Grass, Wallaby-grass., Spear-grass, or Tussock-grass. The native grasses Kangaroo-grass, Wallaby-grass, Spear- grass, or Tussock-grass. account for 50% or more of the Criteria met. High cover of Austrodanthonia, perennial tussock cover of the grassland patch. Austrostipa and Themeda. OR Condition Native wildflowers account for 50% or more of the total Thresholds vegetation from September to February. Criteria not met, Very low cover of native wildflowers. OR Non-grassy weeds account for less than 30% of the total Criteria met in PG 2, 7, 11, 14, 17, 20. Other vegetation cover at any time of the year. areas may not meet this criterion.

Trigger Criteria NTGVVP Patches (Figure 2) The conservation value of a patch of the Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain ecological community is enhanced if it shows any of the following features: Site is of high conservation value, • a high native plant species richness; large patch sizes natural exposed rock platforms (most areas Additional • large patch size; of NTGVVP have this component) Characteristics • minimal weed invasion; Multiple threatened species • presence of threatened plant and/or animal species; Presence of soil crusts (most areas of • presence of natural exposed rock platforms and NTGVVP have this component) outcrops; or • presence of mosses, lichens or a soil crust on the soil surface.

Resources used to assess the environmental values of the site

As per Section 3.3.1.

Assessment of the adequacy of surveys undertaken

Vegetation assessments were conducted by ecologists experienced in the identification of NTGVVP and the associated condition thresholds (Table 1).

3.3.3 Small Golden Moths orchid (Diuris basaltica)

Known populations or habitat

The VBA identifies 20 records of Small Golden Moths orchid from the local area, the most recent in 2009. These records are located entirely within the Clarke Road grassland, located approximately two kilometres north-west of the study area, on the corner of Clarke Road and Neale Road West, Caroline Springs.

Resources used to assess the environmental values of the site As per Section 3.3.1.

Assessment of the adequacy of surveys undertaken

Targeted surveys for Small Golden Moths orchid were undertaken prior to the release of the Department's Draft Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Orchids, 2013. However, survey effort is regardless comparable to that specified in the Guidelines. Targeted surveys were undertaken in spring during the known flowering time for Small Golden Moths orchid (Table 2). In each case at least two qualified botanists familiar with the species walked transects in 5 metre grid intervals, over the entire site, including degraded areas, increasing the likelihood of detection.

Table 2. Targeted surveys for Small Golden Moths orchid Survey period Survey dates Assessors 8/10/2012, 9/10/2012, 11/10/2012 and Anna O’Brien, Bryan Roberts, James Garden, Marc Spring 12/10/2012 Freestone, Sandra Mijatovic and Shannon LeBel

3.3.4 Spiny Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens)

Known populations or habitat

Ninety-nine individual Spiny Rice-flowers were found within the study area during the 2012 targeted surveys. The majority of these occur in the south-western portion of the study area. The plants were frequently found clustered in groups throughout areas of relatively high quality Plains Grassland vegetation.

Spiny Rice-flower has previously been recorded within the study area and adjacent land on numerous occasions. Records include:

 17 Spiny Rice-flower plants were observed at two locations which adjoin the study area; approximately 200 metres to the south of the Western Highway (eight plants) and approximately 60 metres to the north of the Melbourne – Ballarat Rail line (eight plants) (Ecology Partners 2006) (Figure 3);

 116 individuals recorded in the south-east section of the study area and adjacent land (Ecology Partners 2010b) (Figure 3);

 Significant populations recorded within the property immediately west of the study area (Biosis Research 2010);  Recorded within the alignment of the now constructed Deer Park Bypass (Biosis Research 2005; 2006); and,

 One plant recorded within the Marist Brothers property (Biosis Research 2010).

Resources used to assess the environmental values of the site

As per Section 3.3.1.

Assessment of the adequacy of surveys undertaken Targeted surveys were undertaken during late winter (during the species’ flowering period), spring and early summer, 2012 (Table 3). In each case two qualified botanists familiar with the species walked transects in 5 metre grid intervals, over the entire site, including degraded areas. This method is consistent with the Commonwealth Significant impact guidelines for the critically endangered spiny rice‑flower (DEWHA 2009b). Species locations were recorded using a handheld GPS (accuracy ± 5 metres).

Table 3. Targeted surveys for Spiny Rice-flower Survey period Survey dates Assessors Winter 2/7/2012, 23/7/2012, 30/7/12 and 6/8/2012 Bryan Roberts and James Garden 8/10/2012, 9/10/2012, 11/10/2012 and Anna O’Brien, Bryan Roberts, James Garden, Marc Spring 12/10/2012 Freestone, Sandra Mijatovic and Shannon Lebel Anna O’Brien, James Garden, Marc Freestone and Summer 3/12/2012, 5/12/2012, 6/12/2012 and 7/12/2012 Matt Hatton

3.3.5 Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar)

Known populations or habitat

There are a large number of documented records of Striped Legless Lizard from the study area and immediately surrounds (Figure 4), including:

 Three live Striped Legless Lizards and one slough (lizard skin) were located under two tile grids laid within the south-east portion of the study area (Ecology Partners 2010b), and are likely to reside within others sections of the study area (Figure 3);

 Two records of Striped Legless Lizards in the east of the study area (Biosis Research 2010); and,

 Known occurrence of the species within the alignment of the now constructed Deer Park Bypass (Biosis Research 2005; 2006).

There are several areas of suitable habitat for Striped Legless Lizard, namely within grassland patches in the southern half of the study area which are contiguous with the surrounding area and rail reserve. Due to the contiguous nature of the grassland habitat present and the detection of the species during two separate studies, the study area is considered known habitat for Striped Legless Lizard and presence is assumed. Areas of moderate to high quality habitat have been identified (Figure 6), however there remains the potential that Striped Legless Lizard can utilise the entire site.

Resources used to assess the environmental values of the site

As per Section 3.3.1.

Assessment of the adequacy of surveys undertaken

A large number of surveys for Striped Legless Lizard have been undertaken within and surrounding the study area during previous assessments (described above). Given the extent of existing information, Striped Legless Lizard was assumed to be present within the study area and targeted surveys for the species were not repeated.

4 Relevant Impacts

4.1 Assessment of Potential Impacts The preliminary documentation must include an assessment of potential impacts (including direct, indirect, consequential and cumulative impacts) that may occur as a result of all elements and project phases of the proposed action on the protected species addressed at Section 2. Consideration of impacts must not be confined to the immediate areas surrounding the proposed action but must also consider the potential of the proposed action to impact on adjacent areas that are likely to contain MNES.

4.2 Additional Information For each protected species and the ecological community addressed in Section 2 this must include, but not be limited to, an assessment of:

a) The direct loss and/or disturbance of habitat from the proposed action. This must include the quantum and quality of habitat in hectares (and as number of individuals, if available and applicable) likely to be impacted;

b) Details on whether any impacts are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible; c) Analysis of the acceptability of the relevant impacts;

d) Any technical data and other information used or needed to make a detailed assessment of the relevant impacts; and e) A local and regional scale analysis of the likely impacts. This should include a discussion of potential cumulative impacts within the broader regional and information on the long term viability of relevant species and ecological communities.

4.3 Justification of Impacts

All discussions and conclusions drawn regarding the assessment of direct or indirect impacts from the proposed action should include a full justification based on the best available information including scientific literature, existing databases and mapping; and must be referenced. The discussion of impacts must incorporate relevant conservation advices, recovery plans and threat abatement plans, if applicable. If these are not applicable, a brief statement to this effect must be included.

4.4 Response

Impacts associated with the proposed development are summarised in Table 4. Actions to avoid impacts to ecological values on-site have been taken with areas of highest quality vegetation and fauna habitat proposed to be retained within a proposed conservation reserve. Further details relating to each species are provided below.

Table 4. Ecological values to be impacted and retained

Ecological Value Total Recorded Impacted Retained % Retained Golden Sun Moth N/A N/A N/A N/A NTGVVP 31.38 ha 18.015 ha 13.365 ha 42.59% Small Golden Moths orchid N/A N/A N/A N/A Spiny Rice-flower 99 plants 13 plants 86 plants 86.87% Striped Legless Lizard 69.209 ha 40.228 ha 28.981 ha 41.87%

Note: 87 Spiny Rice-flower individuals were proposed to be retained, however one individual falls within a fire buffer between the conservation reserve and the residential estate. It is therefore considered to be lost due to fire buffer management requirements. Grassland (NTGVVP) within the fire buffer was considered to be retained.

4.4.1 Golden Sun Moth

Direct loss

Targeted surveys have been completed across the study area over two of the species’ flight season, in 2009/10 (Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010a) and 2012/13 (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2014) with no Golden Sun Moths recorded. The study area is therefore determined not to support habitat for the species and Golden Sun Moth habitat will not be impacted as part of the proposed development.

Unknown, unpredictable or irreversible impacts

Impacts are unlikely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible.

Acceptability of the relevant impacts No impact proposed.

Technical data and other information

N/A.

Local and regional scale analysis of the impacts

N/A.

4.4.2 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP)

Direct loss

A total of 18.015 hectares of NTGVVP is proposed to be removed as part of the proposed development. NTGVVP within the study area ranges from low to high quality:  High quality habitat zones (PG 2, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17 and 20) contained a high cover of indigenous grass species, along with a diversity of additional indigenous flora species (Figure 2). These areas generally contain moderate levels of embedded rock, soil crusts and bryophytes, indicating soil disturbance has been limited since European settlement.

 Medium quality habitat zones contained a moderate cover of indigenous grass species, with only scattered occurrences of indigenous herb species. These areas of lower quality, for the most part, have had embedded rock removed with negligible soil crusts present (if any). Although weed cover is high in these areas, they still have values in their cover of native species, especially grasses.

 Low quality habitat zones were dominated (>50% cover) by common grass species with very few if any other native flora species, and have been subject to previous disturbance. Due to the high cover of native perennial grasses from the Rytidosperma genus, these areas meet the minimum thresholds to qualify as NTGVVP. However, they are not considered to be native vegetation under Victorian legislation and are referred to as Degraded Treeless Vegetation (DTV) in Figure 2.

Unknown, unpredictable or irreversible impacts

Impacts are not expected to be unknown or unpredictable, however loss of habitat within the study area would be considered irreversible.

Acceptability of the relevant impacts

NTGVVP is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act, a category that is applied to threatened species and ecological communities showing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future (SEWPaC 2011). Less than five per cent of the original extent of the community remains, although patches in good condition are likely to constitute less than one per cent, and most known remnants are less than 10 hectares in size (SEWPaC 2011).

In light of this information it is preferable to retain NTGVVP wherever possible, particularly high quality remnants such as habitat zones PG 2, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, and 20. However, in this instance the acceptability of impacts may be considered on balance with the proposal to retain a large proportion of NTGVVP within an on-site conservation area. In particular, high quality NTGVVP habitat zones (PG 4, 7, 11, 17 and part of 20) are proposed to be retained and managed in perpetuity in an area that would not otherwise receive any form of conservation management. Given the patchy nature of native grassland across the study area (Figure 2) it is likely that, in the absence of conservation management, grassland and NTGVVP remnants will continue to degrade.

Technical data and other information

SEWPaC 2011. Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities of the Victorian Volcanic Plain: Natural Temperate Grassland & Grassy Eucalypt Woodland - A guide to the identification, assessment and management of nationally threatened ecological communities, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Local and regional scale analysis of the impacts As stated above, NTGVVP is listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act, with less than five per cent of the original extent of the community remaining (SEWPaC 2011). Ravenhall and surrounding areas form part of Melbourne’s outer western suburbs, an area that has seen substantial growth over the past 5 to 10 years due to its proximity to central Melbourne, flat topography, connectivity via the Western Highway and more recently via the Regional Rail Link. As such, very little of the original extent of the community remains and maximising grassland conservation is of utmost importance.

4.4.3 Small Golden Moths orchid

Direct loss

Surveys have been completed across the study area with no Small Golden Moth orchids recorded. The study area is therefore determined not to support habitat for the species and Small Golden Moth orchid habitat will not be impacted as part of the proposed development.

Unknown, unpredictable or irreversible impacts Impacts are unlikely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible.

Acceptability of the relevant impacts

No impact proposed.

Technical data and other information

N/A.

Local and regional scale analysis of the impacts N/A.

4.4.4 Spiny Rice-flower

Direct loss Thirteen Spiny Rice-flower plants are proposed to be removed as part of the proposed development. One individual falls within a fire buffer between the conservation reserve and the residential estate and is therefore considered to be lost due to fire buffer management requirements.

Unknown, unpredictable or irreversible impacts

Impacts are not expected to be unknown or unpredictable, however loss of habitat within the study area would be considered irreversible.

Acceptability of the relevant impacts The grassland habitats of Spiny Rice-flower have been extensively cleared or modified for agriculture, urban and industrial developments, with the majority of remaining grassland patches small or narrow, linear areas such as roadside and rail verges (DEWHA 2009c). The small size of many sites, and surrounding land uses, leave these grasslands and the Spiny Rice-flower further exposed to a range of impacts, such as habitat loss or degradation (DEWHA 2009c).

In light of this information it is preferable to retain Spiny Rice-flower plants wherever possible. However, in this instance the acceptability of impacts may be considered on balance with the proposal to retain 86 of the 99 of Spiny Rice-flower plants recorded in the study area within an on-site conservation area. These plants are proposed to be retained and managed in perpetuity in an area that would not otherwise receive any form of conservation management. In addition, the Spiny Rice-flower is poorly represented in conservation reserves, with the majority of sites on roadsides, rail corridors or private land (DEWHA 2009b). Given the patchy nature of Spiny Rice-flower habitat (i.e. remnant grasslands) across the study area (Figure 2) it is likely that, in the absence of conservation management, these areas will continue to degrade.

Technical data and other information

DEWHA 2009b. EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.11 – Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Spiny Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWHA 2009c. Background Paper to EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.11 – Nationally Threatened Species and Ecological Communities, Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Spiny Rice-flower (Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.

Local and regional scale analysis of the impacts

As stated above, Ravenhall and surrounding areas form part of Melbourne’s outer western suburbs, an area that has seen substantial growth over the past 5 to 10 years due to its proximity to central Melbourne, flat topography, connectivity via the Western Highway and more recently via the Regional Rail Link. As such, very little suitable habitat for Spiny Rice-flower remains and maximising species’ retention and conservation is of utmost importance.

4.4.5 Striped Legless Lizard

Direct loss

A total of 40.288 hectares of NTGVVP is proposed to be removed as part of the proposed development. High, Medium and Low quality habitat zones are as described in Section 3.4.2 (NTGVVP).

Unknown, unpredictable or irreversible impacts Impacts are not expected to be unknown or unpredictable, however loss of habitat within the study area would be considered irreversible.

Acceptability of the relevant impacts Striped Legless Lizard is listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The distribution of the species has declined, with many known sites no longer supporting populations (Smith and Robertson 1999). Striped Legless Lizard is a grassland specialist, being found only in areas of native grassland and nearby grassy woodland and exotic pasture. Natural temperate grassland is one of Australia's most threatened ecological communities. It is the loss and degradation of native grassland, through a variety of processes, which is primarily responsible for the decline of Striped Legless Lizard (Smith and Robertson 1999). In light of this information it is preferable to retain Striped Legless Lizard habitat wherever possible, particularly high quality habitat remnants (e.g. habitat zones PG 2, 4, 7, 11, 14, 17, and 20). However, in this instance the acceptability of impacts may be considered on balance with the proposal to retain 28.981 hectares of Striped Legless Lizard habitat within an on-site conservation area. Given the patchy nature of native grassland across the study area (Figure 2) it is likely that, in the absence of conservation management, grassland and Striped Legless Lizard habitat will continue to degrade.

Technical data and other information

Smith, W. J. S. and Robertson, P. 1999. National Recovery Plan for the Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) 1999-2003. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service & Wildlife Profiles Pty Ltd, June 1999.

Local and regional scale analysis of the impacts

As stated above, the loss and degradation of native grassland, through a variety of processes, is primarily responsible for the decline of Striped Legless Lizard. Ravenhall and surrounding areas form part of Melbourne’s outer western suburbs, an area that has seen substantial growth over the past 5 to 10 years due to its proximity to central Melbourne, flat topography, connectivity via the Western Highway and more recently via the Regional Rail Link. As such, very little of the original extent of Striped Legless Lizard habitat remains and maximising grassland conservation is of utmost importance.

5 Environmental Outcomes If the proponents wish to pursue outcomes-based conditions in the event that the action is approved with conditions, the preliminary documentation must provide information on the outcomes that the proponents will achieve for MNES.

5.1 Response

Part 4 (Environmental Outcomes) is unlikely to provide improved environmental outcomes in the context of this project. As such Part 4 will not be addressed as part of the response to the Preliminary Documentation.

6 Proposed Avoidance, Management and Mitigation Measures

6.1 Specific measures proposed to avoid, mitigate and manage impacts The preliminary documentation must provide information on specific measures proposed to avoid, mitigate and manage impacts to the protected species and ecological community at Section 2 from the proposed action. A description of proposed avoidance, management and mitigation measures should be presented in the form of management plans. The discussion must incorporate conservation advices, recovery plans and threat abatement plans, where relevant.

6.1.1 Response Actions to avoid impacts to ecological values on-site have been taken with areas of highest quality vegetation and fauna habitat proposed to be retained within a proposed conservation reserve. In addition to maximising the ecological values to be protected within the property, the location of the conservation area provides strategic connectivity between designated conservation areas to the immediate south (Ravenhall North Grassland, BCS Conservation Area 6) and west (Deer Park Quarry Grassland, BCS Conservation Area 6) that have been identified as part of the Melbourne Strategic Assessment and the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, as well as an existing conservation reserve to the immediate east. As such, the proposed conservation reserve should not be viewed in isolation within the landscape.

6.2 Conservation Management Plan (CMP) Provide a detailed Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for MNES likely to be impacted by the proposed action including the environmental objectives, performance criteria, monitoring, reporting, corrective action, responsibility and timing for each environmental issue.

6.2.1 Response A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) has been completed for the proposed on-site conservation area (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2016a). The CMP details protection mechanisms and management strategies for the on-site conservation area that will improve the site and avert the future loss, degradation or damage of MNES habitat.

6.3 Procedures for Striped Legless Lizard Provide details concerning the protocols to be adhered to by a suitably qualified ecologist to ensure Striped Legless Lizard are not harmed during construction: these details can be provided in a plan, such as a Conservation Management Plan, which clearly sets out the processes and procedures to be followed, and responsibilities of the suitably qualified ecologist.

6.3.1 Response The Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) was contacted to determine the current protocol for properties where Striped Legless Lizard is likely to be impacted. Alan Webster (Port Phillip Region, DELWP) advised via email on 31/12/2015 that an interim moratorium applies to Striped Legless Lizard salvage efforts, although specific cases may be subject to the Translocation Evaluation Panel process under certain circumstances, for example:

 if search/salvage is required to deposit specimens with Museum Victoria for scientific purposes;  it abuts an existing conservation reserve and it may be appropriate to relocate nearby; or,

 the works are of an interim/temporary disturbance nature and Striped Legless Lizards are relocated outside the impact footprint. Alan Webster further advised that this general advice has previously been provided to DoE (Trish Randell).

In this instance, the area proposed to be impacted abuts the proposed conservation reserve for Ravenhall Industrial Precinct. As such, there is potential that a salvage and translocation protocol would be considered appropriate for the project, pending approval by the Victorian Translocation Evaluation Panel. Any actions relating to Striped Legless Lizard salvage and/or translocation would be in accordance with an approval by DELWP and in agreement with DoE.

6.4 Salvage and translocation measures for Striped Legless Lizard

Provide details on the proposed salvage and translocation measures for Striped Legless Lizard.

6.4.1 Response As above. A salvage and translocation plan will be completed if it is deemed necessary pending liaison with DoE and DELWP.

6.5 Fire buffer Provide further details on the fire buffer at which the referral states NTGVVP is considered to be retained. Further information is required on the management of this fire buffer and the likelihood of potential impacts on NTGVVP at this location.

6.5.1 Response Based on Victorian government requirements, a fire buffer will be maintained at one location between the conservation reserve and the residential estate. The grass within the fire buffer will be slashed to approximately 100mm on a quarterly basis (or as required) to reduce the risk that any wildfires that may occur in the grassland conservation area impact the adjacent residential area.

Grassland vegetation, including that found within the NTGVVP community, responds well to regular slashing or burning. Such management does not remove the plant and allows the community to maintain an open structure which encourages recruitment of native grassland species. On this basis the NTGVVP grassland community is considered to be retained within the fire buffer area.

6.6 Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP)

Provide a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) outlining measures to ensure ecological values are protected during construction activities.

6.6.1 Response A CEMP has been completed by Ecology and Heritage Partners in accordance with requirements specified above (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2016b).

7 Proposed Offsets

7.1 Offset Management Strategy The preliminary documentation must include an assessment of the likelihood of residual impacts occurring, after mitigation and management measures relating to the project have been applied. If residual significant impacts to protected matters are likely, please provide: a) details of an offset package (this may be in the form of an offset management plan) proposed to be implemented to compensate for the residual significant impacts of the project; such as how, when and where the offsets will be delivered and managed; b) details of how the offset(s) will compensate for the significant residual impacts upon MNES, resulting from the action;

c) a description of how the offset(s) will ensure the protection; conservation and management of MNES, for the duration of the impact;

d) a description of how the offset(s) are consistent with relevant Commonwealth policies and guidance documents on offsets under the EPBC Act. These documents can be found at the following link: www.environment. gov.au/epbc/publications/environmental-offsets-policy.html ; and

e) the anticipated cost (financial and other) of delivery the offset(s);

7.2 Additional Information The offset proposal should include, but not be limited to;

a) Location, description and suitability of proposed offset site, including baseline conditions, environmental values and connectivity with other relevant habitat; b) Extent to which the proposed offset actions correlate to, and adequately compensate for, the impacts on MNES and habitat critical to the survival of MNES;

c) Conservation gain to be achieved by the offset, i.e positive management strategies that improve the site or avert the future loss, degradation or damage of MNES habitat;

d) Current land tenure of any proposed offset and the method of legally securing the offset for at least the duration of the impact; e) Measures to protect, and/or manage and rehabilitate habitat at the offset site, including timing, frequency and longevity for each measure and performance criteria that must be met;

f) Monitoring and reporting activities to assess the success of the offset; and g) An assessment of the proposed offset, using the Department's Offsets Assessment Guide, and clear justification for each input entered.

The offset package can comprise a combination of direct offsets and other compensatory measures, so long as it meets the requirements of the EPBC Act Environmental Offset Policy. Offsets should align with conservation priorities and be tailored specifically to the attribute of the protected matter.

Offsets should compensate for an impact for the full duration of the impact.

Offsets must directly contribute to the ongoing viability of MNES and deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of habitat, as compared to what is likely to have occurred under the status quo, i.e., if neither the action nor the offset had taken place.

Note that offsets do not make an unacceptable impact acceptable and do not reduce the likely impacts of a proposed action. Instead, offsets compensate for any residual significant impact.

Offsets required by the State can be applied if the offsets meet the Department's EPBC Act Environmental Offset Policy.

7.3 Response

a) Location, description and suitability of proposed offset site, including baseline conditions, environmental values and connectivity with other relevant habitat;

Offset Management Strategy

An on-site offset site is proposed to be established, protecting 13.37 hectares of NTGVVP, 28.98 hectares of Striped Legless Lizard habitat and 86 Spiny Rice-flower plants. A Conservation Management Plan (CMP) has been completed for the proposed on-site offset site (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2016a).

An additional 32 hectares of NTGVVP and 10 hectares of Striped Legless Lizard habitat is proposed to be protected within an off-site offset site. Based on project timing and the staged rollout of the industrial development it is considered unfeasible to identify a final off-site offset site at this early stage. As such, four potential sites that, either alone or in combination, are likely to meet federal offset requirements for NTGVVP and Striped Legless Lizard. These sites and their ecological values are summarised in Table 5. Of these sites the primary site proposed is identified in Table 5 as Ombersley, Victoria (Birregurra). Details relating specifically to Birregurra are provided below and are based on Ecology and Heritage Partners’ existing knowledge of the site. Federal offset requirements have been estimated using parameters identified at Birregurra to complete the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (SEWPaC 2012a) and Offsets Assessment Guide (SEWPaC 2012b).

Ecology and Heritage Partners will complete the final assessment of any proposed offset site and preparation of an Offset Management Plan (OMP) once an in-principal agreement with DoE has been reached regarding the offset type and quantity that would be considered acceptable.

Table 5. Details of potential offset sites for NTGVVP and Striped Legless Lizard. Location NTGVVP (ha) Striped Legless Lizard Details Site assessed by Ecology and Heritage Partners in 2012. Ombersley, The site contains NTGVVP (also qualifying as Plains Victoria Up to 30 ha Confirmed population. Grassland, property likely to support Plains Grassy (Birregurra) Wetland), and Striped Legless Lizard was recorded during targeted surveys undertaken by Trust for Nature and DSE between 2004 and 2010. Information provided by Trust for Nature. Site not Shelford, Victoria Up to 100 ha Confirmed population. assessed by Ecology and Heritage Partners. The site contains NTGVVP. One Striped Legless Lizard

Location NTGVVP (ha) Striped Legless Lizard Details individual was captured (by hand) in November 2013 by a Trust for Nature assessor. Targeted surveys would be required to determine the extent of habitat. Information provided by Trust for Nature. Site not assessed by Ecology and Heritage Partners. Bacchus Marsh, Suitable habitat present. Up to 20 ha The site contains NTGVVP, as well as a large number of Victoria Targeted survey required. Spiny Rice-flower. Suitable habitat is present for Striped Legless Lizard; however targeted surveys will be required to determine the species’ presence. Information provided by Trust for Nature. Site not assessed by Ecology and Heritage Partners. Suitable habitat present. Altona, Victoria Up to 30 ha The site contains NTGVVP, as well as a large number of Targeted survey required. Spiny Rice-flower. Suitable habitat is present for Striped Legless Lizard; however targeted surveys will be required to determine the species’ presence.

Ombersley, Victoria (Birregurra)

The primary proposed offset site (part of a larger property known as ‘Birregurra’) is located at Lot 1, 435 McDonnells Road, Ombersley, Victoria. Birregurra comprises approximately 35 hectares of NTGVVP, of which 32 hectares is proposed as an offset site. Birregurra primarily supports remnant grassland with stony knolls. The majority of the remnant vegetation is in good condition and represented by a relatively diverse range of indigenous species, although the property has been regularly grazed by cattle and sheep for many years (Claire Dennis, landowner, pers. comm.).

The proposed offset site is characterised by a dense sward of native grasses (Kangaroo Grass Themeda triandra, with Common Tussock-grass Poa labillardierei, Common Wallaby Grass Rytidosperma caespitosa and spear grasses Austrostipa spp.) with relatively low weed cover (<5%). Herbaceous species include Sheep’s Burr Acaena echinata, Lemon Beauty-heads Calocephalus citreola and Blue Devil Eryngium ovinum. The site contains cracking soils, with a moderate to high level of embedded and loose surface rock throughout. Remnant grassland within the property are contiguous with native grassland in the surrounding area, thus providing key habitat for several grassland specialists that depend upon larger consolidated areas of high quality habitat. Three State-significant flora species have been recorded within the site: Slender Bindweed Convolvulus angustissimus subsp. omnigracilis, Brackish Plains Buttercup Ranunculus diminutus (Ecology and Heritage Partners unpub. data) and Small Milkwort Comesperma polygaloides (Brett Lane and Associates Pty Ltd 2010), all listed on Victoria’s advisory list of Rare or threatened Plants (DSE 2005).

Birregurra also provides habitat for several national, State and regionally significant fauna species:

 Striped Legless Lizard was recorded under two tile grids during targeted surveys undertaken at Birregurra by Trust for Nature and DSE between 2004 and 2010 (Claire Dennis pers. comm.).

 Golden Sun Moth (listed as Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act) has been recorded across the property on several occasions, including 2009, 2010 and 2015 (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd unpub. data).

 Brolga Grus rubicunda (listed under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988) is regularly recorded at Birregurra (Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd unpub. data), with up to two pairs of Brolga appearing on an annual basis (Claire Dennis pers. comm.).

 Fat-tailed Dunnart Sminthopsis crassicaudata (listed as Near Threatened under the DEPI Advisory List) was recorded during targeted surveys undertaken by Trust for Nature and DSE between 2004 and 2010 (Claire Dennis pers. comm.).

b) Extent to which the proposed offset actions correlate to, and adequately compensate for, the impacts on MNES and habitat critical to the survival of MNES;

Federal offset requirements have been estimated following the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (SEWPaC 2012a) and the Offsets Assessment Guide (SEWPaC 2012b). Offset requirements are summarised below (Table 6).

c) Conservation gain to be achieved by the offset, i.e. positive management strategies that improve the site or avert the future loss, degradation or damage of MNES habitat; A Conservation Management Plan has been developed to maintain or improve values within the on-site offset site, and an Offset Management Plan will be developed, detailing measures to improve habitats within the off-site offset site. Federal offset requirements have been estimated following the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (SEWPaC 2012a) and the Offsets Assessment Guide (SEWPaC 2012b). Offset requirements are summarised in Table 6. d) Current land tenure of any proposed offset and the method of legally securing the offset for at least the duration of the impact;

Any identified offset site would be protected in perpetuity under either a Section 173 under the Planning and Environment Act 1987 or a Section 69 under the Conservation, Forests and Land Act 1987.

e) Measures to protect, and/or manage and rehabilitate habitat at the offset site, including timing, frequency and longevity for each measure and performance criteria that must be met; Details of management actions for remnant vegetation and Striped Legless Lizard habitat will be established in an Offset Management Plan upon finalisation of the offset site. Management actions will include controlling access, fencing, permanent protection, biomass reduction strategies, pest plant and animal control, protection of significant values, and any supplementary revegetation works if required.

f) Monitoring and reporting activities to assess the success of the offset; and

A monitoring and reporting methodology and schedule will be established in an Offset Management Plan upon finalisation of the offset site.

g) An assessment of the proposed offset, using the Department's Offsets Assessment Guide, and clear justification for each input entered. The proposed Ravenhall Industrial Precinct will include the removal of areas supporting the EPBC Act-listed NTGVVP, Striped Legless Lizard and Spiny Rice-flower. Federal offset requirements have been estimated following the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy (SEWPaC 2012a) and the Offsets Assessment Guide

(SEWPaC 2012b), with values present at Birregurra used as inputs for the off-site offset site (Table 6). Federal offsets for Spiny Rice-flower are likely to be entirely achieved within the on-site offset site, while 32 hectares of NTGVVP and 10 hectares of habitat for Striped Legless Lizard would remain to be sourced.

Table 6. Federal offset requirements, based on EPBC Act Offset Calculator (Based on Offsets Assessment Guide output [SEWPaC 2012b])

Ecological Value Spiny Rice-flower Striped Legless Lizard NTGVVP Total Losses (no./ha) 13 plants 40.23 ha 18.02 ha Total protected 86 plants 28.98 ha 13.37 ha On-site offset site % of impact offset* 255% 84.92% 36.48% Total protected n/a 10 ha 32 ha Off-site offset site % of impact offset* n/a 16.17% 64.07% Total % of impact offset 255% 101.09% 100.55%

EPBC Act Offset Calculator

Offset targets were determined in accordance with the EPBC Act Offsets Policy (October 2012). The EPBC Act Offsets calculator (Excel spreadsheet) was used to determine appropriate offset targets to compensate for the loss of Matters of NES. The assumptions used to populate the calculator are presented below. It is important to note that a detailed assessment of a potential off-site offset site has not yet been undertaken, and the figures used for the off-site offset site are estimates based on broad habitat present at Birregurra during previous site visits.

Table 7. EPBC Act Offset Calculator (NTGVVP)

On-site offset site Off-site offset site

Offset location = On-site. Offset location = Ombersley, Victoria *.

Habitat to be removed = 18.02 hectares. Habitat to be removed = 18.02 hectares.

Habitat quality = 4/10. NTGVVP to be removed varies in quality Habitat quality = 4/10. NTGVVP to be removed varies in quality from Low to High and is described in Section 3.4.2. The majority from Low to High and is described in Section 3.4.2. The majority of the area of impact supports introduced vegetation and high of the area of impact supports introduced vegetation and high weeds cover that does not qualify as a remnant patch. weeds cover that does not qualify as a remnant patch.

Risk-related time horizon = 20 years. The land will be managed Risk-related time horizon = 20 years. The land will be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for NTGVVP. in perpetuity for conservation purposes for NTGVVP.

Time until ecological benefit = 5 years. Native vegetation is Time until ecological benefit = 5 years. Native vegetation is expected to improve in extent, species diversity and density expected to improve in extent, species diversity and density within 10 years through applied weed and biomass control within 10 years through applied weed and biomass control regimes. regimes.

Start area and quality = 13.37 hectares and 6/10. The offset site Start area and quality = 32 hectares and 7/10. The offset site supports NTGVVP of moderate quality. supports NTGVVP of moderate quality.

Risk of loss without offset = 80%. Without protection as an Risk of loss without offset = 50%. Without protection as an offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the land. Most likely the property would continue to be managed land. Most likely the property would continue to be managed under the current regime, however a reduction in quality over under the current regime, however there remains potential that

On-site offset site Off-site offset site time is likely, predominantly due to weed encroachment and the property will be cropped or grazing intensity will be lack of land management. increased, as is the case with surrounding properties.

Future quality without offset = 4/10. Without protection as an offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the Future quality without offset = 4/10. Without protection as an land. A reduction in quality over time is likely, predominantly offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the due to weed encroachment and lack of land management. land. A reduction in quality over time is likely, predominantly due to weed encroachment and lack of land management. Risk of loss with offset = 5%. The land will be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for Striped Legless Lizard. Risk of loss with offset = 5%. The land will be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for Striped Legless Lizard. Future quality with offset = 8/10. The offset site is to be secured and managed for conservation purposes in perpetuity, with Future quality with offset = 8/10. The offset site is to be secured implementation of a vegetation management plan and managed for conservation purposes in perpetuity, with incorporating weed control and regular monitoring, aiming to implementation of a vegetation management plan maintain and enhance native biodiversity. incorporating weed control and regular monitoring, aiming to maintain and enhance native biodiversity. Confidence in result = 60%. Confidence in applied scores has been lowered as information is based on site assessments Confidence in result = 90%. Confidence in applied scores is completed in 2012 and other existing information. Rigorous relatively high due to careful consideration of the offset site, field surveys will be completed as a condition of approval (if existing habitats and landscape context. granted) and in discussion with DoE..

* Detailed assessment has not yet been undertaken and the figures used for the off-site offset site are estimates based on broad habitat present at Ombersley, Victoria.

Table 8. EPBC Act Offset Calculator (Striped Legless Lizard)

On-site offset site Off-site offset site

Offset location = On-site. Offset location = Ombersley, Victoria *.

Habitat to be removed = 40.23 hectares. Habitat to be removed = 40.23 hectares.

Habitat quality = 5/10. The majority of Striped Legless Lizard Habitat quality = 5/10. The majority of Striped Legless Lizard habitat to be removed comprises grassland areas that do not habitat to be removed comprises grassland areas that do not qualify as a remnant patch due to a native species cover of less qualify as a remnant patch due to a native species cover of less than 25%, and with a high cover of weed species. Remnant than 25%, and with a high cover of weed species. Remnant patches proposed to be removed vary in quality from Low to patches proposed to be removed vary in quality from Low to High and are described in Section 3.4.2. High and are described in Section 3.4.2.

Time over which loss is averted = 20 years. The land will be Time over which loss is averted = 20 years. The land will be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for Striped managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for Striped Legless Lizard. Legless Lizard.

Time until ecological benefit = 10 years. Native vegetation is Time until ecological benefit = 10 years. Native vegetation is expected to improve in extent, species diversity and density expected to improve in extent, species diversity and density within 10 years through applied weed and biomass control within 10 years through applied weed and biomass control regimes. regimes.

Start area and quality = 28.98 hectares and 6/10. The offset site Start area and quality = 10 hectares and 6/10. The offset site supports native grassland habitat of moderate quality and supports native grassland habitat of moderate quality and Striped Legless Lizard has been recorded at this location. Striped Legless Lizard has been recorded at this location.

On-site offset site Off-site offset site Risk of loss without offset = 80%. Without protection as an Risk of loss without offset = 50%. Without protection as an offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the land. Most likely the property would continue to be managed land. Most likely the property would continue to be managed under the current regime, however a reduction in quality over under the current regime, however there remains potential that time is likely, predominantly due to weed encroachment and the property will be cropped or grazing intensity will be lack of land management. increased, as is the case with surrounding properties.

Future quality without offset = 4/10. Without protection as an Future quality without offset = 4/10. Without protection as an offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the land. A reduction in quality over time is likely, predominantly land. A reduction in quality over time is likely, predominantly due to weed encroachment and lack of land management. due to weed encroachment and lack of land management.

Risk of loss with offset = 5%. The land will be managed in Risk of loss with offset = 5%. The land will be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for Striped Legless Lizard. perpetuity for conservation purposes for Striped Legless Lizard.

Future quality with offset = 8/10. The offset site is to be secured Future quality with offset = 8/10. The offset site is to be secured and managed for conservation purposes in perpetuity, with and managed for conservation purposes in perpetuity, with implementation of a vegetation management plan implementation of a vegetation management plan incorporating weed control and regular monitoring, aiming to incorporating weed control and regular monitoring, aiming to maintain and enhance native biodiversity. maintain and enhance native biodiversity.

Confidence in result = 90%. Confidence in applied scores is Confidence in result = 60%. Confidence in applied scores scores relatively high due to careful consideration of the offset site, has been lowered as information is based on site assessments completed in 2012 and other existing information. Rigorous existing habitats and landscape context. field surveys will be completed as a condition of approval (if granted) and in discussion with DoE..

* Detailed assessment has not yet been undertaken and the figures used for the off-site offset site are estimates based on broad habitat present at Ombersley, Victoria.

Table 9. EPBC Act Offset Calculator (Spiny Rice-flower)

On-site offset site Off-site offset site

Offset location = On-site.

Number of individuals to be lost = 13 plants.

Proposed offset = 86 plants.

Time horizon = 10 years. The land will be managed in perpetuity for conservation purposes for Spiny Rice-flower. Native vegetation is expected to improve in extent, species diversity and density within 10 years through applied weed and biomass N/A. Offsets are proposed to be achieved entirely within the on- control regimes. site offset site.

Start value = 86 plants.

Future value without offset = 40 plants. Without protection as an offset site there is uncertainty regarding the future use of the land. A reduction in quality over time is likely, predominantly due to weed encroachment and lack of land management.

On-site offset site Off-site offset site Future value with offset = 120 plants. The offset site is to be secured and managed for conservation purposes in perpetuity, with implementation of a vegetation management plan incorporating weed control and regular monitoring, aiming to maintain and enhance native biodiversity.

Confidence in result = 80%. Confidence in applied scores is relatively high due to careful consideration of the offset site, existing habitats and landscape context.

Salvage and Translocation

Spiny Rice-flower: All Spiny Rice-flower plants proposed to be impacted will be translocated to the on-site conservation reserve. Spiny Rice-flower salvage and translocation will be undertaken in accordance with the Spiny Rice-flower Translocation Protocol (Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team 2013) and in liaison with the Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team. It is understood that the translocation protocol is currently under review, with a draft version released for comment in late 2015. As such any salvage and translocation will be in accordance with the most recent document endorsed by the Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team.

The monitoring of translocated Spiny Rice-flower plants will be in accordance with the Spiny Rice-flower monitoring protocol (Reynolds 2014a, 2014b). It is understood that the monitoring protocol is currently under review. As such any monitoring will be in accordance with the most recent document endorsed by the Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team.

Striped Legless Lizard: As discussed above (Section 5.3), the area proposed to be impacted abuts the proposed conservation reserve for Ravenhall Industrial Precinct. As such, there is potential that a salvage and translocation protocol would be considered appropriate for the project, pending approval by the Victorian Translocation Evaluation Panel. Any actions relating to Striped Legless Lizard salvage and/or translocation would be in accordance with an approval by DELWP and in agreement with DoE.

Conclusion

Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd believe that the above package satisfies the eight principles set out in the EPBC Act Offsets Policy (SEWPaC 2012a) because the proposed Offset Management Strategy:

1. Delivers an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the aspect of the environment that is protected by national environment law and affected by the proposed action; 2. Is built around direct offsets;

3. Is in proportion to the level of statutory protection that applies to the protected matter;

4. Is of a size and scale proportionate to the residual impacts on the protected matter; 5. Effectively accounts for and manages the risks of the offset not succeeding;

6. Is additional to what is already required, determined by law or planning regulations or agreed to under other schemes or programs; 7. Is efficient, effective, timely, transparent, scientifically robust and reasonable; and,

8. Has transparent governance arrangements including being able to be readily measured, monitored, audited and enforced.

8 Social and Economic The economic and social impacts of the action, both positive and negative, must be analysed and provided. Matters of interest may include: a) details of any public consultation activities undertaken, and their outcomes;

b) details of any consultation with Indigenous stakeholders;

c) projected economic costs and benefits of the project, including the basis for their estimation through cost/benefit analysis or similar studies, and

d) employment opportunities expected to be generated by the project (including construction and operational phases). Economic and social impacts should be considered at the local, regional and national levels.

8.1 Response

Response provided by Reeds Consulting: a) The planning permit application for the subdivision of the land underwent a detailed assessment by Melton City Council which included an assessment against the social, environmental and economic impacts of the proposal prior to the planning permit being issued on 2nd March 2015. As the land is zoned for industrial purposes, the Council determined the proposed industrial subdivision was an appropriate outcome for the site given the potential to create ongoing employment opportunities for the surrounding communities, including Caroline Springs, Burnside, Albanvale, Cairnlea, Derrimut, Ardeer and Deer Park. While the planning permit application was not publicly advertised, the Council’s appointed officers determined that it was an appropriate use for the site, in conjunction with consultations with all relevant stakeholders, including detailed assessments on the environmental concerns by DEPI (now DELWP) which found them to be acceptable. The social and economic impacts were assessed by Council at the local and regional level, as per standard planning requirements in Victoria. b) A Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) was prepared in support of the planning permit application associated with the subdivision of the land. The Wurundjeri Tribe Land and Compensation Cultural Heritage Council (WTLCCHC) were consulted throughout the entire CHMP process including fieldwork components and reviewing of the final report prior to it being approved on 6th February 2013. The report concluded that the cultural heritage material found on site was of low significance and could be removed when the subdivision takes place, meaning that the social impact on the local Indigenous stakeholders was minimised.

c) A detailed costing to undertake the subdivision of the land has not yet been prepared given that the cost to develop changes over time and without approval of the Department of Environment, there is no certainty of a start date for construction. It is noted, however, that the benefits of this project in an economic and social sense are considered to be outstanding given that the future development

has the potential to revitalise this part of Ravenhall through the creation of numerous jobs and will secure 30 hectares of land for native vegetation conservation purposes which is to be maintained and improved over time. d) Based on approximately 255 industrial allotments ultimately being created with an average of four (4) employees per lot, the expected number of jobs to be generated by this project during the operational phase is approximately 1,020. In addition, several hundred jobs may be generated through the construction phase of this project, which will include civil, building and landscaping works. The social and economic impacts through the creation of employment opportunities are considered to be positive at the local, regional and national level.

9 Environmental Record 0f Persons Proposing to take the Action The information provided must include details of any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources against:

a) the person proposing to take the action, and b) for an action for which a person has applied for a permit, the person making the application.

If the person proposing to take the action is a corporation, details of the corporation's environmental policy and planning framework must also be included.

9.1 Response

Response provided by Reeds Consulting: There are no proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law against the three owners of the land, being Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd, Giovanni Nominees Pty Ltd and Trustees of the Marist Brothers.

10 Other Approvals and Conditions The preliminary documentation must include information on any other requirements for approval or conditions that apply, or that the proponents reasonably believe are likely to apply, to the proposed action. This must include:

a) a description of any approval that has been obtained or is required to be obtained from a State, Territory or Commonwealth agency or authority (other than an approval under the EPBC Act), including any conditions that apply (or are reasonably expected to apply) to the action, and

b) a description of the monitoring, enforcement and review procedures that apply, or are proposed to apply, to the action.

10.1 Response

Response provided by Reeds Consulting: The proponent is required to adhere to all conditions contained in Planning Permit PA2013/4050/1 which allows for the multi-lot staged subdivision, removal of native vegetation, subdivision of land adjoining a Road Zone – Category 1, creation of reserves and removal of easements. The planning permit was issued on 2nd March 2015 by the City of Melton. As part of satisfying the planning permit conditions, the proponent will be required to adhere to the requirements of all relevant stakeholders, including Melbourne Water, VicRoads, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, the gas authority (AusNet Services),City West Water, the telecommunications provider, the Country Fire Authority and the electrical authority. The requirements of each authority will only be known once formal applications are made to the respective authority, when the proponent commences work on the subdivision of the land. The subdivision of the land will only take place once consent from the Department of Environment is obtained.

References Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2005. Flora and Fauna Review Study and Net Gain Assessment for the Proposed Deer Park Bypass. Unpublished Report for VicRoads.

Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2006. Deer Park Bypass Alignment Option 2: Spring Flora Assessment. Unpublished report for VicRoads. Biosis Research Pty Ltd 2010. Laverton Creek Development Services Scheme (North Section), Christies Road – Western Highway, Ravenhall: Environmental assessment. Unpublished report for Melbourne Water.

DEWHA 2009a. EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.12 – Significant Impact Guidelines for the Critically Endangered Golden Sun Moth. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2013a. Targeted Flora and Fauna Surveys, Ravenhall Industrial Precinct, Ravenhall. Report prepared for Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd.

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2013b. Flora and Fauna Assessment, Net Gain Analysis and Targeted Surveys, Ravenhall Industrial Precinct, Ravenhall. Report prepared for Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd. Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2014. Biodiversity Assessment and Targeted Flora and Fauna Surveys, Ravenhall Industrial Precinct, Victoria. Prepared for Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd.

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2016a. Conservation Management Plan, Ravenhall Industrial Precinct, Ravenhall. Report prepared for Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd.

Ecology and Heritage Partners Pty Ltd 2016b. Construction Environment Management Plan, Ravenhall Industrial Precinct, Ravenhall. Report prepared for Melrose Land Sales Pty Ltd. Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2006. Flora and fauna assessment and Net Gain advice for a revised gas pipeline alignment, Christies Road, Ravenhall, Victoria. Unpublished report prepared for T Squared.

Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010 Targeted Flora and Fauna Surveys for the Proposed Caroline Springs Railway Station, Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report for Arup.

Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010a Ecological Review for the proposed Caroline Springs Railway Station, Victoria. Unpublished report for the Arup. Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2010b Targeted Flora and Fauna Surveys for the Proposed Caroline Springs Railway Station, Caroline Springs, Victoria. Unpublished report for Arup. Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011. Flora and Fauna Assessment and Preliminary Net Gain Analysis for the proposed Ravenhall Railway Station Precinct, Ravenhall. Report prepared for Melrose Land Sales Pty

Ltd.AVW 2009. Atlas of Victorian Wildlife. Viridans Biological Databases maintained by the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria.

Ecology Partners Pty Ltd 2011. Melton Line Upgrade Project: Flora and Fauna Assessment, and Net Gain Analysis, Melton to Sunshine, Victoria. Unpublished report for the Department of Transport. Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team 2013. Translocation Protocol, March 2013.

Practical Ecology Pty Ltd 2010. Vegetation Assessment for Lots 1, 2 and 6 Western Highway, Ravenhall, Victoria. Unpublished report for a private landholder. Reynolds, Debbie 2014a. Guidelines for monitoring Pimelea spinescens SOP No: 2.5_02.2014. Prepared for: Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team, Pimelea Conservation Trust.

Reynolds, Debbie 2014b. Long term monitoring of Pimelea spinescens subsp. spinescens in Victoria. Prepared for: Pimelea spinescens Recovery Team, Pimelea Conservation Trust.

SEWPaC 2011. Nationally Threatened Ecological Communities of the Victorian Volcanic Plain: Natural Temperate Grassland & Grassy Eucalypt Woodland A guide to the identification, assessment and management of nationally threatened ecological communities Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. SEWPaC 2012a. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy (October 2012). Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. SEWPaC 2012b. Offsets Assessment Guide: For use in determining offsets under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (2 October 2012). Microsoft Excel spreadsheet developed by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Smith, W. J. S. and Robertson, P. 1999. National Recovery Plan for the Striped Legless Lizard (Delma impar) 1999-2003. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service & Wildlife Profiles Pty Ltd, June 1999.

Figures

33 r Legend D d l e i f r Study Area e Sydenham Rd p Goldsmith Av p o KEILOR C Gourlay Rd Freeway Taylors Rd TAYLORS DELAHEY DOWNS HILL Major Road PLUMPTON Collector Road Taylors Rd Minor Road E d a

R s t s E Proposed Road g A Keilor s th p n e i ld l e Plains a K n Walking Track n BURNSIDE e a Gillespie Rd d Clarke Road D HEIGHTS e Streamside KINGS r Minor Watercourse Reserve PARK ek d ROCKBANK K Cre v Permanent Waterbody ororoit B s g in r Land Subject to Inundation CAROLINE p S SPRINGS e Main Rd West n Wetland/Swamp li o r a ST ALBANS C Conservation Area (Biodiversity Conservation ALBANVALE Strategy) Greigs Rd Oakwood Rd

BURNSIDE Parks and Reserves Cairnlea Station Rd Estate Nature Crown Land Westwood Dr Conservation Reserve

Neale Rd

!! ! ! ! Localities ! Tamar Dr Furlong Rd We ste Billingham Rd rn CAIRNLEA Hw y r

e Melton l

n r (S) i

a Ravenhall C ^_ Melbourne !( Ballarat Rd

DEER MOUNT Robinson PARK COTTRELL

Hopkins Rd RAVENHALL Western Fwy Deer Park Figure 1

TRUGANINA Tilburn Rd Location of the study area

ARDEER Ravenhall Foleys Rd

d Mount Derrimut Nature R 0 500 1,000 Conservation Reserve g n i Metres

R ¹

n Ravenhall r SUNSHINE e

Robinsons Rd k Nature WEST s

e Mt Derrimut Rd

e Conservation e r DERRIMUT C Reserve W

n o t e l e k

Fitzgerald Rd VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear no Derrimut Grassland Nature responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, TARNEIT Conservation Reserve defects or omissions in the information. 5440_Fig01_StudyArea 30/07/2014 melsley PG_DTV PG10 0.04ha 0.12ha Western Fwy

PG15 3.42ha PG10 0.12ha

PG_DTV 0.15ha PG22 1.38ha

PG10 PG10 0.51ha 0.23ha

PG14 PG22 0.62ha 1.75ha

PG_DTV PG_DTV 0.21ha 0.13ha PG12 PG10 PG13 0.25ha 0.89ha PGW1 !(!(0.85ha 0.57ha PG20 PG12 !( 1.3ha 0.57ha !( PG12 !( !(!( PG12 1.07ha !(!( 0.06ha PG12 0.13ha

!( !(!( !( !( PG19 PGW3 !(!( 0.38ha !( !( PG10 0.16ha !( 0.04ha PGW3 PG11 0.39ha PGW3 5.62ha PGW1 PG10 !( 0.11ha 0.6ha 0.01ha PGW3 PG22 !( !( !(!( 0.03ha !( !( !( 0.06ha !(!( PG11 !( !( 5.43ha !( !(!(!(!( !( PG10 !(!(!(!(!( !( 0.29ha !( PG10 !( 0.29ha !( PG18 PG18 !( 0.23ha 1.59ha PG10 0.11ha

PG21 8.4ha

PG22 0.95ha a

PG21 b PG18 0.48ha 3ha

# **# *#*# !( !( Figure 2a Study Area Remnant Vegetation 0 500 1,000 Significant flora Plains Grassland Ecological features in ¹ Metres Plains Grassland (Prev. DTV) the study area !( Spiny Rice-flower Plains Grassy Wetland Ravenhall *# Arching Flax-lily EPBC Act listed communities Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. 5440_Fig02_EcolFeat_MB 30/07/2014 melsley PG10 0.51ha Western Hwy

PG22 1.75ha PG_DTV 0.21ha Caroline Springs Bvd

PGW1 0.57ha

PG_DTV 0.05ha PGW3 0.16ha PGW3 0.04ha PGW3 0.39ha PG1 PG10 PG10 PG_DTV 0.32ha 0.04ha 0.6ha 0.08ha PGW3 Western Fwy PGW1 0.01ha 0.11ha

PG22 !( PG11 PGW3 0.06ha 5.43ha 0.03ha PG15 1.04ha!( PG18 1.59ha PGW3 *# 0.02ha PG2!( PG11 PG10 1.76ha 5.43ha 0.29ha PG_DTV 0.48ha PG10 0.11ha PG15 PG21 0.23ha 8.4ha

PG16 PG22 2.96ha 0.95ha

PG21 PGW2 0.48ha 0.09ha PG18 !( 3ha PG4 0.62ha PG3 *#*# PG21 0.81ha PG4 *#*# 8.4ha !( PG17 0.99ha 0.79ha !(!( !( !(!(!( PG9 !(!( PGW2 5ha 0.5ha PG8 0.11ha PG5 PG3!( 2.78ha !(!(!( 0.69ha PG8 !(!( !( 0.53ha !( PG7 PG6 !( 0.05ha 0.05ha PG7 !( 0ha !(

Figure 2b Study Area Remnant Vegetation 0 500 1,000 Significant fauna Plains Grassland Ecological features in ¹ Metres the study area !( Striped Legless Lizard Plains Grassland (Prev. DTV) Plains Grassy Wetland Ravenhall Significant flora !( Spiny Rice-flower *# Arching Flax-lily VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant the EPBC Act listed communities accuracy or completeness of information in this publication and any person using or relying upon such information does Natural Temperate Grassland of so on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear no the Victorian Volcanic Plain responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. 5440_Fig02_EcolFeat_MB 30/07/2014 melsley Legend

Existing Records (VBA 2014)

2009 FG 2009 !( FG FGFGFGFG 2005 2009 FG !( 2009 ^_ FG 2005 ") FG FG 2001 2009 ") ^_ ^_ ^_ G F FG FG Bi llin G gh F am

2009 Rd

Dr FG a * !( # 2009 !( ") 2009 in FG ") 2009 2005 2009 Existing Records (Ecology and !( ") 2005 Heritage Partners) 2005 !(FG 2009 2005 2005 !( FG ") 2009 W XW !( ") ") est ^_ ") 2009 ern 2005 2009 FG H XW 2005 ^_^_!( wy FG 2005 XW 2010 2005 ^_ ^_ XW XWXW 2010 2009 2009 FG FG 2010 2005 FG XW 2005 2011 XW W FG e 1996 s FG 2009 t 1988

FG e Ravenhall FG FG

FG r 1988 * 2009 # 2009 n Nature Figure 3 FG F Conservation 1988 ^_ FG 2009 w 2001 y Reserve Previously recorded FG ") 2009 2008 !( 2009 2009 XW significant flora within 1km 2005 FG XWXW 2007 FG 1988 FG 2005 XW 2009 2009 XW of the study area 1987 ^_ 1987 1984 2009 2008 ")") XWXW 2009 FG Ravenhall 2009 XWXW FG 2009 FG 1987 FG 2012 XWXWXW XWXW XW XWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXW 2005 XWXWXW XWXWXWXWXWXW 2012 2009 XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXWFG^_ 2009 XWXWXWXWXWXWXWXW XWXWXWXWXW XWXWXW 2009 ^_ 1987 ^_ XWXW XWXW XWXWXWXWXWXW XW ¹ XW 2009 2008 2009 FG 2007 2008 FG

* 2009 #

FG Cl FG arkes Drai n 5440_Fig03_SigFlorav2 30/07/2014 melsley Legend

Existing Records (VBA 2014)

* 1990 #

* # ") ")FG 1990 1990 1990 ") ^_ 1988 2006 2007 ^_

2008 ")")")

2004 ") 2007 FG

* ")*# 2004 #

2006 2007 ")

")") 2007

* 2007 ")") 2007 # 2007 Existing Records (Ecology and ") 2007 Heritage Partners) ") XW ") 2007 2007 ")") 2005 XW 2006 ")") 2006 ") ")")")") Existing Records (Biosis 2009) 2006 ") ")")") 2007 ") XW 2006 ")") ")") 2007 ")") ")") 2006 2007 B illin

2008 *# gha

m Rd Drain

1990 # * # W ") 1990 es 2009 ter n H wy

W XW e s t e r n F w y Figure 4 XW Previously recorded

significant fauna within 1km

# of the study area * 2009 # 2007

XW XW Ravenhall * 2009 # XW

Ravenhall Nature

Conservation ¹

Reserve

* 2007 #

* * #

2007 # 2007 *

XW #

2007 *

# * #

XW # 2007 * 2007 # XW Cl 2007 arkes Drai n 5440_Fig04_SigFaunav2 30/07/2014 melsley PG_DTV PG10 Western Fwy

PG15 PG10

PG_DTV

PG22

PG10 PG10

PG14 PG22

PG_DTV PG_DTV

PG12 PG10 PG13 !(!(E !(E PGW1 PG20 !(E PG12 !( E PG12 !( !(!( !( PG12 PG12

!( !(!(!( PG19 !(!( PGW3 !( !( !( PG10 PGW3 PG11 PGW1 PG10 !( PGW3 !( !( !(!( PGW3 !( !( !( PG22 !( PG11 !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( E !(!(!(!( !( PG10 !(!(!( !( !( !( !( PG18 PG18 PG10 PG10

PG21

PG22 a

b PG18

# PG21 **# *#*# !( !( Figure 5a Study Area Significant flora 0 500 1,000 Proposed reserves (29.72 ha) !( Spiny Rice-flower Proposed development ¹ Metres # Arching Flax-lily plan and impact on 6m fire buffer * ecological features Vegetation Impacts EPBC Act listed communities Individual plant losses Natural Temperate Grassland of Ravenhall E the Victorian Volcanic Plain Vegetation losses Remnant Vegetation VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant the Significant fauna accuracy or completeness of information in this publication Plains Grassland and any person using or relying upon such information does Striped Legless Lizard so on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear no !( Plains Grassland (Prev. DTV) responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. Plains Grassy Wetland 5440_Fig05_VegImpact_MB 30/07/2014 melsley PG10 Western Hwy

PG22

PG_DTV Caroline Springs Bvd

PGW1

PG_DTV

PG_DTV PGW3 PGW3

PGW3 PG10 PG1 PG10 Western Fwy PGW1 PGW3

PGW3 !(E PG11 PG22 PG15!( PG18 PGW3 PG10 *# PG_DTV PG2 E !(E PG11 PG15 PG10

PG21

PG16 PG22

PGW2 PG18 !(

PG4

*# PG3 *# *# PG21 !( PG4 *# PG21 PG17 !(!( !( !(!(!( !(!( PGW2 E

PG8 PG9 PG3!( PG5 !(!(!( !(!(!( !( PG8 !( PG7 PG6 !( PG7 !(

Figure 5b Study Area Significant flora 0 500 1,000 Proposed reserves (29.72 ha) !( Spiny Rice-flower Proposed development ¹ Metres # Arching Flax-lily plan and impact on 6m fire buffer * ecological features Vegetation Impacts EPBC Act listed communities Individual plant losses Natural Temperate Grassland of Ravenhall E the Victorian Volcanic Plain Vegetation losses Remnant Vegetation VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant the Significant fauna accuracy or completeness of information in this publication Plains Grassland and any person using or relying upon such information does Striped Legless Lizard so on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear no !( Plains Grassland (Prev. DTV) responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, defects or omissions in the information. Plains Grassy Wetland 5440_Fig05_VegImpact_MB 30/07/2014 melsley Legend Study Area Development plan Proposed reserve (29.72 ha) Striped Legless Lizard Records !( Biosis (2009)

v B Ecology and Heritage

g !(

i Partners (2009)

p S Suitable Striped Legless Lizard

i l Habitat (high to moderate quality)

C Area to be developed Retain within proposed reserves

Western Hwy

W e s te r n F w y

Melton (S) Ravenhall ^_ Melbourne !(

Figure 6 Areas of Striped Legless Lizard Habitat Ravenhall

!( 0 100 200

¹ Metres

!( !(

VicMap Data: The State of Victoria does not warrant the !( accuracy or completeness of information in this publication !( and any person using or relying upon such information does so on the basis that the State of Victoria shall bear no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any errors, faults, !( defects or omissions in the information. 5440_Fig06_SLL_Hab 30/07/2014 melsley