Paul Kelly & Associates Ecological Services

Transcription

1 Paul Kelly & Associates Ecological Services Time Stamping Review 3 February 2014 Prepared by PKA PO Box 7077, Gardenvale VIC

2 Issue Date Revision No Author Checked Approved 3 February 2014 R001 PCK PCK PKA The information contained in this document is intended solely for the use of the client identified on the report cover for the purpose for which it has been prepared and no representation is made or is to be implied as being made to any third party. Other than for the exclusive use of our client, no part of this report may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of PKA.

3 Contents 1 Introduction Study Site Land Use History 1 2 Background Data Sources Vegetation Quality Assessment method Drought and vegetation Historic Land Use 4 3 Discussion Data inadequacies and errors Vegetation Assessment method Time Stamping Process 8 4 Conclusion 8 5 References 10 Appendix 1 - Site Map Appendix 2 Land Use History Report Appendix 3 Habitat Zones

4 1 Introduction Paul Kelly and Associates (PKA) were commissioned by Trukeel Pty Ltd to review the Time Stamping assessment of vegetation on this site (CA A1 Sec 8 Tarneit Parish V 7275 F 803 and L1 TP A Tarneit Parish V 9795 F 892). The subject site (as described above) is approximately 240ha (600acres) and is generally bounded by Sayers Road in the north, Sewells Road in the west, Davis Road in the east and the Werribee River in the south (Appendix 1 Site Map). The subject site is located in the Wyndham Local Government area. The majority of the site is within the (Melbourne) Urban Growth Zone. As such it is included as part of the Melbourne Strategic Assessment (DPCD 2009) and is subject to the Habitat Compensation requirements (DEPI 2013a) of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (DEPI 2013b). The objectives of this assessment are to review the history of the time stamping assessment at the subject site, access that recorded ecological information and provide an assessment of its suitability to be used for its current purpose. 1.1 Study Site The subject site is agricultural land and is used for fodder production (Lucerne), horse agistment and grazing of livestock. It is unoccupied and generally flat with a gentle southerly aspect. It is fenced into several paddocks. It contains large scale irrigation infrastructure. The majority of the subject site is within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion (DSE 2012a). The southern portion of the site associated with the floodplain of the Werribee River is within the Otway Plain Bioregion and the 1 in 100 year flood zone (DSE 2012a) 1.2 Land Use History A comprehensive land use history of the site has been prepared by the current owner of the property (Appendix 2 Land Use History Report) (Trukeel 2013). In summary the site has been intensively farmed for at least 30 years including extensive cultivation for cropping, vegetable production and grazing by a range of livestock. 2 Background The DEPI time-stamping project captured and "time stamped" native vegetation information to establish a native vegetation dataset and maps showing the type, extent and condition of all native vegetation in Melbourne's growth corridors (DEPI 2014a). This information has been used with information on threatened species habitat from the conservation strategies to calculate habitat compensation obligations for urban development in the growth corridors (DEPI 2014a). The information is presented in mapped format on the DEPI Biodiversity Interactive Map (BIM) (DEPI 2014b). Page 1

5 The time stamped data was collected to provide a in-perpetuity benchmark assessment of vegetation quality at a single point in time within the Melbourne Urban Growth Zone. Once established this benchmark has been used to assess the impact of all future site development on vegetation quality and biodiversity conservation. 2.1 Data Sources The time stamped vegetation quality assessment data for the subject site was collected as part of the Growth Areas Authority biodiversity assessments that formed the basis of the Riverdale Precinct Structure Plan (RPSP) (GAA 2013a) and Riverdale Native Vegetation Precinct Plan (RNVPP) (GAA 2013b). The time stamping assessment is reported in the BIM (DEPI 2014b). An initial time stamped vegetation quality assessment of part of the site was carried out 20 January 2009 (GAA 2010). This assessment included Habitat Zone (HZ) 78, HZ 80, HZ 84, HZ 85 and HZ 86 (See Appendix 3 Habitat Zones). An additional assessment of the vegetation quality was reported in Biosis (2011) and was carried out on 24 December This assessment included the remaining part of the site as HZ 81, HZ 82 and HZ 83. Table 2-1 provides a summary of the vegetation quality scores for the habitat zones on the site collated from the two reports. The Time Stamping scores recorded on the BIM (DEPI 2014c) are the same as the Habitat (vegetation quality) Scores reported by Biosis (2011). In addition the Time Stamping scores recorded on the BIM (DEPI 2014c) for HZ 78, HZ 80, HZ 84, HZ 85 and HZ 86 are the same Habitat scores recorded in GAA (2010). The Time Stamping spreadsheet data received from DEPI (DEPI 2013c) is the same as the data of Biosis (2011) and GAA (2010) indicating that the data used for the Time Stamping Project had its likely origins on 20 January 2009 and 24 December This data was in a form that the author could not readily analyse and as such analysis was performed manually by transposing the data from the DEPI supplied spread sheets (DEPI 2013c) onto the Vegetation Quality Field Assessment Sheets and then into tabular format on the DSE template (Table 2-1) The spreadsheet data received from DEPI (DEPI 2013c) contained additional, more detailed data including the projective foliage cover detail of the understorey life forms recorded for the Plains Grassland Habitat Zones. No understorey life form cover data was provided for HZ 84 and HZ 86 (both small patches of EVC Plains Grassy Wetland) and HZ 85 (EVC Lignum Swamp). This data provides the background data to determine the understorey score for each Habitat Zone. It also provides an indication of the overall vegetative cover of each Habitat Zone. Table 2-1 includes the projective foliage cover for each Habitat Zone and the deduced cover of bare ground. Table 2-1 also includes the Conservation Significance and the required Offsets as recorded in the Riverdale NVPP. Page 2

6 It would appear that the site assessment data recorded in both GAA (2010) and Biosis (2011) have provided the basis for the Riverdale PSP, the Riverdale NVPP, the Time Stamping project, and subsequently the Habitat Compensation requirements of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (DEPI 2013b). 2.2 Vegetation Quality Assessment method The vegetation quality of the subject site was assessed using the Habitat Hectare methodology (DSE 2004). Both assessments of the subject site (GAA 2009 and Biosis 2010) used this methodology to produce a Habitat Score and a Conservation Significance rating. The assessments require the initial determination of the limits of a remnant patch of native vegetation or Habitat Zones (Appendix 2). These Habitat Zones are areas of like vegetation type (Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC)) and quality (Habitat Score). The delineation of a Habitat Zone is subjective and dependent on observer interpretation. The vegetation quality assessments of the subject site (GAA 2009 and Biosis 2010) and the time stamping project (DSE 2010) were required to assess the following: Remnant Vegetation Degraded Treeless Vegetation Non-native vegetation Scattered Trees. A remnant patch is defined as an area of (remnant) vegetation, with or without trees, where at least 25% of the understorey cover is native. Vegetation that is not a remnant patch is defined as Degraded Treeless Vegetation (DSE 2007). Assessment of the percentage cover of native vegetation is a measure solely of the vegetation present on the site. It does not include the percentage cover of bare ground or rocks. As such a remnant patch can include an area where the cover of bare ground is 75% and the remaining cover (25%) is native vegetation. Similar circumstances were apparent during the period when the vegetation quality assessments of the subject site were carried out. Table 2-1 includes an assessment of the cover of bare ground in each Habitat Zone. No scattered trees were recorded on the subject site. The two vegetation assessments of the subject site only recorded the presence of remnant vegetation (Habitat Zones) and Degraded Treeless Vegetation. It is apparent that the delineation of Degraded Treeless Vegetation on the site was inferred by default i.e. all other vegetation on the site that was not considered to be a Habitat Zone/remnant patch of native vegetation. 2.3 Drought and vegetation The end of September 2010 marks 14 years since the start of a very long meteorological drought in south east Australia (BOM 2010). Extended dry conditions combined with overgrazing have a significant effect on the quality of vegetation. The cover of perennial grasses is reduced and bare Page 3

7 areas are created often creating a dominance of annual plants (mostly weeds) (Garden & Bolger 2001) and potentially creating an inherently unstable vegetation association. This situation was observed by the author in many similar situations in the vicinity during the latter stages of the recognised drought (ending in September 2010) including properties directly north and south of the subject site. At these times there was a considerable cover of bare ground in paddocks that had been or continued to be grazed. In general the dominant remaining vegetation was scattered tussock forming native grasses in large ares of bare ground. There was a general absence of annual (mostly weeds) plants. Several perennial prostrate weeds including Carpet Weed Galenia pubescens tended to dominate in the less heavily grazed areas. The vegetation quality response post-drought was generally dominated by drought tolerant mostly native species. The annual species did not survive the drought. In these post-drought situations, the vegetation was frequently dominated by several species of native grass mainly Wallaby Grass Austrodanthonia spp. and Spear Grass Austrostipa spp. Subsequent years post drought, saw the reestablishment of annual plants, mostly weeds, in the areas of bare ground as a consequence of the drought. It is considered that the vegetation quality of the subject site (GAA 2009 and Biosis 2010) was assessed during the latter stages of the recent drought was not representative of the vegetation quality pre and post-drought. 2.4 Historic Land Use The vegetation quality of the site is greatly influenced by historic land use. A comprehensive land use history has been prepared (Trukeel 2013). Cultivation associated with vegetable production, pasture improvement and weed control will considerably reduce the cover of native plants particularly in association with the application of fertiliser. Native plants will be physically removed. Introduced pasture species and vegetables respond vigorously to the application of fertiliser particularly when irrigated. In such situation the introduced plants will greatly out-compete any remaining native plants. Grazing compounds this situation. As an example, Kangaroo Grass Themeda triandra rapidly disappears from natural tussock grassland when subjected to grazing because of its erect growth and high palatability to domestic stock (Arnold 1977). As a personal observation, when grazing pressure is high e.g. during a drought, tussock forming native grasses (particularly Wallaby grasses) survive but rarely mature and seed. The surviving tussocks often occur in extensive areas of bare ground. Page 4

8 Table 2-1 -Quantification and significance of patches of Native Vegetation (Biosis 2011) Habitat Zone (Biosis 2011) HZ 78 HZ 80 HZ 81 HZ 82 HZ 83 HZ 84 HZ 85 HZ 86 Assessor ZH ZH VA VA VA ZH ZH ZH Assessment date 20/01/ /01/ /12/ /12/ /12/ /01/ /01/ /01/2009 Riverdale NVPP Patch (HZ) Reference GAA 2010 GAA 2010 Biosis Biosis Biosis GAA 2010 GAA 2010 GAA 2010 Time Stamping Project Number GAA 1b GAA 1b GAA 3b GAA 3b GAA 3b GAA 1b GAA 1b GAA 1b Bioregion VVP VVP VVP VVP VVP VVP VVP VVP EVC #: Name EVC Bioregional Conservation Status E E E E E E E E Max Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Large Old Trees Canopy Cover Understorey Lack of Weeds Recruitment Organic Matter Logs Total Site Score EVC standardiser (e.g. 75/55) [1] Adjusted Site Score Mapped Landscape Value Page 5

9 HZ 78 HZ 80 HZ 81 HZ 82 HZ 83 HZ 84 HZ 85 HZ 86 Habitat Score Habitat points = #/ Habitat Zone area (ha) (#.#) Habitat Hectares (#.#) Overall Conservation Significance (Biosis 2011) Riverdale NVPP Overall Conservation Significance Very High High Very High High High Very High Very High High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Very High Riverdale NVPP Offsets % projective foliage cover (DEPI 2013c) NA NA NA Deduced % bare ground NA NA NA Page 6

10 3 Discussion 3.1 Data inadequacies and errors No species list of all plants on the subject site when the assessments were completed was provided by DEPI or was included in the relevant assessment reports (GAA 2009 and Biosis 2010). As such the data recorded on each Habitat Zone cannot be authenticated making it difficult to validate the understorey score particularly of the remnant patches of Plains Grassland. The understorey score makes a considerable contribution to the determination of the overall Habitat Score and Conservation Significance. Several aspects of the data in both the assessment reports and the DEPI provided spreadsheets leads one to question the thoroughness of the Quality Control procedure for the data used to determine the Time Stamped vegetation quality assessment. The DEPI provided data included the notation check (species) ID on several records. This notation in the apparently final data does not engender confidence that the data was rigorously audited. Hence the recorded presence of several rare or threatened species on the subject site is questionable. Biosis (2010) reported the presence of two remnant patches labelled HZ 78. One of these remnant patches was labelled as occurring in the subject site and the other labelled as occurring in the riparian vegetation of the Werribee River. Again this puts doubt in the quality of the reporting and the quality control, hence the validity of the data used to determine the time stamped vegetation quality. 3.2 Vegetation Assessment method In the absence of information to the contrary and despite this review of the data, it must be assumed that the vegetation assessments of the subject site were carried out in accordance with acceptable practice and accuracy. It can be assumed that the assessments accurately mapped and assessed the quality of the vegetation on the site at the time of the assessments in accordance with DSE (2004 & 2007). It is considered however that the assessment failed to consider whether the vegetation on the site that was mapped as being remnant vegetation was secondary (native) grassland established subsequent to prior land use and not by definition representative of the historic (remnant) vegetation quality of the site. Secondary (native) grassland is grassland that meets the criteria to be classified as remnant native vegetation i.e. >25% cover of native species, but has established subsequent to historic land use that has reduced cover of native vegetation to below the remnant patch threshold (25% cover) (Webster 2009). Grassland with a native vegetation cover of < 25% is classified as Degraded Treeless Vegetation and is not by definition remnant native vegetation and incidentally does not require a planning permit for its removal (DSE 2007). This is considered to be the situation on the subject site, where the cover of native vegetation at the time of the assessments was reported as > 25% and as such it was classified as remnant native vegetation and subject to the Habitat Hectare Page 7

11 assessment. However, the classification of the vegetation on the subject site as remnant vegetation is artificial given the land use history. 3.3 Time Stamping Process Despite the apparent comprehensive public consultation process associated with the Time Stamping project (DEPI 2013d) it is considered that the consultation with the landowner of the subject site may not have been adequate. Landowners who had already received native vegetation surveys as part of mapping projects by the GAA in were sent a letter informing them that they were not required to take any further action (DEPI 2013d). This instruction is likely to have been considered literally by the landowner who did not pursue the matter further despite not thoroughly understanding the implications of the time stamping project. 3.4 Habitat Compensation The Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (DEPI 2013b) prescribes Habitat Compensation requirements for the removal of native vegetation and habitats. The time stamping vegetation assessments combined with targeted species surveys have provided tha basis for modelling the prior distribution of specified threatened species and vegetation communities. The Habitat Compensation requirements are mapped on DEPI (2014b) and the cost of each hectare of habitat is provided in DEPI (2013a). The habitat compensation requirements for the subject site have been estimated based on the mapped compensation areas on the subject site (Table 3-1). Table 3-1 Total Compensation requirements Subject Site Item Area (ha) approx $/ha (DEPI 2013a) Total compensation required (approx.) Growling Grass Frog 48.5 $7529 $365,157 Golden Sun Moth 90.0 $7914 $712,260 Native vegetation & Spiny Rice Flower 36.3 $103,012 $3,739,336 $4,816, Conclusion The majority of the site has been cultivated in the past (Trukeel 2013). The majority of the vegetation on the site is classed as Degraded Treeless Vegetation (GAA 2009 and Biosis 2010) and as such is not by definition remnant native vegetation. Nine patches of remnant native vegetation (Habitat Zones) were recorded on the site (GAA 2009 and Biosis 2010) Some doubt exists of the adequacy of the audit/quality control and landowner consultation procedures utilised as part of the Time Stamping process. Page 8

12 It is considered that the designation of remnant native vegetation on the site is based on data that was collected at a time when the vegetation quality was not representative of the long and enduring vegetation quality on the site for the majority of the last several decades. As such the use of the benchmarks for the Ecological Vegetation Classes assessed on the site is not considered appropriate. It is considered that the vegetation quality assessments that contributed to time stamping values of the vegetation of subject site were carried out in accordance with acceptable practice and accuracy. However, the grassland vegetation on the site is considered to be secondary grassland due to the modification of the vegetation quality as a consequence of historic land use. As such the vegetation on the site is not considered to be remnant native vegetation. Hence the conservation significance of grassland on the subject site is not as high as reported and is more appropriately considered to be low. The vegetation quality assessment data used to determine the time stamped vegetation quality has not been appropriately assessed. The assessment methodology and reporting does not engender confidence that the data is a true reflection of the vegetation quality and conservation significance when used as an in-perpetuity benchmark to assess the impact of future development. The biodiversity conservation significance of the site particularly the vegetation quality determined as part of the time stamping project has greatly influenced the Habitat compensation requirements of the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (DSE 2013b). This review finds that the biodiversity conservation significance appears to be have been overstated. Page 9

13 5 References Biosis 2011 Biodiversity Assessment Report. Contract Area 1091 Greek Hill. Biosis research Port Melbourne. BOM 2010 Special Climate Statement 22 Australia s wettest September on record but is it enough to clear long-term rainfall. Australian National Meteorological Service, Melbourne DPCD 2009 Delivering Melbourne s Newest Sustainable Communities report. Department of Planning & Community Development, Melbourne. DEPI 2013a Habitat Compensation under the Biodiversity Conservation Strategy Melbourne Strategic Assessment Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne DEPI 2013b Biodiversity Conservation Strategy for Melbourne s Growth Corridors Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne DEPI 2013c Vegetation Quality Assessment data Time Stamping Project as supplied by DEPI to PKA (22/11/2013 & 13/01/2014), Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne DEPI 2013d Time Stamping Native Vegetation data. Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Melbourne DEPI 2014a Time Stamping Website - Department of Environment & Primary Industries, Melbourne. DEPI 2014b Biodiversity Interactive Map Website - Department of Environment & Primary Industries, Melbourne DSE 2004 Vegetation Assessment Manual Guidelines for applying the habitat hectares scoring method. Version 1.3. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne. DSE 2007 Native Vegetation Guide for assessment of referred planning permit applications April Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne DSE 2010 Time Stamping Project 2010/11: Vegetation mapping and condition assessment procedures. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne Page 10

14 GAA Biodiversity Assessment Report (Native Vegetation) Melton Wyndham Area: Section C. March Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne. GAA 2013a Riverdale Precinct Structure Plan. Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne. GAA 2013b Riverdale Native Vegetation Precinct Plan. Growth Areas Authority, Melbourne Garden, D and T. Bolger (2001) Vegetation changes in southeast Australian temperate grasslands. Stipa - Proc. second National Conference of the Native Grasses Association. Trukeel 2013 Land Use History Report. Trukeel Pty Ltd, 108 Watton St Werribee. Webster, A 2009 Comments on Grasslands/Grassy Woodlands/Secondary Grasslands re R2 Precinct. Department of Sustainability & Environment, Melbourne Page 11

15 Appendix 1 Site Plan Page 12

16 Sewells Road Sayers Road Davis Road Sayers Road, Tarneit (Trukeel Pty Ltd) Appendix 1 - Site Plan 0 Legend Subject Site Werribee River Map Base - VicMap photography Flown between 13/12/ /04/ m

17 Appendix 2 Land Use History Report Page 13

18 Land Use History Report CA A1 Sec 8 Tarneit Parish V 7275 F 803 L1 TP A Tarneit Parish V 9795 F 892 August 2013 Trukeel Pty Ltd

19 HISTORY Prior to st Owner: Lexie & Sylvia Sewell Grown: Barley was cultivated and grown on the entire farm. They also grew peas during their ownership and agisted sheep. 2 nd Owner: Giancinto & Erika Santarosa Grown: Barley was continued to be grown on the farm as well as an agistment of horses. Late 1988 Current Owner: Trukeel Pty Ltd purchased the farm from Mr & Mrs Santarosa in late 1988 (Title endorsed in Jan 1989) and grazed cattle on the property. Approximately 1993 to 1995 Contractor: Grown: John Demuri (Market Gardener) Cultivated and grew broccoli in part of Paddock B and Paddock C (approx. 300 acres) Approximately 1998 to 2001 Contractor: Grown: D.C.M. Australia Pty Ltd (Glen Millane) and Trukeel Pty Ltd Cultivated and grew Lucerne in Paddocks B & C and grazed sheep together Transferred and agisted horses from another property to Trukeel farm until present in part of Paddock B Land Use History Report Trukeel Pty Ltd August 2013 Page 2

20 August 2003 Grown: Trukeel Pty Ltd Grew Lucerne in part of Paddock C Mid 2004 Dam constructed. Planning Permit Application WYP3433 (Endorsed by Wyndham City Council 12/5/04). Plans available on request. Approximately 2005 to 2007 Horses Contractor: Grown: GI & VR Cowie (Graeme Cowie) (75%) and Trukeel Pty Ltd (25%) Cultivated Barley on remaining land (minus areas where there were horses being agisted in part of paddock B and where Trukeel Pty Ltd was growing Lucerne in part of Paddock C). Lucerne November 2007 to 2009 Contractor: Grown: Trukeel Pty Ltd (25%) transferred the 25% share to Di Dio Nominees Pty Ltd. Cultivated Barley on remaining land (minus areas where there were horses being agisted in part of paddock B and where Di Dio Nominees Pty Ltd was growing Lucerne in part of Paddock C) to Current Contractor: Grown: Di Dio Nominees Pty Ltd. Grew Lucerne in part of Paddock A and in part of Paddock C Cattle to eat Cut by Di Dio Land Use History Report Trukeel Pty Ltd August 2013 Page 3

21 MAP OF TRUKEEL FARM Front Paddock A Paddock B Paddock C Land Use History Report Trukeel Pty Ltd August 2013 Page 4

22

23 Appendix 3 Habitat Zones (Biosis 2010) Page 14

24 Legend Study Site Sayers Road HZ 78 Sewells Road HZ 80 HZ 81 Davis Road HZ 82 HZ 84 HZ 83 HZ 85 HZ 84 HZ 78 Sayers Road, Tarneit (Trukeel Pty Ltd) HZ 80 HZ 85 HZ 86 HZ 86 Habitat Zones (approx) (Biosis 2011) HZ 83 HZ 81 February 2014 HZ 82 0 Werribee River Map Base - VicMap Photography flown between 13/12/ /04/2010 Paul Kelly & Associates meters