2015 Ecological Forum: Information and
Questions & Answers
Melbourne Strategic Assessment (MSA)
Overview
The MSA is a regulatory program which manages the impacts of permitted clearing on matters of
national environmental significance listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Under the program the Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning (DELWP) is committed to delivering a range of outputs and outcomes to compensate for losses
of habitat for species and ecological communities.
The program is funded by developer contributions for development in the approved growth corridors.
The MSA Ecological Program is responsible for activities relating to the security and management of
designated areas to ensure conservation outcomes are achieved. These activities include inventory
surveys, monitoring and reporting, adaptive management and targeted research. The scope of the MSA
program is tightly defined in geographic region, and must address specific outputs and outcomes, that
do not include broader conservation outcomes.
This information sheet provides a summary of the information presented at the 2015 MSA Ecological
Forum held at DELWP’s Arthur Rylah Institute on 4 September 2015. It also provides answers to key
questions raised at the forum.
Monitoring and Reporting Framework for the Melbourne Strategic Assessment
The Monitoring and Reporting Framework is a Victorian Government requirement under the program to ensure
compliance with the endorsed program and the conditions of the Commonwealth approvals and was finalised in
July 2015. The framework sets out how the Victorian Government will monitor and report on activities, processes,
program outputs and program outcomes, established to deliver and implement the MSA.
The Monitoring and Reporting Framework is now accessible on DELWP’s MSA website
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment-and-wildlife/biodiversity/melbourne-strategic-assessment/programdelivery-and-reports
Key questions
Is DEWLP committed to improving or simply maintaining the quality of EPBC Act listed communities, under the
Monitoring and Reporting Framework? Is an improvement in ‘quality’ required to meet offset commitments?
Offset requirements for the MSA were calculated in line with the Victorian Vegetation Gain Approach (DSE 2006).
These offsets include the Western Grassland Reserves (WGR), the Grassy Eucalypt Woodland (GEW) and a range
of smaller conservation areas within and external to the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Gains were calculated in
areas of native vegetation only. That is, re-establishment and recovery of non-native vegetation areas was not
factored in the offset calculations. The gain delivered through protecting and managing the native vegetation
www.delwp.vic.gov.au
2015 Ecological Forum:Q&A and info
areas is considered more than adequate to meet the offset requirements from development within the Program
area. For instance, across the MSA program up to 5,200 hectares of Natural Temperate Grasslands (NTG) may be
cleared. The 15,000 hectare WGR more than compensates for this loss of NTG while noting that the reserve
includes areas of non-native vegetation, not included in the calculations but protected to provide a consolidated
reserve area. Some revegetation will likely still occur as part of future management of the reserve, but will be
above and beyond offset requirements. Similarly, given the level of disturbance and risk of invasion from high
threat weeds across much of the WGR area, estimates of gain from proposed activities such as weed control were
necessarily conservative as part of the offset calculations.
The protection and management of conservation areas across the MSA is expected to result in an improvement in
the ‘quality’ of ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act. Improvement in the condition, structure and
function of EPBC Act communities will be monitored, evaluated and reported as outlined in the MSA Monitoring
and Reporting Framework.
How will DELWP ensure that program outcomes are reached?
The Monitoring and Reporting Framework is designed to ensure compliance with the endorsed program and the
conditions of the Commonwealth approvals. Regular monitoring, evaluation and reporting will be conducted to
ensure that progress towards program outputs and outcomes is recorded and communicated. Where monitoring
indicates a risk that outcomes will not be delivered, an evaluation may be triggered, which may include targeted
research to assess the program actions and make adjustments if required. In some cases changes to required
actions may need approval from the Commonwealth Government.
How does the fee structure for the program work and how will DELWP ensure that the outputs and outcomes
can be met within budget?
The fees charged are commensurate to the service to be provided by the State in purchasing and managing land
as an offset for the loss of species and communities listed under the EPBC Act. Cost recoverable activities include
land acquisition, on-ground management, habitat construction, ecological monitoring and reporting, program
delivery and some targeted research.
Although the cost base has been estimated as accurately as possible, given the uncertain nature of a number of
costs involved at this stage of the program’s operation, habitat compensation prices will be reviewed every two
years. This period will provide the opportunity for the prices to be reviewed within an appropriate timeframe
which will enable consideration of actual costs, revenue generated and level of demand, while still providing a
level of certainty and stability for stakeholders.
Given that prices will be set for two years at a time, they will be fixed in nominal terms with no need for an
inflationary adjustment each year. The price review will consider:




New information on the forecasts of costs, revenue and future demand
Actual costs incurred and revenues generated from the previous two-year period
Over or under recovery of costs incurred from the previous period
Increases in cost estimates due to inflation.
One of the key objectives of the scheme is to ensure a price that is stable and provides certainty for a defined
time period, enabling stakeholders to plan accordingly. While changes to prices will occur, the review will aim to
minimise large fluctuations in prices. The review will be undertaken by an independent third party and will
commence three months ahead of any change in prices, with any new prices announced on 1 July of each review
year.
What areas across the MSA will be monitored?
Commonwealth approval has been given to clear or remove certain areas of EPBC Act communities and habitat
for EPBC Act species along with a range of mitigation activities defined in the Program Report (DSE, 2009). Under
the program the Victorian Government is committed to a range of outputs and outcomes and these will be
monitored and reported in line with the MSA Monitoring and Reporting Framework. The purpose of the
framework is to assist with:
2015 Ecological Forum:Q&A and info




Transparent reporting of program implementation
Determining whether the conservation outcomes for matters of national environmental significance set
out in the program report are being achieved
Determining whether the processes and activities established to achieve the program outputs and
program outcomes are efficient and effective
Adaptively improving the implementation of the program where necessary to ensure the program
outputs and program outcomes are achieved.
The Monitoring and Reporting Framework applies to the following areas:



The area covered by the MSA program within the UGB
The conservation areas to be established outside the UGB, including the Western Grassland Reserves,
Grassy Eucalypt Woodland Reserve and conservation areas on the Victorian Volcanic Plain
The management area identified in the Sub-regional Species Strategy for the Southern Brown Bandicoot.
Program outputs will be monitored across all three of the areas listed above. Output monitoring aims to ensure
compliance with program commitments and includes monitoring of security of conservation areas, permit
approvals, program revenue and expenditure. For instance DELWP is committed to ensuring the following output;
‘Urban and infrastructure development proceeds in accordance with the Commonwealth approvals’. This will
include the monitoring of development activities such as permits, work plans, Cultural Heritage Management
Plans, Conservation Area Concept plans and illegal clearing.
Conservation outcome monitoring will occur in MSA conservation areas within and external to the UGB and in the
management area identified in the Sub-regional Species Strategy for the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Outcome
monitoring aims to monitor progress and compliance with the conservation outcomes DELWP has committed to.
Conservation outcomes only apply to areas being protected and managed under the program and monitoring
aims to support adaptive management of these areas to ensure conservation outcomes are achieved. Outcomes
do not apply within the growth corridors outside of conservation or management areas as the Commonwealth
Government has previously approved loss of habitat in these areas as part of the strategic assessment agreement.
The actual rate and pattern of development (habitat removal) and reserve establishment is unknown, but will
occur over many decades. Outcome monitoring will only commence at a given site once DELWP has secured the
land for conservation or the implementation program has commenced in that area, such as for the Growling
Grass Frog and the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Monitoring data will be collected for Key Performance Indicators
and a range of additional measures to determine progress towards the conservation outcomes or to reveal other
changes of interest in the ecosystem or population. Where monitoring within conservation and management
areas suggests conservation outcomes are not being reached an evaluation will be triggered. The evaluation may
include targeted research or monitoring outside conservation areas to determine if broad scale trends or external
threats are impacting the ability for program outcomes to be delivered.
Can monitoring begin on land that hasn’t been acquired yet?
MSA funding will only be available to start securing and managing conservation areas as development occurs and
Habitat Compensation Fees are paid. DELWP does not yet have access to all the funding it will eventually require
to manage all conservation areas. The baseline for outcome monitoring will only commence at a given site once
DELWP has secured the land for conservation or the implementation program has commenced in that area such
as for the Growling Grass Frog and the Southern Brown Bandicoot.
Land Security and Management under the MSA: Progress to Date
Under the MSA, the Victorian Government is committed to protecting and managing a range of conservation
areas within and external to the UGB. As of September 2015 the following progress had been made against these
commitments:
2015 Ecological Forum:Q&A and info



Within the Western Grassland Reserves 1,220.3 hectares of the reserve has been secured which equates
to eight percent of the reserve. This land is now reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1987 and
is being managed by Parks Victoria. Inventory surveys have been conducted across 1059 hectares and this
area protects 885.2 hectares of Natural Temperate Grasslands and 19.7 hectares of Seasonal Herbaceous
Wetlands.
10.54 hectares of conservation area Truganina South and 68.38 hectares of Conservation Area 26 have
been secured
These acquisitions have increased the percent of high priority habitat secured for Golden Sun Moth in the
Victorian Volcanic Plains bioregion to 14%.
The 2014-15 progress report will be finalised shortly and will be made available on the MSA websitehttp://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment-and-wildlife/biodiversity/melbourne-strategic-assessment/programdelivery-and-reports. The final inventory reports for three properties in the Western Grassland Reserves will also
be made available on the MSA website in the near future.
Striped Legless Lizard program evaluation and salvage and translocation feasibility
The Striped Legless Lizard (SLL) is one of the matters of national environmental significance included under the
MSA, and the Victorian Government is committed to the persistence of the SLL within MSA Conservation Areas.
The SLL will be one of the matters of national environmental significance targeted for management within
conservation areas protected as part of the MSA, including the WGR and Conservation Areas within the Urban
Growth Boundary. In addition, under the MSA DEWLP is committed to protecting 80% of high priority habitat for
Spiny Rice-flower, Golden Sun Moth and Matted Flax-lily across the Victorian Volcanic Plains. This will require the
protection of additional habitat outside the Urban Growth Boundary and the location of these sites will be
prioritised where they also protect habitat for the SLL. DELWP is also committed to identifying the options and
assessing the feasibility of salvage and translocation (S&T) of the species. DELWP recognised the uncertainty of
the effectiveness of S&T in contributing to the persistence of the species and established a robust experimental
design to address this commitment and ensure that the results were scientifically supported.
DELWP has recently conducted an evaluation of the MSA SLL program following two years of salvage efforts
under the MSA. Between 2011 and 2013, 21 living SLL were salvaged from development areas, but were not
released as they fell well short of the number needed to implement the research experiment (O’Shea, 2013). The
evaluation reviewed new information on the distribution and abundance of the SLL since the establishment of the
MSA program in 2009, and included the input and review of multiple DELWP and independent SLL experts,
university academics, ecological consultants and program staff. The evaluation suggests there is likely to be far
fewer SLL within the growth corridors than originally expected and it is highly unlikely enough SLL could be
salvaged to support a statistically robust translocation experiment. The evaluation also identified other barriers to
the translocation of SLL including limited knowledge of the population dynamics of the species and no suitable
tracking methods for the lizards following release.
More recently, DELWP requested that the MSA Ecological Reference Group review the evaluation of the MSA SLL
program in terms of whether the:



approach scientifically sound;
conclusions were scientifically valid within the context of the available information and objectives of the
evaluation; and
recommendations were supported by the evidence provided?
Feedback provided from the Ecological Reference Group was general support for the approach and the science
used to inform the recommendations while noting a number of matters for consideration as part of future MSA
program evaluations and reviews. DELWP is now planning a workshop of SLL experts to discuss the SLL evaluation
in the context of broader conservation outcomes for the species.
A decision to not proceed with the salvage and translocation experiment in no way impacts on the Victorian
Government’s commitment to ensure persistence of the lizard in the MSA Conservation Areas, as required under
2015 Ecological Forum:Q&A and info
the Commonwealth approvals. Recent surveys of land acquired for the WGR has confirmed the presence of SLL
and management of these areas is considered a priority for ensuring the persistence of the species under the
MSA program, noting that only 8% of the proposed WGR has been surveyed at this stage.
The SLL evaluation also highlighted findings that are considered relevant to the conservation of SLL more broadly
than the MSA program. DELWP has identified that the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 Action Statement and
the EPBC Act Recovery Plan for the SLL are now out of date and there is an existing commitment to update these
documents. The SLL expert workshop will provide important input into refreshing these documents and DELWP’s
Actions for Biodiversity Conservation database. DELWP has also offered to share information from the evaluation,
including the updated Habitat Distribution Model, with the Commonwealth Department of Environment. It is
anticipated that this updated information will be used to inform Part 9 approvals under the EPBC Act for areas
outside of the MSA program.
Key questions
Why are 900 lizards needed to implement the research project?
An experimental design for the translocation of SLL was produced in 2013 by the Arthur Rylah Institute for the
MSA program (O’Shea, 2013). The research project aims to address the question “Can SLL be successfully
translocated to establish self-sustaining and viable populations?”
In order to ensure statistical robustness the experiment requires a minimum of 900 lizards.
The experiment requires twelve replicated translocation recipient sites with a minimum of 75 lizards released at
each site. Ideally, the lizards would be released as four ‘release events’ of three sites (225 lizards) and each
release event would occur on the same day. Alternatively, the experimental design allows for the SLL to be
released in partial releases meaning three releases of 25 lizards per site across one season (75 SLL needed three
times in a release season=225 SLL). However the partial release design still requires a minimum of 900 lizards
across the life of the project to ensure a statistically valid experiment.
Rather than conduct salvage at the time of development through excavation methods, can SLL be salvaged
through roof tile methods?
The SLL Operational Plan developed to guide salvage and translocation protocols was based on the experience at
Cairnlea which used trial and error. Feedback from consultants as part of the SLL program evaluation suggested
they had undertaken salvage operations in accordance with the guidelines, but were unsure how effective the
salvage was or if it was the most effective approach.
Tile grids have been successful in finding SLL, and are considered to present a more effective and cost efficient
method of salvaging SLL. However the majority of SLL surveys conducted across the MSA area used tile grid
survey methods, and still found low numbers of SLL. Regardless of salvage methods, the distribution and
abundance of SLL in the MSA area is considered too low to support a translocation research project. In addition,
other barriers to SLL translocation remain including finding appropriate release sites, limited knowledge on
population numbers and sex ratios to support a viable population and the absence of a suitable technique to track
lizards following their release.
What will happen to lizards that are found incidentally during development?
DELWP is currently exploring the best option for managing any SLL that are found incidentally at a clearing site.
This will include consideration of the feasibility and legislative requirements for all options such as compliance
with the Wildlife Act 1975 and the need for ethics approval.
2015 Ecological Forum:Q&A and info
What will happen to lizards in captivity?
The 21 SLL salvaged though the MSA program are currently being held by Zoos Victoria. Zoos Victoria will work
with other organisations to maintain the lizards for display and education purposes. It is unlikely that SLL
individuals salvaged through the MSA program will be released into the wild.
The MSA ecological program and forward agenda: opportunities and challenges
The MSA is a program that provides some unique challenges and opportunities.

Conservation areas will be secured over a period of time which complicates the design of monitoring and
research.

The program is cost recoverable and requires a high level of transparency and efficiency.

Funding is only available as development occurs, so funding decisions need to consider what to prioritise
now, versus what can wait until later.

The MSA program covers a broad range of species and communities. There are multiple outcomes to be
addressed.

There are a wide range of current projects and future opportunities for collaboration but the MSA must
be strategic in how funding is allocated between research questions, MNES and over time.
Over the next 12 months DEWLP will finalise the following key documents:

Management decision systems for vegetation and communities and species- overarching document for
logic behind ecological decisions. This will include a description of the ecological models used to inform
decision making under the program. Two models are currently in use (A Bayesian Network model for
Natural Temperate Grasslands and a metapopulation model for the Growling Grass Frog) and the MSA
ecological program will continue to develop models to assist decision making for other MNES under the
program.

Research strategy- strategy to direct what and how research is conducted under the MSA to support
effective and efficient management.
These outputs have been identified as priorities following advice from the MSA Ecological Reference Group.
Key questions
Some landowners would be willing to handover additional land to DEWLP not currently included as
conservation areas in the BCS as the land is not developable. Is there any opportunity for more land to be
included as MSA conservation areas?
There is a range of criteria that must be met in order for land to become crown land for conservation purposes
under the MSA. For instance the land must be of a certain size and contain high biodiversity values. If the required
criteria can be met funding is needed in order to manage these sites in perpetuity. The MSA is a cost recoverable
program. This means the cost of program activities are funded by developer contributions prior to approval for
clearing native vegetation and species habitat. Developer contributions are provided through Habitat
Compensation Fees that are based on the cost to implement mitigation activities such as the security and
management of conservation areas outlined in the Program Report. Additional activities such as managing
additional conservation areas are not able to be funded by the MSA program. However these additional areas
may be protected and managed through other processes or funding sources. Landowners wishing to donate
additional land should contact DELWP to discuss.
2015 Ecological Forum:Q&A and info
Are there any opportunities for funding under the MSA program to be used on conservation activities outside
the MSA program area?
The Melbourne Strategic Assessment is regulatory program delivered through cost recoverable funding provided
by developers for permitted clearing of native vegetation and species habitat. MSA funding must therefore
contribute to the activities outlined in the Program Report including the protection and management of
conservation areas. On-ground conservation activities cannot be funded outside the MSA program area, except
where specifically referred to in the MSA Monitoring and Reporting Framework (e.g. reserves outside of the
Urban Growth Boundary, or the Southern Brown Bandicoot management area). However the MSA program
includes a budget for research that is anticipated to contribute to conservation of MSA species and communities
more broadly. Research under the program will focus on knowledge gaps that directly relate to the way we
manage MSA species and communities. More information on the key research themes for the MSA will be
available in the Research Strategy to be released in 2016.
Where can I find more information on the MSA Ecological Program?
More information, including some of the documents referenced throughout this information sheet, can be found
on the DELWP website
http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/environment-and-wildlife/biodiversity/melbourne-strategic-assessment
For specific questions relating to the program please email msa.conservation@delwp.vic.gov.au
© The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning 2015
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International licence. You are free to re-use the work under
that licence, on the condition that you credit the State of Victoria as author.
The licence does not apply to any images, photographs or branding,
including the Victorian Coat of Arms, the Victorian Government logo and the
Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) logo. To
view a copy of this licence, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ISBN 978-1-74146-840-3 (pdf)
Disclaimer
This publication may be of assistance to you but the State of Victoria and its
employees do not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind
or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims
all liability for any error, loss or other consequence which may arise from
you relying on any information in this publication.
Accessibility
If you would like to receive this publication
in an alternative format, please telephone
DELWP Customer Service Centre 136 186,
email msa.conservation@delwp.vic.gov.au,
via the National Relay Service on 133 677
www.relayservice.com.au. This document is
also available on the internet at
www.delwp.vic.gov.au