Referral of proposed action
Project title:
Essendon Fields: Development at Vaughan Street and
Nomad Road
1 Summary of proposed action
1.1
Short description
Essendon Fields Pty Ltd propose to construct a three level office building (ground plus two levels)
and associated two level above ground car park on the corner of Vaughan Street and Nomad
Road, Essendon Fields, Vic, 3041 (the project area). The new structures will accommodate the
headquarter offices of Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd. Please refer to attached
architectural plan A002 for the site layout and location.
1.2
Latitude and longitude
Latitude and longitude details
are used to accurately map the
boundary of the proposed
action. If these coordinates are
inaccurate or insufficient it may
delay the processing of your
referral.
Latitude
location point
degrees
-37.7235
Longitude
minutes
seconds
degrees
minutes
seconds
144.8940
The site is <5ha in size therefore a single pair of latitude and longitude references is provided.
1.3
Locality and property description
The site is within Essendon Fields at Essendon Airport, approximately 11km northwest of the
Melbourne central business district and 7km southeast of the Tullamarine Airport. (Figure 1). It
is bounded to the west by Larkin Street, to the south by Vaughan Street, to the north by Lionel
Street and to the east by Nomad Road.
An aerial photo from 1971 shows that the site had been used as a car park however it is now
currently vacant and has been for an extensive period of time (approximately 25 years).
1.4
Size of the development
footprint or work area
(hectares)
1.5
Street address of the site
1.6
Lot description
The development footprint is 0.9 of a hectare (or 9,126m²)
within a 1 hectare block bounded by Larkin St, Vaughan St,
Lionel St and Nomad Rd.
15 Vaughan Street, Essendon Fields, Victoria 3041.
The site is part of a greater lease of Essendon Airport from the Commonwealth to Essendon
Airport Pty Ltd.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 1 of 14
1.7
Local Government Area and Council contact (if known)
The site is Commonwealth land and, as such, local government planning approvals do not apply.
Therefore the site is not covered by the City of Moonee Valley or Moreland Planning Schemes
which otherwise cover land surrounding Essendon Airport.
1.8
Time frame
Estimated construction commencement date is 14.11.11, pending the outcome of this referral.
Timely commencement of construction is critical to Essendon Fields performing its commercial
obligations to accommodate Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd.
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
Alternatives to proposed
action
Were any feasible alternatives to
taking the proposed action
(including not taking the action)
considered but are not
proposed?
X
Alternative time frames etc
Does the proposed action
include alternative time frames,
locations or activities?
X
State assessment
Is the action subject to a state
or territory environmental
impact assessment?
X
Component of larger action
Is the proposed action a
component of a larger action?
X
Related actions/proposals
Is the proposed action related to
other actions or proposals in the
region (if known)?
X
Australian Government
funding
Has the person proposing to
take the action received any
Australian Government grant
funding to undertake this
project?
X
Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park
X
Is the proposed action inside the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
No
Yes, you must also complete section 2.2
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative,
location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete
details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3.3 (where relevant).
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7
No
Yes, provide details:
No
Yes, provide details:
No
Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)
Page 2 of 14
2 Detailed description of proposed action
2.1 Description of proposed action
The subject site is to be developed into a three level office building (ground plus two levels) of an
approximate gross floor area of 7,012m². A separate above ground car park facility, two storeys
high containing 200 car parking spaces as well as bike storage and bathroom facilities will be
constructed to service the building. Extensive urban landscaping consistent with a typical commercial
development has been incorporated into the building design. Please refer to the attached
architectural drawing A002.
The office building will be the new headquarters of Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Ltd whilst a
smaller ‘Tenancy 2’ on ground (on the eastern wing of the office building) is intended for retail use to
provide some food amenity to the corporate community above. The building has been designed to
be capable of achieving a 4 Star Green Star Rating for Office Design V3.
Aside from the office and car park buildings the development will cause an upgrade in surrounding
infrastructure including:
 Undergrounding of the HV electricity lines along the portion of Vaughan Street between Larkin
and Nomad Roads.
 Resurfacing of the existing road on the portion of Vaughan Street between Larkin and Nomad
Roads.
 Introduction of new street lighting to the portion of Vaughan Street between Larkin and Nomad
Roads.
2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action
Not applicable.
2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action
No alternative time frames, locations or activities have been identified.
Timely commencement of construction is critical to Essendon Fields performing its commercial
obligations to accommodate Murray Goulburn Co-operative Co. Ltd and, as such, no alternative
timeframe can be proposed.
There are no feasible alternative locations available to fulfil the commercial obligations under the
Agreement for Lease with Murray Goulburn Co-Operative Co. Ltd.
2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements
The site is Commonwealth land and local and state government requirements do not apply.
2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation
A flora and fauna assessment of the site has been conducted (Biosis Research 2011). This report is
appended to this referral. This report is consistent with requirements under Victoria’s biodiversity
legislation and policy. It also outlines mitigation measures consistent with Victoria’s expansion of
Melbourne’s urban growth boundary as defined by DSE (2009) and the associated threatened species
and communities prescriptions approved by the Australian Minister for Conservation for approvals
under the EPBC Act.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 3 of 14
2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders)
The Airport Building Controller has determined that the proposed development causes no significant
community impact and therefore no formal community consultation has occurred. However
Essendon Airport has regular meetings with Moonee Valley City Council and have discussed the
proposed project with them.
There are no known in no known indigenous heritage value or stakeholder groups on the site as
confirmed in the Essendon Airport Environment Strategy 2010 - 2014.
2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project
Not applicable to the proposed action.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 4 of 14
3 Description of environment & likely impacts
3.1 Matters of national environmental significance
3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties
Description
The Protected Matters Search Tool does not identify any World Heritage Properties that may occur in,
or relate to, the nominated area.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The proposed action is not likely to impact the World Heritage values of any World Heritage Property.
3.1 (b) National Heritage Places
Description
The Protected Matters Search Tool does not identify any National Heritage Places that may occur in, or
relate to, the nominated area.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The proposed action is not likely to impact the National Heritage values of any National Heritage Place.
3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)
Description
The Protected Matters Search Tool does not identify any Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar
sites) that may occur in, or relate to, the nominated area.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The proposed action is not likely to impact the ecological character of any Ramsar wetlands.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 5 of 14
3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities
Description
The Protected Matters Search Tool identifies three listed ecological communities:
 Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (critically endangered); community known
to occur within area.
 Natural Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (critically endangered); community likely
to occur within area.
 Grey Box (Eucalyptus microcarpa) Grassy Woodlands and Derived Native Grasslands of Southeastern Australia (endangered); community may occur within area.
Grassy Eucalypt Woodland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain and Grey Box Grassy Woodlands and Derived
Native Grasslands of South-eastern Australia are not present within the site (Biosis Research 2011).
A 0.22 ha patch of vegetation which satisfies the description of Natural Temperate Grassland of the
Victorian Volcanic Plain has been identified within the site (Figure 2, Biosis Research 2011).
The Protected Matters Search Tool identifies 20 listed threatened species of relevance to the site.
These species are listed in Appendix 2 of the Flora and Fauna Assessment Report (Biosis Research
2011). Records of listed species within 5 km of the site are shown in Figure 3 (obtained from the
Victorian Biodiversity Atlas).
Of the listed threatened species, one requires further consideration in relation to this referral:
 Golden Sun Moth Synemon plana. The study area supports potential grassland habitat for this
species. The native wallaby-grasses and exotic Chilean Needle-grass are known food plants for
the Golden Sun Moth (GSM). The presence of GSM has been previously considered elsewhere
within Essendon Airport (Biosis Research 2007) and, to date, no GSM have been recorded
(Meinhart Infrastructure & Environment 2008). However, the time since survey (four years)
and its relevance to the currently accepted survey protocols for the species (DSE 2010a) means
that targeted GSM survey has been recommended (Biosis Research 2011) as a precautionary
measure. Survey to determine the presence/absence of GSM within the site will be undertaken
by Biosis Research this coming flight season (2011-12). These surveys will be conducted in a
manner consistent with the approved GSM survey requirements defined by DSE (DSE 2010a)
which are consistent with those provided in EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.12 – Significant impact
guidelines for the critically endangered golden sun moth (Synemon plana).
The habitat present is either unsuitable or has been modified to the extent that the listed flora species
have been eliminated and the other listed fauna species are unlikely to persist.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The proposed action will result in the removal of a section of a patch of Natural Temperate Grassland
of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (total 0.22ha) and removal of potential habitat for Golden Sun Moth.
The area of the listed community is small and its loss is not considered likely to constitute a significant
impact on the community in the broader Melbourne area.
Golden Sun Moth has not previously been recorded during assessments conducted elsewhere in the
Essendon Airport grounds. The flora and fauna assessment by Biosis Research (2007) was undertaken
at a time that coincided with the Golden Sun Moth flight season and no Golden Sun Moths were
incidentally observed. Meinhart Infrastructure and Environment also undertook a targeted survey for
Golden Sun Moth in 2007 and did not detect the species from the broader Essendon Airport environs.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 6 of 14
A targeted survey is scheduled to occur this season (2011-12) following methods accepted by the
Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE 2010a) in order to determine the presence or
absence of Golden Sun Moth within the site. Based on the evidence to date, it seems unlikely the
species will be present within the site. Development of the site will directly result in the removal of
part of the 0.22 ha of grassland habitat and up to 0.7 ha of degraded, introduced vegetation that is of
suitable structure and floristics (i.e. food plants) to support Golden Sun Moth should they be present.
The small area of Golden Sun Moth potential habitat proposed to be removed is not considered likely to
constitute a significant impact even if the species is detected within the proposed development site.
This assessment has been confirmed by Daniel Gilmore, Senior Zoologist with Biosis Research based on
an evaluation of the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 – Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth
land and actions by Commonwealth agencies. These guidelines define a significant impact as ‘an
impact which is important, notable or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity.’
3.1 (e) Listed migratory species
Description
The Protected Matters Search Tool identifies 13 migratory species that may occur in, or may relate to,
the site. These species are listed in Appendix 3 of Biosis Research (2011). The report concludes that
the habitat present is either unsuitable or has been modified to the extent where these species are
unlikely to occur.
Nature and extent of likely impact
No significant impact is considered likely to occur to any listed migratory species or their habitat.
3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area
(If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken outside the
Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.)
Description
The subject land is not located in a coastal environment or adjacent to a watercourse that enters Port
Phillip Bay.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The proposed action is not likely to impact any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine
area.
3.1 (g) Commonwealth land
(If the action is on Commonwealth land, complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside Commonwealth
land that may have impacts on that land.)
The action is on Commonwealth land which means 3.2 (d) has been completed instead.
Description
N/A
Nature and extent of likely impact
N/A
3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 7 of 14
Description
The subject land is located in Victoria and is therefore not in proximity to the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park.
Nature and extent of likely impact
The proposed action will not impact any part of the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth
agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on
Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
3.2 (a)
Is the proposed action a nuclear action?
X
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (b)
Is the proposed action to be taken by the
Commonwealth or a Commonwealth
agency?
X
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment
3.2 (c)
Is the proposed action to be taken in a
Commonwealth marine area?
X
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))
3.2 (d)
Is the proposed action to be taken on Commonwealth
land?
No
X
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))
The proposed action is to be taken on Commonwealth land. It will entail the removal of all
vegetation/habitat within the site. This vegetation is comprised of an area of Natural
Temperate Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain community and potential habitat for
the Golden Sun Moth and other degraded areas of negligible habitat value (Plate 1).
The site does not contain and is not adjacent to any watercourses and is bounded by
sealed roads. Indirect impacts on the environment of Commonwealth land beyond the site
are therefore unlikely.
The design of the development will be in keeping with the character of the surrounding
landuse.
There are several heritage buildings within the Essendon Airport grounds. None of the
buildings will be impacted by the proposed action.
An Essendon Airport – Heritage Management Strategy (September 2006) exists and is
used as a guide to assess and manage any heritage items of significance.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 8 of 14
Plate 1: Habitat and vegetation present within the Essendon Fields development site
The proposed development and action on the site will provide a social and economic
benefit to the surrounding area by establishing a high quality commercial business in the
precinct by
 Enhancing the value of the location.
 Providing an additional commercial population of 400 (approximately) to support
the local retail amenities.
 Improving the integration of Essendon Airport with its surrounds.
 Prompting further improvement to roads and other infrastructure.
3.2 (e)
Is the proposed action to be taken in the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?
X
No
Yes (provide details below)
If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))
3.3
Other important features of the environment
3.3 (a) Flora and fauna
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 9 of 14
A flora and fauna assessment has been completed for the site (Biosis Research 2011). A copy of this
report is appended to this Referral and summary of information in the report is provided below.
Flora
A total of nine indigenous and 35 introduced plant species have been recorded from the site (Biosis
Research 2011). Of the introduced species, three are declared noxious weed species (all regionally
controlled). The low diversity of indigenous species recorded by Biosis Research (2011) is consistent
with the observations of other studies within the grounds of Essendon Airport (Biosis Research 2004
& 2007).
No flora species of national or state conservation significance were recorded on site. One species,
Jersey Cudweed Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum, satisfies the criteria to be defined as regionally
uncommon. However this species readily colonises disturbed ground and is likely to be undersampled within the bioregion.
Ten additional species of state and national significance appear on database searches within 5 km of
the site (Appendix 2 in Biosis Research 2011). None of these are likely to occur within the site as the
habitat present is either unsuitable or has been subject to disturbance which would have eliminated
them.
Fauna
Fauna habitat within the study area has been substantially modified and its context in an urban
landscape precludes its use by many indigenous fauna species. Crested Pigeon and Australian
Magpie were the only indigenous species observed during the site assessment.
One significant fauna species has potential to occur within the site: Golden Sun Moth. However,
previous assessments for this species within the broader Essendon Airport environs have not
detected this species. The study area is of low to negligible value for other significant fauna species
recorded or predicted to occur within 5km of the site (Appendix 3 in Biosis Research 2011).
3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows
The site is relatively flat and featureless and no permanent or ephemeral streams traverse the
property.
3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics
The site is a relatively flat section of volcanic plain with associate basaltic soils. It is currently
dominated by a range of native and exotic grasses and herbs which appear to be regularly mown.
The vegetation and fauna habitat throughout the majority of the site has been highly modified by
past disturbances which have included road construction works. Most of the area has been
significantly degraded and supports predominantly introduced vegetation. The vegetation condition
over the entire study site varies from poor to moderate.
The area in moderate condition is restricted to the western end of the study area (Figure 2) and is
confined to relatively undisturbed land which is dominated by a relatively high cover of wallabygrasses Austrodanthonia spp. This area was defined as a “Patch” of native vegetation by Biosis
Research (2011) using the Native Vegetation Management Framework (DSE 2007: i.e. supports a
cover of native species which is greater than 25% of the cover of all vegetation present). Not all of
this area is within the footprint of the proposed development.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 10 of 14
3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features
There are no natural features of particular note within the study area.
3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation
The site supports remnants of one ecological vegetation class (EVC), Plains Grassland (Figure 2).
Plains Grassland is endangered within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion. The area of Plains
Grassland mapped also satisfies the definition of the EPBC Act listed Natural Temperate Grassland of
the Victorian Volcanic Plain ecological community in that it supports greater than a 50% cover of
native perennial grasses. The remnant patch also corresponds to the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act
1988 (FFG) listed threatened community Western (Basalt) Plains Grassland.
3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)
The study area is relatively flat.
3.3 (g) Current state of the environment
The site supports an area of listed vegetation community (Natural Temperate Grassland of the
Victorian Volcanic Plain) and potential habitat for a listed threatened fauna species (Golden Sun
Moth).
The site is regularly mown and there is no evidence of erosion. Most of the site has been
significantly degraded and supports predominantly introduced vegetation.
A number of regionally restricted and regionally controlled weeds occur within the site (Biosis
Research 2011) including Spear Thistle Cirsium vulgare, Chilean Needle-grass Nassella neesiana and
Serrated Tussock Nassella trichotoma.
The site does not support features that provide harbour for pest animals. It site does not appear to
be infested with rabbits, hares or foxes.
3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values
The Protected Matters Search Tool identifies four Commonwealth Heritage Places of relevance to the
site:
 Buildings 103 and 104, Essendon Airport: Indicative place.
 Essendon Airport; Indicative place.
 Defence Explosive Factory, Maribyrnong; Listed place.
 Essendon Airport Air Traffic Control Tower; Nominated place.
None of these Commonwealth Heritage Places occur within the site and, as such, none will be
impacted by the proposed development.
3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values
The site is not within a known area of cultural heritage sensitivity and there are no known heritage
sites or heritage surveys completed on the site.
The Essendon Airport Environment Strategy 2010 – 2014 (Essendon Airport 2010) confirms that
there is no known indigenous heritage value on the site.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 11 of 14
3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment
There are no other important or unique values of the environment not otherwise documented in the
preceding sections.
3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold)
The site is Commonwealth land. The site is part of a greater lease of Essendon Airport from the
Commonwealth to Essendon Airport Pty Ltd.
3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area
The site currently forms part of Essendon Airport and is maintained as open undeveloped land.
3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area
The site is proposed to be developed as an office building and associated car park.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 12 of 14
4 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts
According to the Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth
agencies: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 (DEWHA 2009), under the EPBC Act approval is required
for an action taken by any person on Commonwealth land that is likely to have a significant impact
on the environment. ‘Likely’ is considered to be if a significant impact is a real or not remote chance
or possibility. A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable or of consequence,
having regard to its context or intensity. In this instance the proposed development will have an
impact on the environment. The recently released DSEWPaC (2011) guide to the identification,
assessment and management of nationally threatened ecological communities of the Victorian
Volcanic Plain indicates that a minimum area of 0.05 ha is required for NTGVVP to be considered as
covered by the national listing. While the clearing of 0.22 ha would have an impact on the extent of
this community in the local area, the quality of the vegetation present is not considered significant in
the context of the regional conservation of this community.
Previous studies from the broader Essendon Airport environs have not detected this species and the
proposed surveys are being completed as a precautionary measure. Even if a small number of GSM
are recorded from the site the loss of this habitat is unlikely to have a significant impact on the
conservation of this species within the broader Melbourne region.
The site is Commonwealth land and, as such, state-based mitigation measures that would usually
apply to development in Victoria are not strictly speaking, relevant. They are however a widely
accepted approach to managing impacts associated with development within Victoria and are
therefore drawn on here to guide/propose mitigation for development of the site.
While the currently proposed development does not entail the removal of the entire patch of Natural
Temperate Grasslands of the Victorian Volcanic Plain (NTGVVP), this referral is being prepared on the
basis of the whole patch being removed as very little would remain outside the proposed
construction footprint.
There is no opportunity within the development plan to avoid or minimise removal of native
vegetation and habitat. As such, only mitigation measures for the proposed development are
proposed. The proposed mitigation measures are based around offsets as identified in the
Prescriptions for threatened species and communities devised as part of Delivering Melbourne’s
Newest Sustainable Communities program (the SIAR Program). These prescriptions detail situations
requiring the retention of native vegetation and GSM habitat and the provision of offsets for
approved native vegetation removal and loss of GSM habitat.
The proposed development does not fit within a broader area of native vegetation or GSM habitat
defined by the GSM or NTGVVP prescriptions which would exclude any portion of the land from
development. The measures to manage or offset impacts on matters of national environmental
significance will therefore follow those defined by DSE’s offset requirements for native vegetation
and Golden Sun Moth (DSE 2010) accepted by the Australian Government under the SIAR Program.
Proposed Mitigation Offsets
Native vegetation
Offsets relating to removal of native vegetation have been determined in accordance Victoria’s Native
Vegetation Management – A Framework for Action (the Framework) which provides State
Government policy for the protection, enhancement and revegetation of native vegetation in Victoria
(NRE 2002) and is an incorporated document in all planning schemes. An assessment of the
development against Net Gain policy is provided in Biosis Research (2011).
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 13 of 14
The study area (1.0 ha) contains a total of 0.22 hectares of native vegetation, which comprises 0.06
habitat hectares (hha). The habitat score for the habitat zone identified is 0.26. The patch of
vegetation present is therefore of High conservation significance (Figure 2).
The offset prescription for this vegetation is based on an offset multiplier of 1.5 times the calculated
loss; for the site this amounts to 0.09 habitat hectares. The like-for-like requirements are outlined
in the Native Vegetation Management Framework (NRE 2002: Table 6). Any offset provided by the
management of remnant native vegetation would need to have a minimum habitat score of 0.20 and
be located within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion. Alternatively the prescribed offset could be
provided by generating a gain totalling 0.07 hha of Very High conservation significance vegetation
within the Victorian Volcanic Plain bioregion.
No specific offset area has been defined by the proponent. Offsets could be obtained from a variety
of options including the DSE BushBroker and the Trust for Nature. Any offset site would need to be
subject to an approved offset management plan.
Alternatively offsets defined by the SIAR prescriptions are based on the offset costs defined by DSE
for the provision of habitat hectare offsets within the proposed Western Grassland Reserve as part of
the Prescription for NTGVVP. DSE have defined this as $82,500 per habitat hectare for the loss of
native vegetation with a habitat score of about 0.3. The prescribed offset for this project would
therefore amount to an offset payment of $7,425. These funds would be provided to a project of
DSEWPaC’s choice and be provided prior to project commencement. This is the preferred offset
mechanism.
Golden Sun Moth
Targeted survey for Golden Sun Moth will be undertaken this season (2011-12) to determine
presence or absence of the species within the site. The survey will follow the methods in the
Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit (DSE 2010).
If a population of Golden Sun Moth is present within the site, then the Prescription for Golden Sun
Moth devised under the Program will be followed. The Prescription identifies decision guidelines on
what habitat must be retained and what can be cleared. Potential habitat within the site (if found to
support Golden Sun Moth) would meet the criteria for low contribution habitat which is defined as
native or non-native vegetation within less connected habitat (less than 100 ha).
If Golden Sun Moths are found to be present during targeted surveys (see below) then the offset
requirements for clearing non-native vegetation will also apply for loss of habitat for this species.
DSE 2010 prescribe a payment of $44,000 / ha of degraded treeless vegetation (note that the
payment for impacts on native vegetation apply to the area of native vegetation regardless of the
presence or absence of GSM). The area of degraded treeless vegetation impacted amounts to 0.78
ha. The prescribed offset for this project would therefore amount to an offset payment of $34,320.
Striped Legless Lizard
While considered unlikely to occur within the site, the proponent is proposing to assume presence of
the species (precautionary principle) and follow the SIAR Prescription for Striped Legless Lizard. The
Prescription states that all permitted clearing of Striped Legless Lizard habitat that is native
vegetation will be offset in accordance with the Victorian Native Vegetation Framework (refer to the
relevant section above) and a fully costed salvage and translocation plan will be prepared to the
satisfaction of DSE for areas of habitat (native or non-native) that will be cleared. Salvage will follow
the Salvage & translocation of Striped Legless Lizard in the urban growth area of Melbourne:
Operational Plan (DSE 2011). A site-specific salvage plan will be prepared and implemented by the
proponent prior to development.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 14 of 14
5 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts
Identify whether or not you believe the action is a controlled action (ie. whether you think that significant impacts on the
matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act are likely) and the reasons why.
5.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?
X
No, complete section 5.2
Yes, complete section 5.3
5.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action.
The proposed action will entail the removal of a small, degraded area (0.22ha) of Natural Temperate
Grassland of the Victorian Volcanic Plain and potential habitat for Golden Sun Moth. While the
clearing of 0.22 ha would have an impact on the extent of this community in the local area, the
quality of the vegetation present is not considered significant in the context of the regional
conservation of this community. Assessing the significant impact criteria, only some of these appear
directly relevant. The patch of this vegetation is already a small fragment of NTGVVP and its loss
would not result in a greater level of fragmentation. It does not represent an area of land which is
critical to the conservation of this community. The only other relevant criterion is the area of
occupancy for the community. The SIAR prescription for NTGVVP requires the protection of areas
which support either an endangered orchid or at least 150 ha of contiguous grassland. Losses
outside of these parameters require the provision of prescribed offsets. In this context the loss of
0.22 ha of degraded grassland with the provision of prescribed offsets is not considered a significant
impact.
Golden Sun Moth surveys in other areas of the broader Essendon Airport grounds have not
previously detected the species. A targeted survey has been commissioned for this season to
confirm presence/absence of the species within the site. Even if present, it is considered that loss of
such a small area of modified habitat would not constitute a significant impact on this species.
5.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action
Type ‘x’ in the box for the matter(s) protected under the EPBC Act that you think are likely to be significantly impacted.
(The ‘sections’ identified below are the relevant sections of the EPBC Act.)
Matters likely to be impacted
World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A)
National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)
Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)
Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)
Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)
Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)
Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)
Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A)
Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28)
Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)
Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the matters
identified above.
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 15 of 14
6 Environmental record of the responsible party
NOTE: If a decision is made that a proposal needs approval under the EPBC Act, the Environment Minister will also decide
the assessment approach. The EPBC Regulations provide for the environmental history of the party proposing to take the
action to be taken into account when deciding the assessment approach.
Yes
6.1
Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible
environmental management?
No
X
Essendon Airport Pty Ltd has an Environment Strategy which was approved on
the 8th June 2005. Essendon Airport Pty Ltd also has a detailed range of
management plans, systems, procedures and strategies in place to address
environmental matters that may occur such as:
 water quality management
 air quality management
 noise management
 flora and fauna
 heritage
6.2
Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been
applied for in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been
subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the
protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural
resources?
X
If yes, provide details
6.3
If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance
with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?
X
If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework
As noted in 6.1 above an environmental policy and associated management
plans, systems, procedures and strategies are already in place.
6.4
Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or
been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?
X
Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 16 of 14
7 Information sources and attachments
(For the information provided above)
7.1 References
Biosis Research 2004. Flora and fauna assessment of the proposed Tullamarine Calder Interchange,
Melbourne, Victoria. For VicRoads. Authors: S. Koehler, and J. Davies. Biosis Research Pty Ltd,
Melbourne. Project 4280 & 4630.
Biosis Research 2007. Flora and fauna assessment of Essendon Airport, Victoria. For Essendon
Airport. Authors: K. Nelson and K. Sofo. Biosis Research Pty Ltd, Melbourne. Project 6066.
Biosis Research 2011. Essendon Fields: Vaughan Street and Nomad Road: Flora and fauna
assessment. For Essendon Fields. Authors: S. Mueck and S. Koehler. Biosis Research Pty Ltd,
Melbourne. Project 13982.
DSE 2007. Native Vegetation - Guide for assessment of referred planning permit applications.
Victorian Government, Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne
DSE 2009. Delivering Melbourne’s newest sustainable communities: Strategic Impact Assessment
Report for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Victorian Government,
Department of Sustainability and Environment, East Melbourne.
DSE 2010a. Biodiversity Precinct Structure Planning Kit. DSE, Melbourne.
DSE 2010b. Delivering Melbourne’s Newest Sustainable Communities: offset requirements for native
vegetation and Golden Sun Moth. DSE, Melbourne.
DSEWPaC 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. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Essendon Airport 2010. Essendon Airport Environment Strategy2010-2014. Essendon Airport Pty
Ltd, Essendon Fields, Victoria.
Meinhart Infrastructure & Environment Pty Ltd 2008. Golden Sun Moth (Synemon plana) survey
Essendon Airport. Prepared for Essendon Airport. Author: Peter Gannon. Meinhart Infrastructure &
Environment Pty Ltd
NRE 2002. Victoria's Native Vegetation Management: A Framework for Action. Department of Natural
Resources & Environment, Victoria.
7.2 Reliability and date of information
There are uncertainties in the information relating to Golden Sun Moth within Essendon Airport. The
presence of Golden Sun Moth has been previously considered elsewhere within Essendon Airport
and, to date, no Golden Sun Moths have been recorded. However, the time since survey (four
years), uncertainty in the survey effort (e.g. whether the site was assessed three times or took three
days to assess once) and its relevance to the currently accepted survey protocols for the species
means that targeted Golden Sun Moth survey was recommended by Biosis Research (2011) and has
been commissioned for the site for this coming survey season (i.e. 2011-12 season).
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 17 of 14
7.3 Attachments
Indicate the documents you have attached. All attachments must be less than two megabytes (2mb) so they can be
published on the Department’s website. Attachments larger than two megabytes (2mb) may delay the processing of your
referral.

attached
You must attach
If relevant, attach
figures, maps or aerial photographs
showing the project locality (section 1)

figures, maps or aerial photographs
showing the location of the project in
respect to any matters of national
environmental significance or important
features of the environments (section 3)

copies of any state or local government
approvals and consent conditions (section
2.5)
X
copies of any completed assessments to
meet state or local government approvals
and outcomes of public consultations, if
available (section 2.6)
X
copies of any flora and fauna investigations
and surveys (section 3)

technical reports relevant to the
assessment of impacts on protected
matters that support the arguments and
conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4)
X
report(s) on any public consultations
undertaken, including with Indigenous
stakeholders (section 3)
X
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Title of attachment(s)
Figure 1 – Location of
the study area
A002 (1) – Architectural
plan
Figure 2 – Ecological
features of the study
area
Figure 3 – Matters of
NES within 5km of the
study area
13982EssenFieldsF&F25
102011.pdf - Biosis
Research 2011.
Essendon Fields
Vaughan Street and
Nomad Road: Flora and
fauna assessment.
Page 18 of 14
8 Contacts, signatures and declarations
NOTE: Providing false or misleading information is an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment and fine (s 489,
EPBC Act).
Under the EPBC Act a referral can only be made by:

the person proposing to take the action (which can include a person acting on their behalf); or

a Commonwealth, state or territory government, or agency that is aware of a proposal by a person to take an action,
and that has administrative responsibilities relating to the action1.
Project title:
8.1
Person proposing to take action
Name
Title
Organisation
ACN / ABN (if applicable)
Postal address
Sarah Browne
Development Manager
Essendon Fields Pty Ltd
101 075 496 / 61 101 075 496
Level 2, 7 English Street, Essendon Fields, Victoria, 3401
Telephone
Email
Declaration
Sbrowne@essport.com.au
I declare that the information contained in this form is, to my knowledge, true and not
misleading. I agree to be the proponent for this action.
Signature
Date
If the proposed action is to be taken by a Commonwealth, state or territory government or agency, section 8.1 of this
form should be completed. However, if the government or agency is aware of, and has administrative responsibilities
relating to, a proposed action that is to be taken by another person which has not otherwise been referred, please contact
the Referrals Business Entry Point (1800 803 772) to obtain an alternative contacts, signatures and declarations page.
1
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 19 of 14
8.2
Person preparing the referral information (if different from 8.1)
Individual or organisation who has prepared the information contained in this referral form.
Stephen Mueck and Sally Koehler
Name
Senior Consultant Botanist and Senior Zoologist
Title
Biosis Research Pty Ltd
Organisation
0006 175 097 / 65 006 175 097
ACN / ABN (if applicable)
PO Box 289, Port Melbourne, Victoria, 3207
Postal address
Telephone
Email
Declaration
smueck@biosisresearch.com.au / skoehler@biosisresearch.com.au
I declare that the information contained in this form is, to my knowledge, true and not
misleading.
Signature
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Date 26/10/2011
Page 20 of 14
REFERRAL CHECKLIST
NOTE: This checklist is to help ensure that all the relevant referral information has been provided. It is not a part of the
referral form and does not need to be sent to the Department.
HAVE YOU:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Completed all required sections of the referral form?
Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be
mapped)?
Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project
area?
Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any matters
of NES?
Provided complete contact details and signed the form?
Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form?
Ensured that all attachments are less than two megabytes (2mb)?
Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)?
001 Referral of proposed action v Nov 10
Page 21 of 14