You are here

AWPC: No proper fauna surveys before rezoning land for housing

This week Craig Thomson, President of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council, is working on a submission to oppose the rezoning of Melbourne Water land in Rosebud South. Unfortunately he has run into problems getting appropriate ecological information about the site. He wonders if the State Government and Melbourne water have deliberately made the ecological report unavailable. The fauna report relies solely on a habitat assessment and a desktop study for threatened species.

AWPC President, Mr Thomson, says that the absence of on ground fauna surveys is very alarming that there was no on ground fauna surveys. He asks,

"Is this now what happens when the state government tries to fast track rezoning crown land for commercial profit. Or, worse, has it become common practice? It seems like a little of both. Either way this lack of survey will miss the Eastern grey kangaroos, koalas, swamp wallabies and echidnas that survive on this urban fringe. It also misses the potential for threatened species to be present on site. Any potential development on this site could be the difference between extinction or survival of local biodiversity."

"That is is not good enough."

See the information provided below. For more about the site go to http://www.dtpli.vic.gov.au/planning/about-planning/planning-services-directory/fast-track-government-land-service/181-jetty-road,-rosebud.

How to make a submission

All submissions must be directed to the Advisory Committee and will be treated as public documents.  If you would like to make a presentation at the Public Hearing, you must make a written submission and complete the relevant section of the online form.


                 Make your submission and comments here before 9 December 2016                  

ABZECO Biodiversity Assessment Report 16048 South East Outfall Pipeline: Jetty Road to Rosebud Avenue, Rosebud V1.0-August2016 pg22

5 Fauna

A fauna assessment of the study area consisted of an on-foot field survey of habitat quality and a desktop assessment of the likelihood of fauna species of conservation significance occurring within the study area. A detailed zoological survey comprising a range of techniques over different seasons was not undertaken for this study as it was beyond the scope of works.

5.1 Pre-existing information search

The Victorian Biodiversity Atlas (VBA) was queried for threatened fauna species recorded within a 5 km radius of the study area (DSE 2013a). Appendix 4 provides the results of this query.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) on the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DoE), website was queried to determine if any protected fauna related matters not reported in the VBA query are considered likely to occur within the study area. Species identified in the EPBC query are presented in Appendix 5.


5.2 Fauna Habitat

Vegetation in the study area is likely to provide suitable foraging and nesting habitat for a range of common fauna species such as common woodland birds and arboreal mammals such as Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus. However, based on habitat requirements for a range of threatened fauna species that are known to occur locally and the poor site condition and fragmented landscape, it is considered unlikely that the vegetation on the site would serve as critical or limiting habitat for significant fauna species.

The majority of threatened fauna species previously recorded within the 5km search area or predicted to occur are considered unlikely to utilise the study area. The low likelihood rating is based on various factors including, lack of suitable habitat, lack of recent database records or the predicted location being outside of the known habitat range of current species populations. One listed species, Powerful Owl Ninox strenua occupies a large home range and as such may utilise sections of the study area for occasional foraging. However vegetation throughout the site is considered unlikely to provide limiting or critical habitat for this species as the site supports few large or hollow bearing trees.

Comments

Of course if they don't want results to ecological surveys, they won't do them! They don't want to find that any "developments" on land would result in loss of habitat, or loss of threatened species. Of course the land is needed for ecological services, and biodiversity. Allowing land clearing, piece by piece, is an incremental silver bullet for loss of our intact natural heritage. Just piece by piece destruction. The problem in Australia is lack of communication across three tiers of government. We are one nation, but there is little communication between them! The rogue States can do what they want, and ignore Environmental protection policies at a national level. The Peninsula Link was not meant to promote urban sprawl, but this is exactly what's happening.
Why is this rezoning of land needed? Why is Melbourne Water not protecting their land, and surrendering it? They won't produce an ecological report if it's contrary to their vested interests. Why isn't more land actually rezoned for conservation, not for industry or housing?

How to feed an overpopulated nation of idiots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHQHPNoyO7c
Contemplate the carbon footprint and energy input to food output of this!!!

How to feed people:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_799770&feature=iv&src_vid=RHQHPNoyO7c&v=cqbOU07ZI2k

The second one basically reflects how cattle are still broadacre farmed in Australia.
Another few decades of unbridled immigration and we’ll be a suitably sized market to support, and require, the first scenario.
And we'll need Adani, etc., to feed the system’s energy losses.

Also interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_799770&feature=iv&src_vid=RHQHPNoyO7c&v=TfT49gaiktg#t=1257.729382523