GIS Project Report

ENVI1196 Natural Resource Management

Manuel Pozos Hernandez

s3733751
Content

1. Report summary .............................................................................................. 2

2. Background ...................................................................................................... 2

3. Description of the study area .......................................................................... 3

4. Recommendations ........................................................................................... 4

4.1. Methods used ............................................................................................ 4

4.2. Selected sites............................................................................................. 6

5. Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 6

6. Appendix........................................................................................................... 7

7. References...................................................................................................... 15
Report summary
Future trends of urban growth and development are important issues to
Melbourne’s natural resource management and urban planning. These issues
threaten native grasslands among other flora and fauna species of Melbourne’s
north suburbs. Using ArcGIS 10.5.1 and manipulating provided data, this report
presents some maps of three selected sites for conservation parks that display and
consider basic and important criteria that affect these ecosystems.

Background
Urban growth towards Melbourne’s northern grassland area has become a major
challenge in natural resource management and landscape planning, since it
requires of human activities that compromise these native habitats and threat their
flora and fauna species. This growth fragmentizes habitats and consequently
changes the species populations dynamics and connectivity for a wide range of
living organisms by reducing their adaptation capacities, which leads to the
extinction of the native populations (Scolozzi & Geneletti 2012). Human activities
such as residential, industrial and major project developments have been
addressed as an immediate threat to these species by many community groups,
scientists and the Victorian government (Williams, McDonnell & Seager 2005).

There are many factors affecting Melbourne native grasslands and species,
some of them are proximity to roads, proximity to central business district,
biological significance and property boundaries for instance (Bekessy et al. 2012;
Marshall, Williams & Morgan 2015; Scolozzi & Geneletti 2012; Williams, McDonnell
& Seager 2005). These factors are caused by Melbourne’s population growth,
since it implies the construction of new infrastructure. Federal statistics show that
population is expected to increase in Victoria from 5.6 million in 2012 to 12.1
million in 2061 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013). Furthermore, local Victorian
government statistic projected a population growth from 5.5 million to 10.1 million
in 2051 (Department of Environment Land Water and Planning 2016).
Nevertheless, this means that Melbourne is going to experiment a huge urban
growth towards the surrounding areas of the CBD, which includes an expansive
residential and road construction growth in the future. Consequently, it is important
to assign suitable areas of land to place new conservation parks in order to protect
these species and their habitats.

Description of the study area

The study area comprises the area where the local government areas of Hume,
Whittlesea and Mitchell meet. This area is about 11,000 ha and contains major
roads, such as the Hume freeway/highway. It also contains many waterways
(rivers, streams and drains) such as Darebin Creek, Curly Sedge Creek, Findon
Creek, Kalkallo Creek, etc. In addition, the site has few water bodies in its area,
such as lakes and swamps (See Figure1).

As mentioned before, the study area vegetation is a combination of different

types of ecological vegetation, such as grasslands, grassy woodlands, grassy
forests, etc. They are classified by the Victorian government in four different
categories (EVC), which are: vulnerable, least concern, endangered and depleted.
It is important to highlight that ‘endangered’ ecological vegetation represents
around 95% of the total ecological vegetation classification, summing an area of
approximately 2,239 ha (See Figure 2).

Regarding to fauna and flora, the site has plenty of species listed and
classified under many local and national criteria and policies, such as the Flora and
Fauna Guarantee Act (FFG), Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) and the Victorian Advisory Lists of Threatened
Species (VICADV). Their distribution varies and is irregular, however for the
purposes of this report, it is important to establish that we will focus on the species
listed on the VICADV and that it is implicit that those species without classification
are not endangered (See Figure 3).

Finally, the study area contains many archaeology sensitivity sites. These
are registered Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and contain physical remains that
complement historical information and provide tangible evidence of past activities.
In Victoria these sites are protected by the Heritage Act (1995) and their position
and arrangement help to establish a detailed understanding of the place’s history
and importance in relation to other objects and features. In other words, these sites
are previously established conservation sites, and activities within these areas
require the approval and completion of a Cultural Heritage Plan before they can
proceed. These sites comprise more than 1,909 ha of the study area and are
mainly distributed along different waterways and waterway areas, such as Merri
Creek, Malcom Creek, Findon Creek, etc. (See Figure 4)

Recommendations
This report selected three different conservation sites considering five major
criteria. These criteria are fauna and flora species classification and distribution,
distance to roads, ecological vegetation classification (EVC) and planning scheme.

Each one of these criteria was established based on reviewed literature that
supports the designation of the proposed sites. However, it is important to mention
that archaeological sensitivity was not part of the criteria since archaeological
sensitivity sites are already conservation sites and it is important to continue
protecting them.

Nevertheless, regarding to the remaining criteria, the following methods

used to select the best sites provide a detailed explanation on how and why they
were picked and mapped. Each of these sites was selected keeping in mind the
future trends of urban growth and their possible impacts on the environment.

Methods used
The first step to select the proper sites was to look into the planning scheme of the
study area. According to the City of Melbourne municipality, planning schemes are
legal documents that set out policies and regulations for the use, development and
protection of land. These planning schemes have specific zone codes according to
the use of land. Within the study area there are 29 different zone codes.

Zone codes mainly related to growth zones and development zones were
separated from those which are related to conservation purposes. This showed the
sites that were assessed to be part of Melbourne’s growth and development,
leaving those blank spaces as possible conservation sites under the Victorian
government planning scheme. However, these possible conservation sites are
subject to property boundaries since all of the land on which they are sited is
privately owned land. Nevertheless, these sites were joined with the Archaeology
Sensitivity sites in order to define different patches of land which can be addressed
as conservation zones (See Figure 5).

Then, a comparison between flora and fauna species and its location within
the property boundaries was made in order to determine the most valuable zones
in terms of species population (See Figure 6 & 7).

After that and by reviewing literature about the topic, a buffer on the main
roads was established. While Williams, McDonnell & Seager (2005, p. 41) propose
a 1,200 m buffer from a major road (highway or freeway) for native grasslands,
Donaldson & Bennet (2004, p.47) argue that the average distance that ecological
impacts of roads have is around 300 m on each side of the road. After analysing
the possible effects and impacts of roads to the conservation sites, it was decided
to adopt the buffer distance suggested by Donaldson & Bennet (2004, p.47)
regarding to roads. Nevertheless, main roads may have bigger impacts on these
sites, reason why it was decided to use a buffer distance of 800 m from main roads
(See Figure 8).

The next step was to look into the distribution and classification of ecological
vegetation in the study area. Planning scheme was a major factor to decide to
ignore certain patches of vegetation, since these lay within zone codes mainly
related to growth zones and development zones. It is important to highlight that
these patches of vegetation sum an area of more than 1,185 ha of their total
amount of area (2,239 ha), meaning that almost 53% of the vegetation lays within
zone codes mainly related to growth zones and development zones. However, a
map of the remaining 47% of vegetation was created in order to analyse and
determine the sites that could protect the largest amount of this ecological
vegetation (See Figure 9).
 Finally, in order to find the proper sites that comply with most or all these
criteria, a map with all criteria considered was made by adding all the different map
layers in one single combined map (See Figure 10).

Selected sites
Analysing all the maps and criteria listed above, and considering the future trends
of Melbourne’s inevitable urban growth, it is clear that the east, northeast and
southeast conservation zones of the map are appear to be on all of the criteria
maps and, therefore, they are the best options to become conservation parks.

In order to graphically see this, a map combining the three selected sites
and archaeology sensitivity was created (See Figure 11). This map shows how
archaeology sensitivity sites connect the selected sites. In addition, these sites
comply with all the previous criteria regarding to planning scheme (See Figure 12),
flora and fauna species (See Figure 13 & 14), roads buffers (See Figure 15) and
EVC (See Figure 16).

Conclusion
In conclusion, this report suggested three possible sites to place conservation
sites. These sites complied with few basic and important criteria; however, it
ignored specific criteria related to mobility, social preferences, controversial
groups, species dynamics, etc. Therefore the work presented on this report was
made with limited data and it resulted on an example of a basic guideline to
establish conservation sites in the northern grassland area of Melbourne.

Conservation parks are an important part of natural resource management

and urban planning, since it preserves and reinforces resilience of the natural
capital of cities. In addition, it is important to have an accurate and individual
previous planning of conservation parks, since they are shelter to many flora and
fauna species that provide invaluable ecological services to humanity. However, it
is equally or more important to have proper management of these parks in order to
continue mitigating future environmental impacts of urban growth and
development.
Appendix

Figure 1: Study Area Map

Figure 2: Ecological Vegetation Classification Map

 Figure 3 Flora & Fauna Map

Figure 4 Archaeology Sensitivity Map

Figure 5 Non-Conservation & Conservation Zones Map

Figure 6 Fauna Species Population Map

 Figure 7 Flora Species Population Map

Figure 8 Main Roads & Roads Buffers Map

Figure 9 EVC within Conservation Zones Map

Figure 10 Combined Criteria Map

 Figure 11 Selected Sites Map

Figure 12 Selected Sites & Planning Scheme Map

Figure 13 Selected Sites & Flora Species Map

Figure 14 Selected Sites & Fauna Species Map

Figure 15 Selected Sites & Road Buffers Map

Figure 16 Selected Sites & EVC Map

References
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013, 3222.0 - Population Projections, Australia,
2012 (base) to 2101, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, viewed 28 September
2018, <http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3222.0main+features82012
(base) to 2101#>.

Bekessy, SA, White, M, Gordon, A, Moilanen, A, Mccarthy, MA & Wintle, BA 2012,

‘Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe’,
Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 108, Elsevier B.V., no. 2–4, pp. 140–149.

Department of Environment Land Water and Planning 2016, Victoria in Future

2016: Population and household projections to 2051.

Donaldson, A & Bennett, A 2004 Ecological effects of roads: Implications for the
internal fragmentation of Australian parks and reserves. Parks Victoria Technical
Series No. 12. Parks Victoria, Melbourne.

Marshall, A, Williams, N & Morgan, J 2015, Land of Sweeping Plains : Managing

and Restoring the Native Grasslands of South-Eastern Australia, CSIRO
PUBLISHING, Victoria, AUSTRALIA.

Scolozzi, R & Geneletti, D 2012, ‘A multi-scale qualitative approach to assess the

impact of urbanization on natural habitats and their connectivity’, Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, vol. 36, Elsevier Inc., pp. 9–22.

Williams, NSG, McDonnell, MJ & Seager, EJ 2005, ‘Factors influencing the loss of
an endangered ecosystem in an urbanising landscape: A case study of native
grasslands from Melbourne, Australia’, Landscape and Urban Planning, vol. 71, no.
1, pp. 35–49.