natural environment sustainability state of the environment … · latrobe city’s natural...

Natural Environment SustainabilityState of the Environment

Report 2010

www.latrobe.vic.gov.au

Latrobe City’s Natural Environment Sustainability:State of the Environment Report 2010-11

Latrobe City Council, June 2011

Latrobe City Council, Corporate Headquarters, 141 Commercial Road, Morwell 3840PO Box 264 Morwell Vic 3840

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Latrobe City’s municipal State of the Environment Report 2010

3

~~

2. Ecosystem services

3. Extraction, consumption,

waste, incidental impacts

1. Capacity‐building for sustainability

Natural Environment Natural Resource Management

Human socio‐economic system

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Capacity‐building ‐ human ability to take action for the environment

Natural Resource Management ‐human interaction with the natural

system

Ecosystem Services ‐ the planet's natural life‐support systems

A Barometer of the Condition of Latrobe City's Natural Environment 2010

‐100%

‐75%

‐50%

‐25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Capacity‐building Natural Resource Management

Ecosystem Services

Deteriorated ‐Improved

Overall direction of the state of Latrobe City's environment 2000‐2010

Indicators improved

Indicators deteriorate

Executive Summary

Latrobe 2026: The Community Vision for the Latrobe Valley is that in 2026, Latrobe Valley enjoys a beautiful natural environment that is managed and protected with respect to ensure a lasting legacy for future generations. This municipal State of the Environment Report contributes to that vision. The Report is an objective of Latrobe City Council’s Natural Environment Sustainability Strategy 2008‐13 and a Key Strategic Action in the Council Plan 2010.

The purpose of the report is to provide objective data and transparent interpretations of the state of the local natural environment in 2010 and the trend over the past decade, to assist in rational planning for natural environment sustainability. It therefore makes no recommendations for action.

The indicators used variously relate to natural ecosystem services such as air and water), natural resource management ,and human capacity‐building for natural environment sustainability (see figure opposite).

The condition scores (using a 4‐point scale of very poor, poor, good and very good) of all the indicators in each of these three sectors have been summed to produce an overall ‘barometer’ of the state of the Latrobe City environment in 2010 (see figure opposite). The summary indicates good capacity‐building for sustainability, and natural resource management and ecosystem services sectors in reasonable condition but with room for improvement.

The trends in the indicators over the past decade have also been summed to show the overall direction. The figure opposite plots, for each area, the proportion of environmental indicators that have shown an overall improvement over the decade (in white) and the number that have shown an overall deterioration (in black). Capacity‐building has generally improved, the natural resource management sector has most indicators improving but some deteriorating, and the ecosystem services sector is about half and half.

4

Contents

Natural Environment Sustainability Strategy 2008‐13 Action Areas and Local State of Environment Indicators

Background and Introduction

Introduction to Latrobe City’s Local State of the Environment Report–Background–Purpose–Structure–Science‐based reporting–Assessment objectivity

5

Structure of Each Section– Indicator–Data–Trend–Overall Condition and Trend Score–Additional Data

7

Summary Report Card 9

1. Building capacity for sustainability

Latrobe City Council Capacity and capability (NESS Action area 1)– ICLEI Progress towards Sustainability index

12

Local regulatory framework (NESS Action area 2)– Planning Zones: changes in area

14

Industry action (NESS Action area 4)– Compliance: Environment & Resource Efficiency Plans and Accredited

Licences.– Voluntary energy and water saving steps by major health, education and

government organisations

16

Community action (NESS Action area 5)– Active Local Community Environmental Sustainability Groups– Rural properties participating in the Native Vegetation Retention

Scheme

18

20

5

Contents

3. Natural resource management, consumption and incidental environmental impacts (“market externalities”)

Timber production side‐effects (NESS Action area 12)– Environmental Compliance: Code of Forest Practice Audit Results 48

Weed Infestations (NESS Action area 14)– Extent of Roadside Blackberry Infestations

50

Materials consumption– Latrobe City Council paper consumption 52

Waste management (NESS Action area 15)– Kerbside garbage per person to landfill 54

Energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (NESS Action area 13) – Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions/energy usage– Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions/energy usage

5658

Climate change (NESS Action area 16)– Changing Climate ‐ Rainfall and Frequency of Temperature Extremes– Extreme events: bushfire extent

6062

Appendix

Scales used to calculate indicator condition scores 64

2. Maintaining basic ecosystem services: air, water, soil, biodiversity

Air quality (NESS Action area 9)–Airborne Chemical Pollutants: Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Ozone– Airborne Particle Concentrations and Visible Distance

2224

Water quality in rivers and streams (NESS Action area 6)– Water flow: amount of water coming down the Latrobe River– Chemical Pollutants: Nitrogen and Phosphorus– Sediment load: Suspended Solids and Turbidity

262728

Water supply (NESS Action area 11)– Residential Water Consumption: litres per person per day– Quality of Potable Water: compliance with EPA Standards

3436

Soil (NESS Action area 10)– (see Water and Timber Production) 38

Biodiversity – flora and fauna (NESS Action area 7)– Municipal Native Vegetation Cover– Bird Diversity: Annual Bird Count of Best Birding Sites

4042

Biodiversity ‐ bushland parks and reserves (NESS Action area 8)– Extent of Bushland Reserves with Formal Protection– Number of Private Properties Adopting a Trust for Nature Covenant

4446

6

Introduction

INTRODUCTION TO LATROBE CITY’S LOCAL STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORT

BackgroundThis report is an action under Latrobe City Council’s Natural Environment Sustainability Strategy 2008‐2013 and a Key Strategic Action in the Council Plan 2010‐11. Latrobe 2026: The Community Vision for the Latrobe Valley is that in 2026, Latrobe Valley enjoys a beautiful natural environment that is managed and protected with respect to ensure a lasting legacy for future generations. Latrobe City is grateful to the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability and her staff for their advice and discussions in the development of this report.

The purpose of the Latrobe City local State of the Environment reportThe purpose of this State of the Environment report is to assist rational debate on natural environmental conservation, by providing an objective basis against which to judge the state of the local natural environment and the trend. Understanding the state of the environment is critical for decisions on whether action is needed or not, and whether current action is effective. It is not the intent of this report to ‘green‐wash’ existing activities to justify ‘business as usual’; nor to advance environmental agendas at the expense of existing interests. To this end, the data used is science‐based and its interpretation has been judged (wherever possible) in comparison with criteria adopted by government agencies, e.g. the State policies for air and water quality. Where such criteria are not available, other non‐partisan standards have been used.

ScopeThis State of the Environment report provide indicators primarily for the natural environment and ecosystem services, but it also includes indicators extraction and consumption, waste and incidentals which

The process – components, indicators, data, assessments and trendsThis State of the Environment report first needed to identify the key components of the environment whose state needed to be assessed: it uses the components identified during the development of Latrobe City Council’s Natural Environment Sustainability Strategy 2008‐2013 (e.g. water, air, community capacity for sustainability) because these were developed with extensive input from experts and agencies and broad community consultation. Next, appropriate indicators were identified and populated with data. Indicators have been developed using expert advice and based on the availability of data preferably over the previous decade. A variety of internal and external data sources have been used and these are acknowledged in the relevant sections. Finally, the data had to be interpreted: appropriate standards were identified and scales developed to provide qualitative assessments of the meaning of the quantitative data; and a standard statistical technique (regression) was used to determine the overall trend of the data over the decade.

impact on the natural environment. It also provides some indicators of the capacity of the human socio‐economic system to progress natural environment sustainability, but it does not provide any indicators for the state of the human socio‐economic system itself. ~~

2. Ecosystem services

3. Extraction, consumption,

waste, incidental impacts

1. Capacity‐building for sustainability

Natural Environment Natural Resource Management

Human socio‐economic system

7

Introduction

CASE STUDYA Latrobe City Council experiment on the reliability of environmental assessments

Interpretation of data and assessments of the state of the environment can be subjective. This is a particularly relevant consideration in areas such as forestry where there are both passionate advocates and opponents. When a representative sample of the Latrobe City community was asked in the 2003 community survey whether compliance with the Code of Forest practices should be audited by environmental experts or forestry experts, the overwhelming community view was that both were required for a balanced opinion. In the first part of the decade, Latrobe City engaged third‐party environmental specialists to assess compliance, and then from 2004 used forestry specialists. Are the assessments comparable and equally objective?

To satisfy community concerns, Latrobe City Council used two reputable teams of experts ‐one natural environmental science specialists and the other natural resource management (forestry) specialists ‐ to conduct parallel audits. The two teams were asked to assess both compliance of forestry operations with the State Government Code of Forest Practices for Timber Production 1996, and the environmental impact of those operations.

The results were encouraging. Both teams agreed very closely on the degree to which harvesting complied with the Code set by State Government, even though the natural environmental science consultants estimated environmental impact significantly higher than the natural resource management consultants. This indicates that experts with different expertise are able to agree on whether performance meets established criteria, even if their overall opinions about the environmental impacts differ.

Correlation of Code compliance assessments. If assessments are equivalent, they should fall along the dotted line. The ”line of best fit” of the actual assessments (the solid line) fits this almost exactly, indicating that the consultants were in agreement on compliance.

Correlation of environmental impact assessments. If assessments are the same, they should fall along the dotted line. The “line of best fit” of the actual assessments (the solid line) is shifted away from the dotted line, indicating a difference of opinion between consultants on environmental impact.

Timber Harvesting Audits ‐ Environmental Impact Assesments

Biodiversity quantity

Soil erosion quantity

Water quantity

Biodiversity - quality

Soil erosion potential

Water quality

R2 = 0.507

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Natural Environment Consultants

Nat

ural

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

tC

onsu

ltant

s

Comparison of Code auditors (for 6 coupes assessing 17 Code principles using 48 criteria)

R2 = 0.8855

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Natural Environment Consultant

Natu

ral R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent

Cons

ulta

nt

8

Introduction

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

The sections in this report reflect the Action Areas identified in the development of Latrobe City’s Natural Environment Sustainability Strategy 2008‐13, with some re‐organisation. The relevant action areas in the Strategy are referenced. Each section describes the indicator, the data, current condition and the overall trend over the past decade. Annual values for the last ten years are graphed where available and additional background data is provided in many cases.

IndicatorsIndicators have been selected based on the availability of relevant data over the decade, their relevance to the state of the natural environment and their relevance to Latrobe City’s adopted Natural Environment Sustainability Strategy 2008‐13. Wherever possible, ‘obvious’’ indicators have been used, for example, the air quality indicator of how many kilometres one can see before the dust haze obscures ones view. On the other hand, the indicator for bird biodiversity uses a mathematical equation based on species and numbers, because species and bird counts without this manipulation indicate how many birdwatchers there were and how many sites they visited, not biodiversity. The indicators have been graphed to reflect the overall performance.

DataThe “data” section outlines the data used, how the indicator was calculated and the source of the data. The full data sets used are stored on the Latrobe City Council computer system.

Trend and Condition‘Trend’ reflects whether the indicator has, overall, improved or deteriorated over the decade. Where the overall trend is unclear, a statistical ‘line of best fit’ (linear regression) has been calculated to determine the overall trend. Note that an indicator that has increased may have improved or it may have deteriorated, depending on the indicator, for example, an increase in the turbidity of water means that the quality has deteriorated, whereas an increase in bird biodiversity means that the indicator has improved. An overall condition score for the most recent year is also provided, rated on a 4‐point scale of “very poor”, “poor”, “good” or “very good”. This is a judgment based on the data and a set of criteria established and listed at the end of this document. Wherever possible, they are based on accepted standards . e.g. the national target for the protection of ecosystems is 15%, so the current protected area of less than 5% of Latrobe City has been classified as “very poor”, 5‐10% would be considered “poor”, 10‐15% “good”, and above 15% “very good”. As another example, ICLEI developed a scale for progress towards sustainability –Latrobe City scored 54% on that and so is rated “Good” because 54% is in the third quartile (50‐75%) of possible scores.

Additional dataThe ‘Additional Data’ page includes more detail on the indicator and related information, e.g. for water quality, a map of watercourses in Latrobe City and a list of the State Environment Protection Policy objectives for lowland rivers.

9

Summary Report Card

Summary Report Card

This section summarises performance on each indicator in 2010, and the overall trend in that indicator over the past decade. The overall results are graphed over page to show

1. How the various sectors – capacity‐building, natural resource management and ecosystem services (including climate) have performed in comparison with each other,2. A ‘barometer’ of environmental condition in 2010,3. The overall direction or trend of each sector over the previous decade.

The scales used to assign the ratings (very poor, poor, good, very good) can be found at the back of this document. Each indicator is discussed in more detail on the following pages.

CAPACITY ‐BUILDING INDICATORS Very Poor

Poor Good Very Good

Trend over this decade

Capacity‐building

ICLEI Progress towards Sustainability index O Improved

Planning Zone changes O Deteriorated

Industry Compliance: EREPS and Accredited Licences

O Improved

Voluntary steps by major Education, Health and Government organisations

O Improved

Active Local Environment Groups and Committees

O Improved

Rural properties participating in the Native Vegetation Retention Scheme

O Improved

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT INDICATORS

Very Poor

Poor Good Very Good


Natural Resource Management

Code of Forest Practices compliance O Improved

Consumption

Corporate copy paper consumption O Improved

Weeds

Extent of Roadside Blackberry Infestations O Improved

Waste

Kerbside garbage to landfill: kg per person O Improved

Energy use and greenhouse emissions

Corporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions O Deteriorated

Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions O Deteriorated

10

Summary Report Card

CLIMATE CHANGE INDICATORS Very Poor

Poor Good Very Good


Changing Climate ‐ Frequency of Temperature Extremes

O Deteriorated

Changing Climate – Rainfall O Deteriorated

Natural Disasters ‐ bushfires O Deteriorated

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE INDICATORS Very Poor

Poor Good Very Good


Air quality

Airborne Chemical Pollutants – Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone

O Improved

Airborne Particle Concentrations and Visible Distance

O Deteriorated

Water – quality and supply

Water flow – amount of water coming down the Latrobe River

O Deteriorated

Chemical Pollutants – Nitrogen and Phosphorus

O Improved

Sediment load – Suspended Solids and Turbidity

O Deteriorated

Residential Water Consumption ‐ litres per person per day

O Improved

Quality of Potable Water – compliance with Safe Drinking Water Standards

O Improved

Biodiversity

Municipal Native Vegetation Cover O Deteriorated

Bird Diversity ‐ Annual Bird Count of Best Birding Sites

O Improved

Extent of Bushland Reserves with Formal Protection

O Improved

Number of Private Properties Adopting a Trust for Nature Covenant

O Improved

11

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Very Poor Poor Good Very Good

Num

ber o

f ind

icators

Condition rating

Condition of Latrobe City's Natural Environment 2010

Capacity‐building

Natural Resource Management

Ecosystem Services

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Capacity‐building ‐ human ability to take action for the environment

Natural Resource Management ‐human interaction with the natural

system

Ecosystem Services ‐ the planet's natural life‐support systems

A Barometer of the Condition of Latrobe City's Natural Environment 2010

Summing the scores (1 ‐ very poor, 2 – poor, 3 – good, 4 – very good) indicates that Latrobe City’s capacity building to address environmental issues is good, and our natural resource management is fairly good, but ecosystem services could be improved in a number of areas.

Summing the indicator scores and plotting the scores as a percentage of the maximum provides an indication of the overall condition of natural environment sustainability in Latrobe City in 2010. The results suggest that Latrobe City’s capacity building to address environmental issues is good, but natural resource management and ecosystem services could perform better.

Summing the number of indicators that show environmental improvement over the decade, and the number that show deterioration, provides an indication of the overall direction of natural environment sustainability in Latrobe City. Capacity has shown an overall improvement, most natural resource management indicators have improved but several have deteriorated, but while many ecosystem service indicators are improving, as many are deteriorating.

Summary Report Card

‐100%

‐75%

‐50%

‐25%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Capacity‐building Natural Resource Management

Ecosystem Services

<‐Deteriorated Im

proved

‐>

Overall direction of the state of Latrobe City's environment 2000‐2010

Indicators improved

Indicators deteriorated

12

Building capacity for sustainability

ICLEI “Progress Towards Sustainability” indicatorThe indicatorDuring 2009‐10, 6 regional cities and eight rural shires in Victoria participated in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI ) Sustainability Integration Self‐assessment Tool program. Guided by ICLEI facilitators, this provides a self‐assessment of the degree to which sustainability has been integrated into Council processes.

The dataLatrobe City Council’s internal Sustainability Steering Group rated Council operations using the SISAT questionnaire of 84 questions, each with four specified levels of performance. The scores were further informed by short‐version assessments completed by management. The results from other participating municipalities were provided by ICLEI.

The trendLatrobe City actions contributing to the SISAT scores commenced in 2000 and have progressed over the decade, but only one assessment has been undertaken. Latrobe City achieved the second highest score overall (54%) of the fourteen participating municipalities. Regional cities generally scored higher than rural shires. The two areas (there were eleven in total) where Latrobe City achieved its lowest scores were on “establishing the business case” and on “policy adoption”. Latrobe City achieved the highest scores among participants for “political commitment”, “strategic and corporate planning” and “performance measurement”.

Overall condition in 2010: GOOD. Trend: IMPROVED

(NESS Action Area 1)

1. Capacity building

2009‐10 data only

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Establishing

a

busine

ss case

Political

commitm

ent and

leadership

Policy

developm

ent and

adop

tion

Strategic and

corporate

planning

Mainstreaming

sustainability

Stakeh

olde

r en

gagemen

t and

leveraging

Commun

ication,

education and

training

Data and

inform

ation

managem

ent

Performance

measuremen

t

Sustainable

repo

rting

Continuo

us

improvem

ent

ICLEI SISAT Tool for Measuring progress Towards Sustainability Latrobe City (black bar) compared to five other regional cities and five rural shires in Victoria

13

Building capacity for sustainability(NESS Action Area 1)

Background data


14

Local regulatory framework

Planning Zone size changesThe indicatorThe purpose of planning is to provide for appropriate, predictable and orderly development, use and conservation of land, both now and in the future. Under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, there is a statewide system of zoning of land to regulate the particular land use and development permitted there. Such zones include residential, business, industrial, farming, public purposes, roads and special use. Each zone (e.g. the Residential Zone) may be subdivided (e.g. into Residential 1 and Residential 2) to provide more particular regulation, listed in the Schedule for that zone. Local Government is responsible for administering the Planning Scheme in its own municipality. Changes to zones require extensive public consultation and the approval of the State Minister. Changes in the area of Planning Zones reflect changes in how land is expected to be used and developed. A slow rate of change in land zoning is generally indicative that the zones have been well‐planned to accommodate both present and future needs.

The dataData on the current size of each planning zone in Latrobe City is stored in the Latrobe City GIS. Details of changes are listed on the Department of Planning and Community Development website at http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/planningschemes/latrobe/home.htmland the areas of parcels whose zoning has changed in each Planning Scheme amendment have been calculated from the polygons stored on the Latrobe City GIS. The indicator used here ignores differences in the zone schedules and groups zones by their standard Zone name.

The trendDriving into Melbourne, It is easy to get the impression that urban sprawl is rapidly engulfing agricultural land. However, in Latrobe City, zoning changes have generally been very small (0.16% of the land area over 5 years). The main change between 2005 and 2010 has been a shift of some 100 ha of the Farming Zone to the Industrial Zone (the Farming Zone in Latrobe City still covers over 95,000 ha). Changes affect only a fraction of a percent of Latrobe City.

Overall condition in 2010: VERY GOOD. Trend: DETERIORATED



Size (% area of Latrobe City) of annual changes to Planning Zones

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

2000‐01

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

15

Local regulatory framework

Planning Zones 2005

Planning Zones 2010

Background data

Planning Zone Trend

Area of Latrobe

City 2005 (Ha)

Area of Latrobe

City 2005 (%)

Increase or decrease in zone area 2010:2005

(Ha)

Increase or decrease in zone area 2010:2005

(%)

Size of change relative to size of

zoneBusiness ↘ 198 0.1% -1 -0.6% Very slight decreaseFarming ↘ 96353 67.6% -108 -0.1% Very slight decreaseIndustrial ↑ 1577 1.1% 106 6.7% IncreaseLow density residential → 314 0.2% 0 0.0% No changeMixed use ↑ 59 0.0% 1 2.2% Slight increasePublic conservation and resource → 3680 2.6% 0 0.0% No changePublic park and recreation ↘ 1092 0.8% -1 -0.1% Very slight decreasePublic use ↘ 1290 0.9% -1 -0.1% Very slight decreaseResidential ↗ 3786 2.7% 9 0.2% Very slight increaseRural conservation → 155 0.1% 0 0.0% No changeRoad → 1495 1.0% 1 0.0% No changeRural living → 7488 5.3% -1 0.0% No changeSpecial use → 24831 17.4% -5 0.0% No changeTownship → 127 0.1% 0 0.0% No changeUrban floodway ↘ 71 0.0% 0 -0.2% Very slight decrease

142517 232



Size (ha.) of Planning Zone changes per year

0

50

100

150

200

2000‐01

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

hectares

Changes on private land 2005‐2010

Special Use

Farming

Public Conservation and Resource

Rural Living

Residential

Industrial

This graph shows the same data as the Indicator but plotted as hectares changing per year rather than the percentage of Latrobe City per year.

16

Industry Sustainability

Industry action for sustainabilityThe indicatorThe number of organisations producing statutory Environment and Resource Efficiency Plans is an indication of progress towards sustainability of the the larger resource users. The Accredited Licensee program indicates progress beyond compliance.

The Victorian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) requires businesses using more than 100 TJ of energy and/or 120 ML of water each year (each the equivalent of 2000 average Victorian households) to have an Environment and Resource Efficiency Plan (EREP) designed to achieve environmental benefits and cost‐savings in a short time‐frame. Other businesses can participate on a voluntary basis.

The Victorian EPA states that “The Accredited licensee system is designed to provide companies having sound technical and environmental management systems, together with the commitment to good environmental performance, to be freed from the standard prescriptive approach to works approval and licensing. To be an accredited licensee, the overriding requirement is to demonstrate a high level of environmental performance and an ongoing capacity to maintain and improve this performance.”

The dataThe Victorian EPA publishes a list of organisations enrolled in the EREP scheme and organisations receiving Accredited Licences.

The trendEREPs were only introduced in 2008, hence there is insufficient data to develo a trend at this point in time. However, implementation of this system indicates improvement in environmental reporting.




2009‐10 data only

0

5

10

15

Num

ber of businesses

Industry operating under Environment Protection Authority licence

Compliance ‐ Licence + Environment and Resource Efficiency Plan

Compliance plus ‐Accredited License

17


Background data



Organisation Tyoe of business Location

Compliance: Environment and

Resource Efficiency Plan

Compliance plus:

Accredited Licence

APA Gasnet Australia (Operations) P/L Natural gas distribution Moe 1 0

Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd Timber mill Morwell 1 0

Ecogen Energy P/L Jeeralang Power Station Morwell 1 0

Australian Char P/L Briquette Factory ‐ briquette production Morwell 1 0

Energy Brix Australia Corporation Pty Ltd Briquette Factory ‐ electricity generator Morwell 1 0

Mecrus P/L Briquette Factory ‐ coal delivery Morwell 1 0

National Foods Australia Pty Ltd Dairy processing Morwell 1 0

National Power Aust Investments Ltd Hazelwood mine and power station Morwell 1 1

Paper Australia Pty Ltd Australian Paper Maryvale Mill Morwell 1 0

IPM Operation & Maintenance Loy Yang P/L Loy Yang B power station Traralgon 1 1

Loy Yang Power Management P/L Loy Yang mine and power station Traralgon 1 1

Unimin Australia Limited Lime works Traralgon 1 0

Snowy Hydro Ltd Gas turbine power station ‐ Loy Yang Traralgon 1 0

Truenergy Yallourn P/L Yallourn mine and power station Yallourn North 1 1

18


Industry action for sustainabilityThe indicatorThe indicator is based on voluntary steps including policy adoption, target setting, reporting and progress on achieving targets by the major health, education and government organisations in Latrobe City. These steps indicate capacity‐building in terms of recognition of the issue, setting targets, implementation of actions to achieve those targets, spreading the message by public reporting and actually achieving the targets for energy efficiency.

The dataAnnual data for past years has not been sourced. The table represents the situation in 2010.

The trendThere is progress on all five steps but still a way to go to achieve 100% in terms of ticking all the boxes – current performance overall averages 60%.




2009‐10 data only

Voluntary energy and water saving measures by the three major health, education and local government

organisations in Latrobe City in 2010

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

1. Policy,strategy or

EMS

2.Reductiontargets≥20%

3. Actionsunderway

4. Regularpublic

reporting

5.Significantprogress(≥50% ontargets)

19


Background data



Voluntary energy and water saving measures by major health, education and government organisations in Latrobe City in 2010

Type of business

1. Policy, strategy or EMS

2. Reduction targets ≥20%

3. Actions

underway

4. Regular public

reporting

5. Significant progress (≥50% on targets)

MonashUniversity Gippsland

University

Latrobe Regional Hospital

Hospital

Latrobe City Council

Local Government

Progress: 67% 67% 100% 33% 33%

Voluntary energy and water saving measures by major health, education and government organisations in Latrobe City in 2010

Type of business

1. Policy, strategy or EMS

2. Reduction targets ≥20%

3. Actions

underway

4. Regular public

reporting

5. Significant progress (≥50% on targets)

MonashUniversity Gippsland

University

Latrobe Regional Hospital

Hospital

Latrobe City Council

Local Government

Progress: 67% 67% 100% 33% 33%

Summary of natural environment sustainability activities in 2010 reported by the three major health, education and local government organisations in Latrobe City.

20

Community environmental action

Community Environmental Sustainability GroupsThe indicatorThere are a variety of local community groups active in the area of environmental sustainability in Latrobe City. They include independent, voluntary groups, advisory and review committees and Committees of Management established by government or industry.

The number of active community environmental groups is an indicator that tells us the pro‐active nature of the community in environmental sustainability, and also of the level of community interest for environmental sustainability. In the USA, one study found 1 environmental group per 11,500 and 1 per 19,500 (Kempton et al, 2001.Local Environmental Groups: A Systematic Enumeration in Two Geographical Areas. Rural Sociology 66:557‐578) which would suggest 4‐6 groups might be found in Latrobe City. In this study, environmental groups included school groups, which are not included here. Cardinia Shire and Port Macquarie‐Hastings Shire, both with a population about the same size as Latrobe City, report 9 and 18 voluntary local environmental groups respectively.

The dataLatrobe City Council maintains a database of environment‐related community organisations based in Latrobe City. Latrobe City Council is also represented on most of the appointed organisations. Organisations included in this data set are shown in the table opposite. The indicator does not include groups with a wider geographical remit such as the Gippsland Climate Change Network, nor Steering Committees for projects such as Environment Victoria’s Sustainable Living Program, nor the various advisory committees to the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority.

The trendThere are now 18 independent voluntary environmental groups and 36 local environmental organisations in total operating in Latrobe City (approximately one for every 2000 residents). Between 2000 and 2010 there has been a 29% increase in the number of local organisations addressing environmental sustainability, indicating increasing interest and action.

Overall condition in 2010: VERY GOOD. Trend: IMPROVED



0

10

20

30

40Num

ber o

f groups

Active local environmental groups and committees in Latrobe City

Community environmental action

Types of local community and community‐represented Environment Organisations in Latrobe City 2010

Number of groups

Independent groups

Natural History Societies 1

Natural Environment Lobby Groups 1

Sustainability Groups 1

Landcare Groups 9

Weeds groups 1

Friends Groups of bushland reserves 5

Neighbourhood Environment Improvement Plan Committees 2

Appointed groups

Bushland Reserve Committees of Management 7

Rail Trail Committees of Management 3

Environmental Review Committees or equivalent 5

Advisory Groups 1

Total 36

1

Yinnar South Landcare Group

Jean Galbraith Reserve

Committee

Crinigan Road Bushland Reserve

Committee of Management

Traralgon South &

CalligneeLandcare

GroupJeeralangLandcare

Group

Boolarra South Landcare Group

Friends of Traralgon West Railway

Reserve

Flynn Landcare

Group

Friends of Traralgon

South Flora & Fauna Reserve

Morwell River Wetlands Committee

Traralgon Railway

Reservoir Conservation

Reserve Committee of Management

Traralgon

Morwell

Moe

Toongabbie

Churchill

Boolarra

Traralgon Sth

Mathison Park Committee of Management

Morwell-Churchill CorridorLandcare

Group

TyersLandcare

Group

GippslandPlains

Rail Trail Committee

Moe-YallournRail Trail

Committee

Mirboo-BoolarraRail Trail

Committee

Friends of MorwellNational Park

Friends of TarraBulga National Park

WirildaEnvironment

Park Committee

Edward Hunter

BushlandReserve


Ollerton Avenue BushlandReserve


Traralgon Creek Neighbourhood

Environment Improvement

Plan Committee

Morwell River Neighbourhood


Plan Committee

Merton Ward Landcare

Group (College

Park)

Friends of Upper

MorwellRiver

Latrobe Valley Field Naturalists

Club

Friends of Gippsland

Bush

Latrobe Sustainability

Group

LCC Climate Change

Consultative Committee

11

Yinnar South Landcare Group

Jean Galbraith Reserve

Committee

Crinigan Road Bushland Reserve


Traralgon South &

CalligneeLandcare

GroupJeeralangLandcare

Group

Boolarra South Landcare Group

Friends of Traralgon West Railway

Reserve

Flynn Landcare

Group

Friends of Traralgon

South Flora & Fauna Reserve

Morwell River Wetlands Committee

Traralgon Railway

Reservoir Conservation

Reserve Committee of Management

Traralgon

Morwell

Moe

Toongabbie

Churchill

Boolarra

Traralgon Sth

Mathison Park Committee of Management

Morwell-Churchill CorridorLandcare

Group

TyersLandcare

Group

GippslandPlains

Rail Trail Committee

Moe-YallournRail Trail

Committee

Mirboo-BoolarraRail Trail

Committee

Friends of MorwellNational Park

Friends of TarraBulga National Park

WirildaEnvironment

Park Committee

Edward Hunter

BushlandReserve


Ollerton Avenue BushlandReserve


Traralgon Creek Neighbourhood


Plan Committee

Morwell River Neighbourhood


Plan Committee

Merton Ward Landcare

Group (College

Park)

Friends of Upper

MorwellRiver

Latrobe Valley Field Naturalists

Club

Friends of Gippsland

Bush

Latrobe Sustainability

Group

LCC Climate Change

Consultative Committee

21

Background data



Map showing approximate locations of Voluntary environment group activities

22

Community environmental action (b)

Participation in the Native Vegetation Retention Incentive SchemeThe indicatorLatrobe City Council’s Native Vegetation Retention Scheme commenced in 2000 and offers a limited number of small grants (averaging around $400 each) as a contribution towards native vegetation retention and enhancement. The incentives are available for private properties over 4 hectares with remnant native vegetation. There are 1990 private properties over 4ha in Latrobe City. This Scheme also supports properties covenanted with Trust for Nature, which are also used as an indicator in this report (see later under Biodiversity Conservation)

The dataA record of successful applications is maintained by Latrobe City Council. It includes both projects and annual payments for land protected under a covenant with the Trust for Nature. The indicator is the total number of properties that have participated. Some properties have successfully applied for support for projects in more than one year, and covenanted properties are supported with annual payments. The indicator records each property only once, in the first year that it participated.

The trendThe number of participating properties has continued to increase and now totals 6.7% of private properties over 4ha. Around 10% of the remainder (216 of the 1990) are owned by multi‐nationals or government, and these would not normally apply, and many properties are cleared and not normally eligible. There is no accepted standard for community participation. Where Landcare groups are established, 41% of local landholders participate (Allan Curtis and Penny Cooke 2006 Landcare Groups in Victoria: after twenty Years A report to the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, National Landcare Program, Monitoring and Evaluation Project), but the Landcare program potentially attract a wider audience because it also subsidises agricultural production by addressing externalities such as weeds and erosion. A survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2007 (4441.0 ‐ Voluntary Work, Australia, 2006) found an Australian participation rate in voluntary work to protect the environment of 2.3%. 2% is used as the mid‐point of the report card scale.




0

50

100

150

200Num

ber o

f properties

Native Vegetation Retention Incentive Scheme ‐ participating properties (cumulative)

Community environmental action (b)

23

Background data



Fencing off native vegetation was the most popular activity in the early part of the scheme, but in recent years there has been a shift to weed control in native vegetation.

Native Vegetation Retention Incentive Scheme (cumulative % of the 1990 private

properties over 4ha participating)

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

1999‐0

2000‐1

2001‐2

2002‐3

2003‐4

2004‐5

2005‐6

2006‐7

2007‐8

2008‐9

2009‐10

2010‐11

Since the commencement of the Native Vegetation Retention Incentive Scheme, there has been a gradual increase in the proportion of eligible properties participating, reaching 6.7% in 2010

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Types of Native Vegetation Retention Projects Supported

Planning

Weeds

Fencing

Revegetation

nestboxes

Unknown

24

Air quality (a)

Airborne chemical pollutant concentrationsThe indicatorThe Indicator is the number of days per calendar year compliant with State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Objectives for concentrations of Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Airborne Particles (PM10) and Ozone.•Sulphur dioxide (SO2) is produced by volcanoes, industrial processes and transport, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels. It can cause respiratory problems in humans and is a precursor chemical for acid rain and the formation of airborne soot particles. •Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are produced by the combustion of fuels. Approximately half comes from vehicles, a quarter from coal‐fired power stations and the remainder from industrial, commercial and residential activities. Nitrogen dioxide may cause various health impacts on humans. It is a greenhouse gas. It can damage vegetation and reduce crop yield, and contributes to the formation of smog, acid rain and ground‐level ozone. •Ozone (O3) is produced by the chemical reactions from fuel combustion in vehicles and power stations, but also from bushfires. Ozone can produce ground‐level photochemical smog, affect the heart and respiratory system, and damage vegetation growth, buildings and other materials.

The dataAir quality monitoring of these and other air quality parameters occurs at a number of sites in the Latrobe Valley, under the auspices of the Latrobe Valley Air Monitoring Network. Detailed air quality data can be accessed at http://www.powerworks.com.au/airquality.asp

The trendOverall, the level of chemical pollutants in the air has been stable or declined. The peak of Nitrogen Dioxide in 2009 is a direct consequence of the Black Saturday bushfire.



2. Ecosystem Services

0%20%40%60%80%100%

% Days per Year Various Chemical Pollutants Compliant with State Environment Policy Objectives

Days Nitrogen oxide <0.12ppm

Days Sulphur dioxide <0.20 ppm/hour

Days Ozone <0.10ppm/hour

Days Ozone <0.08ppm/4hr

25

Air quality (a)

Examples of State Environment Protection Policy Objectives and Goals

Pollutant Period used for monitoring levels

Environmental Quality Objectives

Goal -Maximum Allowable Exceedances

Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour1 year

0.12 ppm0.03 ppm

1 day a yearNone

Photochemical oxidant (as ozone)

1 hour4 hours

0.10 ppm0.08 ppm

1 day a year1 day a year

Sulphur dioxide 1 hour1 day1 year

0.20 ppm0.08 ppm0.02 ppm

1 day a year1 day a yearNone

Air Quality ‐ Maximum Concentration of Chemical Pollutants

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

parts per million

Nitrogen oxideMaximum NOppm/hourNitrogen DioxideMaximum NO2ppm/hourSulphur DioxideMaximum SO2ppm/hourOzone Maximum O3ppm/hour

Ozone Maximum O3(ppm/4hour)

Background data



Highest concentrations of various airborne pollutants recorded each year in Latrobe Valley

The number of days air quality did not reach State Environment Protection Policy goals each year.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Days

Number of Days Per Year Chemical Pollutants Exceeded

State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Objectives

Days Nitrogen oxide >0.12ppm

Days Sulphur dioxide >0.20 ppm/hour

Days Ozone >0.10ppm/hour

Days Ozone >0.08ppm/4hr

26

Air quality (b)

Airborne particle concentrations and minimum visual distanceThe indicatorThe Indicator is the number of days per calendar year compliant with State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Objectives for concentrations of Airborne Particles (PM10) and the minimum local visual distance on any day in the year.•Airborne particles are generated by burning fossil fuels and are produced by vehicles and industrial processes, and also from domestic solid fuel heaters and bushfires. Particles smaller than 10 micrometres (smaller than most plant pollen – there are 1000 micrometres in a millimeter) can penetrate deep into the lungs and cause respiratory problems. •Local Visual Distance reflects the density of airborne particles of all sizes in the air.

The dataAir quality monitoring of these and other air quality parameters occurs at a number of sites in the Latrobe Valley, under the auspices of the Latrobe Valley Air Monitoring Network. Two measures for PM10 particles are given because this indicator is measured using two different methods. Detailed air quality data can be accessed at http://www.powerworks.com.au/airquality.asp

The trendOverall, the level of particles in the air has been stable, although there has been some increase with drought and bushfires.

Overall condition in 2010: GOOD. Trend: DETERIORATED



0%20%40%60%80%100%

% Days per year Airborne Particles Compliant with State Environment Protection Policy Objectives (3 measures)

Days Local visibility distance>20km/hour

Days PM10<50μg/m3 (high volume sampler)

Days PM10<50μg/m3 (TEOM method)

27

Air quality (b)

Maximum PM10 Airborne Particle Concentrations

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

parts per million Maximum PM10

μg/m3/24hours(High volumesampler)

Maximum PM10μg/m3/24hours(TEOM method)

Number of Days per Year Airborne Particles Exceeded State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Objectives

0

10

20

30

40

502000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Days

Days Local visibilitydistance<20km/hour

Days PM10>50μg/m3(high volume sampler)

Days PM10>50μg/m3(TEOM method)

Background data



The number of days air quality was not compliant with the State Environment Protection Policy each year.

Highest concentrations of airborne particles recorded each year in Latrobe Valley

Minimum local visibility per year recorded in Latrobe Valley

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

kilometres

Minimum Local Visibility Distance

Minimum Local Visibility Distance (LVD) km/hour

Poly. (Minimum Local Visibility Distance (LVD) km/hour)

28

Air quality (b)

Background data



Location of major industry and air quality monitoring sites in Latrobe valley (From Latrobe Valley Air Monitoring Network: Clean Air – Our Future, Our responsibility).

29

Air quality (b)

Background data



How Latrobe Valley rates compared to other locations (From Latrobe Valley Air Monitoring Network: Clean Air – Our Future, Our responsibility).

30

Water quality in rivers and streams (a)(NESS Action Area 6)

Water flow – amount of water coming down the river

The indicatorThe main river in Latrobe City is the Latrobe River. The Latrobe River flows from Baw Baw Shire through Latrobe City to the Gippsland Lakes, a wetland of international importance. There are a number of waterways and rivers that flow from the Great Dividing Range to the north and from the Strzelecki ranges to the south. An adequate water flow is critical for the health of the waterway and the Lakes, for agriculture, for households and for the Latrobe Valley industries. Very high flows can involve flooding, and low flows reflect drought and water shortages.

The dataThe Indicator uses data monitored at Scarnes Bridge, on the Latrobe River north of Traralgon. This is located relatively near the downstream end of the river in Latrobe City and flows here reflect water leaving Latrobe City.

The trendWater flow has declined over the decade but overall demand for residential and industrial use is increasing.

Overall condition in 2010: POOR. Trend: DETERIORATED


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600Megalitres pe

r day

Average daily flow (ML/day)Latrobe River at Scarnes Bridge

31

Water quality in rivers and streams (b)(NESS Action Area 6)

Phosphorus (average value)

0.000.020.040.060.080.100.12

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

mg/l

Nitrogen (average value)

00.20.40.60.81

1.21.4

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

mg/l

Chemical pollutants – Nitrogen and Phosphorus concentrationsThe indicatorNitrogen and Phosphorus are both essential for plant growth and extensively used as fertilisers, High concentrations in the river result from urban and agricultural runoff and can lead to eutrophication (nutrient enrichment) and algal blooms.

The dataData from monitoring at Scarnes Bridge, on the Latrobe River north of Traralgon, is used because it is located relatively near the downstream end of the river in Latrobe City and has received some of the most comprehensive monitoring over the decade. No single datasets span the whole decade and the data presented here is a composite from two different labs. The original data can be accessed at the Victorian Water Data Warehouse. Where data tables on total Nitrogen has not been available, this has been calculated from measurements of Kjeldahl Nitrogen (which excludes organic nitrogen, ammonia and ammonium) and measurements of Nitrate and Nitrite. Differences in measurements can arise both from different sampling times and from differences in sampling technique and laboratory procedures. The data points are averages per year based on monthly samples. Averages can be influenced by occasional very high readings, but are generally indicative of the level of these chemical pollutants.

The trendConcentrations have generally decreased over the decade but there are still significant quantities in the water compared to upstream reaches less affected by human activities.

Overall condition in 2010: POOR. Trend: IMPROVED


32

Water quality in rivers and streams (c)(NESS Action Area 6)

Average suspended solids (mg/l) and turbidity (NTU)

0

10

20

30

40

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

mg/l or NT U Turbidity NTU

Suspendedsolids mg/l

Sediment load – suspended solids and turbidityThe indicatorThe amount of particulate matter in the water reflects the amount of soil and other material being transported by the river. Heavy sediment loads indicate soil erosion and can reduce light penetration and reduce photosynthesis by aquatic plants, reducing oxygen concentrations, biodiversity and general river health.

The dataData monitoring at Scarnes Bridge, on the Latrobe River north of Traralgon, is used because it is located relatively near the downstream end of the river in Latrobe City and has received some of the most comprehensive monitoring over the decade. No single datasets span the whole decade, and so data on both turbidity and suspended solids are presented. Turbidity is a measure of light penetration through the water, which is affected by the amount of suspended solids but also their shape and size, while suspended solids is a direct measure of suspended matter >0.45mm in size. Both measures show a good correlation at the sampling site.

The trendSuspended solids and turbidity have generally increased over the decade.



33

Water quality in rivers and streams (b)

Background data


Scarnes Bridge monitoring site

Latrobe River annual flow (ML/yr)

0100020003000400050006000

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

ML/yr Thoms Bridge

Scarnes Bridge

Rosedale


River systems in Latrobe City and the monitoring site for data used in this report

Annual flows recorded at various monitoring stations along the Latrobe River in Latrobe City from 1955 to 2010. Highest flows were recorded in the 1950s. Flows from the 1960s to 1990s were relatively constant overall. Flows during the past decade have been consistently low.

34

Protect our water supply (a)

Residential water consumption (litres per person per day)The indicatorProtecting our water supply requires ensuring demand does not exceed supply. Annual rainfall has decreased over the decade and further long‐term reductions are predicted, including an increased demand due to higher temperatures and increasing population. Supply is therefore subject to factors outside our direct control, but demand is within our control. Decreasing our water use and any water wastage is important for ensuring this resource. The main use of potable water is for residential purposes. Residential water use is therefore a good indicator of the degree to which we are protecting our water supply.

The dataData is provided by Gippsland Water and is based on metered use at residential proerties plus estimates of use for unmetered residential properties.

The trendIn the 1990s the average daily residential consumption in the Gippsland Water supply area was 244 litres per person per day. Gippsland Water has a target of an average of 183 litres per day by 2015. In 2009‐10, average consumption in Latrobe City was 193 litres per person per day.




Residential Water Consumption (Litres per person per day)

0

100

200

300

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

Litres/person/day

35

Protect our water supply (a)

Background data



This table shows total residential and non‐residential water consumption in Latrobe City based on metered data and estimates for unmetered sites delivered through the mains water system. The data is supplied by Gippsland Water. This data incorporates all mains water users in Latrobe City with the exception of the major power generators and the Maryvale Mill. Residential consumption in kilolitres per person per year is calculated by dividing the total residential and rural consumption (column 2) by the population (column 5). There will be additional water use in Latrobe City by the power stations and farmers which do not use mains water.

Year Total Residential and rural(Kilolitres)

Total Non Residential(Kilolitres)

Total(Kilolitres)

Estimated Resident Population (ABS + ID)

Litres per

person per day

Gippsland Water: Litres per person per day

2001‐02 6,099,341 1,275,250 7,374,591 70,643 237

2002‐03 6,155,668 1,908,354 8,064,022 70,501 239

2003‐04 5,938,642 1,903,057 7,841,699 70,709 230

2004‐05 7,047,137 1,100,892 8,148,029 71,112 272

2005‐06 6,362,322 1,147,135 7,509,456 72,003 242

2006‐07 5,943,166 1,062,822 7,005,988 73,803 221 233

2007‐08 5,702,287 1,120,743 6,823,030 74,165 211 211

2008‐09 5,867,433 1,136,785 7,004,218 75,259 214 218

2009‐10 5,586,337 1,030,595 6,616,932 76,550 200 193

36

Protect our water supply (b)

Quality of potable water – compliance with EPA standardsThe indicatorGippsland Water is required to supply potable water to its customers that meets Department of Human Services standards for the bacterium E.coli, for disinfection and for turbidity, and to ensure discharges also meet Victorian licence requirements.

The dataData is reported in Gippsland Water’s Annual Reports.

The trendThe quality of potable water supplied to customers has been consistently high and the incidence of any minor problems has been declining. Overall compliance with set standards is approximately 100%.


Mains Water Quality

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Compliance with standar d

Population receivingwater meeting E.colistandards

Population receivingwater meetingDisinfection by productstandards

EPA Discharge qualitylicence compliance

Population receivingwater meeting Turbiditystandards



37

Protect our water supply (b)

Background data

No additional data is provided at this time



38

Soil conservation

The indicatorSoil conservation includes both the quality of the soil in situ and soil erosion and transport. Soil quality is affected by agriculture and forestry practices, and soil erosion by those and also activities such as roading, mining and removal of vegetation cover.

No indicator of soil quality has been developed for this report, but two indicators used elsewhere in this report are relevant to soil erosion: compliance with the Code of Forest Practices is an indicator of the extent to which harvesting practices minimise soil entering watercourses; and suspended solids in water are an indicator of the amount of eroded soil being transported down‐stream.

For further information on these indicators, see the sections on Water Quality and the Code of Forest Practices.


Code of Forest Practice audit results

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2001

-2

2002

-3

2003

-4

2004

-5

2005

-6

2006

-7

2007

-8

2008

-9

Cou

pes

com

plia

nt

Timber Harvesting Plan and Coupe sitingand designWater Quality Protection – Buffer andFilter StripsConservation of flora and fauna andManagement of RainforestLog Landings and dumps

Extraction Tracks

Roading for timber production

Average suspended solids (mg/l) and turbidity (NTU)

0

10

20

30

40

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

mg/l or NT U Turbidity NTU

Suspendedsolids mg/l


39

Soil conservation

Background data

No additional data is provided at this time



40

Action Area 7: Biodiversity Conservation

Municipal native vegetation coverThe indicatorThe extent of native vegetation is a direct indicator of the area of land devoted to providing essential ecosystem services such as soil stability and condition, clean air, clean water and biodiversity. Some native vegetation may also provide significant economic value, e.g. from grazing and timber harvesting. Below around 30% of native vegetation cover across the landscape, there is a significant and accelerating increase in biodiversity decline (West Gippsland Regional Vegetation Plan, 2004).

However, despite its high importance as an indicator of a sustainable environment, the extent of native vegetation over an area such as Latrobe City requires a major investment of resources and expertise to map and therefore data is not regularly updated.

The dataThe extent of native vegetation in Latrobe City was mapped by the Department of Natural Resources and Environment at a scale of 1:25000 using aerial photographs and ground‐truthing between 1995 and 2000. The Department also developed a computer simulation of the types and extent of native vegetation prior to European settlement. Date extent and type in 2000 were provided by the Department in 2000 (PLMMT100 dataset in DNRE CGDL, 2 February 2000). Native vegetation extent has not been re‐mapped since.

The trendThe extent of native vegetation has declined significantly since European settlement, and is estimated to have reduced to about 23% of Latrobe City in 2000. If the contribution of native plantation is included, this rises to 30%; however, over time, native plantation management may reduce its contribution to native vegetation values. The extent of native vegetation in 2010 and trends are unknown. Revegetation projects have been undertaken but losses have also occurred, e.g. from illegal clearances and bushfires, and a survey of roadside native vegetation in Latrobe City in 2003 showed a 28% reduction in High Conservation roadside native vegetation over the previous 8 years. Therefore the trend is listed as “Deteriorated”, but this needs verification.

Overall condition in 2010: POOR. Trend: DETERIORATED (?)



2000 data only

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Extent Native Vegetation Cover in Latrobe City (not assessed 2001‐2010)

41

Ecological Vegetation Class Groups across all land tenures in Latrobe City (hectares)From PLMMT100 dataset in DNRE CGDL, 2 February 2000

Ecological Vegetation Class group Pre‐1750 2000 Change 1750‐2000

Heathy Woodlands 52 102 196%

Lowland Forests 26810 11997 45%

Box Ironbark Forests 1119 95 8%

Dry Forests 15044 1905 13%

Wet or Damp Forests 38131 16004 42%

Riparian Scrubs or Swampy Scrubs & Woodlands 12135 287 2%

Riparian Forests or Woodlands 151 394 261%

Rainforests 1034 216 21%

Grasslands 0 42 (New)

Plains Grassy Woodlands or Forests 43063 799 2%

Riverine Grassy Woodlands or Forests 4626 109 2%

Herb‐rich Woodlands 0 10 (New)

Heathlands 54 4 7%

Wetlands 15 63 420%

Rocky Outcrop or Escarpment Scrubs 401 177 44%

TOTAL 142634 32202 23%

Biodiversity Conservation (a)

Background data



42

Biodiversity Conservation (b)

Bird diversity ‐ Annual Bird Count of best birding sitesThe indicatorBirds are a good indicator of environmental condition because there are a diverse range of species, they are relatively mobile, and relatively easily identified. Bird were critical indicators, for example, of the harmful effects of persistent organo‐chlorine pesticides in the 1960s. The indicator used here is the species richness and diversity of birds recorded in the annual Latrobe Valley Bird Count. The counts are done in the ‘best’ birding sites, which represent the core areas for bird biodiversity. These should be the most resilient areas. If environmental sustainability declined, bird populations would be expected to decline first in the less optimal habitat outside such core areas, with numbers of individuals falling first and then next, species becoming locally extinct. Any decline in the bird biodiversity of core areas would therefore be of significant concern.

The dataThe data has been collected by the Latrobe Valley Field Naturalists Club during its annual bird count in December each year. The number of observers varies each year and the sites visited sometimes vary due to accessibility issues (e.g. some sites such as the Morwell River Wetlands are on private property), which can effect sightings. The upward trend in species and bird numbers during the early years likely represents an increase in participants and sites visited, and counters “learning” how to maximise their sightings. The Indicator is the Shannon Diversity index which combines species richness (the number of species) and species equitability (the evenness of the number of individuals per species). This index is relatively independent of the number of observers or sites visited and tends to give values between 0 and 4.6. Highest diversity is when each species is represented by the same number of individuals. For example, a site with just two species, each with 50 individuals, would have an index of 0.69, whereas another site also with two species, but with 99 of one and one of the other, would have an index of 0.06.

The trendBird biodiversity is stable or increasing slightly. The Shannon Diversity Index for 2010 was the second highest of the decade.


Shannon Diversity Index (‐∑pi logNpi ) for the annual LVFNC Latrobe Valley Bird Count (December)

01

23

45

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010



43

Biodiversity Conservation (b)

Background data



These graphs do not necessarily indicate an increase in species and numbers of birds in Latrobe City. Number of species and number of individuals recorded each year depends partly on the number and expertise of the observers that year, and the range of sites visited.

020406080

100120140160

Num

ber of bird

species

Number of Bird Species Recorded on the Annual Latrobe Valley Bird Count (December)

0100020003000400050006000

Num

ber of ind

ividual b

irds

Number of Individual Birds Recorded on the Annual Latrobe Valley Bird Count (December)

44

Bushland parks and reserves (a)

Extent of bushland reserves with formal protectionThe indicatorNative vegetation is generally protected by law but may be subject to removal under permit, cleared illegally or degraded by grazing or other use. The most secure native vegetation is that which is declared and formally managed for its natural values by government, or bushland subject to a binding legal agreement in perpetuity.

National guidelines indicate that the reservation of 15% of the pre‐European distribution of forest eco‐systems is desirable, although in some cases 10% may prove adequate (Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative Reserve System for Forests in Australia. A Report by the Joint ANZECC / MCFFA National Forest Policy Statement Implementation Sub‐committee. Commonwealth of Australia 1997).

The dataThe indicator includes public land managed by Parks Victoria, Council bushland reserves and private land covenanted with Trust for Nature. The indicator is an underestimate of protected bushland insofar as it does not include non‐binding agreements such as Land for Wildlife properties, land managed for biodiversity by industry such as the Morwell River Wetlands, or native vegetation potentially protected by Section 173 agreements under the Planning and Environment Act, because these are more difficult to monitor and may represent a lower level of protection of biodiversity values.

The trendThe proportion of land formally protected for its natural values in Latrobe City in 2010 is 2.6%. This is well below the nationally accepted levels of 10‐15% for ecosystem reservation. There has been a gradual increase in the extent of private land set aside under Trust for Nature covenants.

Overall condition in 2010: VERY POOR. Trend: IMPROVED



0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Hectares

Protected Bushland in Latrobe City (hectares)

45

Bushland parks and reserves (a)

Protected bushland in 2010 Hectares

Parks Victoria – public land 2884

Latrobe City Council ‐ bushland reserves 411

Trust for Nature covenants – private land 359

Total protected area 3597

Total Latrobe City area 142200

Background data

Parks Victoria bushland reserves in Latrobe City



46

Bushland parks and reserves (b)

Number of private properties adopting a Trust for Nature CovenantThe indicatorTrust for Nature is a statutory body, established under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 to protect native vegetation on private properties. A Trust for Nature Covenant is a voluntary agreement between the landholder and the Trust to protect native vegetation in perpetuity, and has to be endorsed by the Minister. The number of properties adopting covenants reflects both the extent of formal native vegetation protection on private land and landholder commitment to preserving natural values for the public good.

The dataDetails of Trust for Nature Covenants are confidential between the Trust and the landholder. However, covenants are recorded on title and are a consideration in calculating the rateable value of the property, and the Trust therefore provides information on covenants to local government.

The trendThe number of Trust for Nature covenanted properties has gradually increased over the decade. In 2010 there were 12 covenanted properties out of 1986 possible properties in Latrobe City (0.6%).




0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14Num

ber of prope

rties

Trust for Nature Covenanted Properties

47

Bushland parks and reserves (b)

Background data



This graph shows the size of the area of Latrobe City under a Trust for Nature covenant. The indicator shows the number of properties in Latrobe City with a covenant (the size of covenanted areas varies greatly on different properties).

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Num

ber of prope

rties

Trust for Nature Covenanted Properties

48

Timber production – environmental compliance

Code of Forest practice Audit resultsThe indicatorForestry in Victoria is governed by the Code of Forest Practice, an incorporated document in the local Planning Scheme. Latrobe City Council is the responsible authority for compliance with the Code on private land. The declared purpose of the Code (2nd edition, 1996) is to “lay down Statewide goals and guidelines… to ensure…• Adequate regeneration and management following timber harvesting, • Efficient reforestation with environmental care, • Protection of environmental values, and • Provision of opportunities for recreation, scientific study and education.”The Indicator measures compliance with the Code, which sets statewide criteria. It does not take into account particular local conditions and it does not directly measure environmental sustainability.

The dataSince 2000, Latrobe City Council has conducted random audits of timber harvesting coupes in Latrobe City using an audit tool developed by Gippsland local governments and third‐party auditors. Each coupe is rated compliant or non‐compliant against a range of criteria, and the results grouped under six issues: Timber Harvesting Plan, Coupe siting and design; Water Quality Protection – Buffer and Filter Strips; Conservation of flora and fauna and Management of Rainforest; Log Landings and dumps; Extraction tracks; and roading. The indicator does not distinguish between major and minor breaches of the Code, and a coupe may be deemed non‐compliant on a criterion even if it is 99% compliant on that criterion overall, e.g. one non‐compliant road drain even where all the other road drains are complaint.

The trendPerformance improved substantially in the early part of the decade and high compliance has been maintained through the latter part of the decade. The overall compliance in the 2010 was 97%



3. Incidental impacts

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%Co

upes

com

plia

nt

Code of Forest Practices audit results

Timber Harvesting Plan and Coupe siting and design

Water Quality Protection – Buffer and Filter Strips

Conservation of flora and fauna and Management of Rainforest

Log Landings and dumps

Extraction Tracks

Roading for timber production

49

Timber production - environmental compliance

Background data



Net area of plantation harvested each year in Latrobe City

0%20%40%60%80%100%

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

The percentage of plantation in Latrobe City that is harvested each year has averaged less than 5% (Data from Latrobe City Timber

Harvesting register).

Timber volumes produced per net area have remained relatively constant over the decade (Data from Latrobe City Timber

Harvesting register).

Net area of plantation harvested each year in Latrobe City

0.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%10.0%

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

Total

hardwood

softwood

Timber harvest production

050010001500

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

m3/ha

(net)

Total

Hardwood

Softwood

The net area harvested each year has shown a slight increase over the decade (Data from Latrobe City Timber Harvesting

register).

A sustainable timber industry makes a major contribution to the economy and environment of Latrobe City. Latrobe City Council is the Responsible Authority for the Victorian Code of Forest Practices. Under the Planning Scheme, Timber Harvesting Plans are the fundamental document for the control of timber production on private land and a register is maintained by Latrobe City Council. Over the decade, measures of timber production in Latrobe City indicate a generally stable pattern of production. Based on data from the Latrobe City Timber Harvesting register, on average less than 5% of the plantation area has been harvested each year, there has been a slight increase in the area harvested each year, and timber volumes per hectare have remained constant.

50

Materials consumption

Corporate copy paper useThe indicatorA key problem for sustainability is excessive consumption. The amount we consume personally is limited by price, but the amount consumed in the workplace does not have the same price signal for individuals. The use of copy paper is an indication of how much sustainable behaviour is embedded in individual behaviour in the absence of a price signal. Copy paper use is likely a good indicator of overall consumption habits. While the amount of paper used in publications can vary significantly and reflects outside pressures, copy paper use tends to more directly reflect staff behaviour. Data on copy paper use is also available for State Government Departments in the Victorian State of the EnvironmentReport 2008.

The dataThe amount of copy paper and letterhead purchased each year is recorded in Latrobe City Council’s Accounts Receivable records. Generally a single supplier is used at any one time and is able to provide a summary of paper supplied including sizes and weights.

The trendPaper use has reduced during the decade.




Copy paper reams used per EFT (equivalent full‐time staff)

0

5

10

15

20

2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

2006‐10 data only

51

Materials consumption(NESS Action Area 15)

Background data


Total paper consumption by Latrobe City Council (A4 80 gsm reams equivalent)

2008-09 2009-10

Formal Publications 10616 10432

Letters and photocopies 8246 8239

Good environmental performance ‐ Key to an environmentally sustainable future for Victoria August 2006. CES

Internal article in the Latrobe City Council staff newsletter encouraging reduced paper use (Linkages, February 2011)

Latrobe City Council produces a number of formal publications each year. Some of these are a statutory requirement such as Council Plans and Annual Reports. Others such as “Link” are important for communicating with the community. Where possible, Latrobe City Council has been reducing the size of print runs and posting more information on its website. The quantitieslisted in the table above under “letters and photocopies” include envelopes.

Annual office paper use by group

52

Weed infestations

Length of roadside infested with BlackberryThe indicatorThere are a number of listed noxious weeds that have been reported in Latrobe City but Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus agg.) is the most abundant. Blackberry is also classed as a Weed of National Significance. Blackberry on roadsides is a potential source of infestations in adjacent native vegetation and agricultural land, and is a threat to roadside native vegetation. The extent of blackberry on roadsides may or may not reflect the scale of blackberry infestations on public and private land throughout Latrobe City, but it potentially affects adjacent land and roadsides are accessible for monitoring. Roadside weeds are the responsibility of the adjacent landholder but State Government has been supporting Local Government to take action on roadside weeds on behalf of its local community

The dataThe majority of rural roadsides in Latrobe City were surveyed for blackberry in 2009‐10 with funding from the Department of Primary Industries through the Future Farming Building Capacity of Local Government (BCLG) program. No previous assessments of the scale of infestations have been made. With assistance from the BCLG program and Bushfire recovery Program, Latrobe City Council undertook blackberry control works during 2009‐10 and 2010‐11 and many of the rural roadsides in Latrobe City, with the aim of significantly reducing the extent of roadside blackberry infestations.

The trendThe trend is unknown. There have been previous schemes to assist rural landholders to address weeds on adjacent roadsides, but there have also been events such as the Black Saturday bushfires and the wet summer of 2010‐11 which have increased the potential for infestations. The trend is listed as “Improved” due to the large amount of roadside weed control undertaken between 2009 and 2011 with support from the Department of Primary Industries Building Capacity of Local Government funding program, but the trend needs to be verified.

Overall condition in 2010: POOR. Trend: IMPROVED (?)



Proportion of rural roadside sections (road lengths between two intersections) with

blackberry infestations

0%20%40%60%80%100%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

2009‐10 data only

53

Lifecycle/lifeform Weed species

Woody weed Rubus fruticosus Blackberry

Woody weed Genista monspessulana Broom

Woody weed Rosa rubiginosa Sweet briar

Woody weed Genista linifolia Flax leaf broom Woody weed Ulex europaeus Gorse

Tree/shrub Pinus radiata Radiata Pine

Tree/shrub Lycium ferocissimum Boxthorn Tree/shrub Salix spp Willow

Tree/shrub Crataegus mongyna Hawthorn

Perennial Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass Perennial Eragrostis curvula African Lovegrass Perennial (biennial) Senecio jacobaea Ragwort Perennial Nassella trichotoma Serrated Tussock Perennial Watsonia meriana var. bulbillifera Wild WatsoniaPerennial Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye daisy Perennial Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper

Biennial Cirsi um vulgare Spear thistleBiennial Carduus pycnocephalus Thistle slender

Biennial (Annual) Foeniculum vulgare Fennell

Biennial Conium maculatum Hemlock

Annual Hypericum androsaemum TutsanAnnual Amsinckia spp. Amsinckia Annual Dittrichia graveolens Stinkwort

Annual Datura spp Thornapple Annual Oxalis pes-caprae Soursob

0.90%0.80%0.10%

8.40%4.80%

6.50%5.20%4.80%

0.20%

23.90%

8.30%6.20%1.90%1.30%

12.00%8.60%

4.80%4.50%3.90%

10.60%

4.70%4.60%3.90%0.80%

Roadside Length infested

64.10%

Weed infestations (NESS Action Area 14)

Background data


This table reflects the extent of weed infestations on Latrobe City Council roads detected by roadside surveys during 2009 and 2010. These surveys were funded through the Department of Primary Industries as part of the Future Farming Building Capacity of Local Government grants program.

54

Waste management

Garbage per person to landfill from the kerbside collectionThe indicatorThere are numerous waste streams going to landfill or recycling, but residential waste is a major component. At the beginning of the decade residential waste constituted approximately half of all the waste going to landfill. In 2004‐5 a three‐bin system was introduced to Latrobe City and recylables and organic greenwaste were diverted from landfill to recycling facilities. This has diverted a significant volume of waste from landfill. As other materials and markets are identified to reuse, recover and recycle’waste’ products, there should be a continued decline in the volume of waste produced. Sustainability Victoria and EPA Victoria estimate that Victoria produces an average of half a tonne of garbage per household per year.

The dataData on kerbside collections is derived from weighbridge records at the landfill. The variety of waste streams, and the inclusion of different waste elements in the calculations, along with small uncertainties about the exact number of people in Latrobe City, provide some margin for error in the figures, but the overall trends are indicative.

The trendThe amount of residential garbage going to landfill has reduced over the decade but the figures suggest a slight upward trend over the last few years. There is still a large volume of waste produced per person and per household with opportunity to reduce.




Kerbside garbage collection per person going to landfill

0

100

200

300

400

2000‐01

2001‐02

2002‐03

2003‐04

2004‐05

2005‐06

2006‐07

2007‐08

2008‐09

2009‐10

kg

55

Waste management(NESS Action Area 15)

Background data


Jul 606.46 627.53 139.76 73.5 0 1.44 74.74 1523.43Aug 593.44 516.86 137.3 129.37 0 1.63 292.21 1670.82Sep 795.00 709.23 865.12 45.89 0 1.94 494.54 2911.72Oct 648.60 988.93 801.1 122.71 0 0.00 368.39 2929.73Nov 836.82 1170.89 70.12 6.94 3.76 2.00 310.30 2400.83Dec 552.80 696.31 564.88 116.3 0 1.68 118.45 2050.42Jan 915.34 1152.49 228.88 103.83 0 2.00 162.87 2565.42Feb 686.17 664.67 178.02 55.76 0 0.00 287.38 1872.00Mar 875.20 944.12 992.53 94.7 0 1.45 361.75 3269.75Apr 638.42 913.43 79.7 82.27 3.02 2.29 287.88 2007.01May 816.38 821.50 120 102.2 0 2.11 1476.39 3338.58Jun n/a n/a n/a 84.86 n/a 0.00 282.78 367.64TOTALS 7964.63 9205.96 4177.41 1018.33 6.78 16.54 4517.69 26907.34

Total to Landfill

Jul 1145.00 480.00 99.34 51.48 27.42 0.00 1901.78 3705.02Aug 1040.00 594.00 91.48 0 26.00 0.00 1847.86 3599.34Sep 1109.00 600.00 78.36 0 29.32 0.00 1849.84 3666.52Oct 1158.00 527.00 112.76 22.78 29.66 0.00 2088.83 3939.03Nov 1120.00 519.00 94.70 20.40 36.82 9.92 1993.24 3794.08Dec 1245.00 544.00 113.38 8.40 38.40 0.00 2180.40 4129.58Jan 1104.00 496.00 98.48 34.56 34.06 0.00 1562.42 3329.52Feb 1054.00 438.00 90.56 232.22 29.70 0.00 1796.84 3641.32Mar 1195.00 745.00 101.72 0.00 37.42 0.00 2174.04 4253.18Apr 1138.00 461.00 93.70 391.36 34.64 12.42 2214.76 4345.88May 1060.24 356.92 93.08 71.84 31.26 0 2064.32 3677.66Jun n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aTOTALS 12368.24 5760.92 1067.56 833.04 354.7 22.34 21674.33 42081.13

Recycled Materials

Hard Waste Collectio

Sent to Landfill

Commer‐cial

Waste Quantities 09/10

Kerb‐side Garbage

Transfer Station

MRF Residual

Greenwaste

Residual

Public Litter

Total Recycled

Kerb‐side Recyclabl

Kerb‐side Greenwa

Dropoff Greenw

Road Sweeper

Hard Waste

Detox Facility

Transfer Stations

56

Residential energy use and greenhouse emissionsThe indicatorThe residential sector is a significant user of energy and a significant emitter of greenhouse gases. In 1998, residential emissions in Latrobe City were estimated to comprise 12% of emissions from the municipality (excluding power station emissions). In 2008‐9, the Department of Sustainability and Environment estimated that residential emissions comprised about 17.5% of Victoria’s total emissions (http://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/greenhouse‐gas‐emissions/residential‐energy‐use).

In terms of energy, we use more natural gas energy than electrical energy in the home, but gas produces far less in terms of emissions. 85% of residences in Latrobe City have gas connected. A kilowatt hour of electricity produces 1.048 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent, whereas a kilowatt hour equivalent of natural gas produces only 0.019 kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (1 Gigajoule of natural gas is the energy equivalent of 277.8 kWh of electricity).

The dataThe data used for the indicator was compiled by the Department of Sustainability and Environment using data from 2004 to 2007 from Victorian electricity and gas providers. The data is available athttp://www.climatechange.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/73367/37‐Latrobe_C_.pdf

The trendOverall condition in 2010: POOR. Trend: DETERIORATED

Reducing energy use and greenhouse emissions (a)(NESS Action Area 13)


Average home energy use in Latrobe City in megawatt hours

0

5

10

15

20

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

megaw

att ho

urs

Electricity: mW hper dwelling

Gas: mW h percustomer

Average CO2‐e emissions per dwelling from gas and electricity usage

0

4

8

12

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

tonn

es CO2‐e

2004‐07 data only

57

Reducing energy use and greenhouse emissions (a)

1998 Community Emissions by Sector

Industrial67%

Residential12%

Waste1%

Other1%

Transportation8%

Commercial11%


Average home greenhouse gas emissions in Latrobe City

0

2

4

6

8

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010G

reen

house gas em

ission

s

Electricity: tonnesCO2‐e emissionsper dwelling

Gas: tonnes CO2‐e emissions percustomer

Background data


Sources of community greenhouse gas emissions in Latrobe City as estimated in the 1998 ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection program.

The Indicator graph shows total average home emissions. This graph shows the relative contribution of gas and electricity to average home emissions

This is a DSE graph showing trends in residential electricity and gas consumption across Victoria, for comparison.

58

Latrobe City Council corporate energy use and greenhouse emissionsThe indicatorCorporate electricity, natural gas, vehicle diesel, petrol and LPG, streetlights, and a small estimated amount for corporate waste, comprise Latrobe City Council’s energy consumption from which its corporate greenhouse gas emissions can be calculated (municipal waste collected by Council is listed under community emissions).

The dataLatrobe City Council undertook a detailed audit of corporate energy use and greenhouse emissions in 1998 as part of the ICLEI Cities for Climate Protection (CCP) program. All gas, electricity and vehicle fuel invoices and receipts for 1998 were input into the ICLEI CCP database. Since 2005‐6, Latrobe City Council’s energy usage has been collated and analysed by Planet Footprint on behalf of Latrobe City Council, using electronic invoices direct from the energy suppliers.

The trendEnergy use and consequent emissions have been increasing over the decade. There is an overall relationship between corporate energy use and emissions, and the increase of Council services as represented by equivalent full‐time staff numbers and facilities.


Reducing energy use and greenhouse emissions (b)(NESS Action Area 13)

Latrobe City Council corporate greenhouse gas emissions

010002000300040005000600070008000900010000

1998/1999

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

2004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

tonnes CO2‐e Actual corporate

emissions

Expected corporateemissions (if noenergy saving actions)


02000400060008000

10000

350 400 450 500 550

tonn

es eCO

2

Equivalent Full‐time Staff (EFT)

Latrobe City Council greenhouse gas emissions (eCO2) in relation to equivalent full‐time staff (EFT)

59

Reducing energy use and greenhouse emissions (b) (NESS Action Area 13)

Latrobe City Council corporate greenhouse gas emissions by sector (%)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1998 2009‐10

Buildings

Waste

Streetlights

Vehicle fleet

Background data

1998

2010


Changes in % contribution from different sources to Latrobe City Council corporate emissions between 1998 and 2010. The relative contribution of buildings and vehicles has increased over the decade, in line with the increase in Council operations.

The increasing quantity of corporate emissions saved by Latrobe City Council through energy saving measures

Latrobe City Council corporate emissions abatement (cumulative tonnes CO2e)

0.0500.01000.01500.02000.02500.0

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

tonn

es CO2e

The increase in latrobe City Council’s corporate emissions generally maps the increase in Council staff which reflects increased Council services

Data is not available for the first half of the decade, but emissions per staff member in 1998 were relatively high, then appear to have declined when the new HQ building became operational. However, emissions per staff member have subsequently crept up again.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

tonn

es eCO

2

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (equivalent CO2) per Equivalent Fulltime Staff Member (EFT)

60

Changing rainfall and temperatureThe indicatorClimate change predicts a reduction in rainfall and also increasing temperatures which will increase water requirements for agriculture. There is likely to be an increase in human demand for water, and increasing temperatures pose health risks to vulnerable members of our society. Risk of bushfire will increase. The amount of rainfall and the increase in very hot days are therefore important indicators of climate change and the need to adapt.

The dataRainfall and temperature data is currently collected at Latrobe Valley Airport and available through the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). Where the data may be incomplete, there are often other data sets from nearby locations that can provide a good indication of total rainfall. Datasets from nearby locations can be found on the BoM website. Composites from local stations have been used to provide a more complete picture.

The trendOver the last decade, Latrobe Valley has generally become drier and hotter.


Climate change (a)(NESS Action Area 16)

4. Climate Change

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

mm.

Latrobe Valley Rainfall (mm.) Composite series from Latrobe Valley Airport (2000, 2002‐2, 2006‐10),

Ms B Johnson (Traralgon ‐ 2001) and EPA (Traralgon 2004‐5)

02468

101214161820

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Num

ber o

f day

s

Number of Hot Days per Year in Latrobe Valley

>35ºC

>40ºC

Linear (>35ºC)

Linear (>40ºC)

61

Climate change (a)

Background data


4. Climate Change

Latrobe Valley Rainfall (mm) Composite series including records from Morwell Mail Centre, Ms Cora Lynn (Traralgon), Latrobe Valley Airport, EPA Traralgon and Ms

B Johnson (Traralgon)

0200

4006008001000

12001400

1880

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Ann

ual Rainfall (mm)

62

Natural disasters ‐ bushfiresThe indicatorBushfire risk is expected to increase with climate change and global warming.

The dataThe Department of Sustainability and Environment maintains bushfire information on its interactive map at http://nremap‐sc.nre.vic.gov.au/MapShare.v2/imf.jsp?site=fireplan . And these bushfire areas are mapped onto the Latrobe City GIS database where they impact on private property.

The trendThere were fires in the Alpine area to the north and Wilsons Promontory to the south in the early part of the decade, but these missed Latrobe City. The 2005‐6 the Moondarra fire impacted on Latrobe City, as did the Great Divide fire of 2006‐7. In 2008‐09 the Black Saturday bushfires impacted a much larger area of Latrobe City.

Overall condition in 2010: (not applicable). Trend: DETERIORATED

Climate change (b)(NESS Action Area 16)

4. Climate Change

Bushfire‐affected area (sq. km.) and number of affected rateable properties in Latrobe City

0

350

700

1050

1400

2000

-01

2001

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

Sq Km affected

Rateable Propertiesaffected

63

Background data

Climate change (b)(NESS Action Area 16)

Bushfire‐affected areas 2000‐2010

4. Climate Change

Year Fire name

Sq Km of Latrobe City

affected

Rateable Properties in Latrobe City affected

House losses in Latrobe City

2000‐01 0 0

2001‐02 (Bushfire)

2002‐03 0 0

2003‐04 0 0

2004‐05 0 0

2005‐06 Moondarra 35 7

2006‐07 Great Divide 53 140 34

2007‐08 0 0

2008‐09Churchill‐Jeeralang and Delburn complexes 447 721 213

2009‐10 0 0

Please note: the data in this table and map are under review.

64

Report Card Condition Scales

REPORT CARD CONDITION SCALESVery Poor Poor Good Very Good

Capacity‐buildingICLEI Progress towards Sustainability index 54%ICLEI SISAT score as % of maximum 1‐25% 26‐50% 51‐75% 76‐100%Planning Zone changes 108 haChange in zoning of LCC per year >1% (>1425ha) 0.1‐1% (143‐

1425ha)0.1‐0.01% (14‐142ha)

<0.01% (<14ha)

Industry Compliance: EREPS and Accredited Licences

4 (29%)

% Accredited licences of total licences (14) <10% 10‐25% 25‐50% >50%Voluntary steps by major Education, Health and Government organisations

60%

Having in place 5 elements: policy, target, actions, reporting and progress

<25% 25‐50% 50‐75% 75‐100%

Active local environmental groups & committees 36Number of local environment committees with community representation, voluntary community groups etc

<10 (<1:7000) 10‐20 20‐30 >30 (>1:2300)

Rural properties participating in the Native Vegetation Retention Scheme

6.7%

Cumulative % of rural properties >4ha participating 0% <2% 2‐4% >4%

0 0 4 2

Natural Resource Management Code of Forest Practices compliance 97%Overall score ‐ 3rd party audit against 1996 Code (pass/fail on each item of each Code section on randomly selected coupes)

<90% 90‐95% 95‐98% 99‐100%

ConsumptionCorporate copy paper consumption 13.1 reamsReams of copy paper used per equivalent full‐time staff (EFT)

>15 10‐15 5‐10 <5

WeedsExtent of Roadside Blackberry Infestations 64%% of Council‐managed roadside with blackberry infestations, based on summing lengths of all sections on which blackberry was reported

>30% 10‐30% 5‐10% <5%

WasteKerbside garbage to landfill: kg per person 180 kg/pKilograms (kg) of kerbside garbage collection per person per year to landfill

>200 100‐200 50‐100 <50

Energy use and greenhouse emissionsCorporate Greenhouse Gas Emissions 40% increase

17.4 eCO�/FTEReduction compared to 1998 corporate emissions

(6377 tonnes eCO�)0% 1‐24% 25‐50% >50%

Equivalent Carbon dioxide emissions per Equivalent Full‐Time Staff (17.1 eCO�/FTE in 1998)

>17 (no reduction)

>13‐17 (down 0‐25%)

10‐<13 (down 25‐40%)

<10 (40% reduction)

Community Greenhouse Gas EmissionsReduction on 1998 community per capita emissions (excluding power generators)

0% 1‐20% 20‐40% >40%

Climate changeChanging Climate ‐ Frequency of Temperature Extremes

9 days >35°C 2 days >40°C

Days per year over 40°C >5 3‐5 1‐2 0Days per year over 35°C >15 10‐15 5‐10 <5Changing Climate ‐ Rainfall 771.2 mm Rainfall in mm per year at Latrobe Valley Airport <600, >1000 600‐700 700‐900 900‐1000Natural Disasters ‐ bushfires 0

1 2 3 1

65

Report Card Condition Scales

Air quality

Airborne Chemical Pollutants – Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides, Ozone (for previous year)

99.5% (SO�), 100% (NOx), 99.75% (O�)

% Days Sulphur dioxide compliant with SEPP objectives

<97% 97%‐98% 98%‐99% 99%‐100%

% Days Nitrogen oxides compliant with SEPP objectives

<97% 97%‐98% 98%‐99% 99%‐100%

% Days Ozone compliant with SEPP objectives <97% 97%‐98% 98%‐99% 99%‐100%

Airborne Particle Concentrations and Visible Distance 97.8% (PM��),

89.6% (LVD)% days compliant with SEPP objective for PM��concentration (TEOM method)

<97% 97%‐98% 98%‐99% 99%‐100%

% days compliant with SEPP objective of 20km local visibility distance (LVD) hourly

>90% 85‐90% 90‐95% 95‐100%

Water – quality and supply

Water flow – amount of water coming down the Latrobe River

1189 ML

MegaLitres/day at Scarnes Bridge <1000 1000‐2000 2000‐3000 3000‐4000

Chemical Pollutants – Nitrogen and Phosphorus N=0.83mg/L P=0.06mg/L

Average Phosphorus concentration (mg/L) ‐ SEPP objective 0.025mg/L for at least 75% of samples

>0.065 0.045‐0.065 0.025‐0.045 ≤ 0.025

Average Nitrogen concentration (mg/L) ‐ SEPP objective 0.06mg/L for at least 75% of samples

>0.8 0.6‐0.8 0.5‐0.6 ≤ 0.5

Sediment load – Suspended Solids and Turbidity 34 mg/L

Average suspended solids (mg/L) >20 10‐20 5‐10 <5

Average NTU (SEPP objective 10 NTU at least 75% of time)

>20 10‐20 5‐10 <5

Residential Water Consumption ‐ litres per person per day

193 l/p/d

Litres/person/day (Gippsland Water target 183 by 2015, 171 by 2020)

>200 185‐200 170‐185 <170

Quality of Potable Water 100%

% Population receiving water meeting E.coli standards <97.00% 97.00%‐98.99% 99.00%‐99.99%

100%

% Population receiving water meeting disinfection by product standards

<97.00% 97.00%‐98.99% 99.00%‐99.99%

100%

% Population receiving water meeting turbidity standards

<97.00% 97.00%‐98.99% 99.00%‐99.99%

100%

Average of above 3 indicators of compliance with Safe Drinking Water Standards

<97.00% 97.00%‐98.99% 99.00%‐99.99%

100%

Biodiversity

Municipal Native Vegetation Cover 30%

% across the landscape of land under native vegetation

<15% 15‐30% 30‐45% >45%

Bird Diversity ‐ Annual Bird Count of Best Birding Sites 4.03

Shannon Diversity Index (H') <2 2‐3 3‐4 >4

Extent of Bushland Reserves with Formal Protection 2.6%

% area of bushland under formal protection (e.g. National Park, Trust for Nature covenant)

<5% 5‐10% 10‐15% >15%

Number of Private Properties Adopting a Trust for Nature Covenant

12

Number of covenanted properties over 4ha in Latrobe City (of a total of 1990 private properties, many with no native vegetation)

<10 (<0.5%) 10‐30 (0.5%‐1.5%)

30‐50 (1.5%‐2.5%)

>50 (2.5%)

2 5 1 3

REPORT CARD CONDITION SCALES (continued)

natural environment sustainability state of the environment … · latrobe city’s natural...

Documents