strategic assessment report, heathcote ridge, west menai · as a consequence of the delays...
TRANSCRIPT
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT REPORT
HEATHCOTE RIDGE, WEST MENAI
November 2012
Prepared for Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council By Cumberland Ecology with input from BBC Consulting Planners and
1
1. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 3
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3
1.1.1 Background........................................................................................................... 3
1.2 The Program ..................................................................................................... 4
1.2.1 Background........................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Proposed Development Concept ..................................................................... 5
1.3 Regional Context ............................................................................................. 12
1.4 Land Use Planning .......................................................................................... 13
1.4.1 Land to Which the SEPP Amendment will Apply ............................................ 13
1.4.2 Proposed Land Use Zones ................................................................................. 13
1.4.3 Principal Development Standards ................................................................... 14
1.4.4 Consent Authority ............................................................................................... 15
1.5 Land Tenure .................................................................................................... 15
1.6 Legal and Administrative Frameworks ............................................................. 16
1.7 Consultation .................................................................................................... 17
1.8 Actions Under the Program ............................................................................. 18
1.9 Management, Planning and Approval Arrangements ....................................... 18
2. ENVIRONMENT AND MNES ........................................................................... 19
2.1 Environment Affected by the Program ............................................................. 19
2.1.1 General Environment ......................................................................................... 19
2.1.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance Assessment
Methodology ...................................................................................................... 27
2.1.3 Matters of National Environmental Significance Present .............................. 40
2.1.4 Commonwealth Land ....................................................................................... 74
2.2 Identifying Areas of High Environmental Value ................................................ 77
3. ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ............................................ 79
3.1 Background, History and Basis for Heathcote Ridge Development .................. 79
3.1.1 Land Release History .......................................................................................... 79
3.1.2 Recent Strategic Planning................................................................................. 81
3.1.3 Regional Strategies ............................................................................................ 82
3.1.4 Local Strategies .................................................................................................. 83
3.1.5 Conclusion........................................................................................................... 83
3.1.6 State and Regional Planning Significance ...................................................... 83
3.1.7 Demand for Urban Land Uses ........................................................................... 86
3.1.8 Housing Affordability .......................................................................................... 90
3.1.9 Environmental Suitability and Urban Capability ............................................. 92
3.1.10 Sustainability ........................................................................................................ 93
3.1.11 Environmental Management ............................................................................ 96
3.2 Mechanisms for Achieving Ecologically Sustainable Development .................. 96
3.2.1 Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-
term and short term economic, environmental, social and equitable
considerations ..................................................................................................... 97
3.2.2 If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage,
lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for
postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation ................... 98
3.2.3 The principle of inter-generational equity--that the present
generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity
of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of
future generations .............................................................................................. 98
3.2.4 The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity
should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making ....................... 99
3.2.5 Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be
promoted. ........................................................................................................... 99
4. IMPACTS TO MNES ...................................................................................... 100
4.1 Nature and Extent of Impacts ........................................................................ 100
4.1.1 General Impacts............................................................................................... 100
4.1.2 Endangered Ecological Communities ........................................................... 108
4.1.3 Threatened Flora .............................................................................................. 113
4.1.4 Threatened Fauna ............................................................................................ 125
4.1.5 Migratory Species ............................................................................................. 145
4.1.6 Influence of Projected Climate Change Scenarios ..................................... 149
4.2 Management, Mitigation and Offsetting of Likely Impacts .............................. 152
4.2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 152
4.2.2 Avoidance Measures ....................................................................................... 152
4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................................................................... 153
4.2.4 Compensatory Measures ................................................................................ 154
4.3 Impacts on Commonwealth Land .................................................................. 163
5. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 168
5.1 Uncertainties ................................................................................................. 168
5.1.1 Extent of Development .................................................................................... 168
5.1.2 Securing Offsets ................................................................................................ 168
5.1.3 Management Outcomes ................................................................................ 169
5.2 Review or Modification of Planning Mechanisms and Frameworks ................ 169
6. AUDITING AND REPORTING ........................................................................ 170
6.1 Monitoring, Public Reporting and Independent Auditing................................. 170
6.2 Record Keeping and Review Processes ........................................................ 171
6.3 Responsibilities ............................................................................................. 171
7. INFORMATION SOURCES ............................................................................ 172
8. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 173
3
1. Purpose and Description
1.1 Introduction
This Strategic Assessment Report (SAR) has been prepared in accordance with
section 6 of the agreement between The Commonwealth of Australia and the
Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council (GLALC) for the assessment of the
impacts of developing Heathcote Ridge, West Menai, NSW, under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the agreed terms of
reference included Attachment B to the agreement. The SAR describes the
program and potential impacts from the Program on matters of national
environmental significance (MNES) protected under the Commonwealth
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
1.1.1 Background
EPBC Act and MNES
The EPBC Act is the Commonwealth Government's key piece of environmental
legislation and is managed by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities (SEWPaC). It protects the following MNES:
World Heritage places;
National Heritage places;
Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Wetlands);
Nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities;
Listed migratory species;
Commonwealth marine areas;
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; and
Nuclear actions, including uranium mining.
Strategic assessments are covered under Part 10 of the EPBC Act. Under Part 10,
proposed developments are assessed for MNES at a landscape scale, rather than
through site-by-site impact assessments. The strategic assessment process is
described below.
EPBC Act Strategic Assessment
In November 2011, the Commonwealth Government of Australia, through SEWPaC
and Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council (GLALC) commenced a Strategic
Assessment under the EPBC Act of the potential impacts likely to arise through the
development and management of the Heathcote Ridge Development Site (the
Program).
Planning for the area originally commenced in the 1960’s when the State
government considered the Menai area a potential future major urban growth
centre in metropolitan Sydney as part of the Sydney Region Outline Plan, with the
first stage of development occurring in 1971. Subsequent delays resulted in a halt to
further development until the release of The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 in
December 2010, a major review of the previous Metropolitan Strategy – City of
Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future, 2005. The Metropolitan Plan provides a broad
framework for managing growth and development of Sydney over a 25 year period
4
and includes finalising the planning process for West Menai that commenced in the
1970’s. It will enable the population and employment targets for the South
Subregion in the Metropolitan Plan to be met by creating residential, employment
and conservation areas and related infrastructure at Heathcote Ridge and West
Menai, approximately 25km south-west of the Sydney central business district (CBD).
This Strategic Assessment Report (SAR) has been prepared in accordance with
section 6 of the agreement between The Commonwealth of Australia and the
GLALC. It comprises two key documents: the draft SAR (this report) which provides a
detailed assessment of the implications of the Program for MNES under the EPBC
Act; and the Program Report (PR), which describes the program and presents
commitments and undertakings for protection and management of MNES.
Current Status of the Strategic Assessment
On 11 August 2010, the Minister for Planning agreed to consider Heathcote Ridge,
West Menai as a potential State Significant site for listing under Schedule 3 of the
Major Development SEPP and requested the Director General of the NSW
Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DoPI) to make arrangements for a State
Significant Site Study to be undertaken by the proponent. This Study has been
prepared and is with the Director General.
The Draft Program Report and Draft Strategic Assessment Report were publicly
exhibited from 14 December 2011 to 29 February 2012. The reports were
subsequently modified as a consequence of submissions received, and the
amended proposal is addressed in this report, to be provided to the Commonwealth
Minister for the Environment for his consideration.
The process for the strategic assessment includes the following stages:
1. The Commonwealth Government Minister for the Environment (the Minister) enters
into an agreement with another person to undertake a strategic assessment of the
impacts of actions under a policy, plan or program (completed).
2. Terms of Reference are prepared for a report on the impacts relating to the
agreement (completed).
3. A draft report is prepared (completed).
4. The draft report is exhibited for public comment for at least 28 days (completed).
5. The Minister may recommend modifying the policy, plan or program (current).
6. The Minister may endorse the policy, plan or program if appropriate.
7. The Minister may approve actions under the policy, plan or program if appropriate
(approval may include conditions).
1.2 The Program
(a) how the program has been developed and its legal standing
1.2.1 Background
The release of Heathcote Ridge and other land at West Menai has been on the
State government radar since the 1970s. Prior to Aboriginal land claims in 1986, the
5
State Government and Council had made substantial progress in rezoning the land.
Council had prepared a Local Environmental Study of the area and had initiated
the preparation of a local environmental plan.
As a consequence of the delays associated with the land claims, studies to
investigate and resolve outstanding planning issues were not completed and the
land was removed from the Urban Development Program in 1997 so as not to distort
land supply figures and prevent proper understanding of the real land supply
situation in the outer areas of the Sydney Region.
Studies into land suitability were not completed at this time, interrupted by the land
claim process. Remaining issues included including flora and fauna, bushfire
management, access and proximity to ANSTO and the Lucas Height Waste
Management facility. The Minister at the time noted that the removal of the West
Menai release area did not preclude its reinstatement should future demand justify it
and if supported by environmental, planning, servicing and economic feasibility
studies.
These studies have now been undertaken providing the opportunity to complete
comprehensive planning investigations into the suitability of the previous release
area for development and move forward with the rezoning of the land for urban
and conservation purposes and determining the future land use for the area.
1.2.2 Proposed Development Concept
The preferred Land Use Structure Plan (Figure 1.1) has evolved from a
comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of the site with particular
consideration given to biodiversity, bushfire risk, access and the nature of
surrounding land uses. It has been amended following exhibition of the SSS Study
and the draft Strategic Assessment Report and Program Report.
Heathcote Ridge has the potential to create a high quality, environmentally
sustainable new community that is well connected, protects important ecological
areas, integrates with adjoining urban and bushland areas and provides a range of
living, working and recreational opportunities.
Urban development is proposed over part of the site with the majority of the site to
be protected as a conservation area to be managed by the GLALC. Additional
offsets are provided to compensate for the loss of bushland associated with urban
development.
The urban design is driven by the need to protect areas of biodiversity significance,
to provide adequate protection from potential catastrophic bush fire events and to
provide adequate access to the site for private vehicles and public transport.
The key elements of the proposal (as amended following exhibition) are:
The provision of a conservation area having an area of 566 hectares;
Approximately 283 hectares of land for urban purposes comprising:
6
o 51.4 hectares of employment land (including a new village centre)
estimated to provide 4,700 jobs;
o 182.7 hectares of land for residential and associated purposes
including local open space capable of accommodating an estimated
2,400 homes (7,200 persons);
o New sportsfields and other open space (17.2 hectares), provision for a
school and community facilities; and
o A visitors and cultural heritage centre as a gateway to the proposed
Heathcote Conservation Area.
Creation of distinct residential neighbourhoods linked together via walking
trails, pathways and a central collector road spine;
Provision of an east west arterial road connecting New Illawarra Road with
Heathcote Road; and
The provision of bushfire management measures including asset protection
zones, access routes and water services and neighbourhood safe places.
i. Conservation
Gandangara will protect approximately 566 hectares of land in perpetuity
conserving significant biodiversity and maintaining an environmental corridor from
Georges River National Park in the north through to the Woronora River, Defence
land and other national parts to the south.
The project footprint has been designed to ensure listed threatened species and
communities are protected within this conservation reserve.
In the limited cases where this is not possible, the submission contains a package of
offsets to ensure the overall biodiversity value is maintained or improved.
The proposal has increased the size of the conservation reserve by nearly 50%, since
the request for State Significant Site Listing, from 380 hectares to more than 566
hectares.
The site has been, and continues to be, the subject of both illegal dumping and
illegal use by trail bikes and 4WDs. The submission proposes to progressively clean up
the dump sites and remediate all degraded areas. Almost all the degradation and
contamination was done in the many decades the site was owned by the NSW
Government. Notwithstanding this, Gandangara proposes to pay for the clean-up
and remediation itself at no net cost to the NSW Government.
ii. Bushfire Management
The project site has historically been prone to bushfires due to its location and
topography and proximity to the Holsworthy Defence base. The project team has
consulted closely with Sutherland Shire Council and the Rural Fire Service to ensure
best practice measures are included in this proposal.
7
As such, significant initiatives will be undertaken to reduce the bushfire risk for new
and existing residents in the area including:
All residential areas will have a buffer of least 60 metres between houses and
bushland, forming a mandatory Asset Protection Zone;
The employment lands will have an 80 metre buffer to the western frontage
to Heathcote Road. This, along with a 150 metre width of employment lands
will afford a total of 230 metre width protection from the west to residential
dwellings in the main development areas;
A new road network within the project area will provide alternative exit
routes without the need to use Heathcote Road; and
A new Rural Fire Service facility will be provided by Gandangara within the
site.
iii. Traffic
Significant road upgrades are proposed north, east and west of the site in order to
accommodate the transport needs of both residents and workers and the broader
community. In addition to upgrades, a new east-west transport corridor (bridge and
road link) that will provide direct access to and from Heathcote Road and New
Illawarra Road and the Bangor By-pass. This builds on and effectively completes the
significant investment by the NSW Government in the sub-regional road network
including:
the Bangor By-pass Stage 1 link to Sutherland
The Bangor By-pass Stage 2 (improvements to New Illawarra Road)
The Alfords Point Bridge duplication and upgrades to the north.
The proposed east-west transport corridor will vastly improve the link between
southern and south-western Sydney, principally between the Sutherland and
Liverpool regions, delivering benefits for existing residents of both areas.
The need for this east west transport corridor has been flagged for decades and will
cut approximately 7.5 kilometres from the current journey with a consequent
reduction in travel times for the community. This project enables this important
missing link to be provided to the community with no net cost to the NSW
Government.
iv. Housing
The Heathcote Ridge project will help ease local housing pressures by releasing land
for 2,400 new dwellings in the Sutherland Shire. This is a significant (50%) reduction
from the original concept plan, down from 5,000 dwellings, and is in response to the
detailed investigations carried out.
8
This will include an integrated blend of different housing types that will meet a broad
range of community needs from first homebuyers to seniors. It will contribute to a
diverse community, providing a variety of housing that responds to changes in life
cycle, age and work requirements.
It will provide opportunities for Shire families to stay in close proximity without younger
generations being pushed out by high house prices or older residents being forced
to move out of the Shire.
The nearest large scale land release area with capacity to meet the future needs for
greenfields housing is located in the South West Growth Centre around Oran Park
and Austral. This is over 30 kilometres drive from Heathcote Ridge so have limited
ability to assist housing demand in the Sutherland LGA.
The project supports the NSW Governments Metropolitan Plan for 2036 which
contains a 58,000 dwelling target for the Sydney South Subregion.
v. Employment
The Heathcote Ridge submission proposes 51.4 hectares for a new employment hub,
delivering up to 4,700 local jobs in Sydney’s south over the next 20 years.
This supports the NSW Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 which projects job growth
for the Sydney South Subregion of 52,000. The proposal would ease the traffic and
transport issues caused by the two thirds of Sutherland Shire LGA residents who are
forced to leave the Sutherland Shire for work each day.
The model proposed for the employment hub is expected to deliver the right mix of
industries to ensure maximum benefit for the local community. The identified mix
includes commercial (office), research and education, health related, high tech
and clean industrial and short-term accommodation.
vi. Sustainability
Gandangara has made sustainability a priority for this development. To this end,
Gandangara established an independent group of experts and leaders in the fields
of conservation, sustainability, housing and employment (Heathcote Ridge
Sustainability Reference Group) to provide best practice thinking and independent
oversight of environmental, social and economic sustainability throughout the
process.
The involvement of the independent Reference Group is seen by Gandangara as a
critical part of the planning, providing third party scrutiny of our efforts to deliver a
project which is best-practice and meets or exceeds current industry standards in
conservation and sustainability.
9
vii. Development Staging
Development will occur in a staged manner with the direction of development
driven by economies in the provision of access and infrastructure services and the
timing of development influenced by demand and take up rates.
It is proposed that precincts on the eastern side of the site adjacent to existing urban
areas will be developed in the early stages with servicing provided as a logical
extension of existing services. This includes Precincts 9 and 10.
Development of the western precincts (Precincts 1 to 8) require the staged provision
of the east west access road. This road may be constructed in stages with the first
stage extending to Precinct 10 allowing this precinct to be released. The remaining
sections of this road would then be constructed allowing the development of
precincts from the east west connector heading north and south.
10
Figure 1.1 Planning Precincts
11
viii. Road Network Improvements
A network of streets will be provided to the development including an east west
arterial connection linking New Illawarra Road to Heathcote Road. This will be a 4
lane road intersecting with the Bangor Bypass via a grade separated intersection.
There will also be a collector road system including a north south collector
separating the employment and residential lands and complementing the function
of Heathcote Road;
The development will contribute to the need for network improvements off the site:
Widen Heathcote Road to four lanes between east west link road access
and south of Infantry Parade signalised intersection. This link will
accommodate priority bus movements;
Upgrade key site access points on Heathcote Road and New Illawarra Road
to provide access to development precincts;
Upgrades to the following key intersections:
Heathcote Road /M5 Motorway
Infantry Parade/ Heathcote Road
The Avenue (Sirius Road)/Heathcote Road
Bangor Bypass/New Illawarra Road/new east west link.
These works are supported by a suite of measures to facilitate public transport usage
including bus services.
ix. Legal Standing
On 11 August 2010, the Minister for Planning agreed to consider Heathcote Ridge,
West Menai as a potential State Significant site for listing under Schedule 3 of the
Major Development SEPP and requested the Director General of the
NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure to make arrangements for a State
Significant Site Study to be undertaken by the proponent. This Study has been
prepared and is with the Director General. Following exhibition of the Study and its
consideration, the Minister may instruct the Governor to make a State Environmental
Planning policy to effect the rezoning of the land for conservation and urban
development purposes.
12
1.3 Regional Context
(b) the regional context (natural and human)
Heathcote Ridge is located approximately 25 kilometres south-west of the Sydney
CBD between the localities of Holsworthy, Menai and Barden Ridge. Lucas Heights is
located a few kilometres to the south. The site is 10 kilometres south-east of
Liverpool, and about six kilometres west of Sutherland (Figure 1.2).
In this report, the ‘locality’ refers to land within a 10km buffer from the outer extents
of the project area.
Figure 1.2 Regional Context
The site is located on the western extremity of Sutherland Shire adjoining the City of
Liverpool. It comprises steeply sided sandstone plateau with valleys formed by Mill
Creek and its tributaries draining northward to Georges River. A small part of the site
drains to the east to Woronora River.
The western boundary is Heathcote Road and the site extending eastward across
Mill Creek to the edge of the existing Menai residential area close to New Illawarra
Road. Both Heathcote Road and New Illawarra Road connect to the M5, 6km to
the north of the site. Heathcote Road joins the Princes Highway about 9km to the
south of the site.
13
The site is well positioned and presents a strategic location for employment of
workers within the Sutherland Shire, and the surrounding LGAs of Liverpool,
Campbelltown, Hurstville and Bankstown. The site is located between the regional
centres of Sutherland and Liverpool approximately 5 kilometres from Holsworthy Rail
Station on the East Hills Line. It is relatively close to ANSTO employment area.
The natural environment is discussed below.
1.4 Land Use Planning
(c) the land use planning (zoning) arrangements and outcomes,
The proposed listing of Heathcote Ridge as a State Significant Site within Schedule 3
of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (the Major
Development SEPP) will establish a new planning regime for the site.
The Schedule 3 amendment will effectively replace the current planning instruments
applying to the site, namely Sutherland Shire LEP 2000 and Sutherland Shire LEP 2006.
It is proposed that the amendment to Schedule 3 of the Major Development SEPP
(the Amendment) will be consistent with the provisions of the Standard Instrument
(Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006 (the Standard LEP Template).
The following sections identify the new zonings and planning provisions that are
proposed via the Amendment. A draft SEPP amendment containing the proposed
zoning and other recommended provisions is included for the Minister’s
consideration in Appendix 1.
1.4.1 Land to Which the SEPP Amendment will Apply
The land to which the Amendment applies is all of that land shown on the Land
Application Map included in Appendix 1. It is noted that part of the Heathcote
Ridge site is already zoned for urban purposes.
1.4.2 Proposed Land Use Zones
It is proposed to rezone the Heathcote Ridge site to the following land use zones:
R2 Low Density Residential;
R3 Medium Density Residential;
B2 Local Centre;
B6 Enterprise zone;
IN2 Light Industrial;
E2 Environmental Conservation;
RE1 Public Recreation; and
SP2 Infrastructure (Roads).
14
In accordance with the provisions of Part 2 of the Standard instrument Principal LEP
Template, the zone objectives and land uses have been tailored where allowed by
the Standard instrument to some extent to reflect certain site specific characteristics.
Those amendments add to the standard mandatory objectives for each zone to
reflect the significance, intended function and character of the future open space
areas and urban lands.
1.4.3 Principal Development Standards
i. Minimum Lot Size
Consistent with the design approach described in Section 4, the following standards
are proposed:
Residential densities of 15 dwelling units per hectare in the R2 Residential
Zone and 25 dwellings per hectare in the R3 Medium Density Residential
Zone;
Employment lands and town centre – 1,000 square metres.
Additional controls are proposed in relation to minimum lot sizes for different types of
residential development such as dual occupancies and apartments.
ii. Floor Space Ratio
Floor space ratio controls are proposed in the medium density residential areas and
in the employment lands:
Medium density areas – 0.7:1;
Light Industry – 0.75:1
Employment lands and town centre – 1:1.
iii. Height Limits
Maximum building heights (as defined and measured in the Standard Instrument
Principal LEP) are:
Low density residential – 9 metres;
Medium density areas – 12 metres;
Employment lands and town centre – 18 metres.
This accommodates two storey dwellings overall with the potential for three storey
apartments in the medium density areas.
Exemptions to development standards will be included.
15
1.4.4 Consent Authority
Future development on the site will be subject to further environmental assessment
and approval for subdivision and infrastructure works associated with the
development of neighbourhoods, and where not covered by exempt and
complying provisions, for individual buildings.
It is proposed the Heathcote Ridge site will be developed as a series of staged
neighbourhoods or precincts which will be the subject of more detailed design and
assessment to support subdivision and street layout, open space areas and
infrastructure provisions.
The consent authority will be determined having regard to the provisions of the EP&A
Act, accompanying regulation and environmental planning instruments as in force
from time to time. It is considered that development will be determined having
regard to Parts 4 or 5 of the EP&A Act.
1.5 Land Tenure
(d) the basis of land and asset tenure for all land within the scope of
the program
Heathcote Ridge site comprises a number of allotments that are in the title of
Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council (“GLALC”) or subject to land claims by
the Council. Table 1.1 outlines the legal descriptions and status of the parcels
comprising the site (see also Figure 1.3).
Table 1.1 Legal description and status of all parcels
Description Area (Ha)
Lot 607 DP 1138731 518.1
Lot 7316 DP 1155196 as adjusted in
accordance with LC 1692
95.15
Lot 3 DP 807482 19.31
Lot 200 DP 1136781 9.13
Lot 41 DP 1158596 7.74
Lot 605 DP 1056307 107.5
Lot 609 DP 1117902 2.14
Lot 7328 DP 1162249 82.42
Lot 285 DP 259283 1.63
Lot 10 DP 822356 6.10
The total site area is approximately 849ha. Once developed land will be sold for
further development or occupation. The conservation area will remain under the
ownership of GLALC.
16
Figure 1.1 Site details
Typical of the suburbs of Menai, Bangor, Barden Ridge, Alfords Point and Illawong,
the site comprises sandstone ridges incised by steep weathered gullies and creek
lines. These plateau areas are on the eastern and western sides of Mill Creek which
runs from south to north towards Georges River. The upper slopes of Mill Creek on
the eastern side of the creek up to the ridge line formed by New Illawarra Road is
developed for urban purposes whilst the upper slopes on the western side bound by
the western ridge along which runs Heathcote Road is undeveloped and are the
primary focus of this study.
1.6 Legal and Administrative Frameworks
(e) the legal and administrative frameworks that have supported
development of the program that will ensure its implementation,
including for protection of natural assets, MNES and the
environment of Commonwealth land. This should include legal
standing and relationship to other relevant policies, plans,
guidelines, commitments and legislation/regulation, including
17
All development will be subject to subsequent approval under the Environmental
Planning and Assessment Act 1979. The implementation of the Act and its various
provisions including provisions for making planning agreements and provisions for
environmental impact assessment will ensure that all relevant environmental factors
will be taken into account is determining whether to grant development consent for
any part of the project.
1.7 Consultation
(f) the consultation activities that have been undertaken to-date
A detailed program of stakeholder consultation, including the local community has
been undertaken to date. A Stakeholder Consultation Strategy has been prepared
and has been implemented during the Study preparation process
The implementation of the Strategy ensures that a broad cross section of views
canvassed on this important and high profile project.
Consultation has been based on the meaningful dissemination of information to,
and engagement with, relevant parties as part of the study preparation process.
The program for consultation ensures stakeholder issues were identified as part of the
Study preparation and prior to the formal exhibition of the proposal by the DoPI.
The consultation achieved the following:
Awareness of the project across a broad range of stakeholders, community
groups and the community;
Identification of key issues to be addressed in addition to those in the SSS
study requirements;
Processes for on-going consultation.
The consultation included discussions with:
Political stakeholders through briefings with local members and relevant
ministers, local councils (Sutherland Shire and Liverpool City) and local ward
councillors;
A wide range of government agencies by the consultants on the team in
their respective areas of expertise and by the consultation team;
Major adjoining land owners including Department of Defence, Lucas
Heights Waste Resource Recovery Park, ANSTO, Cronulla Model Aircraft
Club, Jenko Pony Club, Benedicts Quarry, Menai Soil and Sands, local
resident groups immediately adjoining the site;
Local community groups including environmental organisations, resident
associations, chambers of commerce and the like.
Methods used for consultation include:
18
Establishment of a project website containing information on the project
and fact sheets;
Disseminating information using the website, fact sheets, media releases as
well as community meetings and direct approaches to stakeholders;
Community meetings and issues workshops, including using local press for
notification;
Individual stakeholder meetings and follow-up.
1.8 Actions Under the Program
(g) the actions that will take place under the program over the short,
medium and long term. This may include relevant construction and
operational aspects associated with urban, commercial and
industrial development, and
Refer to staging program discussed in Section 1.4 above. The development has a
timeframe of 20 to 25 years.
1.9 Management, Planning and Approval Arrangements
(h) State, local government and GLALC management, planning and
approval arrangements and the entity responsible for their
implementation.
In the event that the site is included in Schedule 3 of the Major Development SEPP,
the ongoing development process will be managed by GLALC. All development
will be subject to subsequent approval under the Environmental Planning and
Assessment Act 1979. The implementation of the Act and its various provisions
including provisions for making planning agreements and provisions for
environmental impact assessment will ensure that all relevant environmental factors
will be taken into account is determining whether to grant development consent for
any part of the project.
19
2. Environment and MNES
2.1 Environment Affected by the Program
2.1.1 General Environment
The reports must describe the general environment likely to be affected by the
program. This includes the environments within, adjacent to and downstream of
development sites that are likely to be directly or indirectly impacted. The
environmental assets and characteristics, together with biophysical, ecological and
hydrological processes, including considerations of surface and ground water and
recharge and discharge, must be identified and discussed.
i. Landform
The topography of the project area is quite variable and includes plateau, ridgeline
and gully areas. The western portion of the project area occurs on a ridgeline, with
the land along Heathcote Road being relatively flat before it slopes steeply to the
east towards Mill Creek. Much of the north eastern portion of the project area also
slopes steeply towards Mill Creek. A high point within the project area occurs at
Barden’s Trig within the central portion of the project area. A small gully occurs
adjacent to Barden Creek within the southern portion of the project area. A
ridgeline runs along the eastern side of New Illawarra Road and slopes steeply
towards the Woronora River.
ii. Geology and Soils
The locality in which the project area occurs forms part of the Woronora Plateau,
which is largely comprised of sandstone, though it has shale-containing sandstone
deposits known as the Mittagong Formation, occurring at the highest elevations.
The shale deposits give rise to soils with higher fertility and different structure to those
derived from pure sandstone.
The soils of the project area are mapped as colluvial and residual soil landscapes. A
high proportion of the soils are derived largely if not entirely by sandstone and are
well drained and extremely infertile and support typical sandstone heath, woodland
and forest communities dominated by dry sclerophyll plant species. However a
shale influence in the northern and southern extremities of the project area is evident
and this has produced soils of higher fertility that support taller forests that have a
higher proportion of grasses and other plants that require better soils. Varying
amounts of ironstone was observed on the plateaus within the project area and the
proportion of ironstone nodules also has an influence on vegetation composition.
iii. Hydrology
The project area falls within the Georges River Catchment. A number of first, second
and third order watercourses have been mapped as occurring within the project
area (Harris Environmental Consulting 2011). Mill Creek and Barden Creek are the
two main creeks that flow through the project area. Mill Creek flows from the south
western portion of the project area to the north eastern portion. Barden Creek
20
converges with Mill Creek to the west of Barden’s Trig. Mill Creek flows north into
Georges River. The northern extent of Mill Creek within the project area experiences
tidal influences from Georges River. The Woronora River flows immediately adjacent
to the south eastern corner of the project area.
The quality of the water in the watercourses occurring within the project area is poor
as a result of runoff from the upslope suburbs of Menai and Barden Ridge (DECC
2008), as well as erosion resulting from illegal trail bike riding and 4WD driving.
The major geological unit is Hawkesbury Sandstone. Regional groundwater is
expected to be contained in fractured sandstone at depths greater than 30 metres
below the plateau surface. Minor shallow water bearing units may be present at soil
bedrock interface with perched aquifers sometimes feeding minor semi-permanent
springs. Commonly the perched aquifers are located above steeper sandstone
cliffs.
The nature of the groundwater regime is that there will be no significant effect on
groundwater resources by development as proposed. Measures can be
incorporated into the design of development to rehabilitate and protect the upper
reached of the drainage lines and incorporation into the urban form as grass swales
and the like.
iv. History of Land Use within the Project Area
A number of historical land uses have resulted in the clearance of portions of
vegetation within the project area. Figure 2.1 shows the most significant land use
changes within the project area during the period from 1961-1994. Portions of the
project area were used for gravel mining from around the 1950s, which resulted in
vegetation clearing and track establishment. Additional tracks were also
established adjacent to Heathcote Road along the length of the project area
during this period. Tracks were also established for the purpose of access to a
power line easement, which was established prior to 1961.
Numerous unmade tracks have since been established throughout the project area
which has facilitated illegal 4WD driving, trail bike riding and bushwalking. The
presence of these tracks adjacent to Heathcote Road has also resulted in the
project area being an area used for illegal rubbish dumping.
21
22
v. Vegetation
The vegetation within the project area is predominantly native and forms a mosaic
of heath, woodland, forest and wetland and reflects topography, geology and
drainage. Topography provides the primary influence to broad vegetation types,
with geology and drainage contributing to divide these into specific vegetation
communities. Some of the original vegetation has been partially cleared for
previous land uses. Vegetation within the project area is continuing to face pressure
from illegal recreational uses, including erosion and sedimentation.
Cumberland Ecology mapped a suite of vegetation communities within the project
area that are distinguishable by the dominant species present. Not all of the
vegetation communities are clearly separated as there often a transitional zone
(ecotone) of variable width between communities. A number of the vegetation
communities were found to be floristically similar, however classification and
ordination of quadrat data from these communities assisted in determining the
different communities. Vegetation communities recorded within the project area
are shown in Figure 2.2. Table 2.1 lists the endangered ecological communities
recorded within the project area.
Table 1.1 Endangered ecological communities recorded within the project area
Vegetation Community TSC Act Status EPBC Act Status
Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath EEC: Coastal Upland Swamp in the
Sydney Basin bioregion
Lepidospermaneesii –
Shoenusbrevifolious Wet Heath
EEC: Coastal Upland Swamp in the
Sydney Basin bioregion
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus
punctata Woodland
EEC: Shale/Sandstone Transition
Forest
EEC: Shale/Sandstone
Transition Forest
Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus
fibrosa Forest (Sydney Turpentine-
Ironbark Forest)
EEC: Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark
Forest
CEEC: Turpentine-Ironbark
Forest of the Sydney Basin
Bioregion
Melaleuca linarifolia Forest (Swamp
Sclerophyll Forest)
EEC: Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on
coastal floodplains of the NSW North
Coast, Sydney Basin and South East
Corner bioregions
Estuarine Forest Complex (Swamp
Oak Floodplain Forest
EEC: Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest
of the NSW North Coast, Sydney
Basin and South East Corner
bioregion.
23
24
vi. Flora
The project area supports a wide variety of flora species with over 400 flora species
having been recorded during recent surveys. The floral assemblage across the
project area is largely typical of dry sclerophyll sandstone vegetation, however
some areas show an influence of clay. The dominant plant families encountered
within the project area have consistently been represented by the Myrtaceae,
Proteaceae, Fabaceae, Ericaceae and Poaceae families. Less than 10% of the flora
species recorded within the project are exotic species.
The following threatened flora species have been recorded within the project area:
Acacia bynoeana (Bynoe’s Wattle) (TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act:
Vulnerable);
Melaleuca deanei (Deane’s Paperbark) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Vulnerable);
Hibbertia sp. ‘Menai’ (TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act: Not listed); and
Hibbertia puberula(TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act: Not listed).
Additional threatened flora species listed under the TSC Act and/or EPBC Act are
considered to have the potential to occur within the project area.
vii. Fauna
The fauna habitats within the project area occur within the heath-woodland,
woodland and forest vegetation communities and within the permanent and
ephemeral water resources. The habitat features available are numerous and
provide potential foraging, shelter and breeding opportunities for a range of fauna,
including some species that are listed as threatened under the TSC Act and/or EPBC
Act.
Over 100 vertebrate fauna species have been recorded from the project area
during recent surveys. This includes 10 amphibian, 66 bird, 24 mammal and 14 reptile
species. The majority of species recorded within the project area are native.
Commonly recorded terrestrial species include the Common Eastern Froglet
(Criniasignifera), Brown Antechinus (Antechinus stuartii) and Swamp Wallaby
(Wallabiabicolor). The project area also supports a diversity of birds including
finches, honeyeaters and lorikeets.
The following threatened fauna species have been recorded within the project
area:
Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne australis) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC
Act: Not listed);
25
Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Not listed);
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC
Act: Vulnerable);
Little Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Not listed);
Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus orianae oceanensis) (TSC Act:
Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not listed); and
Rosenberg’s Goanna (Varanus rosenbergi) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Not listed).
Additional threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act and/or EPBC Act are
considered to have the potential to occur within the project area.
viii. Wildlife Corridors
On a broad-scale the project area forms the edge of a continuous area of habitat
that extends north through Georges River National Park, west through Holsworthy
Military Area and south towards Heathcote National Park. Beyond Heathcote
National Park, the area of habitat continues south and south west, and includes
Royal National Park, Dharawal State Conservation Area and Nattai National Park.
Connectivity of vegetation within the locality is shown in Figure 2.3.
On a finer scale, detailed examination of the vegetation and landscape of the
project area indicates numerous movement corridors for wildlife. Given there is
connectivity across the majority of project area, these movement corridors are
related to vegetation communities and their associated habitat types. The mesic
habitats and areas along creeks form corridors for many species. Movement of
some species from the project area to adjacent areas of habitat is impeded by
Heathcote Road along the western boundary and New Illawarra Road in the south
eastern portion. Connectivity to Holsworthy Military Area is restricted for some fauna
species due to the presence of a fenceline.
26
27
2.1.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance Assessment Methodology
The reports must discuss all MNES under the EPBC Act that may be affected by the
project and should describe methodologies used to identify areas of high priority for
MNES, biodiversity, or other natural value.
i. Literature Review
A review of ecological literature relevant to the project area was undertaken as part
of this ecological assessment to evaluate the flora and fauna values associated with
the project area. Key documents reviewed for this ecological assessment include:
DECC (2008) Rapid Fauna Habitat Assessment of the Sydney Metropolitan
Catchment Management Authority Area. Department of Environment and
Climate Change, Hurstville, NSW;
Sutherland Shire Council (2008) State of the Shire 2007/08 Report. Sutherland
Shire Council, Sutherland, NSW;
Cumberland Ecology (2008) GLALC Land in Menai, Barden Ridge and Lucas
Height: Literature Review of Flora and Fauna Constraints. Cumberland
Ecology Pty Ltd, Epping, NSW;
DIPNR (NSW) (2004) Biodiversity of the Georges River Catchment – Terrestrial
Biodiversity. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources,
Sydney; and
Sutherland Shire Council (2002) Biodiversity Assessment, West Menai.
Unpublished report).
The information collected during the literature review guided the field surveys
undertaken for this ecological assessment. Information within the literature reviewed
was also utilised in determining the likelihood of TSC Act and EPBC Act listed
threatened species occurring within the project area and assessing the potential
impacts of the proposed project.
ii. Database Analysis
Database analysis was conducted for the locality using both the OEH Atlas of NSW
Wildlife Database (OEH 2011) and the EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool (SEWPaC
2011e). The Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database search facility was used to generate
records of threatened flora and fauna species and populations listed under the TSC
Act within the locality of the project area. The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool
was used to generate a list of Matters of National Environmental Significant (MNES)
that may occur in, or may relate to, the locality of the project area. The EPBC
Protected Matters Search Tool was run under three search area scenarios, including
a 10km, 5km and 1km buffer from the extents of the project area. The 10km buffer
search formed the basis of the assessment of likelihood of occurrence of MNES within
the project area. The additional 5km and 1km buffer searches provided
supplementary information for this assessment.
28
The lists generated from these databases were used to assist in designing surveys for
TSC Act and EPBC Act listed threatened species considered likely to occur within the
project area. The abundance, distribution and age of records generated within the
search area also provided supplementary information for the assessment of
likelihood of occurrence of those TSC Act and EPBC Act listed threatened species
within the project area. The likelihood of occurrence of MNES is provided in
Section 2.1.3.
iii. Flora Survey
Cumberland Ecology conducted flora surveys across all parts of the project area
from November 2010 to November 2011. These flora surveys included vegetation
mapping, quadrat sampling and threatened species searches, which are described
in detail in the following sections. An additional site inspection was undertaken in
May 2012 following public exhibition of project reports.
a. Vegetation Mapping
Several vegetation mapping studies have been undertaken across the project area
and surrounds, including broad scale mapping of the Sutherland LGA. The most
recent detailed vegetation mapping project to encompass the project area, prior
to this ecological assessment, was undertaken by OEH (then DECCW) and published
as a draft report in 2009. The vegetation mapping project undertaken by OEH was
aimed at providing a consistent, fine scale map of all vegetation community present
within the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Management Authority Area (SMCMA)
(DECCW (NSW) 2009b). The OEH mapping project included a review of existing
mapping projects, collection of floristic and spatial data and interpretation of
imagery.
Following an initial site reconnaissance by Cumberland Ecology, the vegetation
within the project area was considered to most closely align to the vegetation
community boundaries delineated by the OEH mapping project. Cumberland
Ecology conducted additional vegetation surveys to revise and update the
vegetation mapping prepared by OEH. The vegetation within the project area was
then ground-truthed to examine and verify the mapping of the condition and extent
of the different vegetation communities. Where vegetation community boundaries
were found to differ from the OEH mapping, records were made of proposed new
boundaries using a hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) and mark-up of aerial
photographs.
The resultant information was synthesised using Geographical Information Systems
(GIS) to create a spatial database that was used to interpret and interpolate the
data to produce a vegetation map of the project area. Mapping was completed
using MapInfo Version 10.5 (Pitney Bowes Software Inc. 2010).
b. Vegetation Sampling
Vegetation sampling was conducted, where appropriate, in accordance with
standards provided in the OEH (then DEC) Threatened Biodiversity Survey and
29
Assessment Guidelines for Development and Activities (Working Draft) (DEC (NSW)
2004). Vegetation sampling conducted within the project area included:
Quadrat sampling (20m x 20m) to obtain information on species composition
and community structure;
Random meander surveys to detect additional flora species not recorded
during quadrat sampling; and
Threatened species searches for threatened flora previously recorded from
the locality.
A total of 81 quadrats were sampled during the flora survey period. The locations of
flora quadrats were recorded using a GPS and are shown in Figure 2.4. The locations
of these quadrats were stratified so that sampling was conducted in all of the major
vegetation types discernible across the project area. The process of quadrat
sampling included the following:
Identifying and recording all vascular flora species present in each strata
within the plot or directly adjacent to the plot;
Assigning a cover-abundance value to each species recorded within the
plot, using a modified Braun-Blanquet scoring system (Braun-Blanquet 1927),
to reflect their relative cover and abundance in the plot;
Recording details about vegetation structure such as percentage foliage
cover and height of each strata; and
Taking photographs of the quadrat to provide a record of vegetation
condition and appearance.
‘Random meanders’ were undertaken throughout the project area in conjunction
with vegetation mapping surveys in order to maximise the census of vascular plant
species. Additional species not recorded during quadrat sampling were noted
during the random meanders to assist in the compilation of a species list for the
project area.
Threatened flora surveys were undertaken across the project area. These surveys
were undertaken as part of the vegetation mapping ground-truthing and quadrat
surveys, and includedtargeted searches within suitable habitat. Searches were also
conducted in the vicinity of recorded specimens. The locations of threatened flora
specimens were recorded using a GPS.
c. Plant Identification
All vascular plants recorded or collected were identified using keys and
nomenclature provided in Harden (Harden 1990-1993). Other references were used
to assist identification, particularly for, difficult specimens (Brooker and Kleinig 1990,
Richardson et al. 2006). Recent name changes to plant names have been
30
incorporated into the this report, and the names are derived from PlantNET(Botanic
Gardens Trust 2011).
Specimens that required further investigation were sampled in the field, given a
voucher number, pressed and then lodged for identification with the National
Herbarium of NSW at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.
d. Plant Community Names
Currently within NSW, the naming of plant communities is somewhat confusing owing
to a series of potential names that can be used for any given vegetation type –
sometimes three or more names can be used for the same community. If they are
EECs listed by the TSC Act they can be named using names that are applied for a
specific EEC. However, such EEC names are often used for large and widespread
vegetation communities that are found over broad areas of NSW. Such larger
communities have local variations. As such other regional and local names can and
often do also apply. This means that some plant communities can have a valid
local or regional name and also a separate EEC name.
There has been an attempt by OEH, as part of the SMCMA mapping project, to
provide a standardised list and description of plant communities occurring within the
SMCMA. This list includes most, but not all, recognisable vegetation communities in
the project area. In some cases the names provided do not precisely fit vegetation
communities for a site, causing problems for naming. Best-fit OEH SMCMA
vegetation community names are provided for vegetation communities occurring
within the project area.
For the purposes of this report, plant community names were determined by the
dominant canopy species and community structure. Where such communities were
also recognisable variants of EECs, these names have also been mentioned and
used in the report.
e. Statistical Analysis
Classification and ordination were performed on quadrat data to explore patterns in
floristic (plant species) data and to validate vegetation map units.
Data analysis was performed on the raw cover-abundance scores obtained from
the quadrat surveys within native plant communities using the PRIMER statistical
package to examine patterns in vegetation composition across the site.
To determine the degree of similarity of quadrat samples in terms of species
composition, a Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrix was calculated based on the species
abundance data. In general, no transformation was carried out on the raw Braun-
Blanquet data, as the metric itself provides an appropriate scaling for reducing the
effect of highly abundant species.
Classification (or cluster analysis) is performed to find “natural clusters” of samples
within a dataset such that samples within one cluster are more similar to each other
than to samples in other clusters (Clarke and Warwick 2001). Classification analysis
was run on the matrix using a hierarchical agglomerative clustering method; this
31
produced a dendogram showing natural clusters of samples based on increasing
similarity. The SIMPROF permutation procedure (‘Similarity Profiles’) was applied to
the dendogram to determine statistically significant clusters (Clarke and Gorley
2006).
Once natural and statistically significant groups were identified, the SIMPER
procedure (‘Similarity Percentages’) (Clarke and Gorley 2001) was used on the
Braun-Blanquet abundance data to determine the contribution percentage of
each species to the average similarity within and average dissimilarity between
groups of samples. Species contributing to the greatest 90% of the similarity within
groups and 90% of the dissimilarity between groups were identified.
f. Survey Effort
Flora survey method and survey effort for the project area are summarised in
Table 2.2 below.
Table. 2.2 Flora survey effort
Survey Method Dates Effort
Vegetation community
mapping
22/11/2010, 25-26/11/2010, 1-
3/12/2010, 6-7/12/2010, 9-
10/12/2010, 14/12/2010, 16/12/2010,
20/12/2010, 29/12/2010, 19/01/2011,
16/02/2011, 16/03/2011, 5/04/2011,
12/05/2011 and throughout flora
survey period
Minimum 14 days for
two people
Quadrat sampling 22/11/2010, 25-26/11/2010,
3/12/2010, 7/12/2010, 9/12/2010,
29-30/12/2010, 4-5/01/2011,
20/01/2011, 28/01/2011, 2-
3/02/2011, 7-8/02/2011, 28-
29/04/2011, 12/05/2011
81 quadrats
Random meanders Throughout flora survey period n/a
Threatened species searches Surveys undertaken concurrently
with vegetation community
mapping, random meanders and
quadrat sampling with counts and
additional searches undertaken on:
16/12/2010, 30/12/2010, 4/01/2011,
7-8/01/2011, 10/01/2011,
13/01/2011, 18/01/2011, 20/01/2011,
16/03/2011, 22/03/2011, 5/04/2011,
29/04/2011, 2/11/2011, 11/11/2011
Five days for two
people (targeted)
and additional
observations
throughout survey
period
32
33
iv. Fauna Survey
Cumberland Ecology conducted fauna surveys across all parts of the project area
from December 2010 to May 2011. These fauna surveys were conducted, where
appropriate, in accordance with guidelines provided in the OEH (then DEC)
Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Guidelines for Development and
Activities (Working Draft) (DEC (NSW) 2004). The fauna surveys included a general
fauna habitat assessment, trapping, spotlighting, call playback and Anabat
detection.
As OEH survey guidelines are based upon stratification units, the project area was
divided into three stratification units. All survey methods utilised within the ecological
assessment are described in detail in the following sections. The locations of all
fauna survey sites are shown in Figure 2.5.
a. Stratification Units
The project area was divided into three stratification units based on the preliminary
results of the vegetation mapping component of the ecological assessment. These
stratification units were considered likely to support different assemblages of
vertebrate fauna and guided fauna survey effort across the project area. The
stratification units delineated across the project area reflect broad vegetation
associations:
Heath-woodland vegetation (~260ha): occurs predominately on the
plateaus within the project area, subject to disturbance impacts and has
relatively low structural diversity;
Woodland vegetation (~380ha): occurs along ridgetops and adjacent
upper slopes within the project area, some areas subject to disturbance
impacts and has moderate-high level of structural diversity; and
Forest vegetation (~220ha): occurs predominately along the gullies within
the project area, majority of areas without disturbance impacts and has a
high structural diversity.
b. General Habitat Assessment
A general habitat assessment of the project area was undertaken in December
2010. Key areas of investigation were delineated on an aerial photograph and
targeted during these surveys. The general habitat assessment included a traverse
of these key areas and the recording of notes on habitat. Notes were taken on the
presence of suitable nesting, roosting and foraging habitat features suitable for
threatened species. Features noted include hollow-bearing trees, termite mounds,
bush rock and soaks. The general habitat assessment provided assistance in the
positioning of targeted fauna survey locations.
34
c. Trapping Transects
Trapping was undertaken in January and February 2011 to detect arboreal and
terrestrial fauna occurring within the project area. A total of 12 trap lines were
established across the stratification units with each trap line comprising the following
traps:
25 Elliot A traps for small terrestrial and arboreal fauna;
10 Elliot B traps for small to medium sized terrestrial and arboreal fauna; and
3 Wire cage traps for large terrestrial fauna.
Spacing between the terrestrial Elliot traps was approximately 10-20m. Arboreal
traps were positioned along the terrestrial line in suitable habitat trees. Wire cage
traps were positioned at the start, middle and end of the terrestrial line.
As different species were being targeted within the stratification units, the
composition of the terrestrial and arboreal traps varied. Within the woodland and
forest stratification units, the terrestrial traps were all Elliot A traps and the arboreal
traps were all Elliot B traps. Within the heath stratification unit, the terrestrial traps
were comprised of 15 Elliot A traps and 10 Elliot B traps, and the arboreal traps were
all Elliot A traps. The arboreal traps within the woodland and forest stratification units
were placed on platforms attached to potential habitat trees at a height of
approximately two metres and within the heath stratification unit, traps were placed
in the mid-lower braches of suitable habitat trees. Elliot A and Elliot B traps were
baited with a mixture of peanut butter, honey, bacon and rolled oats. Wire cage
traps were baited with chicken necks. Trapping lines were checked in the morning,
and any fauna captured were identified and released.
d. Hair Tube Transects
Hair tube sampling was undertaken in January and February 2011 to detect arboreal
and terrestrial mammals occurring within the project area. A total of 12 hair tube
transects were established across the stratification units. ‘Faunatech’ hair tubes,
which target both small and medium sized fauna, were utilised. Each hair tube
transect comprised 20 hair tubes with half placed on the ground and half on trees.
Hair tubes were baited with a mixture of peanut butter, honey, bacon and rolled
oats. Each hair tube transect was left for 7-10 nights. Hair samples collected from
the hair tubes were sent to Georgeanna Story of ‘Scats About’ for identification.
e. Koala Activity Surveys
Surveys to determine koala activity within the project area were undertaken in April
and May 2011. The methodology followed the most recent version of the Spot
Assessment Technique (SAT) as described by Phillips and Callaghan (unpublished).
The technique is a point-based, tree sampling methodology that utilises the
presence/absence of Koala faecal pellets within a prescribed search area around
the base of sampled trees to provide a measure of Koala activity. Given the local
population will fall into the east coast low density category (Steven Phillips, pers.
35
comm.), a 500m grid was considered most suitable and was utilised to determine
sampling points. Sampling points that occurred up to 100m outside of the project
area were relocated to within the project area to maximise sampling effort.
A total of 47 sampling points, each 500m apart were surveyed across the project
area. At each sampling point, a tree was selected and marked as the centre tree.
This centre tree and an additional 29 trees surrounding it were then identified and
surveyed for koala pellets. Inspection of the leaf litter and ground cover within 1m of
the trunk was undertaken for a maximum of two person minutes. Following the pellet
searches, an additional canopy observation of a 25m transect was undertaken to
determine the presence of absence of a koala within the sampling area.
f. Microchiropteran Bat Surveys
Surveys for microchiropteran bats were undertaken in January and February 2011
using “Anabat” units to record ultrasonic bat calls. A total of 22 locations were
surveyed for a minimum of two nights across the stratification units within the project
area. Anabat units were positioned in suitable habitat, such as along tracks and
near caves. Anabat units were set to activate before dusk each evening and
switch off after dawn. Ultrasonic calls collected from the Anabat units were sent to
Greg Ford of ‘Balance Environmental’ for identification.
g. Spotlighting
Spotlight surveys for amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles were undertaken in
January and February 2011. Spotlight surveys were conducted using a hand-held
spotlight while walking, with incidental spotlighting conducted while driving
between transects. A total of 21 walking transects were undertaken within the
project area.
h. Call Playback
During spotlighting surveys, call playback of nocturnal calls were broadcast using a
megaphone to illicit a response from targeted threatened nocturnal species. The
Powerful Owl (Ninoxstrenua), Barking Owl (Ninoxconnivens), Masked Owl
(Tytonovaehollandiae), Koala (Phascolarctoscinereus) and Yellow-bellied Glider
(Petaurusaustralis) were targeted during call playback surveys. Call playback was
followed with quiet listening and spotlighting in the immediate vicinity. Call
playback surveys were undertaken at 18 locations within the project area.
i. Diurnal Bird Surveys
Visual observation and call identification of diurnal birds was carried out throughout
the project area during the general habitat assessment in December 2010, the
targeted fauna survey in January and February 2011 and additional survey in May
2011. Diurnal birds were identified and recorded as they were encountered
throughout the project area during the survey period. Additional surveys were
conducted at limited census points within the project area. In addition, call
playback was used to elicit a response from threatened diurnal bird species at
several points throughout the project area.
36
j. Amphibian and Reptile Surveys
Amphibian and reptile searches were undertaken throughout the project area
during the general habitat assessment in December 2010 and targeted fauna survey
in January and February 2011. Amphibian searches included habitat searches of
damp and watery sites including watercourses and the use of call playback for
potentially occurring threatened frog species. Searches for tadpoles were also
undertaken in suitable habitat, with the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoriaaurea),
Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporusaustraliacus) and Red-crowned Toadlet
(Pseudophryneaustralis) being targeted. Searches of suitable reptile habitat
involved lifting of bark, fallen logs, bushrock and scraping of top soil. Additional
reptile searches were undertaken concurrently with koala SAT surveys, as the survey
technique involved the raking of leaf litter around the base of 30 trees at 47 sites.
Captured animals were identified and then released. Nocturnal searches for
amphibians and reptiles were undertaken as part of the spotlighting survey.
k. Incidental Observations
Any incidental vertebrate fauna species that was observed, heard calling or
otherwise detected on the basis of tracks or signs were recorded and listed in the
total species list for the project area.
l. Survey Effort
Fauna survey methods and survey effort for the project area are summarised in
Table 2.3 below.
37
Table 2.3 Fauna survey effort
Survey Method Dates Effort
General habitat assessment 6-9/12/2010 and throughout
survey period
n/a
Trapping – Elliot A 10-14/01/2011, 17-21/01/2011,
31/01/2011-4/02/2011
1200 trap nights (1040
terrestrial, 160 arboreal)
Trapping – Elliot B 10-14/01/2011, 17-21/01/2011,
31/01/2011-4/02/2011
480 trap nights (160 terrestrial,
320 arboreal)
Trapping – Wire cage 10-14/01/2011, 17-21/01/2011,
31/01/2011-4/02/2011
136 trap nights
Hair tube trapping 12/01/2011-3/02/2011 2060 trap nights (1030
terrestrial, 1030 arboreal)
Koala activity surveys 27/04/2011, 3-6/05/2011,
18/05/2011
47 sample sites (30 trees/site)
Michrochiropteran bat
surveys
12-13/01/2011, 17-20/01/2011,
24/01/2011-3/02/2011
22 sites, 62 trap nights
Spotlighting 11-13/01/2011, 18-20/01/2011, 24-
25/01/2011, 27/01/2011, 1-
3/02/2011
21 walking transects, 3 car
transect, 32.5 person hours
Call playback 11-13/01/2011, 18-20/01/2011, 24-
25/01/2011, 27/01/2011, 1-
3/02/2011
18 sites
Diurnal bird surveys Throughout fauna survey period.
Seven census points were also
surveyed on 11-12/01/2011,
25/01/2011, 12/05/2011
Seven sites, and additional
observations throughout fauna
survey period
Amphibian and reptile surveys Throughout fauna survey period n/a
Incidental observations Throughout fauna survey period n/a
38
39
v. Limitations
The project area is within a locality that has been subject to intensive fauna survey
during past decades. Vertebrate fauna and vascular flora of the locality is well
known based upon a sizeable database of past records and various published
reports. The surveys by Cumberland Ecology added to the existing database and
helped to provide a clear indication of the likelihood that various species do or
could occur. Generally, the data obtained from literature review, database
assessment and current surveys of the project area furnished an appropriate level of
information to support the project assessment.
a. Flora
The weather conditions at the time of the flora surveys was generally favourable for
plant growth and production of features required for identification of most species.
Shrubs, grasses, herbs and creepers were readily identifiable in most instances.
However, given the size of the project area, not all flora species present would have
been recorded during the current survey. Despite this, it is considered that sufficient
information has been collected to assess issues including conservation significance
of the flora, condition and viability of bushland and likely impact on native
vegetation.
A range of threatened flora is known to occur in the locality and there is suitable
habitat present within the project area for a number of these species. Of the
threatened species known from the locality, the flowering period of one species only
identifiable by flowering features, Pterostylissaxicola(Sydney Plains Greenhood),
occurs outside of the survey period. The assessments made of the occurrence of
threatened flora are based on the surveys undertaken from November 2010 to May
2011 and are supplemented by data from the locality.
b. Fauna
The fauna surveys, while undertaken according to OEH guidelines, have limitation in
that they are a “snapshot” investigation in time and illustrate a view of the fauna
that were active during the time of the surveys. The data produced by the surveys is
intended to be indicative of the types of species that could occur and not an
absolute census of all vertebrate fauna species occurring within the project area.
The fauna surveys undertaken for this ecological assessment are limited in that they
have not been undertaken during different seasonal conditions. As a result, the
opportunities to maximise the detection of a variety of species is reduced.
Key variations to the minimum requirements for surveys are outlined below:
Wire cage traps were deployed in lower numbers than the guidelines
suggest, as the number of cages utilised was considered appropriate for the
one threatened species targeted, Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurusmaculatus).
Additionally, at two of the trapping transects, only two wire cage traps were
40
utilised due to access issues. Database records was utilised in the
assessment of occurrence of this species.
As conical ‘Faunatech’ hair tubes, which can sample both small and large
mammals, were utilised, it negated the need to use two different sizes of hair
tubes.
Arboreal hair tubes were deployed in lower numbers than guidelines
suggest, as the number of arboreal hair tubes utilised was considered
appropriate for the species targeted. Other survey methods utilised
supplemented survey effort for these species.
Call playback was not repeated at each survey site as it was considered
more appropriate to undertake surveys across the entirety of the project
area instead of a few locations. The number of sites where call playback
was undertaken exceeds the minimum requirements for call playback.
Several nights of Anabat data was missed due to equipment faults, resulting
in below minimum effort by two sites. However, given the database record
available this did not significantly impair the fauna impact assessment.
vi. Potential Offset Investigations
During the preparation of this ecological assessment and the development of the
project, it was apparent that broad areas of vegetation and associated habitat,
including those that support TSC Act and EPBC Act listed threatened species, would
be cleared as a result of the proposed project. The retained land within the project
area was identified as an onsite offset in the early stages of the planning process
and was surveyed concurrently with the development footprint.
2.1.3 Matters of National Environmental Significance Present
The reports must discuss all MNES under the EPBC Act that may be affected by the
project and should describe methodologies used to identify areas of high priority for
MNES, biodiversity, or other natural value.
i. World Heritage Properties
No World Heritage Properties occur within the locality of the project area.
ii. Natural Heritage Places
One Natural Heritage Place, “Royal National Park and Garawarra State
Conservation Area”, occurs 3km south east of the project area. The project area is
connected to Royal National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area via an
extensive area of native vegetation including Heathcote National Park.
Connectivity between the project area and Royal National Park is reduced in the
areas containing suburban development, including Woronora Heights, Engadine,
Yarrawarrah and Loftus. Removal of an area of vegetation and associated habitat
within the project area is unlikely given distance between the two areas, and the
41
significant amount of vegetation which would act as a buffer. The actions to be
taken under the proposed project are not considered to result in an impact to Royal
National Park and Garawarra State Conservation Area. This National Heritage Place
is therefore not assessed further.
iii. Wetlands of International Significance
One Wetland of International Significance, “Towra Point Nature Reserve”, occurs
within the locality of the project area. The project area occurs 11km west of Towra
Point Nature Reserve. The project area is located within the Georges River
subcatchment and Towra Point Nature Reserve is located within the Botany Bay
subcatchment. Run-off from the proposed project is not directly connected to the
environment of Towra Point Nature Reserve. The actions to be taken under the
proposed project are not considered to result in an impact to Towra Point Nature
Reserve. This Wetland of International Significance is therefore not assessed further.
iv. Threatened Ecological Communities
The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool indicates that the following four threatened
ecological communities are considered likely to occur within the locality:
Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale Gravel Transition Forest;
Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia;
Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion; and
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest.
Turpentine-Ironbark Forest and Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest are known to occur
within the project area. A description of these communities is provided below. The
distribution of these communities within the project area and within the locality is
shown on Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7 respectively. Given desktop analysis and field
surveys, the other two communities were not recorded and are not considered likely
to occur within the project area.
a. Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion
Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act and as a
CEEC under the EPBC Act. This community occurs primarily on the Cumberland Plain
of the Sydney region, with additional occurrences on the adjoining plateaux (DEH
2005). It is known from a number of LGAs including Auburn, Bankstown, Blue
Mountains, Campbelltown, Canterbury, Concord, Hawkesbury, The Hills, Hornsby,
Kogarah, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Liverpool Parramatta, Penrith, Ryde, Sutherland,
Wingecarribee, Wollongong and Wollondilly. This community typically occurs on
area with clay soils derived from Wianamatta Shale or shale layers within
Hawkesbury Sandstone (NSW Scientific Committee 1998)
The estimated total extent of the Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest ecological
community listed under the EPBC Act that remained in 2005 was 2,495ha (SEWPaC
42
2011m). Only 314ha (12.6%) of the community is located in conservation reserves
(SEWPaC 2011m).
Of the communities recorded within the project area, Syncarpia glomulifera –
Eucalyptus fibrosa Forest corresponds to this EEC. This community occurs near the
south eastern portion of the project area and occupies approximately 1.72ha.
Common species occurring within the tree stratum include Syncarpiaglomulifera
(Turpentine), Eucalyptus fibrosa (Red Ironbark) and Angophora costata (Smooth-
barked Apple). The tree stratum ranges in height from 10-15m with a PFC of 30%.
The small tree stratum is primarily comprised of regenerating canopy species and
also includes Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak). The small tree stratum is
approximately 6m in height with a PFC of <5%. Common species within the shrub
stratum include Dodonaea triquetra (Large-leaf Hop-bush), Phyllanthus hirtellus
(Thyme Spurge), Leptospermum polygalifolium (Tantoon), Hibbertia serpyllifolia (Hairy
Guinea Flower) and Correa reflexa (Native Fuschia). The shrub stratum ranges in
height from 0.5-1m with a PFC of <5%. Common species within the ground stratum
include Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass), Austrostipa pubescens, Lepidosperma
laterale, Entolasia stricta (Wiry Panic) and Xanthosia tridentata (Rock Xanthosia).
The ground stratum ranges in height from 0-0.5m with a PFC of 30%. Glycine
clandestina and Billardiera scandens (Hairy Apple Berry) are the climbers recorded
within this community. The main structural features of this community are shown in
Photograph 2.1 and Photograph 2.2.
This community is generally in good condition, with some ongoing disturbances.
Numerous bike tracks are actively used within this community. The community is
directly connected to an adjacent patch of approximately six hectares within the
Gandangara State Conservation Area (Sutherland Shire Council unpublished).
Photograph 2.1 Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus fibrosa Forest: Quadrat 48
43
Photograph 2.2 Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus fibrosa Forest: Quadrat 48
b. Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act and EPBC Act.
This community is only known within the Sydney Basin bioregion near the boundary
of the Cumberland Plain (NSW Scientific Committee 1998). It is known from a
number of LGAs including Bankstown, Blacktown, Campbelltown, Hawkesbury, The
Hills, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith, Sutherland and Wollondilly (NSW NPWS 2004).
This community occurs on areas transitional between the clay soils derived from
Wianamatta Shale and the sandy soils derived from Hawkesbury Sandstone on the
margins of the Cumberland Plain (NSW Scientific Committee 1998).
The estimated current extent of the community ranges from 7,918ha to 16,264ha
(SEWPaC 2011l). There are few occurrences of this community within conservation
reserves (NSW Scientific Committee, 1998a). This community has recently been
mapped at occurring within Georges River National Park (DECCW (NSW) 2009b).
Of the communities recorded within the project area, Corymbia gummifera –
Eucalyptus punctate Woodland corresponds to this EEC. This community occurs at
various locations within the southern portion of the project area and occupies
approximately 19.96ha. Common species occurring within the tree stratum include
Corymbia gummifera (Red Bloodwood), Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum),
Angophora costata (Smooth-barked Apple) and Eucalyptus oblonga (Narrow-
leaved Stringybark). The tree stratum ranges in height from 10-20m with a PFC of 10-
50%. The small tree stratum is primarily comprised of regenerating canopy species
and also includes Banksia serrata (Old-man Banksia). The small tree stratum ranges
in height from 3-10m with a PFC of <5-20%. Common species within the shrub
44
stratum include Phyllanthus hirtellus (Thyme Spurge), Banksia spinulosavar.spinulosa
(Hairpin Banksia), Bossiaea stephensonii, Leptospermum trinervium (Flaky-barked
Tea-tree), Lissanthe strigosa (Peach Heath) and Grevillea sericea (Pink Spider
Flower). The shrub stratum ranges in height from 0.3-2m with a PFC of <5-50%. The
ground stratum is largely dominated by monocots, including Entolasia stricta (Wiry
Panic), Lomandra obliqua, Cyathochaeta diandra, Anisopogon avenaceus (Oat
Speargrass), Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Grass) and Themeda australis
(Kangaroo Grass). Other common groundcover species include Xanthosia
tridentata (Rock Xanthosia), Tetratheca neglecta, Goodenia hederacea (Ivy
Goodenia) and Lindsaea linearis (Screw Fern). The ground stratum ranges in height
from 0-0.6m with a PFC of 10-50%. Cassytha pubescens and Billardiera scandens
(Hairy Apple Berry) are commonly occurring climbers within this community. The
main structural features of this community are shown in Photograph 2.1 and
Photograph 2.2.
This community is continuing to be impacted substantially by current land uses. Both
driving and walking tracks occur within this community. The largest patch of this
community within the south western portion of the project area contains an
extensively cleared area which is regularly used by trail bike riders. Exotic species
are largely absent from this community, with occurrences primarily restricted to
areas adjacent to access tracks from Heathcote Ridge. Some illegal rubbish
dumping has occurred adjacent to these tracks. This community is directly
connected to an adjacent patch within the Lucas Heights Conservation Area with
an indirect connection to Holsworthy Military area across Heathcote Road.
Photograph 2.3 Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus punctata Woodland: Quadrat 11
45
Photograph 2.4 Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus punctata Woodland: Quadrat 14
46
47
48
v. Threatened Flora Species
The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool indicates that 22 threatened flora species
are considered to occur within the locality of the project area. The likelihood of
occurrence of flora species is summarised in Table 2.4. Further information on MNES
known or considered to have a moderate potential to occur within the project area
is provided in subsequent subsections below. One additional threatened flora
species, Persooniahirsuta, has been included within this assessment as it is
considered to have potential habitat. The locations of threatened flora species
recorded within the project area are provided in Figure 2.8.
49
Table 2.4 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name
EPBC Act
Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
Fabaceae
(Mimosoideae)
Acacia bynoeana Bynoe's Wattle V Grows in heath and dry sclerophyll forest. Substrate is
typically sand and sandy clay, often with ironstone gravels
and is usually very infertile and well-drained
Present. Population of 28
plants recorded along the
western portion of the project
area.
Fabaceae
(Mimosoideae)
Acacia pubescens Downy Wattle V Grows in dry open sclerophyll forest, woodland and
Melaleuca scrub. Grows in gravelly clay or sandy soils on
alluviums, shales and at the interface between shales and
sandstones.
Moderate. Suitable habitat
present.
Araliaceae Astrotricha
crassifolia
Thick-leaf Star-hair V Grows on dry ridgetops to 300m altitude and is associated
with very rich heath, or dry sclerophyll woodland.
Low. Suitable habitat present,
however there are limited
recent records in the locality.
Orchidaceae Caladenia tessellata Thick Lip Spider
Orchid
V Generally found in grassy dry sclerophyll woodland on clay
loam or sandy soils, less commonly in heathland on sandy
loam soils.
Low. Limited habitat present,
however there are limited
recent records in the locality.
Orchidaceae Cryptostylis
hunteriana
Leafless Tongue-
orchid
V Occurs in a wide variety of habitats including coastal
districts, heathlands, heathy woodlands, sedgelands,
forests, and Spear Grass-tree (Xanthorrhoea resinosa)
plains.
Low. Suitable habitat present,
however there are no recent
records in the locality.
Poaceae Deyeuxia appressa E Reported to occur on wet ground. Species is only known
from two pre-1942 records within the Sydney Metropolitan
Natural Resource Management Region. May now be
extinct in the wild.
Low. Species considered to
be extinct.
Myrtaceae Eucalyptus
camfieldii
Heart-leaved
Stringybark
V Occurs mostly in small scattered stands in exposed
situations on sandstone plateaus, ridges and slopes near
the coast, often on the boundary of tall coastal heaths or
Moderate. Previously
recorded within the northern
portion of the project area by
50
Table 2.4 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name
EPBC Act
Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
low open woodland. Sutherland Shire Council.
Specimen not relocated
during current surveys.
Proteaceae Grevillea parviflora
subsp. parviflora
Small-flower
Grevillea
V Occurs in a range of vegetation types from heath and
scrubby woodland to open forest. It occurs in sandy or light
clay soils, usually over thin shales often with lateritic
ironstone gravels which are often infertile and poorly
drained.
Low. Limited suitable habitat
present and there are limited
recent records in the locality.
Dilleniaceae Hibbertia sp.
Bankstown
CE Only one population known to occur at Bankstown Airport.
Due to habitat clearance these lands are maintained as
modified grassland. The geology of the site is sandy tertiary
alluvium with high silt content.
Low. Project area occurs
outside current distribution of
this species.
Ericaceae Leucopogon
exolasius
Woronora Beard-
heath
V Inhabits woodland on sandstone and prefers rocky hillsides
along creek banks up to 100m altitude.
Moderate. Some suitable
habitat present.
Myrtaceae Melaleuca
biconvexa
V
Occurs in damp places, often near streams and rivers or
low-lying areas on alluvial soils of low slopes or sheltered
aspects.
Low. No suitable habitat and
no recent records in the
locality.
Myrtaceae Melaleuca deanei Deane's Paperbark V Occurs in a wide range of vegetation communities, but is
most often found in Coastal Sandstone Ridgetop
Woodland. strongly associated with sandy loam soils that
are low in nutrients, sometimes with ironstone present.
Present. Numerous
occurrences within the
project area within heath and
ridgetop vegetation.
Proteaceae Persoonia nutans Nodding Geebung E Occurs in Castlereagh scribbly gum woodlands and Agnes
Banks woodland. It occurs on laterite, on Hawkesbury
Sandstone or in alluvial sand below 60 m altitude.
Low. No suitable habitat
present. The project area
occurs outside of the
distribution of the species.
51
Table 2.4 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name
EPBC Act
Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
Thymelaeacea
e
Pimelea curviflora
var. curviflora
V Occurs in open forest on sandy soil derived from sandstone
and on lateritic soils.
Low. No suitable habitat and
no recent records in the
locality.
Thymelaeacea
e
Pimelea spicata Spiked Rice-flower E The western Sydney/Cumberland Plain populations occur
on undulating to hilly country in remnant bushland on
Wiannamatta shales. Habitats include open woodlands
and grasslands.
Low. No suitable habitat
present. The project area
occurs outside of the
distribution of the species.
Rhamnaceae Pomaderris brunnea RufousPomaderris V In the Sydney region this species is found typically near the
coast, on Sydney Sandstones. In this area is grows in
woodland and semi-cleared scrub, on clay and alluvial soils
of floodplains and creek lines.
Low. No suitable habitat and
no recent records in the
locality.
Orchidaceae Pterostylis gibbosa Illawarra
Greenhood
E Grows in open forest or woodland, on flat or gently sloping
land with poor drainage. Known from a small number of
populations in the Hunter region (Milbrodale), the Illawarra
region (Albion Park and Yallah) and the Shoalhaven region
(near Nowra).
Low. Species extinct within the
Sydney area.
Orchidaceae Pterostylis saxicola Sydney Plains
Greenhood
E Occurs in small pockets of shallow soil in flat areas on top of
sandstone rock shelves above cliff lines or on mossy rocks in
gullies.
Moderate. Suitable habitat
present.
Fabaceae
(Faboideae)
Pultenaea aristata Prickly Bush-pea V Known to occur in association with areas of impeded
drainage and creek lines within sandstone woodland and
gully forest plant communities. Endemic to the Woronora
Plateau in NSW, between Helensburgh and Mount Keira,
and grows in low nutrient sandstone soils in both moist and
dry areas.
Low. Some suitable habitat
present, however the project
area is outside the distribution
of the species and there are
limited records within the
locality.
52
Table 2.4 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened flora species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name
EPBC Act
Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
Fabaceae
(Faboideae)
Pultenaea parviflora V Grows in dry sclerophyll woodlands, forest or in grasslands
on Wianamatta Shale, laterite or Tertiary alluvium, on
infertile sandy to clay soils.
Low. No suitable habitat
present.
Orchidaceae Thelymitra sp.
Kangaloon
Kangaloon Sun-
orchid
CE The species grows in seasonally swampy sedgeland on grey
silty clay loam at 600–700m above sea level. Endemic to
the Central Coast/Tablelands of NSW, in the Fitzroy
Falls/Robertson/Kangaloon area.
Low. No suitable habitat
present.
Santalaceae Thesium australe Austral Toadflax V Occurs in grassland or grassy woodland. Often found in
damp sites in association with Kangaroo Grass
(Themedaaustralis).
Low. Suitable habitat present,
however there are no recent
records in the locality.
53
a. Acacia bynoeana
Acacia bynoeana is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and as Vulnerable
under the EPBC Act. This species is a semi-prostrate shrub to a metre high (DEC
(NSW) 2005c). Acacia bynoeana is distributed from Frenchs Forest through to the
Berrima and Mittagong areas, with typically only 1-5 individuals occurring at a site
(DEC (NSW) 2005c, SEWPaC 2011a). Within its extent, Acacia bynoeana is known
from heath and dry sclerophyll forest on substrates that is typically sand or sandy
clay, often with ironstone gravels (DEC (NSW) 2005c, SEWPaC 2011a). Individuals of
this species may not always be apparent and appear periodically, perhaps in
response to local disturbance (Benson and McDougall 1996).
This species was recorded at three locations within Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus
haemastoma Heath-Woodland community in the western portion of the project
area. Nineteen individuals were recorded at the northern location, two individuals
were recorded within the central location and seven individuals were recorded
within the southern location. The plants at the northern location occur adjacent to a
highly disturbed portion of the project area comprising numerous tracks and the
presence of dumped rubbish. Historical photos of the project area show that the
location at which this species was recorded was previously stripped bare for gravel
mining. The plants at the central and southern locations occur on the edges of
tracks. Given the establishment of the species within disturbed areas, and that the
species is known to maintain a long lasting soil seed bank (Benson and McDougall
1996), there is potential for additional areas to support this species. Suitable habitat
for this species occurs within the Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma
Heath-Woodland community.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 10 records of Acacia bynoeana within the locality
with dates ranging from 1913-1969. Additional records of this species occur within
the SMCMA. Acacia bynoeana was previously recorded within Royal National Park,
however subsequent surveys have failed to relocate the species (NSW Scientific
Committee 2004a). This species is not known from any other conservation reserves
within the locality.
b. Acacia pubsecens
Acacia pubescens (Downy Wattle) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the
EPBC Act. It is a spreading shrub approximately 1-5m in height (DEC (NSW) 2005a).
This species is confined to the Sydney district with most occurrences on the
Cumberland Plain (SEWPaC 2011b). Its distribution is concentrated around the
Bankstown-Fairfield-Rookwood area and the Pitt Town area, with outliers occurring
at Barden Ridge, Oakdale and Mountain Lagoon (DEC (NSW) 2005a). Acacia
pubescens occurs on alluviums, shales and at the intergrade between shales and
sandstones with soils characteristically gravely, often with ironstone (DEC (NSW)
2005a). It occurs in open woodland and forest, in a variety of plant communities,
including Cooks River/ Castlereagh Ironbark Forest, Shale/ Gravel Transition Forest
and Cumberland Plain Woodland (DEC (NSW) 2005a).
Potential habitat for this species occurs within the project area in the woodland
communities, in particular in Corymbiagummifera– Eucalyptus punctataWoodland.
54
The project area is outside of the main distribution of the species, however the
outlying record occurs adjacent to the project area.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 162 records of Acacia pubescens within the locality,
with dates ranging from 1901-2010. The closest record occurs immediately adjacent
to the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the SMCMA.
Acacia pubescens is conserved in the locality within Georges River National Park.
c. Eucalyptus camfieldii
Eucalyptus camfieldii (Camfield’s Stringybark) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC
Act and the EPBC Act. It is generally a mallee to 4m in height, but can be a small
tree to 9m (DEC (NSW) 2005d). It is known from Norah Head, on the NSW Central
Coast, to Waterfall and the Royal National Park, south of Sydney (Threatened
Species Scientific Committee , 2008a). Within its distribution is occurs in scattered
locations including Peats Ridge, Mt Colah, West Head, Terrey Hills, Killara, North
Head, Menai, Wattamolla and a few other sites within the Royal National Park
(Threatened Species Scientific Committee , 2008a). It occurs mostly in small
scattered stands near the boundary of tall coastal heaths and low open woodland
of the slightly more fertile inland areas (DEC (NSW) 2005d).
Potential and previously known habitat occurs within the project area within the
heath-woodland community. This species was recorded within the project area by
Sutherland Shire Council, however subsequent surveys of this location during the
current survey and by council failed to relocate the species.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 32 records of Eucalyptus camfieldii within the locality,
with dates ranging from 1905-2009. The closest record occurs within the project
area. Additional records of this species occur within the SMCMA. Eucalyptus
camfieldii is conserved in the locality within Royal National Park.
d. Leucopogon exolasius
Leucopogon exolasius is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act. It
is an erect shrub that grows to a metre tall (DEC (NSW) 2005j). Leucopogon exolasius
is endemic to the Sydney region and central coast of NSW, occurring within the
Sydney Metro and Hawkesbury–Nepean Natural Resource Management Regions
(Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2008b). This species inhabits woodland
on sandstone and prefers rocky hillsides along creek banks, with associated species
including Eucalyptus piperita (Syndey Peppermint) and Eucalyptus sieberi (Silvertop
Ash) and the shrubs Pultenaea flexilis (Gracefull Bush-pea). Leptospermum trinervium
(Flaky-barked Tea-tree) and Dillwynia retorta (Threatened Species Scientific
Committee, 2008b).
Ostensibly suitable habitat for this species occurs within the project area in the
woodland and forest communities, in particular adjacent to creeks and near rocky
outcrops. Species generally associated with this species are found in the gullies and
near creeks within the project area. However, repeated surveys have failed to
locate the species.
55
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 17 records of Leucopogon exolasius within the
locality, with dates ranging from 1901-1999. The closest record occurs approximately
2.45km south of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the
SMCMA. Leucopogonexolasius is conserved in the locality within Heathcote
National Park. This species is also known from Holsworthy Military Area (French et al.,
2001).
e. Melaleuca deanei
Melaleuca deanei (Deane’s Paperbark) is listed as Vulnerable under both the TSC
Act and EPBC Act. This species is a shrub to 3m high (DEC (NSW) 2005e). Melaleuca
deanei is distributed from St. Albans in the north, to Nowra in the south and west to
Faulconbridge (DECC (NSW), 2009). Within its extent, Melaleuca deanei is known
from broad flat ridgetops, dry ridges and slopes and is strongly associated with sandy
loam soils that are low in nutrients and sometimes containing ironstone (DECCW
2010c). As Melaleuca deanei is a clonal species, it has the ability to re-sprout from a
swollen rootstock to produce coppiced growth and can also sucker from its
rootstock (DECCW 2010c).
This species was recorded at numerous locations across the project area within
Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland and
Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costata Woodland. Due to the suckering nature
of this species, obtaining counts of plants was difficult, so clumps of stems
considered to represent one individual were recorded. A total of 93 individuals were
recorded within the project area. The occurrence of this species is divided between
disturbed habitats along tracks and good condition undisturbed vegetation. A
number of individuals recorded within the northern portion of the project area occur
within an area that was previously stripped bare for gravel mining. Additional areas
within the project area are likely to support individuals of this species. Suitable
habitat for this species occurs within the Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus
haemastoma Heath-Woodland and Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costata
Woodland communities.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 36 records of Melaleuca deanei within the locality
with dates ranging from 1901-2009. Additional records of this species occur within
the SMCMA. Melaleuca deanei is conserved in the locality within Heathcote
National Park and Royal National Park with these areas having 10 and two sites
respectively (DECCW 2010c). It has also been recorded at 17 sites within Holsworthy
Military Area, which is afforded some level of protection(DEC (NSW) 2005e).
f. Persoonia hirsuta
Persoonia hirsuta (Hairy Geebung) is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and
the EPBC Act. It is a spreading decumbent shrub approximately 0.3-1.5m in height
(SEWPaC 2011k). It is distributed from Singleton in the north, along the east coast to
Bargo in the south and the Blue Mountains to the west, generally only occurring is
small populations (DEC (NSW) 2005g). Persoonia hirsuta occurs in dry sclerophyll
eucalypt woodland or forest, and in shrub-woodland on sandstone (DEC (NSW)
2005g, SEWPaC 2011k).
56
Potential habitat for this species occurs within the project area in the forest,
woodland and heath-woodland communities.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 19 records of Persoonia hirsuta within the locality, with
dates ranging from 1905-2007. The closest record occurs approximately 2.91km
north east of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the
SMCMA. Persoonia hirsuta is conserved in the locality within Royal National Park.
g. Pterostylis saxicola
Pterostylis saxicola (Sydney Plains Greenhood) is listed as Endangered under the TSC
Act and the EPBC Act. It is a ground orchid with a slender stem to 35cm in height
(DEC (NSW) 2005n). . It is restricted to western Sydney between Freemans Reach in
the north and Picton in the south (DEC (NSW) 2005n). It is known currently from only
five locations in western Sydney: Georges River National Park, near Yeramba
Lagoon; Ingleburn; Holsworthy; Peter Meadows Creek; and St Marys Towers, near
Douglas Park (Threatened Species Scientific Committee 2008). It occurs in small
pockets of shallow soil in flat areas on top of sandstone rock shelves above cliff lines
or on mossy rocks in gullies (Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2008c).
Sclerophyll forest or woodland on shale/sandstone transition soils or shale soils are
often found above the shelves where this species occurs (Threatened Species
Scientific Committee 2008).
Potential habitat for this species occurs within the woodland where benched
outcropping occurs and in the forest communities in the gullies where moss covers
the sandstone boulders.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 7 records of Pterostylis saxicola within the locality, with
dates ranging from 1985-2007. The closest record occurs approximately 1.74km
north of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the
SMCMA. Pterostylis saxicola is conserved in the locality within Georges River National
Park.
57
58
vi. Threatened Fauna Species
The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool indicates that 39 threatened fauna species
are considered to occur within the locality of the project area. Of these species, 21
are marine species. Given that there no marine habitat within the project area,
these marine species have been omitted from this assessment. The likelihood of
occurrence of fauna species is summarised in Table 2.5. One additional threatened
fauna species, the Koala, has been included within this assessment as it has been
listed under the EPBC Act since the initial assessment was conducted. Further
information on MNES known or considered to have a moderate potential to occur
within the project area is provided in subsequent subsections below. The locations
of threatened fauna species recorded within the project area are provided in Figure
2.9.
59
Table 2.5 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act
Status
Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
Amphibia
Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell
Frog
V In NSW, the species commonly occupies disturbed
habitats, and breeds largely in ephemeral ponds.
Breeding habitat in NSW includes water bodies that
are still, shallow, ephemeral, unpolluted, unshaded,
with aquatic plants and free of Mosquito Fish
(Gambusiaholbrooki) and other predatory fish, with
terrestrial habitats that consisted of grassy areas and
vegetation no higher than woodlands, and a range
of diurnal shelter sites.
Low. Limited habitat
available and not detected
during surveys of suitable
habitat. Chytrid fungus likely
to be present within the
project area which
minimises the likelihood of
occurrence.
Hylidae Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn's Tree Frog V Known to inhabit forest, coastal woodland and
heath from 100 to 950m above sea level. Breeding
habitat has been variously reported as rocky streams
and semi-permanent dams, still water in dams,
ditches, isolated pools and flooded hollows, dams,
creeks and lagoons, semi-permanent or permanent
dams, ponds and creeks and temporary pools when
sufficient run-off water was available.
Low. Some marginal suitable
habitat present, however
there are few recent records
within the locality.
Hylidae Litoria raniformis Growling Grass Frog V Found mostly amongst emergent vegetation
(Robinson 1993), including Typha sp. (bullrush),
Phragmites sp. (reeds) and Eleocharis sp. (sedges), in
or at the edges of still or slow-flowing water bodies
such as lagoons, swamps, lakes, ponds and farm
dams. Submerged vegetation is important habitat
Low. Some marginal suitable
habitat present, however
there are few recent records
within the locality.
60
Table 2.5 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act
Status
Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
for breeding success.
Myobatrachidae Heleioporus
australiacus
Giant Burrowing Frog V Occurs in hanging swamps on sandstone shelves
and beside perennial creeks. It occurs in semi-
permanent to ephemeral sand or rock based
streams, and infrequently in semi-permanent to
permanent constructed dams with a sandy silt or
clay base.
Moderate. Suitable habitat
present in less disturbed
second order streams within
the project area.
Myobatrachidae Mixophyes balbus Stuttering Frog V Typically found in association with permanent
streams through temperate and sub-tropical
rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest, rarely in dry
open tableland riparian vegetation, and also in moist
gullies in dry forest.
Low. Some marginal suitable
habitat present, however
there are few recent records
within the locality.
Aves
Meliphagidae Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater E Mostly occur in dry box-ironbark eucalypt woodland
and dry sclerophyll forest associations, wherein they
prefer the most fertile sites available.
Low. Marginal habitat
present and few recent
records in the locality.
Psittacidae Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot E Migrates from Tasmanian breeding grounds to
overwinter in the box-ironbark forests and woodlands
of Victoria, New South Wales and southern
Queensland. Key habitats for the species on the
coast and coastal plains of New South Wales include
Spotted Gum (Corymbiamaculata), Swamp
Mahogany (E. robusta), Red Bloodwood
Moderate. Some potential
foraging habitat present.
61
Table 2.5 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act
Status
Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
(Corymbiagummifera) and Forest Red Gum (E.
tereticornis) forests.
Psittacidae Neophema
chrysogaster
Orange-bellied Parrot CE Found in salt marshes, coastal dunes, pastures, shrub
lands, estuaries, islands, beaches and moorlands
within 10 km of the coast. breeding habitat is usually
within 30km of the coast of south-western Tasmania.
Low. No suitable habitat.
Rostratulidae Rostratula australis Australian Painted
Snipe
V Generally inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater
(occasionally brackish) wetlands, including
temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and
claypans.
Low. No suitable habitat.
Fish
Retropinnidae Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling V Migrates between freshwater streams and the
ocean. Occurs from the Shoalhaven River (NSW)
south and west to the Hopkins River system (VIC) and
in Tasmania.
Low. No suitable habitat.
Mammals
Dasyuridae Dasyurus maculatus
maculatus
Spotted-tailed Quoll
(southeastern mainland
population)
E Recorded across a range of habitat types, including
rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal heath and
inland riparian forest, from the sub-alpine zone to the
coastline. Individual animals use hollow-bearing
trees, fallen logs, small caves, rock crevices, boulder
Moderate. Suitable habitat
present.
62
Table 2.5 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act
Status
Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
fields and rocky-cliff faces as den sites. Found on the
east coast of NSW, Tasmania, eastern Victoria and
north-eastern Queensland.
Macropodidae Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock-
wallaby
V Prefers rocky habitats, including loose boulder-piles,
rocky outcrops, steep rocky slopes, cliffs, gorges and
isolated rock stacks. A range of vegetation types are
associated with its habitat, including dense
rainforest, wet sclerophyll forest, vine thicket, dry
sclerophyll forest, and open forest.
Low. Some marginal suitable
habitat present, however
there are few recent records
within the locality.
Muridae Pseudomys
novaehollandiae
New Holland Mouse V Known to inhabit open heathlands, open woodlands
with a heathland understorey, and vegetated sand
dunes.
Low. Some suitable habitat
present, however there are
few recent records within
the locality.
Peramelidae Isoodon obesulus
obesulus
Southern Brown
Bandicoot
E Known to inhabit a variety of habitats including
heathland, shrubland, sedgeland, heathy open
forest and woodland and are usually associated with
infertile, sandy and well drained soils, but can be
found in a range of soil types. They typically inhabit
areas of dense ground cover.
Low. Some suitable habitat
present, however there are
few recent records within
the locality.
Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus
(combined
populations of Qld,
NSW and the ACT)
Koala V Inhabit a range of temperate, sub-tropical and
tropical forest, woodland and semi-arid communities
dominated by species from the genus Eucalyptus
High. Recently recorded
adjacent to the project
area. Likely to utilise the
project area as a movement
corridor.
63
Table 2.5 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act
Status
Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
Potoroidae Potorous tridactylus
tridactylus
Long-nosed Potoroo (SE
mainland)
V There is no consistent pattern to the habitat; it can
be found in wet eucalypt forests to coastal heaths
and scrubs. The main factors would appear to be
access to some form of dense vegetation for shelter.
Low. Some marginal habitat
present, however there are
few recent records within
the locality.
Pteropodidae Pteropus
poliocephalus
Grey-headed Flying-fox V Utilises vegetation communities including rainforests,
open forests, closed and open woodlands,
Melaleuca swamps and Banksia woodlands. Roosts
in aggregations of various sizes on exposed
branches, commonly of emergent trees.
Present. Recorded at
numerous locations within
the project area.
Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V In NSW this species has been recorded from a large
range of vegetation types including: dry and wet
sclerophyll forest; Cyprus-pine dominated forest; tall
open eucalypt forest with a rainforest sub-canopy;
sub-alpine woodland; and sandstone outcrop
country. Natural roosts may depend heavily on
sandstone outcrops. It has been found roosting in
disused mine shafts, caves, overhangs and disused
Fairy Martin (Hirundoariel) nests.
Moderate. Suitable habitat
present within gullies.
Reptiles
Elapidae Hoplocephalus
bungaroides
Broad-headed Snake V Shelters in rock crevices and under flat sandstone
rocks on exposed cliff edges during autumn, winter
and spring. Moves from the sandstone rocks to
shelters in hollows in large trees within 200 m of
escarpments in summer. Largely confined to Triassic
Moderate. Suitable habitat
present.
64
Table 2.5 Likelihood of occurrence of threatened fauna species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act
Status
Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
and Permian sandstones, including the Hawkesbury,
Narrabeen and Shoalhaven groups, within the coast
and ranges in an area within approximately 250 km
of Sydney.
65
a. Giant Burrowing Frog
The Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) is listed as Vulnerable under the
TSC Act and EPBC Act. It is a large, rotund, slow-moving frog that grows to about
10cm long (DEC (NSW) 2005f). The Giant Burrowing Frog is distributed in south
eastern NSW and Victoria extending from Wollemi National Park in NSW to Walhalla
in Victoria (DEC (NSW) 2005f, SEWPaC 2011g). It occurs in semi-permanent to
ephemeral sand or rock based streams, and infrequently in semi-permanent to
permanent constructed dams with a sandy silt or clay base (SEWPaC 2011g). The
cryptic nature of this species can mean that it can often remain undetected
(SEWPaC 2011g).
There is some potential for this species to occur within the project area within
undisturbed sandy sections of second order streams. Additional potential habitat
occurs within the development footprint, however ongoing land uses has resulted in
the disturbance of this habitat, and this species is considered unlikely to use this
habitat.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 28 records of the Giant Burrowing Frog within the
locality, with dates ranging from 1987-2010. The closest record is approximately
4.6km south west of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within
the SMCMA. The Giant Burrowing Frog is conserved in the locality within Heathcote
National Park and Royal National Park.
b. Swift Parrot
The Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and
the EPBC Act. It is a small parrot, approximately 25cm in length (DEC (NSW) 2005m).
The Swift Parrot breeds in Tasmania during spring and summer, and migrates in
autumn and winter to south eastern Australia, with the NSW distribution on the coast
and south west slopes (DEC (NSW) 2005m). Within NSW they occur in areas where
eucalypts are flowering profusely or where there are abundant lerp infestations (DEC
(NSW) 2005m). Favoured feed trees include Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp
Mahogany), Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum), Corymbia gummifera (Red
Bloodwood), Eucalyptus sideroxylon (Mugga Ironbark) and Eucalyptus
albens(White Box) (DEC (NSW) 2005m).
Potential foraging habitat for this species occurs throughout the project area,
particularly in the woodland and forest communities. Corymbiagummifera (Red
Bloodwood), a favoured feed tree, occurs throughout this vegetation. The Swift
Parrot is considered to be an occasional user of the project area.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 10 records of the Swift Parrot within the locality, with
dates ranging from 1983-2007. The closest record is approximately 4.4km north east
of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the SMCMA. The
Swift Parrot is conserved in the locality within Royal National Park.
66
c. Spotted-tailed Quoll
The Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC
Act and Endangered under the EPBC Act. It is a nocturnal, cat-sized, carnivorous
marsupial (SEWPaC 2011d). The Spotted-tailed Quoll is found on the east coast of
NSW, Tasmania, eastern Victoria and north-eastern Queensland (DEC (NSW) 2005l).
This species has been recorded across a range of habitat types, including rainforest,
open forest, woodland, coastal heath and inland riparian forest, from the sub-alpine
zone to the coastline (DEC (NSW) 2005l). It uses hollow-bearing trees, fallen logs,
small caves, rock crevices, boulder fields and rocky-cliff faces as den sites (DEC
(NSW) 2005l).
Potential nesting foraging habitat for this species occurs within the project area,
particularly in the woodland and forest communities. Suitable nesting features
available within the project area include hollow-bearing trees, fallen logs, small
caves and rock crevices.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds five records of the Spotted-tailed Quoll within the
locality, with dates ranging from 1985-2007. The closest record is approximately
110m west of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the
SMCMA. The Spotted-tailed Quoll is conserved in the locality within Royal National
Park.
d. Koala
The Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act. It is an
arboreal marsupial with males weighting 6-12kg and females weighing 5-8kg (DEC
(NSW) 2005h). The Koala occurs in eastern Australia, from north-eastern Queensland
to south-eastern South Australia and to the west of the Great Dividing Range (DECC
(NSW) 2008). It inhabits a range of eucalypt forest and woodland communities,
including coastal forests, the woodlands of the tablelands and western slopes, and
the riparian communities of the western plains (DEC (NSW) 2005h).
Potential habitat for this species occurs across the project area. Trees likely to be
favoured within the project area include Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum) and
Eucalyptus agglomerata (Blue-leaved Stringybark) (Steve Phillips, pers. comm.)
Eucalyptus punctata occurs in much of the project area, however it is in greatest
abundance in the northern portion to the east of Mill Creek, and in the southern
portion. The Koala is considered highly likely to occur within the project area given
recent sightings adjacent to this land. The project area is considered to form a
corridor for the Koala as it moves between suitable habitat in the Heathcote area,
through Holsworthy and into the Campbelltown area.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 291 records of the Koala within the locality, with dates
ranging from 1976-2010. A number of records occur within the project area, the
latest of which occurs on the eastern boundary. Additional records of this species
occur within the SMCMA. The Koala is conserved in the locality within Georges River
National Park, Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park. The Koalas
occurring within the Heathcote and Campbelltown regions, and the Holsworthy
Military Area, are considered to be a single population (Lee et al. 2010).
67
e. Grey-headed Flying-fox
The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) is listed as Vulnerable under
the TSC Act and EPBC Act. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is distributed primarily along
the eastern coastal plain from Bundaberg in Queensland, through NSW and south to
eastern Victoria (NSW Scientific Committee 2004b). Within its extent, the Grey-
headed Flying-fox occurs in rainforests, open forest, woodlands, Melaleuca swamps
and Banksia woodlands (NSW Scientific Committee 2004b).
This species was recorded at numerous locations throughout the project area within
a number of communities. This species was observed both foraging and flying over
the project area. A Grey-headed Flying-fox was observed feeding on a Banksia
serrata (Old-man Banksia) in the northern portion of the project area. This species is
expected to forage across the majority of the project area, in particular the
woodland and forest communities.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 151 records of the Grey-headed Flying-fox within the
locality with dates ranging from 1986-2010. Additional records of this species occur
within the SMCMA. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is conserved in the locality within
Georges River National Park, Heathcote National Park, Royal National Park and
Leacock Regional Park. Additional suitable habitat occurs within Holsworthy Military
Area.
f. Large-eared Pied Bat
The Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC
Act and the EPBC Act. It is a medium sized insectivorous bat up to 100mm in length
and weighing 7-12g (SEWPaC 2011c). The Large-eared Pied Bat is found mainly in
areas with extensive cliffs and caves, from Rockhampton in Queensland south to
Bungonia in the NSW Southern Highlands and is generally rare with a very patchy
distribution in NSW (DEC (NSW) 2005i). It is found in well-timbered areas containing
gullies and roosts in caves (near their entrances), crevices in cliffs, old mine workings
and in the disused, bottle-shaped mud nests of the Fairy Martin (Hirundoariel),
frequenting low to mid-elevation dry open forest and woodland close to these
features (DEC (NSW) 2005i).
Potential foraging and roosting habitat for this species occurs within the project
area, particularly in the forest communities. Suitable habitat is primarily located
within the gullies with foraging resources extending into the woodland communities.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds two records of the Large-eared Pied Bat within the
locality, with dates ranging from 1996-2000. The closest record is approximately
8.9km south east of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within
the SMCMA. The Large-eared Pied Bat is conserved in the locality within Royal
National Park.
68
g. Broad-headed Snake
The Broad-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides) is listed as Endangered
under the TSC Act and Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. It is a nocturnal snake with
an average length of approximately 60cm (DEC (NSW) 2005b). The Broad-headed
Snake is largely confined to Triassic and Permian sandstones, including the
Hawkesbury, Narrabeen and Shoalhaven groups, within the coast and ranges in an
area within approximately 250 km of Sydney (DEC (NSW) 2005b). It shelters in rock
crevices and under flat sandstone rocks on exposed cliff edges during autumn,
winter and spring and moves from the sandstone rocks to shelters in hollows in large
trees within 200m of escarpments in summer (DEC (NSW) 2005b). The vegetation it
occurs in includes sclerophyll forest and woodland, with common canopy species
that include Corymbia eximia (Yellow Bloodwood), Corymbia gummifera (Red
Bloodwood), Eucalyptus sieberi,(Silvertop Ash), Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum)
and Eucalyptus piperita (Sydney Peppermint) (SEWPaC 2011i).Potential foraging and
nesting habitat for this species occurs within the project area, particularly in the
woodland and forest communities, where there is significant sandstone outcropping.
The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds 22 records of the Broad-headed Snake within the
locality, with dates ranging from 1996-2010. The closest record is approximately 390
east of the project area. Additional records of this species occur within the SMCMA.
The Broad-headed Snake is conserved in the locality within Heathcote National Park
and Royal National Park.
69
70
vii. Migratory Species
The EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool indicates that 59 migratory species are
considered to occur within the locality of the project area. As no marine or intertidal
habitat occurs within the development footprint, migratory marine species and
migratory wetland species have been omitted from this assessment. The likelihood
of occurrence of migratory terrestrial species is summarised in Table 2.6. Further
information on migratory species known or considered to have a moderate
potential to occur within the project area is provided below.
71
Table 2.6 Likelihood of occurrence of migratory terrestrial species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
Accipitridae Haliaeetusleuco
gaster
White-bellied Sea
Eagle
Migratory,
Marine
Found in coastal habitats and around terrestrial wetlands in
tropical and temperate regions of mainland Australia and
its offshore islands. The habitats occupied by the sea-eagle
are characterised by the presence of large areas of open
water. Birds have been recorded in (or flying over) a variety
of terrestrial habitats. Breeding has been recorded on the
coast, at inland sites, and on offshore islands
Moderate. Potential fly-over
habitat present and limited
habitat present.
Apodidae Hirundapuscaud
acutus
White-throated
Needletail
Migratory,
Marine
Almost exclusively aerial, from heights of less than 1 m up to
more than 1000 m above the ground. Although they occur
over most types of habitat, they are probably recorded
most often above wooded areas, including open forest
and rainforest, and may also fly between trees or in
clearings, below the canopy, but they are less commonly
recorded flying above woodland. Most White-throated
Needletails spend the non-breeding season in Australasia
Present. Recorded flying
over the northern portion of
the project area
Dicruridae Monarchamelan
opsis
Black-faced
Monarch
Migratory,
Marine
Found in rainforests, eucalypt woodlands, coastal scrub
and damp gullies. It may be found in more open woodland
when migrating.
High. Suitable habitat within
woodland communities
within the project area.
Dicruridae Myiagracyanole
uca
Satin Flycatcher Migratory,
Marine
Inhabit heavily vegetated gullies in eucalypt-dominated
forests and taller woodlands, and on migration, occur in
coastal forests, woodlands, mangroves and drier
woodlands and open forests.
Low. Marginal habitat
present and few recent
records in the locality.
Dicruridae Rhipidurarufifrons Rufous Fantail Migratory,
Marine
Found in rainforest, dense wet forests, swamp woodlands
and mangroves, preferring deep shade, and is often seen
close to the ground. During migration, it may be found in
High. Suitable habitat within
within the project area,
including mangroves.
72
Table 2.6 Likelihood of occurrence of migratory terrestrial species within the project area
Family Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Status Habitat Requirements Likelihood of Occurrence
more open habitats or urban areas.
Meliphagidae Anthochaeraphr
ygia
Regent
Honeyeater
E, Migratory Mostly occur in dry box-ironbark eucalypt woodland and
dry sclerophyll forest associations, wherein they prefer the
most fertile sites available.
Low. Marginal habitat
present and few recent
records in the locality.
Meropidae Meropsornatus Rainbow Bee-
eater
Migratory,
Marine
Occurs mainly in open forests and woodlands, shrublands,
and in various cleared or semi-cleared habitats, including
farmland and areas of human habitation. It usually occurs
in open, cleared or lightly-timbered areas that are often,
but not always, located in close proximity to permanent
water. Nests are located in an enlarged chamber at the
end of long burrow or tunnel that is excavated in flat or
sloping ground, in the banks of rivers, creeks or dams, in
roadside cuttings, in the walls of gravel pits or quarries, in
mounds of gravel, or in cliff-faces.
Low. Suitable habitat
present, however limited
records in the locality.
Psittacidae Neophemachrys
ogaster
Orange-bellied
Parrot
CE, Migratory Found in salt marshes, coastal dunes, pastures, shrub lands,
estuaries, islands, beaches and moorlands within 10 km of
the coast. breeding habitat is usually within 30km of the
coast of south-western Tasmania.
Low. No suitable habitat.
73
a. White-bellied Sea Eagle
The White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetusleucogaster) is listed as a migratory and
marine species under the EPBC Act. It is a large raptor that has long, broad wings
and a short, wedge-shaped tail (SEWPaC 2011f). The White-bellied Sea-Eagle is
found in coastal habitats, especially those close to the sea-shore, and around
terrestrial wetlands in tropical and temperate regions (SEWPaC 2011f). The habitats
occupied by the sea-eagle are characterised by the presence of large areas of
open water, and have been recorded flying over a variety of terrestrial habitats
(SEWPaC 2011f). Breeding sites have been recorded on the coast, inland sites and
offshore islands, and are located close to water, and mainly in tall open forest or
woodland (SEWPaC 2011f).
Limited foraging and nesting habitat for this species occurs within the project area,
particularly in close proximity to Mill Creek at the northern end of the project area.
The White-bellied Sea Eagle has been recorded in a number of conservation
reserves including Georges River National Park and Royal National Park.
b. White-throated Needletail
The White-throated Needletail (Hirundapuscaudacutus) is listed as a migratory and
marine species under the EPBC Act. It is a large swift with a thickset, cigar-shaped
body, stubby tail and long pointed wings (SEWPaC 2011h). The White-throated
Needletail is almost exclusively aerial, from heights of less than 1 m up to more than
1000 m above the ground (SEWPaC 2011h). Although they occur over most types of
habitat, they are probably recorded most often above wooded areas, including
open forest and rainforest, and may also fly between trees or in clearings, below the
canopy, but they are less commonly recorded flying above woodland (SEWPaC
2011h). Most White-throated Needletails spend the non-breeding season in
Australasia (SEWPaC 2011h).
This species was recorded at one location within the project area. This species was
observed flying over the northern portion of the project area. There is potential for
this species to forage across the project area.
The White-throated Needletail has been recorded in a number of conservation
reserves including Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park.
c. Black-faced Monarch
The Black-faced Monarch (Monarchamelanopsis) is listed as a migratory and marine
species under the EPBC Act. It occupies rainforest, mangroves, eucalypt forest and
woodland (Morcombe 2007).
Potential foraging and breeding habitat for this species occurs within the project
area.
74
The Black-faced Monarch has been recorded in a number of conservation reserves
including Georges River National Park, Heathcote National Park and Royal National
Park.
d. Rufous Fantail
The Rufous Fantail (Rhipidurarufifrons) is listed as a migratory and marine species
under the EPBC Act. It occupies rainforest, dense wet eucalypt and monsoon forest,
paperbark and mangrove swamp, riverside vegetation as well as open country
while on migration (Morcombe 2007).
Potential foraging and breeding habitat for this species occurs within the project
area.
The Rufous Fantail has been recorded in a number of conservation reserves
including Georges River National Park, Heathcote National Park and Royal National
Park.
viii. Other MNES
Listed Marine Species, Whales and other Cetaceans, Critical Habitat and
Commonwealth Reserves are not discussed within this assessment as they are not
relevant to the proposed project.
2.1.4 Commonwealth Land
The reports must briefly describe the general environment of Commonwealth land in
the adjacent Holsworthy Military Training Area that may potentially be impacted by
implementation of the program.
ix. General Environment
The Holsworthy Military Area is located approximately 30km south west of Sydney
and is owned by the Commonwealth and operated by the Department of Defence
(Department of Defence 2006). It is bordered to the north by the East Hills railway
line, the east by Heathcote Road, to the south by the Woronora catchment and
Dharawal State Recreation Area (Department of Defence 2006). It occurs to the
west of the project area, adjacent to Heathcote Road.
The Holsworthy Military Area comprises approximately 18,000ha of bushland within
the Campbelltown, Liverpool and Sutherland LGAs and has connectivity to and
extensive reserve system including Heathcote National Park, Royal National Park,
Budderoo National Park and Blue Mountains National Park (French et al. 2001, DECC
2008). The majority of the land occurs on the Woronora Plateau where terrain and
soils are characteristic of the Hawkesbury Sandstone landscape and grades to the
Ashfield Shale landscape of the Cumberland Plain in the west (DECC 2008). The
Holsworthy Military Area forms a component of the Georges River Catchment, with
Georges River and O’Hare’s Creek forming the western boundary of the land. Major
tributaries within the area include Williams Creek, Deadmans Creek and Stokes
Creek, with drainage generally following in a northerly direction to Georges River
(Department of Defence 2006).
75
The vegetation communities within the Holsworthy Military Area comprise both
sandstone and shale based communities. The following endangered ecological
communities have been mapped as occurring within the Holsworthy Military Area
(French et al. 2001):
Cumberland Plain Woodland (TSC Act: EEC; EPBC Act: CEEC);
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest (TSC Act: EEC, EPBC Act: EEC); and
Riverflat Eucalypt Forest (TSC Act: EEC; EPBC Act: Not listed).
The Holsworthy Military Area supports a diversity of flora species which reflects the
transition between sandstone and shale soils (French et al. 2001, Sutherland Shire
Council 2004). Over 450 flora species have been recorded within the area, with few
exotic species(French et al. 2001). The following threatened flora species have been
recorded within the Holsworthy Military Area (French et al. 2001, Sutherland Shire
Council 2008):
Leucopogon exolasius (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Vulnerable);
Melaleuca deanei (Deane’s Paperbark) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Vulnerable);
Allocasuarina glaricola(TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act: Endangered);
Persoonia nutans (Nodding Geebung) (TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act:
Endangered);
Pterostylis saxicola (Sydney Plains Greenhood) (TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC
Act: Endangered); and
Pultenaea aristata (Bearded Bush-pea) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Vulnerable).
The Holsworthy Military Area supports a high diversity of fauna species as a result of
the size and largely intact condition of the habitat. Over 230 vertebrate fauna
species have been recorded within the area in the last decade including 17
amphibian, 146 bird, 41 mammal and 32 reptile species (DECC 2008). The following
threatened fauna species have been confirmed as occurring within the Holsworthy
Military Area (DECC 2008):
Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea) (TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act:
Vulnerable);
Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC
Act: Vulnerable);
Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne australis) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC
Act: Not listed);
76
Speckled Warbler (Pyrrholaemus saggitatus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Not listed);
Square-tailed Kite (Lophoictinia isura) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not
listed);
Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) (TSC Act: Vulnerable;
EPBC Act: Not listed);
Diamond Firetail (Stagonopleura guttata) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Not listed);
Hooded Robin (Melanodryas cucullata) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not
listed);
Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) (TSC Act: Endangered; EPBC Act:
Endangered);
Turquoise Parrot (Neophema pulchella) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not
listed);
Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not listed);
Cumberland Plain Land Snail (Meridolum corneovirens) (TSC Act:
Endangered; EPBC Act: Not listed);
Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Endangered);
Koala (Phascolarcto scinereus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Vulnerable);
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC
Act: Vulnerable);
Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris) (TSC Act: Vulnerable;
EPBC Act: Not listed);
Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Vulnerable);
Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus orianae oceanensis) (TSC Act:
Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not listed);
Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act: Not
listed);
Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC
Act: Not listed);
77
Broad-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides) (TSC Act: Endangered;
EPBC Act: Vulnerable); and
Rosenberg’s Goanna (Varanus rosenbergi) (TSC Act: Vulnerable; EPBC Act:
Not listed).
x. Environment Potentially Impacted
The environment potentially impacted by the proposed actions occurs immediately
adjacent to Heathcote Road. The vegetation and habitats within this area mirror
those adjacent to Heathcote Road within the project area and include heath-
woodland and woodland vegetation types. Connectivity between these
communities and habitats is currently impacted by Heathcote Road and a fenceline
along the boundary of Holsworthy Military Area.
2.2 Identifying Areas of High Environmental Value
The reports must identify areas considered to provide a long term and viable
contribution to the persistence of MNES and the conservation of biodiversity and
ecological processes. These include, but are not limited to:
(a) habitat for EPBC Act listed species including migratory species
(b) EPBC Act listed ecological communities
(c) areas containing native vegetation with habitat for listed species
(d) riparian corridors
(e) Ramsar wetlands (if relevant)
(f) National Heritage Places and other heritage sites including those on the
Register of National Estate, and
(g) the environment on Commonwealth land.
Given the size of the project area and the diversity of habitats that it supports,
extensive areas of value suitable for MNES are present. As such it would be difficult
to have a large-scale development as proposed in this Program without having
some impact on MNES. Therefore it was necessary to determine which areas of the
project area were of highest value for MNES.
Two EPBC listed EECs occur within the project area, and are considered to have a
moderate-high environmental value. Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, which
occurs within the southern portion of the project area, is listed as a CEEC and has
been determined to be of high environmental value.
Although some of this community has been disturbed it connects to a larger patch
of the community. The size and canopy cover of the community classifies it as a
patch that has the greatest conservation value which is most resilient to disturbance
(SEWPaC 2011m). Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest, which occurs at numerous
locations within the project area, has been determined to be of moderate
environmental value. Portions of this community have been significantly degraded
within the project area, however there are some intact representations. The
development footprint was designed to avoid this community however, some areas
directly adjoin the community. It is considered that mitigation measures are
sufficient to manage the impacts to these areas. The retention of Shale/Sandstone
78
Transition Forest in the south western portion of the project area has also contributed
the corridor across Heathcote Road, which also contains Shale/Sandstone Transition
Forest.
The intact and less disturbed areas containing threatened flora and fauna species
were considered as having moderate environmental value for MNES. These areas
occur primarily within the north-south corridor of the project area. These areas
provide extensive connective areas of habitat for species such as the Grey-headed
Flying-fox and Spotted-tailed Quoll. This area also contains known habitat for
Melaleuca deanei. Locations where there were numerous individuals were
considered of higher value than those with only one or two individuals. This corridor
was also considered as high value due to wider connectivity to Georges River
National Park in the north and Heathcote National Park in the south.
The habitats on the plateau along Heathcote Road are considered as having low-
moderate environmental value. Some of the original vegetation has been partially
cleared for previous land uses. Vegetation within the project area is continuing to
face pressure from illegal recreational uses, including erosion and sedimentation.
Seventy-one Melaleuca deanei and 21 Acacia bynoeana occur within this area,
immediately adjacent to tracks. The areas in which these species occur is
considered to be of low-moderate environmental value given the current impacts,
the small number of individuals and that the species are better represented
elsewhere. Some additional areas of suitable habitat for potentially occurring MNES
will be lost within these areas, however the retention and management of intact
vegetation and habitats within the project area is considered to mitigate and offset
these impacts.
79
3. Ecologically Sustainable Development
3.1 Background, History and Basis for Heathcote Ridge
Development
The reports must provide the background, history and basis for development of
Heathcote Ridge. The report should also briefly describe social and economic
factors and considerations associated with development under the program.
3.1.1 Land Release History
i. Metropolitan Development Program
Since the early 1960’s the Menai area has been considered by the State
government as a potential area for urban expansion. The Sydney Region Outline
Plan released by the State Planning Authority in 1968 identified Menai as one of the
major urban growth areas in metropolitan Sydney. This was a large area of
sandstone plateau and incised gullies bounded by Georges River to the north,
Woronora River the east, Liverpool Military Area to the west and the Australian
Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) research facility to the
south. The valleys formed by the rivers and tributaries divided and defined the
various planning areas of the Menai release area.
Planning for the area in the late sixties and early seventies identified some 37
planning precincts to be developed in three stages as indicated on Figure 3.1 with
development of the first stage commencing in 1971. West Menai was to be
developed as the second stage and was released in the late 1970s for this purpose.
Figure 33.1 Menai Release Area Staging 1980’s
80
ii. Local Environmental Study and Draft LEP
By 1981, detailed planning and development of neighbourhoods at Bangor, Menai
and Illawong were well advanced leading the State government to give
consideration to the early release of land at West Menai. In September 1981, the
Department of Environment and Panning wrote to Sutherland Council inviting
Council to prepare a new local environmental plan for the West Menai Release
Area. Council resolved to prepare a draft local environmental plan for the release
area in November 1981 and commenced the preparation of a local environmental
study to determine the suitability of the site for development. The West Menai
Environmental Study prepared by consultants led by Neil Bird and Associates was
completed in 1984 and recommended that approximately 800 hectares of the
release area was suitable for urban development.
Council progressed the rezoning of the site in accordance with the local
environmental study and subsequent revisions to the study.
iii. Removal from Metropolitan Development Program
Aboriginal land claims were lodged over part of the West Menai release area in
1986. This was the overriding issue that delayed further consideration of the rezoning
and development of the land. In 1988 the Urban Development Committee of
Cabinet established an interdepartmental committee to investigate delays in the
development of the West Menai release area. Other issues identified during the
rezoning process including flora and fauna, bushfire management, access and
proximity to ANSTO and Waste Management facilities also remained to be resolved
with further investigations delayed pending the determination of land claims.
The Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) continued to review land on
the Urban Development Program and in 1997 noted that there were a number of
unzoned UDP areas that remained unlikely to be developed and recommended
that such unproductive lands be deleted from the UDP as their continuing presence
distorted stock figures and prevented proper understanding of the real land supply
situation in the outer areas of the Sydney Region. Consequently, the land was
removed from the UDP with the Minister and DUAP noting that the removal of the
West Menai release area did not preclude its reinstatement should future demand
justify it and if supported by environmental, planning, servicing and economic
feasibility studies.
iv. Conclusion
Prior to Aboriginal land claims, the State Government, through its planning and land
development agencies (Department of Planning, Crown Lands Office and
Landcom), was progressing the rezoning of the West Menai Release area. Council
had prepared a Local Environmental Study of the area and had initiated the
preparation of a local environmental plan. As a consequence of the delays
associated with the land claims, studies to investigate and resolve outstanding
planning issues were not completed and the land was removed from the Urban
Development Program so as not to distort land supply figures.
81
3.1.2 Recent Strategic Planning
i. Metropolitan Plan 2036
The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 released in December 2010 is a major review
of the previous Metropolitan Strategy – City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future,
2005. The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 provides a broad framework for
managing growth and development of Sydney over a 25 year period. It aims to
support continued economic growth for the Sydney region while balancing social
and environmental aspects. It aligns with a number of State Plan priorities, including
promoting jobs closer to home and improving housing affordability. The Plan draws
on the strengths and principles of the 2005 Metropolitan Strategy and the 2010
Metropolitan Transport Plan. With the integration of transport and land use planning,
there is now a much greater emphasis on a connected and networked city.
The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 considered higher population projections
than those envisaged under the 2005 Metropolitan Strategy, with an extra 400,000
people expected in Sydney by 2031. This results in a need for an additional 770,000
new dwellings by 2036, an increase of 46%.
The Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 seeks to locate at least 70 per cent of new
housing within existing urban areas and up to 30 per cent of new housing in new
release areas. New dwelling targets for the South Subregion (containing Sutherland
Shire) are an additional 58,000 dwellings to 2036. This can be compared with a
target of 35,000 new dwellings to 2031 under the previous 2005 Metropolitan
Strategy, of which 10,000 dwellings were targeted for Sutherland.
The employment target for the South Subregion to 2036 is an additional 52,000 jobs.
This can be compared with a target of 29,000 to 2031 under the previous 2005
Metropolitan Strategy, of which 8,000 additional jobs was the target for Sutherland.
Approximately 62% of Sutherland Shire residents work outside Sutherland. The higher
proportion of Sutherland Shire residents which travel outside of Sutherland to work is
as a result of there being a shortage of around 50,500 jobs (i.e. the number of
Sutherland Shire residents that work exceeds the number of jobs in Sutherland by
50,500).
There are no other release areas in Sutherland Shire and land available to meet the
need for employment lands is in short supply. Consequently the site has potential to
meet the revised subregional dwelling and employment targets.
ii. New Government Announcements
Elements of the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 are likely to be reviewed by the
new State government. The Premier has announced plans for the distribution of
housing to be more balanced with 50% of new housing within existing urban areas
and 50 per cent of new housing in new release areas.
82
iii. Location of Release Areas
There are no release areas remaining in the Southern Region of Sydney. Sutherland
Shire has no land remaining for new housing thus making it difficult for the regional
targets for housing to be met in response to the Metropolitan Plan. These targets
can only be met by redevelopment in existing areas for higher density housing. This
limits the choice and range of housing types available to the market and restricts the
provision of new home sites in the Southern Region.
Unlike much of the North West and South West Growth Centres, West Menai is
capable of being serviced by Sydney Water with existing water and wastewater
systems having capacity to service the development with local amplifications and
lead in mains. It is located in a different geographic area and different market and
thus would appeal to a range of buyers currently living in Sutherland Shire and the
South Subregion and who are looking for an opportunity to buy a home site or house
locally so that they can remain in the area. In this way the release of land at
Heathcote Ridge would complement release areas in the North West and South
West Growth Centres and broaden the range of new housing locations in
metropolitan Sydney.
The release of land at West Menai for residential purposes will contribute to the
geographic market spread of housing supply including housing for the aged and
disabled and affordable housing.
iv. Conclusion
The proposed development finalises the planning process for West Menai that
commenced in the 1970’s. It will enable the population and employment targets for
the South Subregion in the Metropolitan Plan to be met with an additional release in
a market different from other release areas. It completes the planning for the
release of the site that commenced with the Sydney Region Outline Plan.
3.1.3 Regional Strategies
The Draft Sydney South Subregional Strategy was exhibited between December
2007 and March 2008. It reflects the housing and employment targets in the 2005
Metropolitan Strategy with dwelling targets set at 35,000 dwellings compared to
58,000 dwellings under the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036.
The Draft Sydney South Subregional Strategy includes an additional dwelling target
of 10,000 for Sutherland. This would increase to approximately 16,500 dwellings
proportionally under the new Metropolitan Plan. The Draft Sydney South Subregional
Strategy requires substantial review to identify the location of an additional 23,000
dwellings to 2036.
West Menai is identified as a potential employment area to be investigated in the
Draft Sydney South Subregional Strategy. The potential for the subregion to attract
knowledge and high skill industries to support emerging education and medical
facilities and to benefit from research projects being undertaken by CSIRO and
ANSTO at Lucas Heights is recognised in the strategy and drives the concepts for
employment lands on the site.
83
The employment capacity target for the subregion to 2031 is 29,000 additional jobs,
8,000 of which are targeted to Sutherland local government area.
The Draft Sydney South Subregional Strategy is to be reviewed and finalised having
regard to the revised population and employment forecasts in the Metropolitan Plan
for Sydney 2036. It is considered that the land at West Menai can perform an
important role in meeting the supply targets for the subregion in a manner that
provides a greater diversity in housing choice at the metropolitan and local levels.
3.1.4 Local Strategies
Council is working to finalise its housing strategy which seeks to meet the Draft
Sydney South Subregional Strategy additional dwelling target of 10,000 for
Sutherland. Council began preparing its housing strategy in early 2009 by
undertaking a detailed analysis of the Shire’s population and its housing needs. It
revealed an ageing and declining population characterised by a growing number
of single-person households and a decline in young families. Between the 2001 and
2006 census the Shire’s population declined by 1,015 people, yet the number of
dwellings grew from around 78,000 to nearly 81,000.
Because the Shire has no zoned land remaining for new housing, increasing the
housing choice in selected areas through infill housing and redevelopment is being
considered as a way of meeting the community’s housing needs and responding to
the Metropolitan Strategy.
Additional measures will be required to meet the new targets in the Metropolitan
Plan for Sydney 2036. There is considerable potential for West Menai to assist in this
process.
3.1.5 Conclusion
The urban release of Heathcote Ridge will assist in achieving the population and
employment targets for the South Subregion in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney
2036 reflected in subregional and local strategies. The demographic and housing
market characteristics of this area are different from those in other release areas
enabling this release area to complement other releases in the south west growth
sector. The availability of essential services such as water, sewerage and electricity
ensures that the release of the area will provide efficiencies in land development
and provide for a cost effective development process and provide the opportunity
for the development to meet the cost of all infrastructure the development creates
a demand for at no net cost to government.
3.1.6 State and Regional Planning Significance
Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005 (Major
Development SEPP) requires a State Significant Site Study to consider the State or
regional planning significance of the site. These provisions of the Major
Development SEPP are used to deliver the State’s planning objectives on major sites
important in the implementation of the Metropolitan Plan and other regional
strategies. The provisions facilitate major investment in significant economic and
employment generating development in NSW.
84
The criteria for determining whether a site is of State Significance is set out in the
Department of Planning’s Guideline for State Significant Sites under the Major
Projects SEPP which requires that a State Significant Site must be of State or regional
planning significance because of its social, economic or environmental
characteristics. One or more of the following criteria are to be met:
(a) be of regional or state importance because it is in an identified strategic
location (in a State or regional strategy), its importance to a particular
industry sector, or its employment, infrastructure, service delivery or
redevelopment significance in achieving government policy objectives; or
(b) be of regional or state environmental conservation or natural resource
importance in achieving State or regional objectives. For example protecting
sensitive wetlands or coastal areas; or
(c) be of regional or state importance in terms of amenity, cultural, heritage,
or historical significance in achieving State or regional objectives. For
example sensitive redevelopment of important heritage precincts; or
(d) need alternative planning or consent arrangements where:
(i) added transparency is required because of potential conflicting
interests
(ii) more than one local council is likely to be affected.
It is considered that the proposal satisfied these criteria for the following reasons.
(a) be of regional or state importance because it is in an identified strategic location
(in a State or regional strategy), its importance to a particular industry sector, or its
employment, infrastructure, service delivery or redevelopment significance in
achieving government policy objectives
The Site has been recognised for its State and Regional significance and included in
the Sydney South Subregional Strategy for future employment uses and
conservation. The land to be rezoned for employment uses is proposed to provide
approximately 51.4 hectares of employment generating land.
Residential land will provide the only new residential release area in the South
Subregion and provide the opportunity for new home buyers to remain in the area.
It will add diversity and choice to housing availability in the area and provide a land
release in a market segment that is different from other release areas.
The 566 hectares preserved for conservation values will remain in GLALC ownership,
under a comprehensive management plan. This will ensure a natural green corridor
will remain and be managed to the benefit of the State and the community
adjacent the Georges River National Park, protecting the upper reaches of the
Georges River and Mill Creek. The preservation of land for conservation and
subsequent management will also ensure the ongoing protection of EPBC Act and
TSC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities found to occur within
the site.
The 51.4 hectares of employment land and future potential 2,400 dwellings will assist
in achieving the State Government new dwelling and employment targets in the
85
Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036 in a manner that can be readily incorporated into
the final subregional strategy.
The site is a significant parcel of land in Sydney South Subregion and one that has
previously been included in metropolitan plans and draft subregional strategies. The
proposal will assist in meeting State government policy to release land to the market
as quickly as possible.
(b) be of regional or state environmental conservation or natural resource
importance in achieving State or regional objectives. For example protecting
sensitive wetlands or coastal areas
Parts of the site are of regional environmental conservation and natural resource
importance because it contains endangered ecological communities and
threatened flora and fauna species (see Sections 2.1.1 v, vi and vii for summary of
EPBC Act and TSC Act listed communities and species recorded within the project
area). The site covers a wide area over sandstone, shale and transitional soil
landscapes giving rise to a variety of vegetation assemblages.
The protection and on-going management of approximately 566 hectares of
conservation lands is a key element of the proposal. This includes retention of the
riparian corridors and adjacent steep lands by GLALC will maintain connectivity
between the vegetation to the north and south of the site, including the adjoining
National Park.
Management by GLALC will ensure that the biodiversity values within the retained
vegetation communities will be maintained and enhanced over time.
The proposal will result in the:
Protection of areas of Aboriginal cultural significance;
Protection of riparian zones and hanging wetlands;
Protection of endangered ecological communities;
Protection of known and potential habitat for threatened flora and fauna;
and
Clean-up of degraded areas from previous illegal tipping.
(c) be of regional or state importance in terms of amenity, cultural, heritage, or
historical significance in achieving State or regional objectives. For example
sensitive redevelopment of important heritage precincts
Parts of the site are of regional cultural significance in relation to evidence of
Aboriginal occupation of the area. It is also of cultural importance being an area of
approximately 865 hectares in single ownership of the GLALC, an organisation
seeking to be self-funding and serving its people and committed to social,
economic and environmental outcomes for the community. Returns from
86
development will be invested in a range of initiatives including Aboriginal cultural
and community facilities, bushland rehabilitation, medical programs and facilities,
Aboriginal employment schemes and training opportunities.
(d) need alternative planning or consent arrangements where:
(i) added transparency is required because of potential conflicting interests
(ii) more than one local council is likely to be affected
The site is at the extremities of two LGAs with the proposal having implications for
Liverpool and Sutherland LGAs. Alternate assessment arrangements will ensure that
proper consideration is given to the impacts and benefits the project will provide to
both LGAs.
The Site needs to be considered in a State / Regional context rather than local
context to allow for a co-ordinated protection of priority areas of biodiversity, the
appropriate development of land for employment uses, the regional traffic
implications and importantly the development of residential and supporting uses to
ensure a dynamic and successful development is created.
3.1.7 Demand for Urban Land Uses
i. Demand for Residential Land
The Draft Southern Sub-Regional Strategy identifies the need for an additional 35,000
dwellings by 2031, with 28% of these to be provided in Sutherland Shire. The
Metropolitan Plan increases the projected dwelling numbers in the subregion and
the current government announced a higher proportion of new dwellings will be
provided in greenfield locations.
Population trends in Sutherland indicated a falling population. Between 2001 and
2006 the population of the LGA declined by 0.1% per year (1,300 people in total).
The population of the Menai area also declined, by approximately 900 people (or -
0.6% per year). There has been limited new development, with the number of
dwellings in the study locality increasing by 186 between 2001 and 2006 (0.4% per
year).
Land availability in the Menai area is scarce and previous smaller releases by the
GLALC have experienced strong demand. Additional land supply is required to
meet the subregional dwelling projections.
Demand for residential land is expected to remain strong and from a range of
sources. A key element of demand is likely to be from existing residents of
Sutherland Shire who do not want to leave the area.
Consultations have also indicated strong demand for land by Defence Housing
Authority because of the proximity of the site to the Holsworthy Military Area.
The development would occur over a time frame of about 25 years and there will
be a number of property cycles during this time. Consequently, current local market
conditions, although indicative of a strong demand for land for residential purposes,
are of little relevance to the longer term position. The fundamental indicator is the
87
lack of land for urban release in the south of Sydney and the important contribution
Heathcote Ridge can make to meeting metropolitan dwelling targets on a site
suited for this purpose and for which planning and service delivery has been
commenced but not completed.
The Housing and Human Services Report identified that housing affordability is a
critical issue in Sutherland Shire and is clearly apparent on numerous measures.
Without an increase in more affordable stock it is likely that supply shortages and
continued high demand will lead to increasingly higher market prices, increasing
social inequity. It noted that:
A large proportion of ageing residents are living alone in dwellings best
suited to families. Not all want, or can afford, to downsize into the housing
forms currently available.
Young couples, with and without children, and young adults purchasing
their first home being unable to remain in (or return to) Sutherland Shire, near
their families and social networks. Many children of residents are currently
having to find their first home elsewhere.
Key workers are unable to afford to live near their places of employment.
This has a number of indirect economic and social impacts on the LGA. Key
workers provide critical services to the community including education,
police, childcare, aged services, health care and hospitality. There is a risk of
future labour supply shortages, if people choose not to work in high cost
areas.
Housing Affordability also extends to the rental market.
The socio-economic profile of the Shire is becoming polarised, with a
segment of the community slowly being excluded from the Shire by housing
costs.
The Shire is not currently supplying enough dwellings to meet Metropolitan
Strategy targets and this is likely to be the case for at least the next few
years.
The Shire has no land remaining for new housing. A report by Hill PDA1 in
support of a major project application elsewhere in the Shire identified
under 3,000 dwellings currently in the Shire’s land development pipeline.
Within the study locality there were just 235 dwellings.
Additional measures will be required to meet the new targets in the Metropolitan
Plan for Sydney 2036. There is considerable potential for Heathcote Ridge to assist in
this process.
1Hill PDA (2010) ‘A centre’s study for Sutherland Shire’
88
ii. Demand for Employment and Retail Uses
Detailed investigations have been undertaken by Urbis into the demand for, and
supply of, employment in Sutherland and the capability of the site to meet that
demand.
The draft South Sub-Regional Strategy shows that Sutherland has an estimated 365
hectares of zoned employment lands (127 hectares of business land and 238
hectares of industry land). Most of this land is developed, with just 5% estimated to
be vacant. Much of the employment lands in Sutherland are highly fragmented,
and service local industry such as car repairs, panel beaters and other start up local
industrial businesses.
The key employment precincts in Sutherland Shire are highly constrained and/or
already highly developed and have limited opportunity for additional development.
The draft South Sub-Regional strategy identifies part of Heathcote Ridge as future
employment land. In relation to demand for employment lands, the Urbis report
finds:
Employment within the Sutherland Shire is projected to grow by 13,000
between 2006 and 2031. The major driver of employment growth in
Sutherland will be the increased retention of employment within the Shire. The
industries that are expected to experience the largest growth in jobs are
retail, accommodation and food service, health and education. This forecast
is a base case scenario and achieves a net employment retention rate of
65% of the Sutherland Shire resident workforce by 2031. By comparison,
Blacktown LGA had a net employment retention rate of approximately 65% in
2006.
Based on the base case job forecasts by industries, there will be demand for
an estimated 123 hectares of employment land in Sutherland to 2031 (net
land area assuming fully serviced sites). Based on our analysis of centres and
employment lands in Sutherland, there does not appear to be sufficient
current capacity to accommodate this growth. The base case growth
forecast for lands uses is broken down as follows:
o retail – 20 ha
o industrial – 35 ha
o office – 18 ha
o education – 16 ha
o health – 10 ha
o other – 24 ha
We would expect that Heathcote Ridge would have opportunities to target a
range of uses based on forecast employment demand. These uses could
include ‘clean‘ industrial (including technology parks), education and health
uses, and office. We envisage that a limited amount of retail would focus on
servicing the local resident and workforce populations.
Existing facilities near the site that operate in the high growth health and
education sectors, such as ANSTO Corporate Park and CSIRO, would provide
good synergies to health and education related activities that might locate
at Heathcote Ridge.
89
There is potential for a focus on intergenerational social and economic
benefits through the development on post-Secondary and Tertiary
employment and training programs, particularly for Indigenous young people.
Site development plans should additionally facilitate social, economic and
sustainability benefits for the local area and surrounding region including
those features outlined above and detailed in Section 9 of this report.
Urbis find that the sectors that are expected to see the largest growth in jobs are
retail, accommodation and food services, healthcare and social assistance,
professional, scientific & technical services and education and training. Meanwhile,
forecast declines in manufacturing employment will be compensated for by
increases in other industrial based sectors such as construction, and warehouse and
transport. There will also be growth in other largely white collar employment sectors
such as science and business services.
They see future employment opportunities aligning with campus style development
that can accommodate a mix of clean industry, offices, technology park and
research and education related uses. Parallels can be drawn to developments
which include a range of employment uses including office, industrial, medical and
pharmaceutical manufacture, data centres, retail and hospital uses. The existing
facilities at the ANSTO Corporate Park and CSIRO would serve as a natural incubator
to be built upon to meet the Shires employment targets. Such facilities are well
linked to areas such as medical research and higher education uses, which are part
of the two of the higher employment growth sectors for Sutherland Shire. A satellite
campus for the University of Wollongong is an example of a higher education use
that might be well suited to the site.
Improvements to the regional road network resulting from the proposed east west
link road and upgrades to Heathcote Road would reduce travel times between
Sutherland and Liverpool and increase the attractiveness of the site as an
employment area. There is the potential for resultant improvements in public
transport including bus services to Holsworthy and Sutherland stations and additional
metro bus services.
The proposed zoning for the site provides an area of approximately 51.4 hectares of
employment land envisaged for use as a mixed use enterprise zone. Urbis anticipate
that this would result in approximately 4,700 jobs.
Investigations into retail needs for the development have been undertaken by
Leyshon Consulting. This report estimated the retail facility and associated town
centre facility requirements to meet the needs of the resident population and
development. In addition there will be demand for a child care centre that can be
located with the town centre and other community facilities such as a multipurpose
community centre, emergency services and a school that could be located within
or adjacent to the town centre.
iii. Justification for Proposed Land Uses
The site has an area of approximately 849 hectares of which about 566 hectares are
to be retained in a natural state and protected as a conservation area.
90
The area identified for rezoning for urban development will provide a balanced mix
of residential and employment uses accommodating approximately 4,700 workers
and 7,200 residents in locations that respond to site conditions and build on existing
communities.
These uses will occupy approximately 283 hectares of the total 849 hectare site with
566 hectares identified for conservation.It is considered that the proposed land uses
are justified for the following main reasons:
The proposed uses are consistent with the capability of the land;
The residential land uses will make an important contribution to meeting
regional land supply targets in a manner that is sustainable and achievable;
The employment uses are consistent with sub-regional planning strategy for
the area and provide a significant opportunity to redress the imbalance
between residents and jobs within Sutherland Shire;
Major utility services are available or can be readily extended to meet the
needs of the development;
The proposed uses provide the opportunity for improved access in the wider
area with the construction of an extension of the Bangor Bypass to
Heathcote Road and the upgrade of Heathcote Road;
The conservation lands contain threatened species, populations and
communities and areas of Aboriginal archaeological importance.
In particular the extensive investigations undertaken as part of the SSS Study build on
previous studies and indicate that part of the site is capable of urban development.
Key stakeholder and community concerns relating to biodiversity protection, access
and bushfire management can be provided and satisfactorily managed.
Previous investigations into the area by government agencies and Council at the
time of the release area planning for West Menai indicated potential for about 5,000
home sites for over 18,000 persons and almost 60 hectares of industrial land. The
additional investigations undertaken as part of this study and the overarching
objectives of achieving a sustainable development outcome have resulted in a
reduction in the planned urban footprint to accommodate approximately 2,400
dwellings and 51.4 hectares of employment land with the majority of the site
retained as bushland.
3.1.8 Housing Affordability
Housing affordability is a serious issue in Sutherland Shire and particularly when
compared with surrounding LGA's. On any measure rental and private dwelling
stock in the LGA is unaffordable and has been for some time. It is noted that:
91
No dwelling stock is affordable to Very Low Income Households or to Low
Income Households with 2% of stock affordable to Moderate Income
Households;
Of these household which manage to live in the LGA, many are in housing
stress sacrificing lifestyle and other forms of consumption to do so;
Key worker affordability has not improved in Sutherland since 2005;
In the past year the median unit price has become potentially unaffordable
in 7 Sydney LGAs with the majority being in Sydney’s south. These include
Kogarah, Rockdale and Hurstville.
Housing NSW has identified that “There is a need for more one bedroom,
studio and boarding house style accommodation to assist in meeting the
needs of the community through different stages of the housing life cycle
and particularly for young people and elderly people on lower incomes”2.
Gandangara Local Aboriginal Land Council is committed to a contribution to
affordable housing. Development of Heathcote Ridge would have a number of
immediate and important benefits for housing affordability in the Shire through:
adding to the supply of housing in the area which, given existing demand,
will reduce pressure on prices;
providing medium density housing, which is likely to be more affordable than
detached housing; and
more medium density or smaller lot housing would also likely mean higher
than average rental housing opportunities, with the area being better
placed to meet the needs of lower income households.
In addition specific opportunities to address housing affordability issues are available
for consideration for the site:
Density or floor space ratio bonuses on developments in return for an
affordable housing contribution;
Inclusionary zoning;
Including objectives within any site-specific DCP which promote affordable
housing, for example enabling shop top housing, or housing associated with
appropriate employment land uses;
Enacting development controls which provide flexibility;
2Housing NSW, Information on Sutherland Housing Market
92
Joint ventures with community housing providers. Alternatively, the land
council may opt to itself become a community housing provider. This would
have the additional benefit of retaining some assets and providing an
income stream to the land council.
Allocation of appropriate sites for seniors specific housing;
Application to the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS), which aims
to encourage large-scale investment in affordable housing.
Setting price points on a proportion of land sales which is affordable to
moderate income households.
The proposal seeks to improve housing affordability and sustainability in a number of
ways:
Providing a mix of dwelling types to achieve a mixed community structure;
Consideration is to be given to a range of innovative home ownership
models including:
House and or land rent;
Shared equity models (leased land and home ownership);
Involvement of community housing sector;
Homeownership with covenants for environmental performance;
Shared cost of environmental initiatives through shared costs of solar
panels, rainwater harvesting, power generation and environmental
management and the like.
Encouraging sustainability in housing construction and operation and the
highest environmental performance in building standards;
Landowner partnerships with architects and builders to incorporate
environmental sustainability measures in housing design and construction.
The successful implementation of such measures is dependent on an appropriate
governance arrangement that can be provided through the GLALC.
3.1.9 Environmental Suitability and Urban Capability
Detailed analysis undertaken as part of the SSS Study indicates that part of the site is
capable of urban development. These areas are primarily the plateau areas mostly
affected by past activities such as rubbish dumping and disturbance by trail bike
and 4WDs.
93
The investigations undertaken as part of this study build on previous studies and
address community issues raised during the consultation process. Key stakeholder
and community concerns relating to biodiversity protection, access, bushfire
management and proximity to nearby uses such as the Holsworthy Training Area
and Lucas Heights Resource Recovery Park have been addressed and resolved.
Previous investigations into the area by Council and State government agencies
during the release area planning for West Menai that preceded the land claims
indicated potential for about 5,000 home sites for over 18,000 and almost 60
hectares of industrial land. The additional investigations undertaken as part of this
study and the overarching objectives of achieving a sustainable development
outcome have resulted in a reduction in the planned urban footprint to
accommodate approximately 2,400 dwellings and 51.4 hectares of employment
land.
Approximately 33% of the site has been identified as suitable for urban development
with the majority of the site (566 hectares) being conserved as a conservation area
used for recreational purposes compatible with biodiversity and cultural values.
The identification of land suitable for urban development responds to all site
conditions and addresses factors such as land slope and suitability, contamination
and land degradation, bushfire risk management, riparian corridor management,
water cycle management, biodiversity and Indigenous sites and adjoining and
adjacent land uses and natural areas.
The identified urban areas enable improvements in access connecting the new
living and working communities with the existing Menai community as envisaged
under the original development concept for the wider Menai area.
The site is capable of being serviced with capacity in the existing water, sewerage,
electricity and other services to accommodate expected growth.
As discussed in this study, environmental impacts can be appropriately managed
through the development design and assessment processes.
3.1.10 Sustainability
The development achieves sustainability in a number of ways:
Employment
It will deliver a range of employment opportunities in line with the
Metropolitan Plan and subregional strategies;
Additional jobs will improve employment containment by increasing the
number of jobs for residents of the Shire, with consequential reduction in trip
generation out of the area;
The size of the employment lands will provide diversity of job opportunities;
Supporting the futures of young people in the region;
94
Providing a means of addressing social disadvantage among young and
Indigenous people;
Opportunities around partnerships with construction industry to provide
training and employment opportunities.
Housing
It will deliver a range of lot sizes and dwelling types contributing to a diverse
community and providing a variety of housing that responds to changes in
life cycle and work requirements and enabling people to age in place;
It will provide an important land release in the South Subregion in a
geographically separate market and provide the opportunity for additional
housing opportunities to reduce the need for new home owners to leave the
area;
It will support and complement the Metropolitan Plan initiatives for release
areas by providing a greater geographic spread of greenfield release areas.
Transport
The development will form part of a larger urban area of East and West
Menai and assist in expanding the public transport catchment that can be
served by more efficient and effective public transport operations;
It will encourage non-car based travel modes through an urban design that
provides walkable access to facilities and services, a connective street
pattern and a focus on opportunities for cycling and walking;
It will encourage self containment in employment, retailing and the provision
of services and facilities;
It will deliver improved accessibility and reduced travel times by facilitating
improved inter-regional road links.
Infrastructure
Water and sewer headworks are available with capacity to meet the needs
of the development;
School services can be provided and use more of the spare capacity in
existing schools;
It will encourage efficiencies in town centre services with the Menai town
centre originally planned to serve West Menai;
It will facilitate the delivery of the National broadband network to a new
release area with consequential benefits for working from home;
All other utility services can be readily augmented to meet the needs of the
development in a cost effective manner.
95
Environment
Important biodiversity areas are retained with a long term ownership and
management regime for the care and management of natural areas (see
Section 4.2.4);
Water cycle management regimes are proposed to protect receiving
waters and encourage potable water conservation;
Education
It provides opportunities for employment partnerships with universities,
particularly in relation to indigenous scholarship programs and technology
and health-related courses;
There will be opportunities to partner with TAFE campuses around training
and employment and with local schools including programs for school
leavers.
GLALC is committed to investigating and exploring opportunities for innovative ESD
practices at the site. Acor Consulting was engaged to prepare a report that
identifies current best practice Ecologically Sustainable Design (ESD) initiatives,
options and opportunities and their suitability for incorporation the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Development.
The report describes in conceptual terms the merits of each of the identified ESD
initiatives and where possible (at this early stage of the Project) provides preliminary
information on the feasibility, capacity, potential benefits and/or risks associated
with each identified option. The initiatives considered to be most feasible for
incorporation into the design of the Heathcote Ridge Project include the following :
Efficient indoor environment design
Use of sympathetic construction materials resources
Efficient spatial planning of the Heathcote Ridge site
Recycled water supply
Roof water harvesting
Leakage prevention / detection
Centralised Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants (cogeneration,
trigeneration, microturbinesetc)
Solar photovoltaic panels
Small hydro scheme
‘GreenPower’ electrical supply
96
Low pressure sewer systems
Vacuum sewer systems
Green roofs and gardens
• Purchase of carbon credits
3.1.11 Environmental Management
A majority of the site is to be protected and managed for its conservation values. To
provide positive long term environmental outcomes for biodiversity, the conservation
lands will be managed under a conservation agreement. This will provide an
effective mechanism for ownership, funding and management arrangements for
the biodiversity areas and any adjoining bushfire asset protection zones.
Management of the conservation lands is based on several key principles:
that a conservation area be established connecting with the adjoining
national parks and providing connectivity with adjoining areas comprising
sufficient representative biodiversity values;
access to the biodiversity corridor is to be managed but available for
educational, scientific and compatible recreational purposes;
provide consistency and continuity of management and to provide
certainty with respect to the biodiversity and cultural management
outcomes;
to undertake restoration and maintenance works within the corridor; and
funding of on-going biodiversity conservation to be provided.
3.2 Mechanisms for Achieving Ecologically Sustainable
Development
The reports must identify the mechanisms for achieving ecologically sustainable
development including actions to maintain or enhance biodiversity.
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) is an important consideration in the
Strategic Assessment Process. The following principles of ESD are derived from the
1992 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and are contained
within the EPBC Act:
Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and
short term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;
If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of
full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation;
97
The principle of inter-generational equity--that the present generation should
ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is
maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;
The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a
fundamental consideration in decision-making; and
Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be
promoted.
A balanced approach is required that takes into account all these principles to
pursue the goal of ESD. Each principle is addressed below in relation to the
proposed actions.
Gandangara has made sustainability a priority for this development. To this end,
Gandangara established an independent group of experts and leaders in the fields
of conservation, sustainability, housing and employment (Heathcote Ridge
Sustainability Reference Group) to provide best practice thinking and independent
oversight of environmental, social and economic sustainability throughout the
process.
The involvement of the independent Reference Group is seen by Gandangara as a
critical part of the planning, providing third party scrutiny of our efforts to deliver a
project which is best-practice and meets or exceeds current industry standards in
conservation and sustainability.
3.2.1 Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term
and short term economic, environmental, social and equitable
considerations
Development of the program has included consideration of long- and short-term
economic, environmental, social and cultural factors. This consideration occurred
during the initial application to list the Heathcote Ridge site as a State Significant Site
under Schedule 3 of the Major Development SEPP and has continued through the
subsequent development of the program. Initial investigations for the program
included the preparation of an Employment, Economic and Social Benefits Study by
Urbis (Urbis 2009) and an Ecological Literature Review by Cumberland Ecology
(Cumberland Ecology 2008). A variety of specialist consultants are currently
preparing reports to address the various aspects of the program.
The proposed residential and employment lands are supported by investigations
establishing demand and a community need.
The proposal readily meets the sustainability criteria for new land releases in the 2005
Metropolitan Strategy. This justifies the suitability of the site for residential
development and the reinstatement of the site on the MDP. Furthermore the
proposal meets requirements for State or regional planning significance as referred
to in Clause 8 of State Environmental Planning Policy (Major Development) 2005.
The urban release of Heathcote Ridge will assist in achieving the population and
employment targets for the South Subregion in the Metropolitan Plan for Sydney
98
2036 reflected in subregional and local strategies. The demographic and housing
market characteristics of this area are different from those in other release areas
enabling this release area to complement other releases in the south west growth
sector. The availability of essential services such as water, sewerage and electricity
ensures that the release of the area will provide efficiencies in land development
and provide for a cost effective development process and provide the opportunity
for the development to meet the cost of all infrastructure required for the
development at no net cost to government.
The development proposes far reaching sustainability initiatives and makes an
important contribution to housing affordability in an area suffering from a lack of
such housing.
3.2.2 If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack
of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing
measures to prevent environmental degradation
Desktop and field investigations has allowed for the identification of the presence
and extent of environmental values within the project area during the preliminary
stages of program planning. Such identification has allowed these considerations to
be incorporated into the development of the program, thus ensuring serious threats
of environmental damage are adequately addressed in the preliminary stages. The
information collected during surveys has also contributed to the broader knowledge
base of the environmental values within the locality.
A precautionary approach has been taken when assessing the likelihood of
occurrence of listed communities, populations and species. Although not recorded
during surveys, a number of MNES have been included within this assessment due to
the presence of suitable habitat.
The impact of the program of various environmental values has been addressed
through a number of reports prepared for the development. These have taken into
account the full extent of impacts of the program. Threats to environmental values
have been identified and addressed through a variety of mechanisms including
avoidance, mitigation and compensation.
3.2.3 The principle of inter-generational equity--that the present generation
should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the
environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future
generations
Avoidance, mitigation and compensation will assist in ensuring the long-term
persistence of MNES within the project area and wider locality.The proposed
conservation component of the project aims to protect and enhance areas
containing significant environmental values within the project area.
The project area contains a range of environmental values which will be retained
and protected through re-zoning mechanisms and enhanced through the
implementation of a management plan. Consideration of management strategies
within the wider locality, such as within Georges River National Park, Holsworthy
Military Area and Lucas Heights Conservation Area will assist in achieving a sub-
99
regional conservation and management outcome. Future generations will benefit
from the project due to the protection and enhancement of environmental values
within the on-site conservation area as well as the proposed interactive use of the
land.
3.2.4 The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should
be a fundamental consideration in decision-making
Identification of the presence and extent of environmental values within the project
area during the preliminary stages of program planning has allowed these
considerations to be incorporated into the development of the program. Impacts
upon areas of high ecological value have been avoided, and mitigated where total
avoidance is not possible. In addition, offsets have been proposed to address the
residuals impacts of the project. The offsets package entails establishment of
existing land for permanent conservation of biodiversity values. Significant areas
supporting known and potential habitat for MNES will be retained and the
environmental values improved as part of the project.
3.2.5 Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be
promoted.
The development provides the opportunity and funding for the establishment of a
conservation area and the implementation of the BMP to protect a significant part
of the site in perpetuity. The ecological values of the site have been taken into
consideration in the identification of the developable area with project feasibility
enabling conservation measures.
100
4. Impacts to MNES
4.1 Nature and Extent of Impacts
The reports must include an analysis of the potential short, medium and long term,
direct and indirect impacts of implementing the Program on MNES. The report must
describe the protection and conservation measures within the program and their
basis and justification. The impact analysis should make specific reference to the
areas described in section 2.2 where they affect the management of impacts on
MNES. The analysis must also discuss the likely influence of projected climate change
scenarios on these impacts.
4.1.1 General Impacts
i. Vegetation and Habitat Removal
The primary impact resulting from the proposed project is the loss of vegetation and
associated habitat within the development footprint. Although there are different
types of flora and fauna habitat within the project area such as rock outcrops and
ephemeral creeks, the most extensive habitat is represented by vegetation. Table
4.1 provides a summary of the areas of each vegetation community to be cleared
within the development footprint.
The total development footprint, which includes the necessary APZs, east-west link
road, is approximately 283ha, of which 282.06ha comprises native vegetation
communities. The remaining area of the development footprint is comprised of
disturbed/exotic vegetation, cleared land and water. The vegetation community
that would be most significantly impacted by the proposed project is Angophora
hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland as it occurs on flatter and
previously disturbed land more suited to development.
In addition to the direct removal of these native vegetation communities, the
proposed project will also indirectly impact vegetation that will remain by additional
fragmentation and edge effects (see below). An offset strategy has been
developed to address and counter such predicted impacts.
101
Table 4.1 Summary of vegetation clearance within the project area
Vegetation Community Project Area
(ha)
Development
Footprint (ha)
% cleared
within
Project Area
Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-
Woodland 240.09 188.85 78.66
Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath 10.87 1.83 16.84
Leptospermum polygalifolium Wet Heath 1.39 1.34 96.40
Lepidospermaneesii – Shoenusbrevifolious Wet Heath 0.97 0 0
Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costata Woodland 297.92 72.85 24.45
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland 55.68 15.45 27.75
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus punctata
Woodland 19.96 0 0
Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus fibrosa Forest 1.72 0 0
Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora costata Forest 173.63 0.93 0.54
Eucalyptus pilularis – Angohphoracostata Forest 34.15 0.81 2.37
Riparian Forest 3.12 0 0
Melaleuca linarifolia Forest 0.61 0 0
Angophora costataRiverflat Forest 1.27 0 0
Estuarine Forest Complex 1.05 0 0
TOTAL 842.43 282.06 33.48
Bold refers to EPBC Act communities
The regional context of the vegetation communities and associated habitats is an
important consideration within the impact assessment. The proposed project has
potential to have a significant impact on the biodiversity values of the project area.
However, the locality supports extensive areas of habitat, in both public and private
land, for the EECs, threatened flora and threatened fauna impacted by the
proposed project.
The vegetation communities to be removed within the development footprint are
represented in adjacent areas within the locality. Figure 4.1 shows the distribution in
the locality of the vegetation communities recorded within the project area
(DECCW, 2009 mapping). The distribution of the vegetation communities which are
currently represented within the project area occurs primarily to the west and south
of the project area. As shown in Figure 4.1, the vegetation within the project areas is
mirrored within Holsworthy Military Area adjacent to Heathcote Road. Substantial
areas of Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland, which is
the community most impacted by the proposed project, occur within Holsworthy
Military Area. The habitats associated within the vegetation communities to be
removed within the development footprint are also represented in the locality.
102
Table 4.2 provides a summary of impacts from removal of these communities in a
regional context. Within the locality, Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma
Heath-Woodland will be most impacted be the proposed development with
approximately 5.78% of its distribution proposed to be cleared, followed by
Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costata Woodland at 2.88%. The proportions of
each of the remaining communities to be cleared within the locality are all less than
one percent. No area of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest and Sydney Turpentint-
Ironbark Forest which are listed under the EPBC Act will be removed within the
development footprint. A total of 4,159ha of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest
occurs within the Sydney Metro CMA, of which 2,537ha occurs within the locality of
the project area. A total of 567ha of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest occurs within
the Sydney Metro CMA, of which 85ha occurs within the locality of the project area.
103
104
Table 4.2 Summary of vegetation clearance within the project area, locality and SMCMA
Project Area Vegetation Community SMCMA Vegetation Community* Development
Footprint (ha)
Project Area
(ha)
Locality
(ha)
SMCMA
(ha)
% cleared
within Project
Area
% cleared
within the
locality
% cleared
within the
SMCMA
Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-
Woodland
Hinterland Sandstone Dwarf Apple Heath-
Woodland
188.85 240.09 3268 3334 78.66 5.78 5.66
Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath Coastal Upland Damp Heath Swamp 1.83 10.87 207 585 16.84 0.88 0.31
Leptospermum polygalifolium Damp Heath 1.34 1.39 n/a n/a 96.40 n/a n/a
Lepidospermaneesii – Shoenusbrevifolius Wet Heath Coastal Upland Damp Heath Swamp 0.00 0.97 207 585 0 0 0
Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costata Woodland Woronora Sandstone Exposed Bloodwood
Woodland
72.85 297.92 2526 4037 24.45 2.88 1.80
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland 15.45 55.68 n/a n/a 27.75 n/a n/a
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus punctata
Woodland
Hinterland Sandstone Transition Grey
Gum Forest
0 19.96 2537 4159 0 0 0
Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus fibrosa Forest Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest 0 1.72 85 567 0 0 0
Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora costata Forest Coastal Sandstone Sheltered Peppermint-Apple
Forest
0.93 173.63 6300 5482 0.54 0.01 0.02
Eucalyptus pilularis – Angophora costata Forest Hinterland Sandstone Gully Blackbutt-Apple Forest 0.81 34.15 2910 4802 2.37 0.03 0.02
Riparian Forest Coastal Sandstone Riparian Forest 0 3.12 175 515 0 0 0
Melaleuca linarifolia Forest Hinterland Riverflat Paperbark Swamp Forest 0 0.61 71 105 0 0 0
Angophora costataRiverflat Forest 0 1.27 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a
Estuarine Forest Complex Estuarine Swamp Oak Forest 0 1.05 110 290 0.00 0 0
*Only those with a matching OEH community name included Bold refers to EPBC Act communities
2
105
i. Loss of Specific Habitat Features
In addition to the clearance of broad habitats within the project area, a number of
specific habitat features will be removed such as bushrock and hollow bearing trees.
A range of habitats occur across the project area, providing suitable features for a
range of native fauna species including TSC Act and EPBC Act listed threatened
species. The habitat features provide foraging, nesting and shelter habitat for these
species. The primary areas of fauna habitat occur within the woodland and forest
communities. The quality of fauna habitats within the project area depends on
habitat complexity and ongoing disturbances.
The following key threatening processes are applicable to the habitat to be
removed from the development footprint:
Clearing of native vegetation;
Loss of hollow-bearing trees;
Bushrock removal;
Removal of dead wood and dead trees; and
Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their
floodplains and wetlands.
Some important habitat features will be removed from the project area within the
development footprint which will have important implications for a number of MNES
including birds and reptiles.
ii. Impacts on Remaining Vegetation and Habitats
a. Habitat Fragmentation
Another impact of the proposed project on flora and fauna will be habitat
fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation is the process whereby habitat loss results in
the division of large, continuous habitats into small, isolated habitat fragments (Ewers
and Didham 2006). The area between the fragments is typically man-made and
largely un-inhabitable by the species that previously existed in the area. The
ecological impacts of habitat fragmentation include (Bennett 1990):
Changes in the number of species in fragments;
Changes to the composition of faunal assemblages; and
Changes to ecological processes in fragements such as food chains,
predator-prey interactions, plant-animal pollination and dispersal
associations.
Fragmentation of a community can also result in the isolation of vegetation patches
both locally and regionally. Isolation of patches can decrease the amount of
106
genetic exchange between remaining patches of vegetation by severing the small-
scale potential genetic transfer mechanisms such as seed dispersal by ants and
reproductive root suckering.
The proposed project will remove approximately 283ha of native vegetation/habitat
within the development footprint. The retained vegetation will generally form one
continuous area of vegetation/habitat and will maintain existing links to the north,
south and west. The proposed east-west road link reduces some connectivity,
however as a section of this road will form a bridge, terrestrial connectivity will be
maintained. The design of the bridge could include measures to mitigate impacts to
MNES potentially utilising the corridor.
The primary vegetation/habitat impacted by fragmentation will be the Angophora
hispida – Eucalyptus haemastomaHeath-Woodland community. Distances between
patches of this community will increase as a result of clearing within the
development footprint. Mobile species that are primarily reliant on this community
will be displaced to either retained portions within the project area or to adjacent
vegetation. Competition for resources within retained patches is likely to increase.
b. Edge Effects
Clearing of the vegetation within the development footprint can lead to an
increase in edge effects. Clearing of the vegetation within the development
footprint can lead to an increase in edge effects. “Edge effects” are impacts
occurring at an interface between natural environments and disturbed or
developed land. The following are types of edge effects that can occur (Murcia
1995):
Abiotic effects, involving changes in the environmental conditions that result
from proximity to a structurally dissimilar matrix;
Direct biological effects, which involve changes in the abundance and
distribution of species caused directly by the physical conditions near the
edge; and
Indirect biological effects which involve changes in species interactions,
such a predation, competition, herbivory and biotic pollination and seed
dispersal.
The edges of the retained vegetation communities may be impacted by
microclimate changes (e.g. increased sunlight, air temperature and soil
temperature). Alteration of the microclimates within each vegetation community
can result in changes in species composition, including increased weed invasion,
which in turn can lead to changes in community structure. Some species will be
more susceptible to these changes than others. Edge effects can also result from
the increase in noise and artificial light from the project area.
Utilisation of the edge habitat by edge specialists is likely to increase. This has
subsequent implications of the interaction between existing species at the edge.
107
Other edge effects can include increased susceptibility to infection, such as
infection of native plants by the fungus Phytophthora cinnamoni.
These edge effects will occur at the interface between the development footprint
and the conservation area. These edge effects can potentially have an adverse
impact on the vegetation and associated habitat of the conservation area.
Impacts from edge effects can reduce the quality and integrity of the retained
communities. Numerous edges currently exist within the project area as a result of
road and residential construction. It is primarily where edges are created between
the development footprint and intact vegetation that impacts will occur.
c. Alteration to Hydrological Regimes
The modification of hydrology necessary for vegetation and habitat survival, such as
surface water drainage patterns, through the construction of hard surfaces, can
impact the retained vegetation communities and their associated habitats. In
addition, some fauna habitats within the retained portions of the project area are
reliant on drainage patterns. Changes to drainage lines can affect the integrity,
structure and composition of habitat and thus, have secondary impacts on the
species that rely on them. The proposed project may also impact water quality
which can create unfavourable conditions for native species.
d. Increased Sedimentation and Erosion
The effects of erosion can already be seen within the project area, particularly along
and adjacent to the numerous unsealed tracks which are currently utilised illegally
for trail bike riding, 4WD driving and rubbish dumping. During wet periods large
volumes of rain wash away any disturbed earth relatively easily. This results in
sedimentation and increased turbidity of streams and has particular impacts on the
aquatic environment and the species that depend on these features. The proposed
project will result in the development of many of these unsealed tracks minimising
erosion within the project area.
During the construction of the proposed project the retained vegetation can be
impacted by sedimentation and erosion. Filling of the development footprint to
increase the height of the development is likely to increase potential erosion. Eroded
sediment can smother retained vegetation if appropriate control measures are not
implemented. Smothering can cause dieback of herbs and shrubs and reduce
regeneration of groundcover species. Sediment and eroded material can also
contain weed matter and nutrients, and movement of this material into the retained
vegetation can facilitate the spread of weeds. Increased weed invasion can result
in changes to community composition.
e. Weeds and Feral Animals
Alterations to habitat conditions often favour introduced and/or hardy native plant
and animal species that can proliferate in disturbed conditions. Such species have
potential to impact upon the original local native plant and animal species. Weeds
such as exotic grasses and other introduced plants have potential to outcompete
regenerating native plant species. Feral animals such as foxes, rabbits and some
108
species of birds can also breed in the more open areas following clearance of forest
and woodland. They can cause problems for native fauna species by preying upon
them or by competing with them for food and resources.
f. Physical Damage
The retained vegetation communities and associated habitat can be damaged
physically by human activities. This can include trampling of vegetation, soil
compaction and vegetation removal. These activities can alter regeneration of
species within the vegetation communities and result in an alteration to community
composition and structure. These impacts are likely to occur if access is not restricted
to walking paths, however the likely impacts from physical damage are considered
overall to be minor.
4.1.2 Endangered Ecological Communities
Details on the nature and extent of impacts, and the relevant avoidance, mitigation
and compensatory measures for each of the known endangered ecological
communities are provided below. An analysis of the significance of impacts has
been provided these communities. No area of EPBC listed endangered ecological
communities are proposed to be cleared within the development footprint.
iii. Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest
Sydney Turpentine/Ironbark Forest is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act and as a
CEEC under the EPBC Act. Of the communities recorded within the project area,
Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus fibrosaForest corresponds to this EEC. Sydney
Turpentine-Ironbark Forest covers 1.72ha of the project area.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
No area of this community is proposed to be removed within the development
footprint. There is no direct interface between Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest
and the development footprint, which minimises indirect impacts to the community.
Potential indirect impacts to this community include weed invasion and physical
damage from uncontrolled access.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
The significance of impacts to Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest has been assessed
against the MNES Significant Impact Guidelines (DEWHA 2009) is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or
endangered ecological community if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
reduce the extent of an ecological community
No area of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. The community is directly connected to an adjacent patch of
approximately 6ha within the Gandangara State Conservation Area (Sutherland
Shire Council unpublished).
fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for
example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines
109
No area of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. The area of the community occurring within the project area will maintain
connectivity with adjacent areas of the community.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community
As no area of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is proposed to be removed, the
project will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the community. A
buffer between the development and the community will assist in reducing indirect
impacts. The community will be managed, and biodiversity values enhanced, as
part of a management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area.
modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil)
necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of
groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage
patterns
The proposed project will not modify or destroy abiotic factors necessary for the
community’s survival. This community occurs upstream of the development,
therefore alterations to surface water drainage patterns are not considered to
impact this community. The occurrence of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest will
also be protected by a vegetated buffer.
cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of
an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally
important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna
harvesting
No area of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. Actions to be undertaken within the community as part of the proposed
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area will assist in
improving the functionality of the community.
cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of
an ecological community, including, but not limited to:
assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological
community, to become established, or
causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals
or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the
growth of species in the ecological community, or
A buffer between the development and the community will assist in reducing
indirect impacts. This community will be managed as part of an overall
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, therefore
improving the quality and integrity of the patch and ensuring threats to the
community are minimised.
interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.
110
No area of Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. This community will be protected within a conservation zoning. The
community will be managed, and biodiversity values enhanced, as part of a
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, thus assisting
the recovery of the community within the project area.
Conclusion
Based on the assessment of potential impacts provided above, and as no area of
Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest is proposed to be removed under the project, no
significant impact to the community is predicted.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
One of the primary avoidance measures for the proposed project is the re-design of
the development footprint to avoid or minimise direct impacts to EECs. Sydney
Turpentine/Ironbark Forest is one of the communities that have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to Sydney
Turpentine-Ironbark Forest. The area of this community occurring within the project
area is located within the proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area
of land is proposed to be retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its
protection for the life of the project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also
proposed to be implemented within the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area.
Implementation of such a plan would assist in improving the quality of the
community by restoring the areas degraded from ongoing land uses and managing
potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the community.
iv. Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act and EPBC Act.
Of the communities recorded within the project area, Corymbiagummifera –
Eucalyptus punctataWoodland corresponds to this EEC. Shale/Sandstone Transition
Forest covers 19.96ha of the project area.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
No area of this community is proposed to be removed within the development
footprint. Current ongoing impacts to this community include weed invasion,
erosion and sedimentation.
As a result of the proposed project, approximately 135m of this community occurs in
close proximity to the development footprint. This portions of the community will be
indirectly impacted. Clearing of vegetation near this interface has the potential to
increase edge effects on the retained portion of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest
and as a result, the community may be impacted by altered microclimates, weed
invasion and soil erosion. This community may also be impacted by physical
damage from uncontrolled access.
111
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
The significance of impacts to Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest has been assessed
against the MNES Significant Impact Guidelines (DEWHA 2009) is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or
endangered ecological community if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
reduce the extent of an ecological community
No area of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. This community is directly connected to an adjacent patch within the Lucas
Heights Conservation Area with an indirect connection to Holsworthy Military area
across Heathcote Road.
fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for
example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines
No area of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. The area of the community occurring within the project area will maintain
connectivity with adjacent areas of the community and adjoining vegetation.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community
As no area of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is proposed to be removed, the
project will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the community. The
occurrence of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest within the project are represents less
than 0.5% of the community within the Sydney Metropolitan CMA. The areas of this
community within the project area are not considered critical to the survival of the
community. The community will be managed, and biodiversity values enhanced, as
part of a management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area.
modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil)
necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of
groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage
patterns
The proposed project will not modify or destroy abiotic factors necessary for the
community’s survival. A small portion of this community is in close proximity to the
development footprint, however the impacts potentially resulting from this proximity
are not considered significant. Implementation of the proposed management plan
for the retained vegetation within the project area will assist in managing potential
ongoing impacts.
cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of
an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally
important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna
harvesting
112
No area of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. Actions to be undertaken within the community as part of the proposed
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area will assist in
improving the functionality of the community.
cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of
an ecological community, including, but not limited to:
assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological
community, to become established, or
causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals
or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the
growth of species in the ecological community, or
A small portion of this community is in close proximity to the development footprint,
however the impacts potentially resulting from this proximity are not considered
significant. This community will be managed as part of an overall management
plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the
quality and integrity of the patch and ensuring threats to the community are
minimised.
interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.
No area of Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is proposed to be removed under the
project. This community will be protected within a conservation zoning. The
community will be managed, and biodiversity values enhanced, as part of a
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, thus assisting
the recovery of the community within the project area.
Conclusion
Based on the assessment of potential impacts provided above, and as no area of
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is proposed to be removed under the project, no
significant impact to the community is predicted.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
One of the primary avoidance measures for the proposed project is the re-design of
the development footprint to avoid or minimise direct impacts to EECs.
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest is one of the communities that have been
avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to
Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest. The area of this community occurs within the
proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be
retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the
project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within
the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would
assist in improving the quality of the community by restoring the previously impacted
113
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion. Provisions
for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the community.
No offsets are proposed for Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest as avoidance and
mitigation measures are considered sufficient to ensure the persistence of the
community.
4.1.3 Threatened Flora
Details on the nature and extent of impacts, and the relevant avoidance, mitigation
and compensatory measures for each of the known and potentially occurring
threatened flora species are provided below. An analysis of the significance of
impacts has been provided for threatened flora species known to occur within the
project area.
i. Acacia bynoeana
Acacia bynoeana is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and as Vulnerable
under the EPBC Act. This species was recorded at two locations within the project
area, which fall within the development footprint. There is some potential for this
species to occur within additional areas within the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Twenty-one known individuals of Acacia bynoeana will be removed and
translocated as a result of the proposed project. As this species is known to have a
long-term soil seed bank (Benson and McDougall 1996), translocation will also
include the transfer of the soil material adjoining the specimens. The translocated
specimens will be retained within the project area. There is a high risk of uncertainty
associated with translocation. An additional seven known individuals will be retained
within the conservation area. This species is not currently known within any of the
conservation reserves within the locality.
Approximately 188.85ha of suitable habitat for Acacia bynoeana within Angophora
hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland is proposed to be cleared from
the project area. The loss of this vegetation would result in a decrease in the
amount of suitable habitat available to this species. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species. Approximately 51.24ha of suitable habitat, including seven known
individuals, will be conserved within the project area. Additional areas of potential
habitat occur within the locality, such as within Holsworthy Military Area.
Retained individuals of Acacia bynoeana may be indirectly impacted by the
following:
Increase edge effects, such as the introduction of exotic species;
Increased run off, sedimentation and erosion during the construction
process;
Alteration to hydrological regimes resulting from vegetation clearance; and
114
Physical damage resulting from pedestrian access.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The local population of Acacia bynoeana occurring within the project area is not
considered to form an important population. The local population of Acacia
bynoeana occurring within the project area is not considered as a population that is
necessary for the species long term survival and recovery. Individuals of the local
population will be retained within the conservation area. As seed production in
Acacia bynoeana is minimal and there is little local dispersal of seed (SEWPaC
2011a), the population is not considered a key source population for dispersal.
Given the limited disperal of the seed, the local population is not considered
necessary for maintaining genetic diversity. Acacia bynoeana is distributed from
around Morisset, south to Berrima and Mittagong (SEWPaC 2011a). The local
population within the project area does not occur at or near the limit of the species
range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to Acacia bynoeana against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the local population of Acacia bynoeana occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population
of this species.
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the local population of Acacia bynoeana occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important population of this
species.
115
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the local population of Acacia bynoeana occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not fragment an existing important population into two or more
populations. The local population occurring within the project area will be removed
from the development footprint and translocated to suitable habitat within the
retained vegetation.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The proposed project will remove approximately 188.85ha of habitat known to
support a local population of Acacia bynoeana. However, this vegetation is not
considered to form habitat critical to the survival of the species and the project will
not adversely affect other habitat critical to the survival of the species. The habitat
to be removed is not considered to support a key source population for dispersal
and maintaining genetic diversity, is not essential to the survival of the species and it
is not important for the recovery of the species. Approximately seven known
individuals and approximately 51.24ha of potential habitat will be retained within the
project area. Additional areas of potential habitat occur within the locality, such as
within Holsworthy Military Area.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the population of Acacia bynoeana occurring within the project
area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed project will
not disrupt the breeding cycle this species.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
An area of approximately 188.85ha of suitable habitat within Angophora hispida –
Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland is proposed to be cleared from the
project area. The extent of this removal of habitat is not considered to result in the
decline of the species. Approximately 51.24ha of suitable habitat, including known
individuals, will be retained within the project area. Additional areas of potential
habitat occur within the locality, such as within Holsworthy Military Area.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to Acacia bynoeana or its habitat. Known and suitable habitat for
this species will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the
retained vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and
integrity of the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as weed invasion, to the
habitat are minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
116
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of the local population of Acacia
bynoeana is not considered to interfere substantially with the recovery of the
species.
Conclusion
Based on the assessment of potential impacts provided above, and as areas of
potential habitat for the species will be retained in perpetuity through the formation
of the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area, no significant impact Acacia bynoeana
is predicted.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The local population of Acacia bynoeana within the project area is not considered
as an important population or occurring in habitat critical to the survival of the
species, therefore avoidance measures have not been implemented for this species.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to Acacia
bynoeana, including the translocation of known individuals, where possible, and
management of known and suitable habitat within the proposed Heathcote Ridge
Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained under an
appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project. A
Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion. Provisions
for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its
habitat.
ii. Acacia pubescens
Acacia pubescens is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act. No
individuals of this species were recorded during the current surveys. There is
potential for this species to occur within the project area, within the woodland
communities, in particular Corymbiagummifera– Eucalyptus punctata Woodland.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Some areas of suitable habitat for Acacia pubescens within the project area are
proposed to be cleared from the project area. Removal of potential habitat within
the development footprint is not considered to result in the extinction of the species
in the locality. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds a number of records of this species
within the SMCMA. Within the locality, Acacia pubescens is conserved within
Georges River National Park. The potential habitat retained within the project area
will be conserved in perpetuity.
117
The loss of suitable habitat would result in a small decrease in the amount of suitable
habitat available to this species within the project area. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Sufficient potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within the project area and in the locality.
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Areas of suitable habitat for this species, including Corymbiagummifera– Eucalyptus
punctata Woodland, have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to potential
habitat for Acacia pubescens. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within the
proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be
retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the
project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within
the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would
assist in improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously
impacted areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion.
Provisions for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the
habitat.
No offsets are proposed for Acacia pubescens as avoidance and mitigation
measures are considered to ensure the persistence of the suitable habitat.
iii. Eucalyptus camfieldii
Eucalyptus camfieldiiis listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act. No
individuals of this species were recorded during the current surveys. This species was
recorded within the project area by Sutherland Shire Council, however subsequent
surveys of this location during the current survey and by council failed to relocate
the species. There is potential for this species to occur within the project area, within
Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Some areas of suitable habitat for Eucalyptus camfieldii within the project area are
proposed to be cleared from the project area. Removal of potential habitat within
the development footprint is not considered to result in the extinction of the species
in the locality. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds a number of records of this species
within the SMCMA. Within the locality, Eucalyptus camfieldii is conserved within
Royal National Park. The potential habitat retained within the project area will be
conserved in perpetuity.
The loss of suitable habitat would result in a small decrease in the amount of suitable
habitat available to this species within the project area. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Sufficient potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within the project area and in the locality.
118
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Some areas of suitable habitat for this species, including Angophora hispida –
Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland, have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to potential
habitat for Eucalyptus camfieldii. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within the
proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be
retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the
project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within
the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would
assist in improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously
impacted areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion.
Provisions for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the
habitat.
No offsets are proposed for Eucalyptus camfieldii as avoidance and mitigation
measures are considered to ensure the persistence of the suitable habitat.
iv. Leucopogonexolasius
Leucopogonexolasius is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act.
No individuals of this species were recorded during the current surveys. There is
potential for this species to occur within the project area, however these areas
occur primarily outside of the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Limited areas of suitable habitat for Leucopogonexolasius within the project area
are proposed to be cleared from the project area. Removal of a small amount of
potential habitat within the development footprint is not considered to result in the
extinction of the species in the locality. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds a number of
records of this species within the SMCMA. Within the locality, Leucopogonexolasius is
conserved within Heathcote National Park, and is afforded some protection within
Holsworthy Military Area. The potential habitat retained within the project area will
be conserved in perpetuity.
The loss of suitable habitat would result in a small decrease in the amount of suitable
habitat available to this species within the project area. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Sufficient potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within the project area and in the locality.
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Some areas of suitable habitat for this species have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to potential
habitat for Leucopogonexolasius. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within the
proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be
retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the
119
project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within
the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would
assist in improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously
impacted areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion.
Provisions for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the
habitat.
No offsets are proposed for Leucopogonexolasius as avoidance and mitigation
measures are considered to ensure the persistence of the suitable habitat.
v. Melaleuca deanei
Melaleuca deanei (Deane’s Paperbark) is listed as Vulnerable under both the TSC
Act and EPBC Act. This species was recorded at numerous locations across the
project area, several of which fall within the development footprint. There is
potential for this species to occur within additional areas within the development
footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Seventy-one individuals of Melaleuca deanei will be removed as a result of the
proposed project. An additional 22 known individuals will be retained with the
project area. Within the locality, Melaleuca deanei is conserved within Heathcote
National Park and Royal National Park, and is afforded some protection within
Holsworthy Military Area. Melaleuca deanei is also conserved within the Lucas
Heights Conservation Area to the south of the project area.
Approximately 261.7ha of suitable habitat, comprising Angophora hispida –
Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland and Corymbiagummifera – Angophora
costata Woodland is proposed to be cleared from the project area. The loss of this
vegetation would result in a decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to
this species. The habitat to be removed within the project area is not considered
important for the long-term survival of the species. Approximately 276.31ha of
suitable habitat, including 22 known individuals, will be conserved within the project
area. Additional areas of potential habitat occur within the locality, such as within
Lucus Heights Conservation Area.
The retained individuals of Melaleuca deanei may be indirectly impacted by the
following:
Increased edge effects, such as the introduction of exotic species;
Increased run off, sedimentation and erosion during the construction
process;
Alteration to hydrological regimes resulting from vegetation clearance; and
Physical damage resulting from pedestrian access.
120
A national recovery plan has been prepared for Melaleuca deanei. The overall
objectivesare to prevent the status of Melaleuca deanei from becoming critically
endangered by reducing the further loss of populations and, by implementing in-situ
management regimes aimed at maintaining representative populations of the
species’ across its natural range (DECCW 2010c).
Objective 1. Coordinate the recovery of Melaleuca deanei;
Objective 2. Protect known occurrences of Melaleuca deanei using land-
use and conservation planning mechanisms;
Objective 3. To identify and minimise the threats operating at Melaleuca
deanei sites;
Objective 4. To improve awareness of Melaleuca deanei amongst
operational staff working within easements, walking tracks and fire trails;
Objective 5. To promote surveys, research and monitoring that will assist with
the management of Melaleuca deanei;
Objective 6. To provide stakeholders with information that assist in
conserving Melaleuca deanei;
Objective 7. To raise awareness about the threats to the species and involve
the community in the recovery program; and
Objective 8. To coordinate an ex-situ conservation program to safeguard
genetic material from extinction.
Retained occurrences of Melaleuca deanei will be protected using conservation
planning mechanisms. The retained occurrences and suitable habitat will be
managed within the project area to minimise impacts and improve the quality of
associated habitat. Monitoring of these occurrences is proposed to allow for
adaptive management.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
121
The local populations of Melaleuca denai occurring within the project area are not
considered to form an important population. The local populations of Melaleuca
deanei occurring within the project area are not considered as a population that is
necessary for the species long term survival and recovery. The recovery plan
prepared for Melaleuca deanei notes that individuals of the plant are defined as
belonging to the same population if they are within 500m of each other, as dispersal
is unlikely to exceed this distance (DECCW 2010c). As a result, the small local
populations occurring within the project area are not considered as key sources
populations for dipersal. Given the limited disperal of the seed and numerous
occurrences within the locality, the local population to be removed is not
considered necessary for maintaining genetic diversity. The local populations do not
occur at or near the limit of the species range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to Melaleuca deanei against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the local population of Melaleuca deanei occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population
of this species.
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the local population of Melaleuca deanei occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important population of this
species.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the local population of Melaleuca deanei occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not fragment an existing important population into two or more
populations. Twenty-two known individuals and approximatey 276.31ha of potential
habitat will be retained within the project area.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The proposed project will removeapproximately 261.7ha of habitat known to support
a local population of Melaleuca deanei. However, this vegetation is not considered
to form habitat critical to the survival of the species and the project will not
adversely affect other habitat critical to the survival of the species. The habitatto be
removed is not considered to support a key source population for dispersal and
maintaining genetic diversity, is not essential to the survival of the species and it is
122
not important for the recovery of the species. Twenty-two known individuals and
approximately 276.31ha of potential habitat will be retained within the project area.
Similar habitat supporting other populations of the species will continue to be
conserved elsewhere in the locality.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the local population of Melaleuca deanei occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not disrupt the breeding cycle this species.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Extensive areas of known and suitable habitat will be
retained within the project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as
part of an overall management plan for the retained vegetation within the project
area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to Melaleuca deanei or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this species
will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained
vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of
the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as weed invasion, to the habitat are
minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of the local population of Melaleuca
deanei is not considered to interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
Conclusion
Based on the assessment of potential impacts provided above, and as areas of
potential habitat for the species will be retained in perpetuity through the formation
of the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area, no significant impact Melaleuca deanei
is predicted.
123
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The local population of Melaleuca deanei within the project area is not considered
as an important population or occurring in habitat critical to the survival of the
species. Despite this, a number of areas containing known local populations of this
species, as well as potential habitat, have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to Melaleuca
deanei, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed Heathcote
Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained under an
appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project. A
Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion. Provisions
for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its
habitat.
vi. Pterostylissaxicola
Pterostylissaxicolais listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act. No
individuals of this species were recorded during the current surveys. There is
potential for this species to occur within the project area, within woodland where
benched outcropping occurs and in the forest communities in the gullies where
moss covers the sandstone boulders. The majority of potential habitat occurs
outside of the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Limited areas of suitable habitat for Pterostylissaxicolawithin the project area are
proposed to be cleared from the project area. Removal of a small amount of
potential habitat within the development footprint is not considered to result in the
extinction of the species in the locality. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds a number of
records of this species within the SMCMA. Within the locality, Pterostylissaxicolais
conserved within Georges River National Park. The potential habitat retained within
the project area will be conserved in perpetuity.
The loss of suitable habitat would result in a small decrease in the amount of suitable
habitat available to this species within the project area. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Sufficient potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within the project area and in the locality.
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The majority of areas containing suitable habitat for this species have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to potential
habitat for Pterostylissaxicola. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within the
proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be
124
retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the
project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within
the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would
assist in improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously
impacted areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion.
Provisions for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the
habitat.
No offsets are proposed for Pterostylissaxicolaas avoidance and mitigation measures
are considered to ensure the persistence of the suitable habitat.
vii. Persooniahirsuta
Persooniahirsutais listed as Endangered Act Endangered under the TSC Act and the
EPBC Act. No individuals of this species were recorded during the current surveys.
There is potential for this species to occur within the project area, within the
woodland and heath-woodland communities.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Some areas of suitable habitat for Persooniahirsutawithin the project area are
proposed to be cleared from the project area. Removal of potential habitat within
the development footprint is not considered to result in the extinction of the species
in the locality. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds a number of records of this species
within the SMCMA. Within the locality, Persooniahirsutais conserved within Royal
National Park. The potential habitat retained within the project area will be
conserved in perpetuity.
The loss of suitable habitat would result in a small decrease in the amount of suitable
habitat available to this species within the project area. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Sufficient potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within the project area and in the locality.
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Some areas of suitable habitat for this species, including Angophora hispida –
Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-Woodland, have been avoided.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to potential
habitat for Persooniahirsuta. Suitable habitat for this species occurs within the
proposed Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be
retained under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the
project. A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within
the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would
assist in improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously
impacted areas and managing potential ongoing impacts such as weed invasion.
Provisions for monitoring will assist in the ongoing adaptive management of the
habitat.
125
No offsets are proposed for Persooniahirsutaas avoidance and mitigation measures
are considered to ensure the persistence of the suitable habitat.
4.1.4 Threatened Fauna
Details on the nature and extent of impacts, and the relevant avoidance, mitigation
and compensatory measures for each of the known and potentially occurring
threatened fauna species are provided below. An analysis of the significance of
impacts has been provided for threatened fauna species known to occur within the
project area.
i. Grey-headed Flying-fox
The Grey-headed Flying-fox is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act.
This species was recorded at numerous locations within the project area, a number
which fall within the development footprint. There is potential for this species to
occur within additional areas within the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The Grey-headed Flying-fox was recorded within numerous vegetation communities
within the project area and is expected to utilise most of the project area for
foraging. Approximately 283ha of suitable habitat is proposed to be cleared from
the project area. The loss of this vegetation would result in a decrease in the
amount of suitable habitat available to this species. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Approximately 566ha of known and potential habitat will
be retained and conserved within the project area as well as within conservation
reserves in the locality. Within the locality, known Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat is
conserved within Georges River National Park, Heathcote National Park, Royal
National Park and Leacock Regional Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous
records for this species within the SMCMA.
A draft national recovery plan has been prepared for the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
The overall objective relevant to this proposed project is to reduce the impact of
threatening processes on Grey-headed Flying-foxes and arrest decline throughout
the species’ range (DECCW (NSW) 2009a):
Objective 1. To identify and protect foraging habitat critical to the survival of
Grey-headed Flying-foxes throughout their range;
Objective 2. To protect and increase the extent of key winter and spring
foraging habitat of Grey-headed Flying-foxes;
Objective 3. To identify roosting habitat critical to the survival of Grey-
headed Flying-foxes; and
Objective 4. To protect and enhance roosting habitat critical to the survival
of Grey-headed Flying-foxes.
126
The foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox within the project area adjoins
an extensive area of suitable habitat with the locality. The foraging habitat
available within the project area is not considered to be critical to the survival of this
species. Areas of suitable foraging habitat will be retained within the project area
and conserved in the locality. No roosting habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox
was identified as occurring within the project area, or are known from the locality
(DECC 2008).
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The Grey-headed Flying-fox population occurring within the project area is not
considered to form an important population. The population of the Grey-headed
Flying-fox occurring within the project area is not considered as a population that is
necessary for the species long term survival and recovery. No camps were
observed within the project area, therefore it is expected that the Grey-headed
Flying-fox only utilises the project area as foraging habitat. Extensive areas of similar
habitat occur in the locality. The population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox within the
project areas does not occur at or near the limit of the species range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Grey-headed Flying-fox against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population
of this species.
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
127
project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important population of this
species. Extensive areas of suitable habitat will remain within the project area.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not fragment an existing important population into two or more
populations. The population is considered to occur over extensive areas within the
locality.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The project area is located within 50km of a number of camps that are used
continuously or annually by the Grey-headed Flying Fox, such the Royal Botanic
Gardens Sydney and Gordon. A rarely used camp has also been identified in the
Menai area. The project area also provides foraging resources for the period
September-May. As such, the habitat within the project area can be defined as
essential habitat as defined within the draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-
headed Flying-fox (2009a).
The removal of a portion of foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox within
the project area is not considered to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival
of the species as it is not a key source population for dispersal and maintaining
genetic diversity, it is not essential to the survival of the species and it is not important
for the recovery of the species. Extensive areas of suitable foraging habitat will be
retained within the project area.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox occurring within the
project area does not form an important population. Therefore, the proposed
project will not disrupt the breeding cycle this species. No camps of the Grey-
headed Flying-fox were observed within the project area.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Extensive areas of known and suitable habitat will be
retained within the project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as
part of an overall management plan for the retained vegetation within the project
area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Grey-headed Flying-fox or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this
species will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained
128
vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of
the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as weed invasion, to the habitat are
minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of suitable foraging habitat for the
population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox occurring within the project area is not
considered to interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The removal of a portion of the available foraging habitat for the population of the
Grey-headed Flying-fox occurring within the program area is not considered to
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species. Despite this, extensive areas
of suitable habitat have been avoided within the program area.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Grey-
headed Flying-fox, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained
under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project.
A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
ii. Giant Burrowing Frog
The Giant Burrowing Frog is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act.
No individuals of this species were recorded within the project area during the
current surveys. There is some potential for this species to occur within the project
area within undisturbed sandy sections of second order streams, however these
areas are located outside of the development footprint. Additional potential
habitat occurs within the development footprint, however ongoing land uses has
resulted in the disturbance of this habitat, and this species is considered unlikely to
use this habitat.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Current impacts to potentially occurring Giant Burrowing Frogs within the project
area include predation by Plague Minnow (Gambusiaholbrooki), alteration to
drainage patterns, sedimentation and pollution. It is also likely that Chytrid fungus is
present within the project area.
129
The proposed project will remove potential habitat that is not considered likely to be
utilised by the Giant Burrowing Frog. The loss of this marginal habitat would result in
an insignificant decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to this species.
The habitat to be removed within the project area is not considered important for
the long-term survival of the species within the locality. Within the locality, theGiant
Burrowing Frog and/or its habitat is conserved within Heathcote National Park and
Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous records for this species
within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
The majority of potential habitat will be retained within the project area. The
retained potential habitat for the Giant Burrowing Frog may be indirectly impacted
by alteration to hydrological regimes, increased runoff, decreases in water quality
and physical damage from pedestrian access.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The Giant Burrowing Frog population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population. No individuals of the Giant
Burrowing Frog were recorded within the project area. Some potential habitat for
this species occurs within the project area within undisturbed sandy sections of
second order streams, however given the existing disturbance to these areas, the
likelihood of occurrence is reduced. The project area does not occur at or near the
limit of the species range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Giant Burrowing Frog against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Giant Burrowing Frog
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an
important population of this species.
130
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Giant Burrowing Frog
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important
population of this species. Some potential habitat will be removed within the project
area, however, should the species occur, this loss is not considered significant and
additional areas of habitat will be retained.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Giant Burrowing Frog
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not fragment an existing important population into two or
more populations.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The removal of potential habitat for the Giant Burrowing Frog within the project area
is not considered to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species as it
is not essential to the survival of the species and it is not important for the recovery of
the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project area.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Giant Burrowing Frog
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not disrupt the breeding cycle this species.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the
project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as part of an overall
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, therefore
improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation and associated habitat.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Giant Burrowing Frog or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this
species will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained
vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of
the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as invasive species, to the habitat are
minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
131
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of a small amount of potential suitable
habitat for the Giant Burrowing Frog is not considered to interfere substantially with
the recovery of the species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The Giant Burrowing Frog population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population and would not occur in habitat
critical to the survival of the species. Areas of potential suitable habitat have been
avoided within the project area.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Giant
Burrowing Frog, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained
under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project.
A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
iii. Swift Parrot
The Swift Parrot is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act. No
individuals of this species were recorded within the project area during the current
surveys. There is some potential for this species to occur within the project area,
including within the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Although the Swift Parrot would not utilise the project area for breeding, suitable
foraging habitat occurs. A suite of suitable feed trees will be retained within the
project area, including the Autumn/Winter flowering Corymbiagummifera (Red
Bloodwood).
The proposed project will remove some potential suitable habitat for the Swift Parrot
in the form of winter flowering feed trees. The loss of this habitat would result in a
decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to this species. The habitat to
be removed within the project area is not considered important for the long-term
survival of the species within the locality. Within the locality, the Swift Parrot is
conserved within Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous
records for this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential habitat
will be retained and conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
132
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or
endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population
No individuals of the Swift Parrot were recorded within the project area and it is
considered to only be an occasional user of the project area. The potential habitat
occurring within the project area is not considered to represent a core area of
habitat, given the extensive areas of suitable habitat in the locality, particularly to
the south and west. Removal of a portion of potential foraging habitat is not
considered to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population of the Swift
Parrot.
reduce the area of occupancy of the species
The Swift Parrot breeds only in Tasmania, migrating to the mainland in the non-
breeding season throughout various locations, depending on the availability of
foraging resources. It migrates to dry woodland primarily in Victoria and NSW, and
has also been recorded regularly in south eastern Queensland (SEWPaC 2011j). The
removal some potential foraging habitat within the project area is not considered to
reduce the areas of occupancy of the species.
fragment an existing population into two or more populations
No individuals of the Swift Parrot were recorded within the project area and it is
considered to only be an occasional user of the project area. The distribution of the
Swift Parrot extends well beyond the project area, and removal of a small area of
potential foraging habitat is not considered to fragment an existing population.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The project area does not provide breeding habitat or constitute core foraging
habitat for the Swift Parrot, and is therefore not considered to comprise habitat
critical to the survival of the species. Therefore, the removal of potential foraging
habitat is not essential to the survival of the species and it is not important for the
recovery of the species.
disrupt the breeding cycle of a population
The Swift Parrot only breeds in Tasmania. The proposed removal of potential
foraging habitat is not considered to disrupt the breeding cycle of this species.
modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Extensive areas of suitable habitat will be retained within
the project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as part of an
133
overall management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area,
therefore improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or
endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically
endangered species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Swift Parrot or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this species will
be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained vegetation
within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of the
vegetation and ensuring threats to the habitat are minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of suitable potential foraging habitat
for the Swift Parrot is not considered to interfere substantially with the recovery of the
species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The potential foraging habitat for the Swift Parrot occurring within the project area is
not considered as habitat critical to the survival of the species. Despite this,
extensive areas of suitable habitat have been avoided within the project area.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Swift
Parrot, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed Heathcote
Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained under an
appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project. A
Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
iv. Koala
The Koala is listed Vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act. No individuals of this
species were recorded within the project area during current surveys. There is some
potential for this species to occur within the project area, including within the
development footprint.
134
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The proposed project will remove potential suitable habitat for the Koala in the form
of woodland and forest habitat. The loss of this habitat would result in a decrease in
the amount of suitable habitat available to this species. The habitat to be removed
within the project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the
species within the locality. Within the locality, the Koala is conserved within Georges
River National Park, Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park. The Atlas of
NSW Wildlife holds numerous records for this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient
known and potential habitat will be retained and conserved within conservation
reserves in the locality.
Substantial areas of similar habitat will be retained within the project area, linking
habitat within Georges River National Park and habitat to the south. Retained
vegetation includes potential foraging habitat (including SEPP 44 listed feed tree
species) and nesting habitat which is of a size that would be able to support a low-
density population of the Koala.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The Koala population potentially occuring within the project area is considered to
form an important population. The population potentially occurring within the
project area has been determined to be genetically similar to the population
centred around Campbelltown (Lee et al. 2010). The Campbelltown/Heathcote
population is also genetically different to other Koala populations within the wider
Sydney Region (namely the Blue Mountains and Southern Highlands populations)
(Lee et al. 2010).
Extensive areas of potential habitat occur in the locality, and potential dispersal and
breeding is not considered to be restricted. The project area does not occur at or
near the limit of the species range. The project area occurs at the interface
between bushland and urban development.
No individuals of the Koala were recorded within the project area. Some potential
habitat for this species occurs within the project area within woodland and forest
vegetation and within the gullies.
135
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Koala against the significance of
impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
The local population of the Koala comprises individuals occurring in Liverpool,
Campbelltown and Heathcote, with the majority of records occurring in the
Campbelltown area. The results of surveys within the project area indicates that the
koala density within the project area would fall withih the low density category. The
removal of some potential habitat within the development footprint is not
considered to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the local population of the
Koala.
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
Individuals of the Koala potentially occurring within the project area are most likely
to represent occasional transient individuals. The removal of some potential habitat
within the development footprint is not considered to significantly reduce the area
of occupancy of the local population of the Koala. Extensive areas of suitable
habitat will be retained within the project area.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
The local population of the Koala is considered likely to occasionally utilise the
project area as a movement corridor between areas of habitat to the north and
south. A similar movement corridor is located immediately to the west of the project
area within the Holsworthy Military Area. A substaintial corridor will be retained within
the project area that contains suitable habtiat for the Koala. The project is not
considered to result in the fragmentation of the local population into two or more
populations.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The removal of potential habitat for the Koala within the project area is not
considered to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species as it is not
essential to the survival of the species and it is not important for the recovery of the
species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project area, including
SEPP44 feed trees.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the individuals of the Koala potentially occurring within the project
area are most likely to represent occasional transient individuals. Substantial areas
of suitable habitat will be retained within the project area. The proposed project will
not disrupt the breeding cycle of the local population of the Koala.
136
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the Koala. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project
area and form a movement corridor. Suitable habitat for this species will be
managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained vegetation within
the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation and
associated habitat.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Koala or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this species will be
managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained vegetation within
the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation and
ensuring threats, such as invasive species, to the habitat are minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of a small amount of potential suitable
habitat for the Koala is not considered to interfere substantially with the recovery of
the species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
Extensive areas of suitable habitat have been avoided within the project area,
including areas containing SEPP44 feed trees.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Koala,
including management of suitable habitat within the proposed Heathcote Ridge
Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained under an
appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project. A
Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
v. Spotted-tailed Quoll
The Spotted-tailed Quoll is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and Endangered
under the EPBC Act. No individuals of this species were recorded within the project
137
area during the current surveys. There is some potential for this species to occur
within the project area, including within the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The proposed project will remove potential suitable habitat for the Spotted-tailed in
the form of woodland and forest habitat. The loss of this habitat would result in a
decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to this species. The habitat to
be removed within the project area is not considered important for the long-term
survival of the species within the locality. Within the locality, the Spotted-tailed Quoll
is conserved within Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous
records for this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential habitat
will be retained and conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The Spotted-tailed Quoll population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population. No individuals of the Spotted-
tailed Quoll were recorded within the project area. Some potential habitat for this
species occurs within the project area within woodland and forest vegetation.
Extensive areas of potential habitat occur in the locality, and potential dispersal and
breeding is not considered to be restricted. The project area does not occur at or
near the limit of the species range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Spotted-tailed Quoll against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Spotted-tailed Quoll
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an
important population of this species.
138
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Spotted-tailed Quoll
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important
population of this species. Some potential habitat will be removed within the project
area, however, should the species occur, this loss is not considered significant and
additional areas of habitat will be retained.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Spotted-tailed Quoll
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not fragment an existing important population into two or
more populations. A corridor will be maintained across the project area.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The removal of potential habitat for the Spotted-tailed Quoll within the project area
is not considered to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species as it
is not essential to the survival of the species and it is not important for the recovery of
the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project area.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Spotted-tailed Quoll
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not disrupt the breeding cycle this species.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the
project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as part of an overall
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, therefore
improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation and associated habitat.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Spotted-tailed Quoll or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this
species will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained
vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of
the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as invasive species, to the habitat are
minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
139
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of a small amount of potential suitable
habitat for the Spotted-tailed Quoll is not considered to interfere substantially with
the recovery of the species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The Spotted-tailed Quoll population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population and would not occur in habitat
critical to the survival of the species. Despite this, extensive areas of suitable habitat
have been avoided within the project area.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Spotted-
tailed Quoll, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained
under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project.
A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
vi. Large-eared Pied Bat
The Large-eared Pied Bat is listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act and EPBC Act. No
individuals of this species were recorded within the project area during the current
surveys. There is some potential for this species to occur within the project area,
including within the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The proposed project will remove some potential suitable habitat for this species in
the form of forest and woodland communities. The loss of this habitat would result in
a decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to the species. The habitat
to be removed within the project area is not considered important for the long-term
survival of the species within the locality. Within the locality, this species is conserved
within Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous records of these
species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential habitat will be retained
and conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
A range of vegetation types will be retained within the project area. Extensive areas
of hollow-bearing trees and rock crevices and caves providing potential roosting
habitat will be retained within the project area.
140
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The Large-eared Pied Bat population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population. No individuals of the Large-eared
Pied Bat were recorded within the project area. Some potential habitat for this
species occurs within the project area within woodland and forest vegetation and
within the gullies. Extensive areas of potential habitat occur in the locality, and
potential dispersal and breeding is not considered to be restricted. The project area
does not occur at or near the limit of the species range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Large-eared Pied Bat against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Large-eared Pied Bat
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an
important population of this species.
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Large-eared Pied Bat
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important
population of this species. Some potential foraging habitat will be removed within
the project area, however, should the species occur, this loss is not considered
significant and additional areas of habitat will be retained, including roosting
habitat.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Large-eared Pied Bat
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
141
the proposed project will not fragment an existing important population into two or
more populations. A corridor will be maintained across the project area.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The removal of potential habitat for the Large-eared Pied Bat within the project area
is not considered to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species as it
is not essential to the survival of the species and it is not important for the recovery of
the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project area,
including both foraging and roosting habitat.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Large-eared Pied Bat
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not disrupt the breeding cycle this species. Roosting
habitat for this species will be retained within the project area.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the
project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as part of an overall
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, therefore
improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation and associated habitat.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Large-eared Pied Bat or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this
species will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained
vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of
the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as invasive species, to the habitat are
minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of a small amount of potential suitable
habitat for the Large-eared Pied Bat is not considered to interfere substantially with
the recovery of the species.
142
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The Large-eared Pied Bat population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population and would not occur in habitat
critical to the survival of the species. Despite this, extensive areas of suitable habitat
have been avoided within the project area, including roosting habitat.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Large-
eared Pied Bat, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained
under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project.
A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
vii. Broad-headed Snake
The Broad-headed Snake is listed as Endangered under the TSC Act and Vulnerable
under the EPBC Act. No individuals of this species were recorded within the project
area during the current surveys. There is some potential for this species to occur
within the project area, including within the development footprint.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The proposed project will remove some potential suitable habitat for the Broad-
headed Snake in the form of forest and woodland communities adjacent to rocky
escarpments. The loss of this habitat would result in a decrease in the amount of
suitable habitat available to this species. The habitat to be removed within the
project area is not considered important for the long-term survival of the species
within the locality. The proposed project will retain both foraging and nesting
habitat, which includes rocky escarpments and hollow-bearing trees. Within the
locality, the Broad-headed Snake is conserved within Heathcote National Park and
Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous records for this species
within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential habitat will be retained and
conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of a
population of an MNES. Within the significant impact guidelines, an important
population is defined as ‘a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term
survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery
plans, and/or that are:
key source populations either for breeding or dispersal
populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or
143
populations that are near the limit of the species range.’
The Broad-headed Snake population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population. No individuals of the Broad-
headed Snake were recorded within the project area. Some potential habitat for
this species occurs within the project area within woodland and forest vegetation.
Areas of potential habitat occur in the locality, and potential dispersal and breeding
is not considered to be restricted. The project area does not occur at or near the
limit of the species range.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Broad-headed Snake against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a
real chance or possibility that it will:
lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a
species
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Broad-headed Snake
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an
important population of this species.
reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Broad-headed Snake
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not reduce the area of occupancy of an important
population of this species. Some potential habitat will be removed within the project
area, however, should the species occur, this loss is not considered significant and
additional areas of habitat will be retained.
fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Broad-headed Snake
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not fragment an existing important population into two or
more populations. A corridor will be maintained across the project area.
adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The removal of potential habitat for the Broad-headed Snake within the project
area is not considered to adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the
species as it is not essential to the survival of the species and it is not important for
the recovery of the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the
project area.
disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
144
As noted above, the population of the potentially occurring Broad-headed Snake
occurring within the project area does not form an important population. Therefore,
the proposed project will not disrupt the breeding cycle this species.
modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of
habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
The extent of habitat removal within the project area is not considered to result in
the decline of the species. Areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the
project area. Suitable habitat for this species will be managed as part of an overall
management plan for the retained vegetation within the project area, therefore
improving the quality and integrity of the vegetation and associated habitat.
result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming
established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive species
that are harmful to the Broad-headed Snake or its habitat. Suitable habitat for this
species will be managed as part of an overall management plan for the retained
vegetation within the project area, therefore improving the quality and integrity of
the vegetation and ensuring threats, such as invasive species, to the habitat are
minimised.
introduce disease that may cause the species to decline, or
The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of disease to
potential habitat that may cause the species to decline.
interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.
For the reasons discussed above, the removal of a small amount of potential suitable
habitat for the Broad-headed Snake is not considered to interfere substantially with
the recovery of the species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The Broad-headed Snake population potentially occurring within the project area is
not considered to form an important population and would not occur in habitat
critical to the survival of the species. Despite this, extensive areas of suitable habitat
have been avoided within the project area, including roosting habitat.
Some mitigation measures proposed under the program are relevant to the Broad-
headed Snake, including management of suitable habitat within the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This area of land is proposed to be retained
under an appropriate zoning so as to ensure its protection for the life of the project.
A Biodiversity Management Plan is also proposed to be implemented within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. Implementation of such a plan would assist in
improving the quality of the suitable habitat by restoring the previously impacted
areas and managing potential ongoing impacts. Provisions for monitoring will assist
in the ongoing adaptive management of the species and its habitat.
145
4.1.5 Migratory Species
i. White-bellied Sea Eagle
The White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetusleucogaster) is listed as a migratory and
marine species under the EPBC Act. It has not been recorded within the project
area. Limited foraging and nesting habitat for this species occurs within the project
area, particularly in close proximity to Mill Creek at the northern end of the project
area.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Limited potential foraging habitat for this species will be removed within the
development footprint. The habitat to be removed within the project area is not
considered important for the long-term survival of the species within the locality. The
proposed project will retain foraging and nesting habitat. The White-bellied Sea
Eagle has been recorded in a number of conservation reserves including Georges
River National Park and Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds
numerous records for this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential
habitat will be retained and conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
No significance of impacts has been provided for this species as the potential
impacts to this species are considered minimal.
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures proposed for the Program
ensure that extensive areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project
area and at the quality of such habitat improved through management.
ii. White-throated Needletail
The White-throated Needletail (Hirundapuscaudacutus) is listed as a migratory and
marine species under the EPBC Act. This species was recorded at one location
within the project area. This species was observed flying over the northern portion of
the project area. There is potential for this species to forage above the project area.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
Limited potential foraging habitat for this species will be removed within the
development footprint. The habitat to be removed within the project area is not
considered important for the long-term survival of the species within the locality. The
proposed project will retain foraging and nesting habitat. The White-throated
Needletail has been recorded in a number of conservation reserves including
Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds
numerous records for this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential
habitat will be retained and conserved within conservation reserves in the locality.
No significance of impacts has been provided for this species as the potential
impacts to this species are considered minimal.
146
b. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures proposed for the Program
ensure that extensive areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project
area and at the quality of such habitat improved through management.
iii. Black-faced Monarch
The Black-faced Monarch (Monarchamelanopsis) is listed as a migratory and marine
species under the EPBC Act. Potential foraging and breeding habitat for this species
occurs within the project area.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The proposed project will remove some potential suitable habitat for this species in
the form of forest and woodland communities. The loss of this habitat would result in
a decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to the species. The habitat
to be removed within the project area is not considered important for the long-term
survival of the species within the locality. The Black-faced Monarch has been
recorded in a number of conservation reserves including Georges River National
Park, Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife
holds numerous records of this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and
potential habitat will be retained and conserved within conservation reserves in the
locality. A range of vegetation types will be retained within the project area.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of
an area of ‘important habitat’ for a migratory species. Within the significant impact
guidelines, important habitat is defined as:
habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a
region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population
of the species, and/or
habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle
stages, and/or
habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species
range, and/or
habitat within an area where the species is declining.
The potential habitat for the Black-faced Monarch within the project area is not
considered as important habitat. It is not known to support an ecologically
significant proportion of the population and is not critical to the lifecycle stages of
the species. The project area does not occur at or near the limit of the species
range, or within an area where the species is declining.
147
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Black-faced Monarch against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real
chance or possibility that it will:
substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering
nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of
important habitat for a migratory species
As noted above, project area does not support important habitat for the Black-
faced Monarch. Therefore, the proposed project will not substantially modify,
destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for this species.
result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species
becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory
species, or
As noted above, project area does not support important habitat for the Black-
faced Monarch. The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction
of invasive species that are harmful to the Black-faced Monarch.
seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting
behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a
migratory species.
The potentially occurring population of the Black-faced Monarch is not considered
to forma and ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species.
The removal of some potential habitat is unlikely to disrupt the lifecycle of the
species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures proposed for the Program
ensure that extensive areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project
area and at the quality of such habitat improved through management.
iv. Rufous Fantail
The Rufous Fantail (Rhipidurarufifrons) is listed as a migratory and marine species
under the EPBC Act. Potential foraging and breeding habitat for this species occurs
within the project area.
a. Nature and extent of impacts
The proposed project will remove some potential suitable habitat for this species in
the form of forest and woodland communities. The loss of this habitat would result in
a decrease in the amount of suitable habitat available to the species. The habitat
to be removed within the project area is not considered important for the long-term
survival of the species within the locality. The Rufous Fantail has been recorded in a
number of conservation reserves including Georges River National Park, Heathcote
148
National Park and Royal National Park. The Atlas of NSW Wildlife holds numerous
records of this species within the SMCMA. Sufficient known and potential habitat will
be retained and conserved within conservation reserves in the locality. A range of
vegetation types will be retained within the project area.
b. Analysis of significance of impacts
Analysis of the significance of impacts includes consideration of the importance of
an area of ‘important habitat’ for a migratory species. Within the significant impact
guidelines, important habitat is defined as:
habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a
region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population
of the species, and/or
habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle
stages, and/or
habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species
range, and/or
habitat within an area where the species is declining.
The potential habitat for the Rufous Fantail within the project area is not considered
as important habitat. It is not known to support an ecologically significant proportion
of the population and is not critical to the lifecycle stages of the species. The
project area does not occur at or near the limit of the species range, or within an
area where the species is declining.
An analysis of the significance of impacts to the Rufous Fantail against the
significance of impact guidelines is provided below.
An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real
chance or possibility that it will:
substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering
nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of
important habitat for a migratory species
As noted above, project area does not support important habitat for the Rufous
Fantail. Therefore, the proposed project will not substantially modify, destroy or
isolate an area of important habitat for this species.
result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species
becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory
species, or
As noted above, project area does not support important habitat for the Rufous
Fantail. The proposed project is not expected to result in the introduction of invasive
species that are harmful to the Black-faced Monarch.
149
seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting
behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a
migratory species.
The potentially occurring population of the Rufous Fantail is not considered to forma
and ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species. The
removal of some potential habitat is unlikely to disrupt the lifecycle of the species.
c. Avoidance, Mitigation and Compensation Measures
The avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures proposed for the Program
ensure that extensive areas of suitable habitat will be retained within the project
area and the quality of such habitat improved through management.
4.1.6 Influence of Projected Climate Change Scenarios
Human-induced climate change has the potential to result in large-scale biodiversity
loss, through dramatic shifts in species distributions and species extinctions,
particularly across fragmented or vulnerable ecosystems (Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council 2004). The National Biodiversity and Climate
Change Action Plan (2004) lists the following direct impacts of climate change on
species and ecosystems:
Reductions in the geographic range of species;
Changes to the timing of species’ lifecycles;
Changes in population dynamics and survival;
Changes in the location of species’ habitats;
Increases in the risk of extinction for species that are already vulnerable;
Increased opportunity for range expansion of invasive species;
Changes in the structure and composition of ecosystems and communities;
and
Changes in coastal and estuarine habitat due to rising sea levels.
The NSW Climate Impact Profile (2010) predicted the following changes within the
Sydney/Central Coast region:
By 2050, the climate is virtually certain to be hotter, with a likely increase in
summer rainfall and a decrease in winter rainfall. However, changes in
weather patterns that cannot be resolved by the climate models mean that
rainfall in coastal regions is difficult to simulate.
Sea level is virtually certain to keep rising.
150
Changes in rainfall are likely to increase sediment shedding from the
hinterland, potentially causing changes to stream channels including bank
erosion.
Sea level rise, coupled with increased flooding, is virtually certain to pose an
increased risk to property and infrastructure. Developments near estuary
entrances and beaches and on coastal floodplains are most vulnerable.
Sea level rise is virtually certain to alter estuarine and coastal lowland
ecosystems.
Seasonal drying is likely to degrade freshwater wetlands and higher
temperatures are likely to cause many ecosystems to change or contract.
Altered fire regimes have the potential to cause major changes in
ecosystems.
The impacts resulting from these predicted changes include (DECCW 2010a):
Sea level rise is likely to threaten coastal ecosystems;
Sea level rise is likely to threaten some estuarine communities;
Climate change is likely to reduce migratory shorebird habitat and
populations;
Altered fire regimes are likely to cause widespread changes in many
ecosystems;
Fire and drought are likely to affect nectarivores and granivores;
High-altitude species are likely to contract in the lower parts of their ranges;
and
Highly fragmented ecosystems are likely to come under added pressure
from climate change.
There is a level of uncertainty on the short- and long-term influence of projected
climate change on matters of MNES. Despite this, a number of the above direct
impacts are relevant to MNES occurring or potentially occurring within the project
area. Impacts relevant to the project area include those that relate to sea level rise
and the subsequent impacts to estuarine communities, fire and drought and the
impacts to nectarivores and additional pressure to highly fragmented ecosystems.
Altered climatic conditions can create unfavourable conditions for a number of
MNES, including the Giant Burrowing Frog and Grey-headed Flying-fox. Species at
risk include those with long generations, poor mobility, narrow ranges, specific host
relationships, isolate and specialised species and those with large home ranges
(NSW Scientific Committee 2000). In the long term, the retained vegetation and
associated habitat is likely to be susceptible to projected climate change. Therefore
151
climate change is likely to contribute to the ongoing potential impacts of the project
such as fragmentation and reduction in the area of available habitat.
The OEH (then DECCW) prepared Priorities for Biodiversity Adaption to Climate
Change which is intended as a statement of intent in response to the key
threatening process ‘Anthropogenic climate change’ listed under the TSC Act
(DECCW 2010b). Key considerations in the reduction of the impacts of climate
change on biodiversity relate to the follow:
Importance of mitigation and adaption;
Building on existing biodiversity conservation management programs; and
Biodiversity conservation in a changing climate.
Mitigation primarily relates to the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The
proposed project has sought to provide increased employment opportunities within
the Sutherland LGA, which could lead in the reduction in the number of people
within the LGA seeking works outside of the LGA. Over 60% of the residents within
the Sutherland LGA currently travel outside the LGA for work.
Adaption relates measures to increase to the resilience of ecosystems and decrease
the risk of ecosystem degradation or collapse resulting from unavoidable changes in
climate (DECCW 2010b). The project includes provision and management of an
extensive area of retained vegetation and associated habitats, which are known or
have the potential to support MNES. Ongoing management to improve the
biodiversity values of this area and proposed monitoring will assist in improving the
resilience of the ecosystem. Adaptive management can be utilised to address
future impacts resulting from climate change.
The proposed project will retain a substantial area of conservation land within a
generally well-conserved landscape. In a broader context, the proposed
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area connects north through Georges River National
Park, west through Holsworthy Military Area and south towards Heathcote National
Park. Beyond Heathcote National Park, the area of habitat continues south and
south west, and includes Royal National Park, Dharawal State Conservation Area
and Nattai National Park. Although there is a reduction in the connectivity to the
west of the project area, the corridor which forms the Heathcote Ridge
Conservation Area will allow movement of both terrestrial and fauna species across
the landscape.
Consultation with relevant adjacent land owners, including Department of Defence
(Holsworthy Military Area), Office of Environment and Heritage (Georges River
National Park), Sutherland Shire Council (Lucas Heights Conservation Area) and
ANSTO, will assist in establishing a subregional objectives of biodiversity management
which can be incorporated within the Biodiversity Management Plan for the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. The objectives for biodiversity management
can include consideration of the impact of climate change. A broader-scale
152
approach to biodiversity management can assist in the resilience of ecosystems
within the locality.
4.2 Management, Mitigation and Offsetting of Likely Impacts
The reports must describe the measures and undertakings to be implemented under
the program to avoid, mitigate and offset potential impacts on MNES. The report
must set out statutory and other arrangements in place to implement commitments
and undertakings for protection and management of MNES, including intended
monitoring, evaluation and compliance responsibilities and reporting.
4.2.1 Introduction
Principles for the use of biodiversity offsets that should be adhered to when
proposing offsets for development impacts have been developed by SEWPaC. For
biodiversity offsets to be considered ‘appropriate’, these principles must be adhered
to where possible. Foremost among these, is the principle that impacts upon areas
of ecological value must firstly be avoided then mitigated where total avoidance is
not possible. Finally impacts to developments should be offset using compensatory
measures if the two other components of the biodiversity offset hierarchy do not
appropriately offset development impacts. This hierarchy means that the ecological
impacts of proposed developments should be managed as follows:
Avoid: to the extent possible, developments should be designed to avoid or
minimise ecological impacts;
Mitigate: where certain impacts are unavoidable through design changes,
mitigation measures should be introduced to ameliorate the ecological
impacts of the proposed development; and
Compensate: the residual impacts of the project, following the
implementation of mitigation measures, should be compensated for in some
way to offset what would otherwise be a net loss of habitat.
This chapter provides an assessment of how the hierarchy has been considered for
the proposed project.
4.2.2 Avoidance Measures
A number of development designs for the project area have been proposed since
the project was considered for listing as a State Significant Site. The development
footprint has been amended for a number of reasons including those relating to
topography, hydrology, bushfire and biodiversity. As there is a near continuous
cover of native vegetation within the project area, any large-scale development on
the land is unable to avoid impacts to flora and fauna habitats. However,
avoidance can be achieved to varying degrees via modification of the design and
location of the development footprint.
One of the primary avoidance measures for the proposed project is the re-design of
the development footprint to avoid or minimise direct impacts to EECs. Key
communities that have been avoided include Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest and
153
Sydney Turpentine/Ironbark Forest which are listed under both the TSC Act and EPBC
Act. In addition, the development footprint has been amended to avoid some
areas of known occurrence of threatened flora species. The development footprint
has been reduced at various locations to avoid direct impacts to patches of
Melaleuca deanei (Deane’s Paperbark). Avoidance of these areas and retention of
other known and potential habitat for this species will help ensure the persistence of
the species within the project area.
General reduction of the development footprint has reduced the area of impact for
known and potentially occurring threatened flora and fauna. The substantial
reduction in the size of the development footprint from approximately 560ha to
283ha has also increased the width of the vegetated corridor extending north/south
through the project area. This corridor connects vegetation and associated habitats
from Georges River National Park to vegetation to the south of the project area
which extends to Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park.
4.2.3 Mitigation Measures
A range of mitigation measures are proposed to be implemented within the project
area to minimise the impacts to biodiversity values. These mitigation measures have
been and are proposed to be undertaken within the planning process and during
the construction/operational phase. As the majority of the development footprint
will be cleared, the mitigation measures are primarily related to reducing impact to
adjacent vegetation, including that within the project area. A summary of the
mitigation measures proposed for the project are provided below.
Planning-related mitigation measures include:
Rezoning of the project area to assist ensuring the retained vegetation is
protected through appropriate conservation zoning;
Positioning of the APZs outside of the retained area of vegetation;
Design of APZs to allow for these areas to act as a buffer between the
developed areas and retained vegetation;
Design of water management devices within the APZ to provide alternative
habitat to fauna species; and
Staged development which will allow fauna to relocated into adjacent
woodland without assistance by using surrounding habitat connectivity to
facilitate dispersal.
General construction mitigation measures include:
Dust management - to minimise the impacts to vegetation and habitat
quality;
Noise management - to minimise impacts to fauna species;
154
Erosion and sedimentation controls - to minimise the impact to adjacent
vegetation and downstream environments;
Stormwater management, through the implementation of a stormwater
management plan - to minimise impacts to adjacent vegetation and
habitat, and to provide stormwater control devices that could serve as
potential habitat for fauna;
Targeted ecological mitigation measures including:
Inductions for contractors and visitors to address the location of
sensitive flora and fauna and outline their roles and responsibilities for
the protection and/or minimisation of impacts to biodiversity values;
Vegetation clearance protocols; and
Fauna pre-clearance, rescue and translocation protocols.
General operational mitigation measures:
Ongoing erosion and sediment control;
Ongoing stormwater management;
Promotion of community awareness of biodiversity values of the retained
vegetation and associated habitats; and
Inspections to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and provisions
for adaption as required.
Details of these construction and operational mitigation measures are to be
included with any construction management plan and the Biodiversity
Management Plan (BMP) to be prepared for the retained vegetation (see
section 5.4.4).
4.2.4 Compensatory Measures
i. Introduction
Requirements for offsetting will vary depending upon the geographic location of a
project because the nature and extent of human impacts varies across NSW, as
does the proportion of the landscape that is conserved. The project area is in
proximity to a substantial reserve system including Georges River National Park,
Heathcote National Park and Royal National Park. This reserve system supports
habitats similar to those within the project area which are afforded long-term
security. Habitats for the threatened species known or potentially occurring within
the project area are well conserved within this reserve system.
Despite the high level of conservation of similar biodiversity values, compensatory
measures for the proposed project have been developed to supplement the
155
avoidance and mitigation measures. The proposed compensatory measures are
intended to address what would otherwise be a net loss of heath, woodland and
forest habitat resulting from construction of the project. As the Heathcote Ridge
project has been designed to avoid or minimise removal of EECs, the key driver to
the offsets package is the loss of known and potential threatened species habitat,
including both TSC Act and EPBC Act listed species.
The package of compensatory measures proposed for the project includes direct
and indirect offsets. The proposed package comprises the following elements,
which are discussed in detail in the following sections:
Provision and protection of land on-site (Heathcote Ridge Conservation
Area);
Preparation and implementation of a Biodiversity Management Plan for the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area including provisions for:
Ongoing management;
Translocation of Acacia bynoeana; and
Ongoing monitoring.
Option for indirect offsets such as research funding.
The package of compensatory measures has been designed to meet the
requirements of both the State and Commonwealth agencies. Further development
of the offsets package will require consultation with Department of Planning and
Infrastructure, OEH and SEWPaC. Compensatory measures will be finalised prior to
approval of the proposed project.
ii. Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area
a. Introduction
The package of compensatory measures includes the establishment of existing land
for permanent conservation of biodiversity values. The aim to securing land for
compensatory measures was to have a minimum 1:1 offset ratio, which the
proponent is committed to providing. This ratio is considered appropriate given the
vegetation to be cleared is predominately non-EEC vegetation and the cleared
vegetation and habitats are relatively abundant and conserved in the locality, as
well as the proposed provision of indirect offsets.
The area of land considered for provision of offset was the residual land within the
project area (hereafter referred to as the ‘Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area’
(HRCA)). The residual land was investigated during the surveys conducted for this
ecological assessment. The HRCA contains approximately 566ha of native
vegetation, which provides an approximate 2:1 offset ratio. Specific details about
the ecological values of the HRCA are provided below.
156
b. Description
The HRCA comprises the remaining land within the project area, outside of the
development footprint. The HRCA has been included within the offsets package as:
It contains vegetation communities and associated habitats in good
condition, comparable to, or in better condition, that those to be impacted;
It contain EECs which can be managed to improve their ecological
function;
It contains extensive areas of high quality habitat for threatened flora and
fauna species, including species known and potentially impacted;
It can build upon existing conservation areas and/or lands that contain
significant native vegetation and associated habitats;
It contain opportunities for enhancement through the implementation of a
variety of management actions; and
It includes permanent waterways that form high quality habitat for wildlife.
The purpose of the HRCA is to protect and enhance a significant area of vegetation
and associated habitat that will assist in the persistence of biodiversity values for the
EECs, threatened flora and threatened fauna known or potentially occurring within
the project area. The land will be rezoned in perpetuity for conservation, and
GLALC will retain ownership.
Approximately 566ha of land including native vegetation occurs within the HRCA
including examples of the vegetation communities proposed to be removed within
the development footprint (Figure 4.2). Table 4.3 lists the vegetation communities
occurring within the HRCA and their TSC Act and EPBC Act status. These vegetation
communities are described in Section 2.1. The condition of the vegetation within the
HRCA is similar to the condition of the vegetation proposed to be removed within
the development footprint. Four currently listed and one proposed TSC Act EECs will
be conserved within the HRCA. Two of these communities, Shale/Sandstone
Transition Forest and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest are also listed under the EPBC
Act. It is estimated that 22.6% of the original extent of Shale/Sandstone Transition
Forest and 0.5% of the original extent of Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest remains
(DEC (NSW) 2005k, o).
The HRCA contains substantial areas of habitat for threatened flora and fauna
species known from the project area and locality. Broad areas containing known
and potential habitat for Acacia bynoeana and Melaleuca deanei occur within the
HRCA. Known and potential habitat for the threatened fauna species recorded
within the project area will also be retained within the HRCA. The locations of
threatened flora and fauna recorded within the HRCA are shown in Figure 4.3.
Habitat for a number of potentially occurring flora and fauna species also occurs
within the HRCA. The HRCA will contribute to retention of a sizeable tract of
foraging, roosting and dispersal habitat for TSC Act and EPBC Act threatened
157
species that are predicted to be impacted by the project. The HRCA connects to
an area of habitat that extends north through Georges River National Park, west
through Holsworthy Military Area and south and south east towards Heathcote
National Park and Royal National Park. The HRCA also connects to the Lucas
Heights Conservation Area (owned and managed by Sutherland Shire Council) and
Gandangara State Conservation Area. The EECs Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest
and Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest occurring within the HCRA connect directly to
the occurrences of these communities within the Lucas Heights Conservation Area
and Gandangara State Conservation Area.
The biodiversity values of the HRCA will be enhanced through the implementation of
a BMP. Details of the BMP are provided in Section 4.2.4.iii below. The BMP will aim to
build upon the management of the native vegetation within adjacent areas to assist
in enhancing the integrity of the biodiversity values in the locality. The long term
protection of the HRCA and the implementation of best practice management
strategies will achieve long term conservation outcomes. As numerous cultural
heritage sites occur within the HRCA, these will also be included within the
management actions proposed within the BMP. Management of cultural heritage
sites will be undertaken in conjunction with GLALC.
Table 4.3 Vegetation communities occurring within the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area
Vegetation Community HRCA (ha)
TSC Act
Status
EPBC Act
Status
Angophora hispida – Eucalyptus haemastoma Heath-
Woodland 51.24
Banksia ericifolia Damp Heath 9.04 EEC
Leptospermum polygalifolium Wet Heath 0.05
Lepidospermaneesii – Shoenusbrevifolius Heath 0.97 EEC
Corymbiagummifera – Angophora costata Woodland 225.07
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus pilularis Woodland 40.23
Corymbiagummifera – Eucalyptus punctata
Woodland 19.96 EEC EEC
Syncarpiaglomulifera – Eucalyptus fibrosa Forest 1.72 EEC CEEC
Eucalyptus piperita – Angophora costata Forest 172.7
Eucalyptus pilularis – Angophora costata Forest 33.34
Riparian Forest 3.12
Melaleuca linarifolia Forest 0.61 EEC
Angophora costataRiverflat Forest 1.27
Estuarine Forest Complex 1.05 EEC
TOTAL* 560.37
Bold refers to EPBC Act communities * note that the total only includes forest and woodland communities; it does not include cleared areas and water
158
159
160
iii. Biodiversity Management Plan
a. Introduction
Ongoing management actions will be undertaken within the HRCA to improve its
ecological condition and to enhance its ability to provide habitat for native species,
particularly the threatened species recorded from the project area. The overall
strategy is to maximise long-term environmental outcomes of the native vegetation
communities occurring within the HRCA and to increase their quality and extent,
with provisions made to enhance habitat requirements of a variety of EECs,
threatened flora and threatened fauna.
The BMP for the HRCA will provide a comprehensive framework for the
implementation of the biodiversity management measures proposed for the project.
The BMP will provide detailed information on the HRCA, including descriptions of the
vegetation communities and the management actions required to conserve and
improve the biodiversity of this area and maximise its ability to provide habitat for
threatened species. The BMP will outline long and short term management
requirements and monitoring methodologies for the HRCA as well as objectives,
performance criteria and indicators, and details of other contributions to
conservation.
b. Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area BMP
A comprehensive BMP for the HRCA will be prepared prior to the commencement
of the development to incorporate all of the impact mitigation and management
measures proposed to be undertaken for the project, and provide detailed
specifications for their implementation. The BMP will also include provisions for
bushfire management, cultural heritage management and public access. The
purpose of the BMP is to ensure that the conservation objectives of the project are
met and that impacts to biodiversity are adequately managed in perpetuity.
The HRCA BMP is intended to be a working document that guides all facets of
biodiversity management and biodiversity mitigation for the project, and includes
clear objectives and actions. The BMP will specify what measures will be
undertaken, how they will be undertaken, and will provide a timeline to ensure that
all activities are conducted according to the plan. The BMP will provide key
performance indicators against which to measure progress and will specify
appropriate review periods where progress is reviewed and the document updated
as required.
The development of the plan will include consideration of the following
management plans and guidelines for relevant lands within the locality:
Georges River National Park Plan of Management (NPWS 1994);
Plan of Management: Natural Areas – Lucas Heights Conservation Area
(Sutherland Shire Council, unpublished);
161
Royal National Park, Heathcote National Park and Garawarra State
Recreation Area Plan of Management (NPWS 2000);
Mill Creek Catchment Strategic Management Plan (Gondwana Consulting
2010); and
Guidelines for developments adjoining Department of Environment and
Climate Change lands (DECC 2008).
Consultation with relevant adjacent land owners, including Department of Defence
(Holsworthy Military Area), OEH (Georges River National Park), Sutherland Shire
Council (Lucas Heights Conservation Area) and ANSTO, to assist in establishing a
subregional objectives of biodiversity management. These objectives can be
incorporated into the BMP for the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area.
Key management components to be addressed within the BMP include:
Mitigation measures, such as erosion and sediment control, to reduce
impacts from the adjacent development footprint;
Management of general biodiversity values:
Measures to instigate the cessation of illegal recreation uses of the
project area (eg. Trail bike riding, 4WD driving);
Erosion and sedimentation controls;
Closure and rehabilitation of existing tracks;
Rehabilitation and stabilisation of riparian zones;
Weed management including measures for prevention, suppression,
control, and maintenance and
Feral animal control.
Management of TSC Act and EPBC Act EECs and threatened species:
Translocation of Acacia bynoeana from the development footprint to
similar habitat within the HRCA and associated monitoring;
Enhancement and rehabilitation of EEC vegetation including Sydney
Turpentine-Ironbark Forest, Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest, Swamp
Sclerophyll Forest, Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Coastal Upland
Swamp; and
Monitoring of threatened flora and fauna populations.
Bushfire management;
162
Protection and management of cultural heritage sites in conjunction with
GLALC;
Management of ongoing uses of the HRCA:
Development of access management protocols to determine access
for permissible activities, such as implementation of the BMP and on
walking tracks;
Details of any requirements for fencing and signage relating to access
rights within the various areas of the HRCA; and
Establishment and maintenance of authorised walking tracks.
Monitoring of biodiversity values to guide adaptive management (see
below for further detail).
Implementation of the HRCA BMP will assist in the provision of suitable habitat for
threatened flora and fauna. The implementation of the BMP will be funded by the
proponent. The HRCA lands will be permanently protected by an appropriate
rezoning mechanism.
c. Monitoring
An ecological monitoring programme will be implemented within the HRCA to
provide information about the existing flora and fauna species and their habitats
and to quantify ecological changes occurring within these populations and habitats
as a result of improved management, enhancement and rehabilitation programs
being implemented. The monitoring programme will guide and inform
management actions by identifying areas that require intervention, such as weed
outbreaks or feral animal invasion. The monitoring programme will include:
Undertaking baseline flora and fauna surveys in the HRCA to determine the
flora and flora species present, estimate the population sizes and distribution
of TSC Act and EPBC Act listed threatened species, and determine areas
and quality of potential habitat;
Establishing permanent monitoring quadrats and photo-points in various
habitat types in the HRCA;
Undertaking ongoing ecological monitoring in the HRCA to assess changes
in ecological function and sustainability as a result of the management or
habitat enhancement programs; and
Identifying and addressing key threatening processes, such as limited
recruitment, weed or feral animal invasion or poor rehabilitation progress
based on the data, which will be used to guide adaptive management
strategies.
163
Further details of the methodology to be employed in the monitoring programme
will be developed and presented in the BMP, prior to the commencement of the
development.
iv. Indirect Offsets
To supplement the proposed conservation areas and their associated
management, the offsets package will include provision of indirect offsets such as
monetary contributions to research on biodiversity issues relating to the project area.
Potential options for indirect offsets include:
Research into the conservation and management of the TSC Act and EPBC
Act listed threatened species recorded from the project area;
Contribution towards the preparation of Recovery Plans for TSC Act and
EPBC Act listed threatened species;
Contribution towards the development of sub regional biodiversity
strategies;
Implementing action(s) in a Recovery Plan, Biodiversity Action Plan or
Management Plan; and
Financial contributions to the management of conserved land in the locality.
The composition of the indirect offsets component of the package will be
determined during negotiations with DSEWPC, OEH, DoPI and Sutherland Shire
Council.
4.3 Impacts on Commonwealth Land
The reports must describe potential direct and indirect impacts on the environment
of Commonwealth land at the Holsworthy Military Training Area and any intended
measures to avoid, mitigate or otherwise manage any adverse impacts identified.
Extensive areas of Holsworthy Military Area will not be impacted by the proposed
project. No area of vegetation and associated habitat is proposed to be cleared
within the Holsworthy Military Area. The environment potentially impacted by the
proposed actions occurs immediately adjacent to Heathcote Road. The vegetation
and habitats within this area mirror those adjacent to Heathcote Road within the
project area and include heath-woodland and woodland vegetation types.
Potential impacts to the environment adjacent to the proposed actions include
vegetation community and associated habitat fragmentation, reduction in the level
of habitat connectivity and reduction in habitat condition from indirect impacts.
The primary vegetation/habitat impacted by fragmentation will be the Angophora
hispida – Eucalyptus haemastomaHeath-Woodland community. Distances between
patches of this community within Holsworthy Military Area and retained patches
within the project area will increase as a result of clearing within the development
footprint. Competition for resources within retained patches is likely to increase
within Holsworthy Military Area.
164
The connectivity between the vegetation and associated habitats is currently
impacted by Heathcote Road and a fence-line along the boundary of Holsworthy
Military Area. The cleared corridor along Heathcote Road varies in width from 15 –
20m, with the sealed portion of the road occupying approximately 9.5-14m. The
fence-line along the boundary of Holsworthy Military area occurs 20-30m from the
western edge of the sealed portion of the road. A band of vegetation occurs
between the road and the fence-line. Habitat connectivity, although currently
impacted by Heathcote Road and the fence-line, will be further reduced as a result
of the proposed project. Mobile species such as bats and birds are expected to be
able to fly over disturbed land to access habitat within the Heathcote Ridge
Conservation Area.
The vegetation and associated habitat within Holsworthy Military Area, adjacent to
Heathcote Road, is currently impacted by indirect impacts such as weed invasion.
As the project area generally slopes away from the Holsworthy Military Area, indirect
impacts such as alteration to hydrological regimes and sedimentation and erosion
will largely be contained within the project area.
Some avoidance and mitigation measures for the proposed project relate to
potential impacts within Holsworthy Military Area. Key areas of connective habitat
will be retained within the project area, including a riparian corridor at the northern
end and a wide corridor at the southern end. The corridor at the southern end
contains Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest, which is also reflected across Heathcote
Road within Holsworthy Military Area.
The Biodiversity Management Plan proposed for the Heathcote Ridge Conservation
Area also includes consultation with the Department of Defence to ensure the
biodiversity outcomes reflect those of the broader area, including those within
Holsworthy Military Area.
The Holsworthy Training Area comprises approximately 19,000 hectares of land,
consisting of the barracks area to the northern end and the largely wooded Range
Area extending to Heathcote Road.
That part of the Holsworthy Training Area to the west of the site and extending some
2 kilometres into the site is primarily bushland used for non-firing activities such as
navigation and basic deployment drills.
Luscombe Airfield, which contains facilities for 171 Aviation Squadron including
technical support and aircraft repair (facilities for 200 personnel and 12 Black Hawk
helicopters) is located approximately 3.3 kilometres from the site.
During the consultation process, the Department of Defence (Defence) highlighted
concerns about potential increased unauthorised access to the HTA (west of
Heathcote Road) due to the proposed increase in population and activity in the
area. In response to this concern, GLALC engaged Urbis to undertake a Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) analysis.
The Heathcote Road boundary to HTA is controlled trough a chained mesh fence
topped with barbed wire and heavily signed posted along the Heathcote Road
frontage. There is also a heavily vegetated buffer between Heathcote Road and
the perimeter fence. There are a number of potential risks noted associated with
165
unauthorised entry including the high level of Unexploded Ordinance (UXO), laser
sights and a live firing range. Defence have also noted the potential for disruptions
to training and potential terrorist threats associated with unauthorised access.
Other concerns raised by Defence were:
The Heathcote Ridge site is currently a regional hub for trail bike and 4WD
activity and that development could force this activity elsewhere and
increase the attractiveness or the HTA;
Development will increase in the number of younger (curious) people with
access to the boundary fence and the potential for increased breaches;
Dumping was noted as an ongoing issue along Heathcote Road and
particularly at the HTA access gates.
The noise associated with the HTA activities and the low altitude flight
corridor could be an issue for future businesses and residents.
The CPTED analysis makes a number of recommendations around improved
territorial enforcement and a range of potential strategies for managing the
interface between the proposed new development and HTA lands. These are
potential measures for consideration and development at the next stage of master
planning and stakeholder consultation. They are generally structured around
avoiding, minimising and mitigating identified risks. Urbis recommend as follows:
Natural surveillance
Natural surveillance maximising opportunities for passers-by or residents to
observe what happens in an area (the ‘safety in numbers’ concept). This
may be achieved through, for instance, the placement of physical features,
activities and people. New development will change the level of natural
surveillance opportunities for the LMA lands. Some considerations for
maximising the natural surveillance include:
The proposed development of the GLALC lands will increase the level
of natural surveillance of the lands.
It may be worth considering in discussions with the LMA and the RTA on
the clearance of the vegetation between Heathcote Road and the
fence to maximise visual access from the road. This will maximise
natural surveillance but would be need to be done alongside
alternative access control measures.
New development will generally improve the natural surveillance of
the LMA perimeter fence and the remaining GLALC lands. This would
be achieved through increased numbers of pedestrians, employees,
residents and vehicle traffic in the vicinity.
The proposed commercial development along the eastern side of
Heathcote Road may limit natural surveillance of the perimeter fence
or the commercial facilities at night. This could influence the incidence
of vandalism or break and enter.
166
Access control
Access control is generally about who enters an area so that unauthorised
people are excluded, for instance, via physical barriers such as fences, gates,
earth bunds, grille etc. Access control issues for the LMA lands would need to
be discussed in further detail with the DoD however some of the options may
include:
Consideration of double perimeter fencing.
Consideration of double barbed wire at the top of the fence.
Consideration of tensioned road side cables to stop access to the
fence for all vehicles. Earth bunds may be an alternative however may
limit visual access.
Consideration of no stopping signs on the western side of Heathcote
Road.
Consideration of installing new security gates at key entry points.
Ensuring the fence extends below ground level.
Territorial reinforcement / ownership
People are more likely to protect territory they feel they own and have a
certain respect for the territory of others. This can be expressed through
installation of fences, paving, signs, good maintenance and landscaping.
Territoriality relates to the way in which a community has ownership over a
space. According to the CPTED principles people are more likely to visit and
care for places that feel are owned and well looked after. Similarly, people
will feel safer in an area if they feel that they belong to the community that
has ownership of the space. For the purposes of the Heathcote Ridge Project
some potential measures to support territorial reinforcement may include:
The new development will change the sense of territory with significant
private interests in the commercial and residential areas.
For the LMA lands there is already extensive signage along the LMA
boundary fence. The following options may be worth discussing with
the DoD in relation to the LMA.
For the LMA consider regularly updating the signage clearly stating the
potential risks and penalties associated with breaching the boundary
fence. When the Australian Federal Police become engaged for the
LMA lands additional signage noting this could be considered.
Considering replacing some of the ageing access gates along
Heathcote Road.
The territorial reinforcement affected by the DoD presence, live firing range,
UXO and Federal Police presence on the LMA lands is considered significant.
Space management
Generally space management ensures that space is appropriately utilised
and cared for. Space management strategies include: activity coordination
(i.e. having a specific plan for the way different types of activities are carried
out in space), site cleanliness, rapid repair of vandalism and graffiti, the
167
replacement of burned out lighting and the removal or refurbishment of
decayed physical elements. The following options may be worth
consideration:
It may be worth running irregular patrols along the boundary fence
and including reference to this on the signage.
It may be worth seeking out appropriate lands for formalisation of
current recreational activities to avoid conflicts of space
management. This would require discussions with Council, ANSTO, DoD
and NSW Waste to identify appropriate sites and management
actions.
Activity Management
It is also important to distinguish between ‘passive’ security measures (eg
better lighting, enhancing natural surveillance) and ‘active’ security
measures (eg security guards, closed circuit television(CCTV)). Effective use of
the former can reduce the need, and associated cost, of the latter. For the
purposes of the Heathcote Ridge Project the following mitigation measures
are proposed for consideration:
With any new development on the GLALC lands careful consideration would
need to be given to recreational access of the remaining GLALC lands. This
would need to be designed and signed to reduce anti-social behaviour in
close proximity to the residential uses. There is also a risk that the recreational
behaviour may be pushed further into the higher value biodiversity and the
areas of cultural significance. There is potential for members of the GLALC to
work with the recreational users to discuss the importance of the land and
best use areas.
To manage some of the future risk around the perimeter fence for the LMA it
may be worth considering installing CCTV at key locations along the fence.
It is considered that there are effective measures available to manage the interface
with the adjoining Defence lands.
Defence has stated that the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) for the
proposed helicopter operations at Holsworthy does not intrude into the Sutherland
Shire at any location at the critical ANEF 20 level.
The southern part of the site is not proposed for any development and will form part
of an important corridor extending from the Georges River in the north through the
site along Mill Creek and extending to the HTA and to Lucas Heights Conservation
Area and vacant Commonwealth land to the south and south west. This corridor will
provide long term biodiversity benefits as discussed elsewhere in this SAS.
168
5. Adaptive Management
5.1 Uncertainties
The reports must identify the uncertainties associated with implementing the
program and intended actions or responses to address uncertainties, and to adapt
to changed circumstances, where there are risks to MNES or the environment of
Commonwealth land.
It is anticipated that the development component of the Program will be
undertaken over a 20+ year timeframe. The proposed actions relating to biodiversity
will extend beyond this development timeframe. Given the long-term nature of the
Program, it is difficult to predict the full extent of outcomes and therefore there is a
level of uncertainty associated with the implementation of the Program. The key
uncertainties relating to the Program include:
Extent of development;
Securing offsets; and
Management outcomes.
Each of these key uncertainties and the intended actions to address such
uncertainties is discussed below.
5.1.1 Extent of Development
Precinct planning of the development has allowed for the delineation of the broad
footprint of the Program, including defining areas for employment, retail, community
use, residential, public open space and internal transport routes. The uncertainty
relating to the extent of the development relates to the east-west road links. The
location and layout of the road link assessed within this report is only indicative. The
final location of the east-west road link will be determined through negotiation with
relevant agencies. Given that the location and layout of the road link has not been
finalised, there is uncertainty of the scale of impacts to MNES.
Any proposed east-west road link would be subject to an assessment of impacts to
MNES. In determining the location of the road link, the primary consideration would
be the avoidance of key areas of MNES. A suite of mitigation measures are likely to
be required to be implemented to minimise the impacts of the road including
consideration of the residual impacts of the road link.
5.1.2 Securing Offsets
The proposed HRCA will be rezoned under the Program to allow for protection and
conservation. To supplement the proposed conservation area and the associated
management, the offsets package includes provision of indirect offsets such as
monetary contributions to research on biodiversity issues relating to the project area.
These proposed indirect offsets are also dependent on a number of variables,
particularly negotiations with relevant government agencies. Given the uncertainty
of the above mentioned variables, the exact nature of the biodiversity outcomes
169
are unable to be determined. Despite these uncertainties, the offsets package will
be targeted towards providing positive biodiversity outcomes for a range of MNES.
5.1.3 Management Outcomes
Management within the proposed HRCA and additional indirect offsets have been
proposed to improve the biodiversity values of these areas. There is a certain level
of uncertainty about the outcome of such activities. Included within the relevant
management plans will be provisions for monitoring of the progress of these
activities. Monitoring will be undertaken to quantify the ecological changes
occurring within vegetation and associated and habitats as a result of improved
management. The results of monitoring are to be incorporated into adaptive
management procedures to ensure that ongoing impacts are effectively
addressed.
5.2 Review or Modification of Planning Mechanisms and
Frameworks
The reports must also set out the circumstances in which the planning mechanisms
and frameworks that will implement the program may be reviewed or modified, to
ensure better protection of MNES or the environment of Commonwealth land, and
the procedures, if any, that would be used to ensure an adaptive management
approach.
The monitoring of management activities proposed for the Program will incorporate
consideration of MNES. The monitoring activities will determine the progress of the
management activities proposed and identify where modifications are required.
Where desired outcomes for MNES are not being achieved, the proposed adaptive
management will assist in addressing the short fall. The NSW Department of
Infrastructure and Planning and the Minister for Planning are responsible for decisions
regarding the zoning of the land and the preparation of development controls.
Subsequent to the zoning of the land for urban development, the relevant consent
authority would determine individual applications in accordance with S79C(1) of the
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 which includes requirements for
the consideration of impacts of the proposed development on listed threatened
species or communities. Where impacts to MNES are found to be greater than
predicted or new impacts are identified, the planning mechanisms and frameworks
for implementing the Program will be reviewed or modified. This could include
changes to the development footprint if required. Monitoring will also take into
consideration any newly listed communities and species, as well modifications to
existing listings.
170
6. Auditing and Reporting
6.1 Monitoring, Public Reporting and Independent Auditing
The reports must set out:
monitoring, public reporting and independent auditing to be undertaken
Components of the monitoring of the program include:
Determine the progress of managing 566ha of vegetation within the
Heathcote Ridge Conservation for conservation;
Determine where modifications to the Program are required to adequately
address MNES.
Details of the monitoring of, and reporting on, the effectiveness of the avoidance,
mitigation and compensatory measures will be provided within the proposed
Biodiversity Management Plan. In summary however, general monitoring of the
management activities will be undertaken annually and will address both NSW and
Commonwealth requirements, including commitments,impacts and risks to MNES.
Reporting
GLGLC will prepare a public annual report highlighting the Conservation Area and
Biodiversity Management outcomes achieved in the previous year for the first five
years of implementation of the project and for subsequent years as directed by
SEWPaC. The matters to be addressed will include but not be limited to:
Status of development;
Status of establishing and managing conservation area;
Translocation success;
Unforseen impacts on MNES and actions to address.
Independent Audit
An independent audit of the Program is required every two years for the duration of
the development period. GLALC will establish a Biodiversity Management
Reference Group to evaluate the Conservation Area and Biodiversity Management
requirements of the Program.
The purpose of the independent audit will be to evaluate the Program’s progress in
achieving SEWPaC objectives in ensuring the protection of threatened biodiversity
values and MNES and will report on:
status of development;
progress in establishing and protecting the conservation area within the site;
translocation success;
progress in achieving the required offset areas within the site;
171
unforseen impacts on MNES and actions to address;
a summary of the outcomes for matters of national environmental
significance.
Terms of Reference will be prepared which will include provision for input from
relevant government agencies. These reporting mechanisms will contain clear
provisions for adaptive measures should proposed outcomes not be achieved for
MNES.
The report will identify perceived risks from development and report on outcomes.
The report will also identify unforseen impacts and actions to address such impacts.
The reports will be published on the program web site and provided to relevant
approval agencies including Department of Planning and Infrastructure and
Council.
A review at the end of this period will determine the need and scale of any ongoing
auditing.
6.2 Record Keeping and Review Processes
The reports must set out:
record keeping and review processes under the program
The reports prepared for the Program are to be made publicly available and
submitted to government departments for review.
6.3 Responsibilities
The reports must set out:
the person(s)/authorities responsible for these actions.
GLALC will be responsible for these actions.
172
7. Information Sources
- The reports must identify the source of information and data relied upon to
make judgments, including, but not limited to the impacts and
appropriateness of mitigation measures.
- The information and analysis contained within the reports must be informed
by all relevant current Commonwealth policies.
- All information is to be presented in a clear and unbiased manner.
A suite of resources were utilised for the preparation of this report including
databases, site/locality specific survey data and MNES profiles. Generally, the data
obtained from literature review, database assessment and current surveys of the
project area furnished an appropriate level of information to support the project
assessment. Key resources utilised for this assessment include:
OEH Atlas of NSW Wildlife;
EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool;
Survey data collected by Cumberland Ecology from November 2010 –
November 2011;
Existing survey data from adjacent land;
DEC Threatened Species Profiles;
SEWPaC Species Profiles and Threats Database;
State and Commonwealth Recovery Plans; and
Journal articles relating to species and impacts.
A full list of resources is provided in the references section of this report.
173
8. Conclusion
Despite the impacts of previous disturbance and current illegal activities within the
project area, the project would have an impact on the biodiversity values, including
MNES within the project area. The proposed Heathcote Ridge development will
remove areas of heath, woodland and forest that form habitat for a range of native
flora and fauna species. A total of 283ha of land including native vegetation and
associated habitat will be cleared within the development footprint.
Two EPBC-listed communities, two EPBC-listed threatened flora species and one
EPBC-listed threatened fauna species have been recorded within the project area
during the current surveys. A suite of other listed flora and fauna species also have
the potential to occur. The project will remove broad areas of vegetation and
associated habitat from the project area, which would result in a sizeable ecological
impact at the local level in the absence of appropriate impact mitigation measures.
However, at the sub-regional level, these impacts would not be significant as there
are broad areas of similar biodiversity values in the locality, including within
conservation reserves such as Georges River National Park, Gandangara State
Conservation Area and Heathcote National Park.
In recognition of the potential ecological impacts of the project, a package of
mitigation and compensatory measures is proposed to be implemented. The
considerations for reducing the ecological impacts followed the avoid, mitigate and
compensate hierarchy of principles. Additionally, as the project area occurs in
proximity to a substantial reserve system which provides long-term security for EECs
and threatened species, the need for a substantial land-based offset is reduced.
Some 566ha of heath, woodland and forest habitat will be permanently conserved
within the Heathcote Ridge Conservation Area. This conservation area supports
habitat for the threatened flora and fauna species known to occur within the
development footprint. Additional compensatory measures proposed include
provision of indirect offsets.
This assessment has found that there are large areas of nearby known habitats for all
of the impacted communities, threatened flora and threatened fauna within the
locality. It is recognised that the project will impact the habitat for these
communities and species. However, the combined avoidance, mitigation and
compensatory measures to be implemented are likely to sufficiently ameliorate
these impacts to the extent that no threatened species are likely to become extinct
as a result of the project.
1
References
Bennett, A. F. 1990. Habitat Corridors: Their role in wildlife management and
conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne,
Australia.
Benson, D. and L. McDougall. 1996. Ecology of Sydney Plant Species: Part 4
Dicotyledon family Fabaceae. Cunninghamia 4:552-752.
Botanic Gardens Trust. 2011. PlantNET.
Braun-Blanquet, J. 1927. Pflanzensoziologie Wien Springer.
Brooker, M. and D. Kleinig. 1990. Field guide to eucalypts of south eastern Australia,
Volume 2. Inkata, Melbourne.
Clarke, K. R. and R. N. Gorley. 2001. PRIMER v.5 User Manual/Tutorial Version 5.
PRIMER-E, Plymouth.
Clarke, K. R. and R. N. Gorley. 2006. Primer v6: User Manual/Tutorial. Primer-E Ltd,
Plymouth.
Clarke, K. R. and R. M. Warwick. 2001. Change in Marine Communities: An Approach
to Statistical Analysis and Interpretation. 2nd Edition. Primer-E Ltd, Plymouth.
Cumberland Ecology. 2008. GLALC Land in Menai, Barden Ridge and Lucas Heights
- Literature Review of Flora and Fauna Constraints. Cumberland Ecology Pty
Ltd, Carlingford Court, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2004. Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for
Developments and Activities (Working Draft). New South Wales Department
of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005a. Acacia pubescens - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
DEC (NSW). 2005b. Broad-headed Snake - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
DEC (NSW). 2005c. Bynoe's Wattle - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hustrville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005d. Camfield's Stringybark - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
DEC (NSW). 2005e. Deane's Paperbark - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005f. Giant Burrowing Frog - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005g. Hairy Geebung - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005h. Koala - profile. Department of Environment and Conservation,
Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005i. Large-eared Pied Bat - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
DEC (NSW). 2005j. Leucopogon exolasius - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW).
DEC (NSW). 2005k. Shale Sandstone Transition Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion -
Profile. Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.
2
DEC (NSW). 2005l. Spotted-tailed Quoll - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation, Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005m. Swift Parrot - profile. Department of Environment and
Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
DEC (NSW). 2005n. Sydney Plains Greenhood - profile. Department of Environment
and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville, NSW.
DEC (NSW). 2005o. Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest - profile. Department of
Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
DECC. 2008. Rapid Fauna Habitat Assessment of the Sydney Metropolitan
Catchment Management Authority Area. Department of Environment and
Climate Change, Hurstville, NSW.
DECC (NSW). 2008. Recovery Plan for the Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).
Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney, NSW.
DECCW. 2010a. NSW Climate Impact Profile. Department of Environment, Climate
Change and Water, Sydney, NSW.
DECCW. 2010b. Priorities for Biodiversity Adaption to Climate Change. Department
of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney, NSW.
DECCW. 2010c. Recovery plan for Melaleuca deanei. Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water, Sydney, NSW.
DECCW (NSW). 2009a. Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox
Pteropus poliocephalus. Department of Environment and Climate Change,
Sydney, NSW.
DECCW (NSW). 2009b. The Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan
Catchment Management Authority Area. Draft., Department of Environment,
Climate Change and Water. Hurstville, NSW.
DEH. 2005. Turpentine-Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. Department of
Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Department of Defence. 2006. Holsworthy Training Area: Heritage and Environment
Management Plan. Department of Defence, Canberra, ACT.
DEWHA. 2009. Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant Impact
Guidelines 1.1. Environment Australia, Canberra, ACT.
DIPNR. 2004. Biodiversity of the Georges River Catchment: Terrestrial Biodiversity.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney, NSW.
Ewers, R. M. and R. K. Didham. 2006. Confounding factors in the detection of species
responses to habitat fragmentation. Biological Reviews 81:117-142.
French, K., B. Pellow, and M. Henderson. 2001. Vegetation of the Holsworthy Military
Area. Cunninghamia 6:893-939.
Gondwana Consulting. 2010. Mill Creek Catchment Strategic Management Plan.
Gondwana Consulting Pty Ltd, Narrabeen, NSW.
Harden, G. J. 1990-1993. Flora of NSW Volumes 1-4. New South Wales University Press,
Kensington.
Harris Environmental Consulting. 2011. Riparian Corridor Assessment for Heathcote
Ridge. Harris Environmental Consulting, Jamberoo, NSW.
Lee, T., K. R. Zenger, R. Close, M. Jones, and D. N. Phalen. 2010. Defining spatial
genetic structure and management units for vulnerable koala (Phascolarctos
cinereus) populations in the Sydney region, Australia. Wildlife Research 37:156-
165.
3
Morcombe, M. 2007. Field Guide to Australian Birds. Steve Parish Publishing.
Murcia, C. 1995. Edge effects in fragmented forests: implications for conservation.
Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10:58-62.
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. 2004. National Biodiversity and
Climate Change Action Plan 2004-2007. Department of the Environment and
Heritage, Canberra, ACT.
NSW NPWS. 2004. Endangered Ecological Community Information -Shale Sandstone
Transition Forest. New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.
NSW Scientific Committee. 1998. Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest - endangered
ecological community listing. Department of Environment and Conservation
(NSW), Hurstville, NSW.
NSW Scientific Committee. 2000. Anthroprogenic climate change - key threatening
process listing. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW),
Hurstville, NSW.
NSW Scientific Committee. 2004a. Acacia bynoeana (a shrub) - endangered
species listing. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
NSW Scientific Committee. 2004b. Grey-headed Flying-fox - vulnerable species
listing. Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville.
OEH. 2011. Atlas of NSW Wildlife.
Pitney Bowes Software Inc. 2010. MapInfo. Pitney Bowes Inc.
Richardson, F. J., R. G. Richardson, and R. C. H. Shepherd, editors. 2006. Weeds of
the South-east: An identification guide for Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson,
Victoria.
SEWPaC. 2011a. Acacia bynoeana in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011b. Acacia pubescens in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011c. Chalinolobus dwyeri in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Population and Communities,
Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011d. Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population) in Species
Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011e. EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool. Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011f. Haliaeetus leucogaster in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra.
SEWPaC. 2011g. Heleioporus australiacus in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011h. Hirundapus caudacutus in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra.
4
SEWPaC. 2011i. Hoplocephalus bungaroides in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011j. Lathamus discolor in Species Profile and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra.
SEWPaC. 2011k. Persoonia hirsuta in Species Profiles and Threats Database.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra, NSW.
SEWPaC. 2011l. Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest in Community and Species Profile
and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT.
SEWPaC. 2011m. Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion in
Community and Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra,
ACT.
Sutherland Shire Council. 2004. State of the Environment Report 2003/04. Sutherland
Shire Council, Sutherland.
Sutherland Shire Council. 2008. State of the Shire 2007/08 Report. Sutherland Shire
Council, Sutherland, NSW.
Sutherland Shire Council. unpublished. Plan of Management: Natural Areas - Lucas
Heights Conservation Area.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee. 2008. Approved Conservation Advice for
Pterostylis saxicola (Sydney Plains Greenhood). Department of Environment,
Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
Urbis. 2009. Heathcote Ridge Employment, Economic and Social Benefits Study.
Urbis, Sydney, NSW.
