Riparian Assessment · Waterfront land includes the bed and bank of any river, lake or estuary and...

Riparian Assessment

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Prepared for NSW Department of Planning and Environment

September 2018

L o we s Cr e e k a n d M ar yl a n d s P r e c i n c t R i p ar i a n As s e ss m e n t

© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T R A L IA P T Y LT D ii

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Riparian Assessment

Project Number 3779

Project Manager David Bonjer 02 8536 8668

Prepared by Byron Heffernan, Ian Dixon, Katherine Lang

Reviewed by David Bonjer

Approved by David Bonjer

Status FINAL

Version Number 3

Last saved on 21 September 2018

Cover photo Top left: View east from south west corner of the site. Middle left: River Flat Eucalypt Forest. Bottom left: Cumberland Plain Woodland (photos taken Alex Gorey April 2016) Right: Lowes Creek (photo taken Ian Dixon April 2016)

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia September 2018. Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Riparian Assessment. Prepared for NSW Department of Planning and Environment’.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd.

Disclaimer

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and NSW Department of Planning and Environment. The scope of services was defined in consultation with NSW Department of Planning and Environment, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 29/9/2015


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T R A L IA P T Y LT D iii

Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Description of the project .............................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Statutory framework ..................................................................................................................... 9

2 Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 Field investigations and desktop mapping ................................................................................. 10

3 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Field investigations and desktop riparian corridor mapping ....................................................... 13

4 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 21

4.1 Indicative Layout Plan ................................................................................................................ 21

4.2 Precinct Plan under the Growth Centres SEPP ......................................................................... 23

4.3 Development Control Plan .......................................................................................................... 23

4.4 Exemptions under the Water Management Act 2000 ................................................................ 23

4.5 Riparian ownership and management ........................................................................................ 24

5 ILP Review ................................................................................................................................. 25

References ............................................................................................................................................. 28

Appendix A Detailed Statutory Framework ........................................................................................ 29

Appendix B DPI Water Correspondence ............................................................................................. 35

Appendix C Reach Photos ................................................................................................................... 38

List of figures Figure 1: Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2 The Strahler System .................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3 Surveyed Drainage Lines ........................................................................................................... 12

Figure 4 Strahler Stream Order of Mapped Watercourses ...................................................................... 15

Figure 5 Field Validated Watercourses and Condition ............................................................................. 16

Figure 6 Existing Top of Bank and Riparian Corridors ............................................................................. 17

Figure 7 Native vegetation in the riparian buffer zone ............................................................................. 18


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T R A L IA P T Y LT D iv

Figure 8 Riparian protection priorities ...................................................................................................... 22

Figure 9 Exhibition ILP ............................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 10 Riparian ILP Corridors.............................................................................................................. 27

List of tables Table 1: DPI-Water Recommended riparian corridor widths ................................................................... 11

Table 2 Condition of reaches of Lowes Creek and Tributaries (for full description and further condition categories refer to the Biodiversity Assessment) ..................................................................................... 19

Table 4 Riparian Outcomes ...................................................................................................................... 25


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T R A L IA P T Y LT D v

Abbreviations ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

CRZ Core Riparian Zone

BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

DECCW (Former) Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water- now Office of Environment and Heritage

DNR (Former) Department of Natural Resources- now Office of Environment and Heritage

DP&I Department of Planning and Infrastructure

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

ENV Existing Native Vegetation

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GCDC Growth Centres Development Code

ILP Indicative Layout Plan

NRAR Natural Resource Access Regulator

RC Riparian Corridor

RCM Riparian Corridor Matrix

RCMS Riparian Corridor Management Strategy

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

TOB Top of Bank

TSC Act NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

VB Vegetated Buffer


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T R A L IA P T Y LT D 6

1 Introduction 1.1 Descript ion of the project

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) was engaged by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) to undertake a Biodiversity Assessment and Biodiversity Conservation Assessment for Precinct Planning of the Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct. This report fulfils the riparian assessment component of the overall Biodiversity Assessment for the precinct. The aim of this riparian assessment is to identify key riparian constraints, assess any impacts and provide recommendations for the Indicative Layout Plan (referred to as the ILP).

In addition to the biodiversity assessment, the specific objectives for the riparian assessment are to:

undertake a Riparian Corridors Assessment to inform the precinct planning process andpreparation of the ILP;

work in collaboration with the Water Cycle Management Specialist Contractor, to mapriparian corridors using the Strahler system and provide recommendations and planningcontrols for riparian lands; and

work in collaboration with the Water Cycle Management Specialist Contractor to identifysuitable locations for stormwater management such as detention basins, stormwater outletstructures and constructed wetlands.

This report demonstrates the objectives are achieved through: Refinement of Department of Environment Climate Change and Water’s (DECCW) strategic

assessment of riparian lands; Riparian corridor mapping; Consultation with the Natural Resource Access Regulator (NRAR); Potential planning controls for riparian lands; and Targeted assessment and recommendations for the ILP.

1.2 Study Area

The Lowes Creek and MarylandPrecinct consists of 517 hectares and is located on the Northern Road, North of the Oran Park Precinct within the South West Sydney Growth Centre. Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct (herein referred to as Precinct) has recently been released under the State Government’s Precinct Acceleration Protocol (PAP).

The PAP has been developed by Government to allow early release of precincts of the Growth Centres for development. In order to secure the early release of the Precinct Macarthur Developments Pty Ltd has entered into a Voluntary Planning Agreement to provide contributions to fully fund the Precinct Planning process.

Partial release of the precinct by the minister will enable precinct planning studies to be carried out across the entire proposed release area. Planning for the Precinct is underway and involves the preparation of an Indicative Layout Plan (ILP), numerous planning documents, including a Development Control Plan and an amendment of the SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) to facilitate the formal rezoning of the site.



The site is completely biodiversity certified under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and contains patches of Existing Native Vegetation (ENV), stretches of flood prone land with Lowes Creek flowing from the west through the middle of the site to the eastern boundary with a number of tributaries and flows punctuated with large and small farm dams.

Lowes Creek, the dominant watercourse within the study area, flows east, through the Precinct. The study area is part of the upper floodplain of the South Creek subcatchment within the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment. This particular subcatchment “is perhaps the most degraded subcatchment in the Hawkesbury Nepean”. The majority of the streams are "meandering vertical" river channel types streams, which are under great threat as they are confined largely to the Cumberland Plain in the Hawkesbury Nepean catchment

Figure 1 illustrates the broad location of the study area.



Figure 1: Study Area



1.3 Statutory framework

Precinct Planning in the Sydney Region Growth Centres occurs under the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP 2006. Precinct Planning aims to deliver the urban development outcomes sought from the growth centres, whilst providing environmental protection to watercourses.

All future DA’s that affect ‘waterfront land’ as defined by the Water Management Act 2000 will be assessed by NSW Natural Resource Access Regulator (NRAR) – part of the Department of Primary Industries. Waterfront land includes the bed and bank of any river, lake or estuary and all land within 40 metres of the highest bank of the river, lake or estuary. A Controlled Activity Approval must be obtained from NRAR before commencing work on waterfront land, unless that work can be carried out under one of the exemptions.

NRAR have developed controlled activity guidelines for riparian corridors, its purpose is to provide flexibility and certainty for the developer/landholder by providing for the minimum requirements. This assessment has been carried out with the objective of aligning the riparian corridor network with the guidelines. The guideline for riparian corridors is based on the Strahler Stream Order categorisation and outlines a set of criteria for riparian corridors based on stream order. The guidelines use a riparian corridor matrix (RCM) which enables applicants to identify certain works and activities that can occur of waterfront land and in riparian corridors. Where controlled activity applications are presented in accordance with the RCM and other NRAR guidelines, they will be assessed under a streamlined process, which may decrease the time it takes NRAR to make a determination.

The Growth Centres SEPP has been “biodiversity-certified” by order of the Minister for the Environment under s.126G of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, thus turning off the requirements for test of significance or species impact statements. The study area does not include any ‘non-certified land’ however it does contain remnant native vegetation and mapped Existing Native Vegetation (ENV). These areas of vegetation have been considered in this study in order to ensure consistency between this assessment and the biodiversity assessment report (ELA 2018).

This Riparian Assessment includes:

Determination of the location where first order streams on the 1:25,000 topographic maps meet the definition of a “river” under the Water Management Act 2000.

Classification of watercourses under the Strahler system of ordering watercourses and identification of riparian corridor widths.

Preliminary scaled mapping of watercourses, top of bank, riparian corridor boundaries.

See Appendix A for a more detailed synthesis of the Statutory Framework.



2 Methods 2.1 Field investigat ions and desktop mapping

The key outcome of this assessment it to validate the drainage mapped on 1:25,00km topographic across the site and assigning appropriate riparian corridors based on mapped top of bank (TOB) to those which are considered to be a river.

The streams within the study area were assigned a stream order value in line with the Strahler system. Under the Strahler system, numbering begins at the top of the catchment with the smallest headwaters being assigned as a 1st Order. Stream number increases downstream within the catchment as tributaries merge and form larger streams (refer to Figure 2).

Figure 2 The Strahler System

The riparian corridor delineation for the site involved the following steps:

Classify and map each watercourse using the Strahler System Stream Order classification. The pre-development 1:25k topographic map was used to determine the appropriate stream order.

Adjacent riparian corridors were identified and mapped for each stream reach as follows: o 1st Order – 10 metres (either side from TOB) o 2nd Order – 20 metres (either side from TOB) o 3rd Order – 30 metres (either side from TOB) o 4th+ Order – 40 metres (either side from TOB)

Each category has a recommended minimum riparian corridor requirement as specified by the controlled activity riparian corridor guideline methodology (refer to Table 1). The riparian zone is divided into two components. The inner 50% is the land contained within and adjacent to the channel and the outer 50%, is located on the outer edge of the RZ to protect the environmental integrity of the watercourse.



A field inspection was carried out in April 2016 by ELA of all the mapped watercourses on site to determine which drainage lines fit the definition of a river. Refer to Figure 3 for the watercourse identification and surveyed drainage lines. A survey of TOB was provided by Cardno for this assessment and refined by ELA. The TOB mapping has been used as the basis for the initial riparian buffer delineation and riparian corridor boundaries.

In addition to the categorisation and TOB mapping, the aquatic habitat survey included assigning an overall condition class to each reach of the watercourses on site consistent with guidelines used by the NSW Department of Water and Land Conservation within the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment (NSW DWLC 2000) as specified below:

Near Intact Condition – Streams in a natural or near natural condition. Indicative characteristics are; intact range of native vegetation, slow rate of geomorphic change and hydrologic conditions unaltered.

Good Condition – Streams with self adjusting river forms and processes and relatively intact vegetation associations. Streams with character and behaviour that befit their setting with high potential for ecological diversity. Dams reservoirs or weirs may alter hydrologic conditions.

Moderate Condition – Streams with localised degradation of character and behaviour, typically marked by modified patterns of geomorphic units. Vegetation associations and coverage are poor and hydrologic conditions have been altered.

Degraded Condition – These reaches generally have one or more of the following characteristics: abnormal or accelerated geomorphic instability (i.e. prone to planform change and/or bank or bed erosion), excessively high volumes of coarse bedload which blankets the bed reducing habitat diversity, low levels of bank vegetation, heavy weed infestation and artificially modified channel.

Once riparian corridor boundaries were identified, mapping of the inner and outer 50% of the corridor was carried out and the amount of native vegetation existing within them were calculated using the field validated vegetation data from the biodiversity assessment.

Table 1: NRAR Recommended riparian corridor widths

Stream Order

Minimum Riparian Width

(each side of the watercourse)

Total Riparian Corridor Width

1st Order 10m Riparian Zone 20m + channel width

2nd Order 20m Riparian Zone 40m + channel width

3rd Order 30m Riparian Zone 60m + channel width

4th+ Order 40m Riparian Zone 80m + channel width



Figure 3 Surveyed Drainage Lines



3 Results 3.1 Field investigat ions and desktop riparian corridor mapping

The results of the Strahler stream order classification of mapped drainage lines are shown in Figure 4. Eco Logical Australia provided a map of proposed stream ordering to NRAR and received confirmation that the stream ordering was correct.

Lowes Creek forms the key drainage corridor flowing west to east across the middle of the Precinct and was a category 5 for the downstream half of its length and 4th order upstream to the boundary of the site. Two other watercourses Z9 and Z10 were found to be 4th order streams and flow into Lowes Creek from the south, they are also the two reaches which contain large farm dams for the bulk of their extent within the site.

There are also a number of 2nd order streams found in the north and south of the site, the key 2nd order reaches of value are considered to be Z1 and Z7 which are in moderate overall condition and also have remnant native vegetation remaining along their riparian zones. The remainder of the watercourses on site are 1st order streams with often limited or no clear morphology remaining due to long term use of the site for farming activities including grazing, clearing and the creation of numerous farm dams of varying size and stability.

The results of the field validation exercise along with stream condition are shown in Figure 5 and Table

2. Further descriptions and site photos of some reaches are contained in Appendix C. Lowes Creek within the study area has been much altered from its natural state due to previous structural works along the creek (e.g. to provide for watering points and crossings for local land holders), removal of riparian vegetation, increases in sediment and nutrient transport through the system due to high pollutant loads, and various other factors. Nonetheless, the creek has value as a component of riparian corridors that exist in the region and that are important in the movement of local flora and fauna. The creek also provides instream habitat for local fish species, aquatic macrophytes and aquatic macroinvertebrates all of which contribute to local ecosystem health.

Twelve reaches which were originally mapped as drainage lines on the site were not considered to fit the definition of a river. Some of these reaches were considered a river for the downstream portion only, this was commonly found where a reach contained an online farm dam with no upstream morphology e.g. reach J was split post field inspection to a river only downstream of a dam. Reaches which were not considered a river on site were excluded from further assessment and TOB mapping.

The TOB mapping provided by Cardno and the Strahler stream order where combined to create a base case riparian corridor network across the site. The results of the base case mapping exercise are shown in Figure 6. The key corridor along Lowes Creek and the two 4th order tributaries (Z9 and Z10) were buffered out 40m from TOB where it was available and from the centre line where there was no TOB mapped (due to the large dams or no access). Similarly, the riparian corridor buffers were applied to TOB (where it was available) or the centreline for all reaches which were considered to be a river in accordance with Table 1. Mapping of the inner and outer 50% as show in Figure 6 can be used to assess how the proposed works under an ILP will fit with the NRAR Controlled Activity Matrix and Averaging Rule (this is further discussed in Section 4).

The total hectares of riparian land in the Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct is 84.94 hectares. Of this area, the total existing native vegetation within the base case riparian corridor network is 21.35 ha. This is comprised of predominantly River Flat Eucalypt Forest (18.45 ha) in good condition along Lowes Creek



and some Shale Hills and Shale Plains Woodland along the minor tributaries (2.9 ha) (Figure 7). This represents the ‘base case’ against which the ILP will be compared to demonstrate that a reasonable riparian outcome has been achieved.



Figure 4 Strahler Stream Order of Mapped Watercourses



Figure 5 Field Validated Watercourses and Condition



Figure 6 Existing Top of Bank and Riparian Corridors



Figure 7 Native vegetation in the riparian buffer zone



Table 2 Condition of reaches of Lowes Creek and Tributaries (for full description and further condition categories refer to the Biodiversity Assessment)

Reach Strahler Condition (not a river, degraded, deg-mod, moderate, mod-good, good) Riparian Corridor Requirement

A 1 Degraded Offsite

B 1 Not a river N/A

C 1 Not a river N/A

D 1 Not a river N/A

E 1 Not a river N/A

F 1 Degraded Total RC 20m + channel

G 1 Not a river N/A

H1 1 Degraded Total RC 20m + channel

H2 1 Not a river N/A

I1 1 Degraded Total RC 20m + channel

12 1 Not a river N/A

J1 1 Degraded Total RC 20m + channel

J2 1 Not a river N/A

K 1 Not a river N/A

L 1 Not a river N/A

M 1 Not a river N/A

N1 1 Degraded Total RC 20m + channel

N2 1 Not a river N/A

O 1 Degraded Total RC 20m + channel

P 1 Not a river N/A

Q 1 Not a river N/A

R 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

S 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

T 1 Not a river N/A

U1 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

U2 1 Not a river N/A

V 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

W 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

X 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

Y1 1 Degraded-moderate Total RC 20m + channel

Y2 1 Not a river N/A

Z1 2 Moderate Total RC 40m + channel

Z2a 2 Degraded-moderate Total RC 40m + channel

Z2b 2 Not a river N/A


Z4 2 Not a river N/A

Z5a 2 Degraded Total RC 40m + channel

Z5b 2 Not a river N/A

Z6 2 Degraded-moderate Total RC 40m + channel





Z9 4 Degraded-moderate Total RC 80m + channel






4 Recommendations This chapter contains recommendations to guide the Precinct Planning process. The recommendations are specific to the Lowes Creek Maryland precinct, but are generally consistent with the approaches to riparian protection and management elsewhere in the Sydney Region Growth Centres. The recommendations have been categorised according to the following documents that are prepared as part of the Precinct Planning package:

The Indicative Layout Plan The Precinct Plan under the Growth Centres SEPP The Development Control Plan Water Management Act 2000 Land ownership and management

4.1 Indicative Layout Plan

Riparian corridors provide many functions that are beneficial to urban areas including ecosystem and water quality services, visual amenity, reducing urban heat island effects and providing recreational opportunities. The Sydney Region Growth Centres have been identified as the location of significant future urban development. Balancing the development outcomes with environmental protection is an important outcome for precinct planning.

As stated in chapter 3 of this report, the Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct has 84.94 hectares of riparian land. The ILP should aim to protect this same amount of riparian corridor. The environmental and social benefits of riparian corridors are most cost-effectively delivered by protecting and managing larger watercourses that have aquatic habitat and vegetated riparian zones rather than rehabilitating smaller degraded watercourses which often end up being located on fragmented private lands with little prospect of long term management.

It is recommended that conservation efforts be focussed on the larger watercourses. Figure 8 identifies a priority for riparian corridor retention based on stream order (higher order = higher priority), condition (low condition = low priority) and connectivity.

The ILP should aim to retain at least 84 hectares of riparian land using the recommendations in Figure 8 to guide decision making. Riparian outcomes can be further enhanced by conserving vegetation on land adjoining riparian corridors.



Figure 8 Riparian protection priorities



4.2 Precinct Plan under the Growth Centres SEPP

Following finalisation of the Indicative Layout Plan, protection of the retained riparian zones should be achieved via the Precinct Plan as follows:

Riparian areas are to have a land use zone that prohibits development that would significantly impact on the riparian area. The preference for riparian zones is E2 Environmental Conservation. In certain circumstances, the SP2 and RE1 zone may also be appropriate.

Existing Native Vegetation in the riparian zone is to be protected via clause 6.3 in the Camden Precinct Plan. Other vegetation in the riparian zone is to be protected via clause 6.2 – Native Vegetation Retention in the Precinct plan.

Planning controls in the Precinct Plan Zoning should allow for infrastructure crossings and stormwater discharge points. Sufficient flexibility for minor alignment changes following site survey should be allowed.

4.3 Development Control Plan

The Development Control Plan for the precinct should contain a chapter on riparian areas. The following wording is to be considered as a basis for the chapter. These controls would apply to the waterways identified for protection in the ILP.

Objectives of the waterways and riparian land chapter should be to:

protect waterways from further degradation and where necessary improve their environmental function to mimic natural systems

conserve, protect and enhance existing native riparian vegetation and associated habitat restore and rehabilitate degraded riparian land and only allow development which is compatible

with the conservation values of these areas protect and improve water quality maintain and enhance bed and bank stability of the waterways;

The waterways and riparian land chapter should include a Riparian Land Map which clearly identifies the riparian corridor widths that are to be provided along the waterways;

The waterways and riparian land chapter should require the preparation and implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan prepared in accordance with the DPI-Water Guidelines for Riparian Corridors on Waterfront Land and require the use of local provenance native species for rehabilitation.

4.4 Exemptions under the Water Management Act 2000

The Water Management Act 2000 requires a Controlled Activity Approval for development on waterfront land (ie land within 40m of the top of bank of a river). This is necessary to ensure development does not degrade riparian zones and that any impacts are mitigated. However, the requirement for a CAA has little benefit if the ‘waterfront land’ relates to a river that is proposed for removal in the ILP. To streamline assessment processes at the Development Application stage, consideration should be given to an exemption on Controlled Activity Approvals for impacts on waterfront land associated with watercourses that are not proposed to be retained. Such exemptions can be made under Schedule 5 of the Water Management Regulation 2011.



4.5 Riparian ownership and management

Development of the precinct provides an opportunity to consider the best model for long-term conservation and management of the riparian zones, including ownership. In other precincts there have been several approaches to riparian lands including:

Retain in private ownership – either in large tracts or subdivided Public ownership Community title Trust ownership

Whilst each of these ownership models can deliver conservation outcomes, the retention of land in private ownership or Community Title limits the public access that would allow for recreation outcomes. Creating ownership structures that allow for public ownership may be more difficult, as issues such as long term funding of management and liabilities become important. However, if solutions can be found to these issues public ownership has the potential to deliver significantly better recreation outcomes in the precinct such as walking or bike paths through the riparian area.

Management of riparian zones should include rehabilitation of the retained vegetation. The preparation of Vegetation Management Plans should be required by the DCP and be prepared in accordance with the NRAR Guidelines for Vegetation Management Plans.

The design of water quality treatment should consider the protection and possible enhancement of fish habitat and fish passage. The NSW Fisheries have published the Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (2013) update). Chapter 6 of the policy relates to urban streams and stormwater with specific recommendations for maintaining fish passage in urban streams. Whilst much of the content of the guidelines will be more applicable at the detailed design stage of subdivision, the ILP should be aware of the principles for maintaining fish habitat and fish passage, particularly in Lowes Creek which is identified as key fish habitat by DPI.



5 ILP Review and conclusions The indicative layout plan (ILP) produced for exhibition is shown in Figure 9. Areas of conservation within the precinct will include the Environmental Conservation (E2) zone and the Riparian Corridors.

As stated above, the precinct currently contains 84.94 ha of riparian corridor. This is the base case for the site as shown in Figure 8. The aim of the strategic riparian corridor network is to maintain an equivalent area of riparian corridor within the site by balancing and offsetting the loss of smaller streams with wider corridor preservation and restoration focused on higher order watercourses.

For the purposes of this review, the E2 zones (excluding the SP2 drainage basins) has been considered the overarching riparian corridor outcome for the site. Table 3 demonstrates that the E2 zones proposed in the ILP consists of 62.14 ha of retained base case corridors plus and an additional 22.15 ha of land to be zoned E2.

Overall, the exhibition ILP provides 84.28 ha of land within the E2 zoning, which is 0.66ha short of the original base case riparian corridor assessment area of 84.94 ha. This difference is not considered to be significant based on the relatively broad scale of the mapping exercise; the better connectivity that will be provided across the site by removing the large existing dams; reconstructing a functioning watercourse and associated terrestrial riparian corridors; and importantly the significant amount of riparian zone rehabilitation that will occur.

ELA understand that the precinct exhibition package will propose that the areas of E2 zones shown in the ILP will become non-certified land; the ENV shown in Figure 10 will become listed under the GC SEPP as Existing Native Vegetation; and the AHCVV and cleared areas within the E2 zones will become NVP areas.

Implementation of the ILP will result in the removal of degraded watercourses and a significant improvement in the riparian condition of the other watercourses on site.

Table 3 Riparian Outcomes

Conservation Riparian Corridor Enhanced riparian

corridor Total

AHCVV 5.12 0.84 5.96

ENV 19.51 2.08 21.58

Vegetation Rehabilitation 37.51 19.23 56.74

Total 62.14 22.15 84.28



Figure 9 Exhibition ILP



Figure 10 Riparian ILP Corridors



References DLWC (2000). Geomorphic Categorisation of Streams in the Hawkesbury Nepean Catchment. Department of Land and Water Conservation.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (2007). Growth Centres Conservation Plan. Prepared for NSW Growth Centres Commission.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (2016). Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment. Prepared for NSW Department of Planning and the Environment.

Growth Centres Commission (GCC) (2006). Growth Centres Development Code. Growth Centers Commission.

NSW Office of Water (NOW) (2012). Controlled activities – Guidelines for riparian corridors. NSW Office of Water.

NSW Rural Fire Service, 2006. Planning for Bushfire Protection.



Appendix A Detailed Statutory Framework COMMONWEALTH

Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) establishes a process for assessing the environmental impact of activities and developments where ‘matters of national environmental significance’ (MNES) may be affected. The EPBC Act lists endangered ecological communities, threatened and migratory species that have the potential to occur, or are known to occur on a site.

The approval of both stages of the strategic assessment occurred on the 28th February, 2012. This approval essentially means that the Commonwealth is satisfied that the conservation and development outcomes that will be achieved through development of the Growth Centres Precincts will satisfy their requirements for environmental protection under the EPBC Act. So that, provided development activity proceeds in accordance with the Growth Centres requirements (such as the Biodiversity Certification Order, the Growth Centres SEPP and DCPs, Growth Centres Development Code etc) then there is no

requirement to assess the impact of development activities on matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) and hence no requirement for referral of activities to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE). The requirement for assessment and approval of threatened species and endangered ecological communities under the EPBC Act has now been “turned off” by the approval of the Strategic Assessment. STATE

Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning legislation for the state, providing a framework for the overall environmental planning and assessment of development proposals. Various legislative instruments, such as the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act), are integrated with EP&A Act and have been reviewed separately.

In determining a development application, the consent authority is required to take into consideration the matters listed under Section 79C of the EP&A Act that are relevant to the application. Key considerations include:

Any environmental planning instrument, including drafts The likely impacts of the development The suitability of the site for the development Any submissions made in accordance with the EP&A Act or regulations The public interest

Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act)

In November 2016 the NSW parliament passed the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act). This new legislation replaced the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and took effect 25 August 2017. Among other things, the BC Act introduces new requirements for biodiversity assessment and requires proponents to offset significant biodiversity impacts through the purchase and retirement of



biodiversity credits. The government has recently exhibited regulations that provide further detail on the changes as well as establish the transitional arrangements.

Similarly to the TSC Act, the BC Act aims to protect and encourage the recovery of threatened species, populations and communities listed under the Act. The BC Act is integrated with the EP&A Act and requires consideration of whether a development (Part 4 of the EP&A Act 1974) or an activity (Part 5 of the EP&A Act) is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations and ecological communities or their habitat.

The schedules of the Act list species, populations and communities as endangered or vulnerable. New species, populations and communities are continually being added to the schedules of the BC Act. All developments, land use changes or activities need to be assessed to determine if they will have the potential to significantly impact on species, populations or communities listed under the Act.

Bio-certification was introduced under the TSC Act (s.126G) to confer certification on an environmental planning instrument if the Minister is satisfied that it will lead to the overall improvement or maintenance of biodiversity values – typically at a landscape scale. Under the new BC Act, existing biodiversity certified areas remain valid following the repealed TSC Act.

The effect of granting certification is that any development or activity requiring consent (Under Part 4 and 5 of the EP&A Act respectively) is automatically – development that is not likely to significantly affect threatened species. This certification removes the need to address threatened species considerations and the assessment of significance tests (s.5A of the EP&A Act), including the preparation of species impact statements (SIS).

State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 (Growth Centres

SEPP)

The Growth Centres State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (referred to as the ‘Growth Centres SEPP’) has been ‘bio-certified’ by order of the Minister for the Environment under s.126G of the TSC Act. The mechanism for achieving this is outlined in the Growth Centres Conservation Plan (Eco Logical Australia, 2007) and the conditions for bio-certification are documented in the Ministers order for consent1. Bio-certification negates the requirement for impact assessment under s.5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 thus turning off the requirements for seven part tests or species impact statements.

The entire Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct is certified. The site contains 2 Endangered Ecological Communities (Cumberland Plain Woodland and Alluvial Woodland).

Each precinct needs to be assessed against the conditions of the Biodiversity Conservation Order to ensure that the planned rezoning and subsequent development of the precinct complies. This is undertaken through the completion of a Biodiversity Certification Consistency Report.

Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)

The Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) aims to conserve, develop and share the fishery resources of NSW for the benefit of present and future generations. The FM Act defines ‘fish’ as any marine, estuarine or freshwater fish or other aquatic animal life at any stage of their life history. This includes

1 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/biocertordwsgcentres.pdf

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/biocertordwsgcentres.pdf



insects, molluscs (eg. oysters), crustaceans, echinoderms, and aquatic polychaetes (eg. beachworms), but does not include whales, mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians or species specifically excluded (eg. some dragonflies are protected under the TSC Act instead of the FM Act). Under this act, if any activity occurs that will block fish passage, then a permit under this Act will be required.

Water Management Act 2000

The NSW Water Management Act 2000 has replaced the provisions of the Rivers and Foreshores Improvement Act 1948. The Water Management Act 2000 and Water Act 1912 control the extraction of water, the use of water, the construction of works such as dams and weirs and the carrying out of activities in or near water sources in New South Wales. ‘Water sources' are defined very broadly and include any river, lake, estuary, place where water occurs naturally on or below the surface of the ground and coastal waters.

If a ‘controlled activity' is proposed on ‘waterfront land', an approval is required under the Water Management Act (s91). ‘Controlled activities' include:

the construction of buildings or carrying out of works; the removal of material or vegetation from land by excavation or any other means; the deposition of material on land by landfill or otherwise; or any activity that affects the quantity or flow of water in a water source.

‘Waterfront land' is defined as the bed of any river or lake, and any land lying between the river or lake and a line drawn parallel to and forty metres (40m) inland from either the highest bank or shore (in relation to non-tidal waters) or the mean high water mark (in relation to tidal waters). It is an offence to carry out a controlled activity on waterfront land except in accordance with an approval.

The riparian corridors that exist within Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct have been mapped according to their stream order in the above report.

Guidelines for Riparian Corridors on Waterfront Land (2012)

The NRAR riparian guidelines provide considerable flexibility in how riparian corridors can be used and making it clearer for applicants to determine NRAR controlled activity approval requirements. These simplify the controlled activities application and assessment process, provide greater flexibility, help make more land available for housing, support floodplain, stormwater and bush fire management, and allow riparian corridors to be used for public amenity, whilst continuing to deliver environmental outcomes required under the WMA.

The guidelines do not encompass specific planning controls, however they do contain objectives and a guide to works and activities allowable on waterfront land. The overarching objective of the controlled activities provisions of the WMA is to establish and preserve the integrity of riparian corridors. Ideally the environmental functions of riparian corridors should be maintained or rehabilitated by applying the following principles:

Seek to maintain or rehabilitate a RC/VRZ with fully structured native vegetation in accordance with Table 1.

Seek to minimise disturbance and harm to the recommended RC/VRZ.



Minimise the number of creek crossings and provide perimeter road separating development from the RC/VRZ.

locate services and infrastructure outside of the RC/VRZ. Within the RC/VRZ, provide multiple service easements and/or utilise road crossings where possible.

Treat stormwater runoff before discharging into the RC/VRZ. NRAR however, does allow for a range of works and activities on waterfront land and in riparian corridors to better meet the needs of the community, so long as they have minimal harm as outlined the Riparian Corridor Matrix.

The following principles are contained within the guideline to be considered in conjunction with matrix:

Riparian Corridor (RC) off-setting for non RC uses: Non-riparian uses, such as Asset Protection Zones are allowed within the outer 50% of the VRZ, so long as offsets are provided in accordance with the averaging rule (see Figure 6).

Cycleways & paths: Cycleways or paths no wider than 4m (total disturbance footprint) can be built in the outer 50% of the VRZ.

Detention basins: Detention basins can be built in the outer 50% of the VRZ or online where indicated (refer to NOW Controlled activities: Guidelines for outlet structures and Controlled activities: Guidelines for in-stream works). Online basins must: o be dry and vegetated; o be for temporary flood detention only with no permanent water holding; o have an equivalent VRZ for the corresponding watercourse order; and o not be used for water quality treatment purposes.

Stormwater outlet structures & essential services: Stormwater outlets or essential services are allowed in the RC. Works for essential services on a 4th order or greater stream are to be undertaken by directional drilling or tied to existing crossings (refer to DPI Water Controlled activities: Guidelines for laying pipes and cables in watercourses and DPI Water Controlled activities: Guidelines for outlet structures).

Stream realignment: Indicates that a watercourse may be realigned (refer to DPI Water Controlled activities: Guidelines for in-stream works).

Road crossings: Indicates permitted road crossing methods (refer to DPI Water Controlled activities: Guidelines for watercourse crossings and DPI Fisheries Policy and Guidelines for Fish Friendly Waterway Crossings (1999) for Class 1 and 2 waterways).

Non riparian corridor works and activities can be authorised within the outer riparian corridor so long as the average width of the vegetated riparian zone can be achieved over the length of the watercourse within the development site. That is, where appropriate 50% of the outer vegetated riparian zone width may be used for non-riparian uses including asset protection zones, cycleways, paths, roads and development lots.

An equivalent area is required to be offset on the site and must be connected to the riparian corridor. The inner 50% of the vegetated riparian zone is required to be fully protected and vegetated with native endemic riparian plant species in order to satisfy the minimum setback requirements to maintain bed and bank stability and minimal harm.



Controlled Activity Riparian Corridor Matrix

Stream order

Vegetated Riparian

Zone (VRZ)

RC off-setting

for non RC uses

Cycleways

& paths

Detention basins Stormwater

outlet structures &

essential services

Stream

Re-alignment

Road crossings Only within 50% outer VRZ

Online Any Culvert Bridge

1st 10m ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

2nd 20m ● ● ● ● ● ●

3rd 30m ● ● ● ● ● ●

4th + 40m ● ● ● ● ● ●

Averaging Rule. Source NRAR Controlled Activity Guidelines.

Growth Centres Development Code 2006

The Growth Centres Development Code was produced by the Growth Centres Commission in 2006. The Development Code was produced to guide the planning and urban design in the North West and South West Growth Centres.

The Development Code includes objectives and provisions that support the retention of as much native vegetation, habitat and riparian areas within the precinct through incorporation into land use planning outcomes such as lower density development in these areas, subdivision patterns, road design, local



parks, and other areas required to be set aside for community uses without adversely affecting the development yield of areas.

As a requirement under the Development Code, Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct will need to demonstrate how the biodiversity and other values of areas identified by the SEPP will be protected, maintained and enhanced. Key issues will include boundary management (e.g. buffers to surrounding development), bush fire and water sensitive urban design (WSUD) (GCC 2006).

Growth Centres Conservation Plan 2007

Under the Growth Centres Conservation Plan (January 2007), the vegetation within Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct has been identified as ‘Lower Long Term Management Viability (LMV)’ and have already been considered for offset as part of the Improve or Maintain test (i.e. is not designated for conservation as part of the larger regional plan for Western Sydney). It should be noted however that while the Improve or Maintain test has already been considered, it can and should be supplemented by other relevant considerations as recommended by the Conservation Plan. By applying the precautionary principle, the Conservation Plan recommends that some residual areas identified as LMV should be further examined and addressed, for any potential for habitat conservation to contribute to the broader habitat values of the area at the planning stage.



Appendix B DPI Water Correspondence Email Correspondence with DPI Water

From: Jeremy Morice [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, 3 August 2016 1:40 PM

To: David Bonjer <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Lowers creek precinct

Hi David,

Further to our discussion regarding the subject site DPI Water provide the following comments:

In principle support is provided for the watercourse mapping and determination of waterfront land as outlined in the report prepared by Ecological Australia.

Riparian offsetting will be required for several small reaches of defined channel that are

proposed for removal. There is very limited information provided for the proposed online detention basins. Basins

should typically be located offline for 3rd order and greater watercourses in accordance with the DPI Water CAA Guidelines for riparian corridors on waterfront land.

DPI Water will consider all online basins on larger order streams based on merit. Basin designs

will be required to meet the below criteria: o Provide for a fully functioning Vegetated Riparian Zone in accordance with the CAA

Guidelines o Provide a naturally functioning stream channel with a range of geomorphic features o Basins must be located within watercourse areas of low riparian and geomorphic value.

A review of the proposed Cardno post development plan indicates several possible open space

park areas that may be suitable for detention basins. All suitable offline areas should be reviewed before presenting online basins on 3rd order streams.

Please give me a call if you wish to discuss any of the above.

Regards,

Jeremy Morice | Water Regulation Officer NSW Department of Primary Industries | Water Level 0 | 84 Crown Street | Wollongong NSW 2500 PO Box 53 | Wollongong NSW 2520 T: 02 4224 9736 | F: 02 4224 9740 | E: [email protected] W: www.dpi.nsw.gov.au | www.water.nsw.gov.au

On 30 June 2016 at 14:44, David Bonjer <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jeremy

This is the second site I mentioned to you on the phone. It is the Lowes Creek Precinct in the South West Growth Area(Bringelly) in the Camden LGA. The planning for this precinct is being done under the Precinct Acceleration Protocol (PAP). Formal consultation with agencies will occur as part of the PAP process, so the information I’m sending you here is for preliminary consultation.

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/




Attached are the following:

Map of stream order - based on DPI-Water classification of mapped watercourses Proposed masterplan and riparian outcome. This document contains two maps and a table.

The table demonstrates the difference in km of watercourse and vegetated riparian zone if the Masterplan is adopted. It would be a decrease in stream kilometres but an increase in vegetated riparian zones.

Photos of each mapped reach that is proposed for removal.

Besides the proposed retention/removal of watercourses, we also want to discuss on-line basins. The site has two very large dams, both of which will be removed. After removal, the remodelled watercourse would contain on-line basins. Whilst on-line basins on a 3rd order stream is generally inconsistent with the DPI-Water guidelines, this is a somewhat unique situation. The proponent has Cardno doing the stormwater management and engineering design and they are happy to meet to discuss the merits of this aspect.

The client would like to meet DPI Water. Is this possible before I go on leave next Thursday (Thursday 7th July) ?

Cheers

David Bonjer

Lead - Urban Development Sector

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

Suite 1, Level 1, 101 Sussex Street, Sydney, NSW 2000

PO Box Q1082, Queen Victoria Building, NSW 1230

T + (02) 8536 8668| M 0405 910 839

[email protected]

http://www.ecoaus.com.au


http://www.ecoaus.com.au/



ELA Stream Order Figure sent to DPI Water



Appendix C Reach Photos

A

BC

D

YX

W

V

U

T

S

R

QP

O

N

M

L

K

J

I

H

GF

E

Z6

Z5

Z4

Z3Z2

Z1LOWES

© Land and Property Information 2015

0 250 500125

MetresSite boundary

Strahler stream order (DPI dataset)1st2nd3rd4th5th ±

GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

www.ecoaus.com.au

Barkers Mill: Reaches

Prepared by: ID Date: 29/06/2016

Reach A

1st order. Runs along boundary. Wide grassy swale in open area. No channel under trees. No fish habitat.

Reach B

1st order. No defined channel. No fish habitat.

Reach C

1st order. No defined channel. No fish habitat.

Reach D

1st order. No defined channel. Minor fish habitat in dam.

Reach E


Reach F

1st order. No defined channel within the site, but there is 132 m of small channel upstream into forested area. Minor fish habitat in dam.

Reach G


NO PHOTOS

Reach H

1st order. No defined channel above dam, except one small depression. Forms a channel leading into small dam. Minor fish habitat in dam.

Reach I

1st order. Upper three-quarters of reach has no defined channel. Lower quarter has active channel with small eroded banks leading to small dam. Bed and bank comprised of pasture grasses, herbs and sedges. Minor fish habitat in dams. No fish habitat in channel.

Reach J

1st order. No defined channel above dam. Forms a channel leading into small dam on site boundary. Minor fish habitat in dam.

Reach K

1st order. Flow path is more than 10 m from property boundary.

NO PHOTOS

Reach L

1st order. No defined channel. Flow path diverts north of small dam. No fish habitat.

Reach M


Reach N

1st order. No defined channel until it joins Reach O north of road, forming a floodplain anabranch major creek. No fish habitat, except where it meets dam.

Reach O

1st order. No defined channel. Flows divert to culvert under road, then joins Reach N to form a floodplain anabranch of major creek north of road. No fish habitat, except where it meets dam.

Reach P


Reach Q


Reach R

1st order. Defined channel for full length. Steep channel stabilised by trees. No fish habitat.

Reach S

1st order. Defined channel for full length. Steep channel stabilised by trees. No fish habitat.

Reach T

1st order. No defined channel. No fish habitat above dam.

Reach U

1st order. Defined channel for lower half only. Becomes more eroded with large banks downstream. Collects large dam overflow. Minor fish habitat in small dam.

Reach V

1st order. Mostly reed swamp in lower two-thirds. No defined channel above reeds. Minor fish habitat.

Reach W

1st order. Short channel between two dams. Lower dam breached but pooled water and macrophytes. Minor fish habitat in dam.

Reach X

1st order. Short channel commences near site boundary. Lower dam breached but pooled water and macrophytes. Minor fish habitat in dam.

Reach Y

1st order. Mostly no defined channel until lower 40 m. Small banks and narrow channel in forested areas. No fish habitat.

Reach Z1

2nd order. Active channel begins 50 m downstream of site boundary and is defined with very small banks under trees (no top of bank mapped). Bank height less than 0.3 m. No defined channel in open grassland area. Forms long narrow dam at lower end. Minor fish habitat in dam, but no fish habitat elsewhere.

Reach Z2

2nd order. Mostly a defined channel, especially in lower two-thirds. Small breaks with no defined channel in open grassland. Channel varies from narrow and incised under trees, to broad and shallow with macrophytes. Minor fish habitat in large dams, but poor habitat in channel.

Reach Z3

2nd order. Overflow channel from dam to Lowes Creek. Reach partially falls within Lowes Creek riparian buffer. No fish habitat downstream of dam.

Reach Z4

2nd order. No defined channel. Grassy overland flows only. No fish habitat outside of dams.

Reach Z5

2nd order. No defined channel until eroded arm of major creek. Mostly grassy overland flows. Upper dam may spill along track heading west. No fish habitat outside of dams.

Reach Z6

2nd order. Active channel is defined with very small banks under trees (no top of bank mapped). Bank height average 0.3 m. No defined channel in open grassland area. Minor fish habitat in dams, but no fish habitat elsewhere.


HEAD OFFICE

Suite 2, Level 3 668-672 Old Princes Highway Sutherland NSW 2232 T 02 8536 8600 F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Suite 1, Level 1 101 Sussex Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 02 8536 8650 F 02 9542 5622

HUSKISSON

Unit 1, 51 Owen Street Huskisson NSW 2540 T 02 4201 2264 F 02 9542 5622

CANBERRA

Level 2 11 London Circuit Canberra ACT 2601 T 02 6103 0145 F 02 9542 5622

NEWCASTLE

Suites 28 & 29, Level 7 19 Bolton Street Newcastle NSW 2300 T 02 4910 0125 F 02 9542 5622

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street Narooma NSW 2546 T 02 4302 1266 F 02 9542 5622

COFFS HARBOUR

35 Orlando Street Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450 T 02 6651 5484 F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE

92 Taylor Street Armidale NSW 2350 T 02 8081 2685 F 02 9542 5622

MUDGEE

Unit 1, Level 1 79 Market Street Mudgee NSW 2850 T 02 4302 1234 F 02 6372 9230

PERTH

Suite 1 & 2 49 Ord Street West Perth WA 6005 T 08 9227 1070 F 02 9542 5622

WOLLONGONG

Suite 204, Level 2 62 Moore Street Austinmer NSW 2515 T 02 4201 2200 F 02 9542 5622

GOSFORD

Suite 5, Baker One 1-5 Baker Street Gosford NSW 2250 T 02 4302 1221 F 02 9542 5622

DARWIN

16/56 Marina Boulevard Cullen Bay NT 0820 T 08 8989 5601 F 08 8941 1220

BRISBANE

Suite 1, Level 3 471 Adelaide Street Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7192 F 07 3854 0310

1300 646 131 www.ecoaus.com.au

http://www.ecoaus.com.au/

Date post:	07-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Riparian Assessment · Waterfront land includes the bed and bank of any river, lake or estuary and...

Documents