Schofields Aerodrome Bulk Earthworks...David Bonjer 8536 8668 PO Box 20529 World Square, NSW 2002...

Schofields Aerodrome – Bulk Earthworks

Flora and Fauna Assessment

Prepared for

Defence Housing Australia

September 2015

DH A S c h o f i e ld s S i t e – F lo r a a n d F a u n a As s e s sm e nt

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

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name DHA Schofields Site – Flora and Fauna Assessment

Project Number 13SYDECO-0052

Project Manager

David Bonjer

8536 8668

PO Box 20529

World Square, NSW 2002

Prepared by Belinda Failes

Reviewed by David Bonjer

Approved by David Bonjer

Status Final

Version Number 9

Last saved on 1 October 2015

Cover photo

Top left: Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina. Top right: Vine infestation along Eastern Creek.

Bottom left: Location of proposed haul road over Eastern Creek. Bottom right: Alluvial

Woodland. Photos taken by Danielle Adams-Bennett on 19th July 2013.

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2015. DHA Schofields Site – Flora and Fauna

Assessment. Prepared for Defence Housing Australia.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Defence Housing

Australia.

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 Defence Housing Australia. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Defence Housing

Australia, 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.


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

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................ vi

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Project description ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Subject site and Extent of works .................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Key terms ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.4 Legislative context ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.4.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 .................................................................... 4

1.4.2 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 ................................................................................ 4

1.4.3 Fisheries Management Act 1994 .................................................................................................. 4

1.4.4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ................................................ 5

1.4.5 Noxious Weeds Act 1993 ............................................................................................................. 5

1.4.6 Water Management Act 2000 ....................................................................................................... 5

1.4.7 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) ..................................... 6

1.4.8 Infrastructure SEPP ...................................................................................................................... 6

2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Literature and database review .................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Field survey .................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.1 Vegetation communities and flora ................................................................................................ 7

2.2.2 Flora .............................................................................................................................................. 7

2.2.3 Fauna and habitats ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 8

3 Existing Environment ................................................................................................................. 9

3.1 Literature and database results .................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Landscape context ....................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Threatened species, populations and migratory species ............................................................. 9

3.2 Flora and vegetation communities ............................................................................................. 10

3.2.1 Flora species .............................................................................................................................. 10

3.2.2 Vegetation communities ............................................................................................................. 10

3.3 Fauna species and habitats ........................................................................................................ 11

3.3.1 Fauna species ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.3.2 Fauna habitats ............................................................................................................................ 12

4 Impact Assessment .................................................................................................................. 20

4.1 Summary of impacts ................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Direct Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 20

4.2.1 Clearing of vegetation ................................................................................................................. 20


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

4.2.2 Impacts to ENV and NVR ........................................................................................................... 21

4.2.3 Habitat loss ................................................................................................................................. 21

4.3 Indirect Impacts .......................................................................................................................... 22

4.3.1 Fragmentation of habitats ........................................................................................................... 22

4.3.2 Spread of exotic and introduced species ................................................................................... 22

4.3.3 Impact on threatened species .................................................................................................... 22

4.3.4 Key threatening processes ......................................................................................................... 22

4.3.5 Conclusion of Assessments of Significance (EP&A Act) ........................................................... 23

4.3.6 Conclusion of Assessments of Significance (EPBC Act) ........................................................... 23

5 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................................................. 24

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 27

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

Appendix A: Likelihood of Occurrence ............................................................................................... 32

Appendix B: Species list ...................................................................................................................... 55

Appendix C: Assessment of Significance .......................................................................................... 60

Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest (Riparian Woodland) .............................................................................. 61

River-flat Eucalypt Forest (Alluvial Woodland) ........................................................................................ 65

Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina ..................................................................................................... 68

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) ................................................................. 71

Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus) ........................................................................................................ 74

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) .......................................................................................... 78


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

List of figures

Figure 1: Subject site within the general locality ........................................................................................ 2

Figure 2: Subject site and native vegetation protection areas ................................................................... 3

Figure 3: Updated mapping of native vegetation communities and threatened flora ............................... 15

List of tables

Table 1: Habitat features and associated fauna groups (guilds) recorded in the study area................... 12

Table 2: Threatened flora, fauna or TEC’s located or predicted to occur within the subject site. ............ 20

Table 3: Native vegetation to be cleared in non-certified lands ............................................................... 21

Table 4: Mitigation measures ................................................................................................................... 24

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

AW Alluvial Woodland

BCC Blacktown City Council

CEEC Critically endangered ecological community

CPW Cumberland Plain Woodland

DA Development Application

DE Department of the Environment (formally SEWPaC)

DHA Defence Housing Australia

DoPI Department of Planning and Infrastructure

ELA Eco Logical Australia

ENV Existing Native Vegetation

EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FM Fisheries Management Act 1994

HBT Hollow-bearing tree

LGA Local Government Area


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

Abbreviation Description

NES Matters of National Significance under the EPBC Act

NW Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993

RW Riparian Woodland

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policies

SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now DE)

SPW Shale Plain Woodland

TEC Threatened Ecological Community

TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

VMP Vegetation Management Plan

WM Act Water Management Act 2000

S c h o f i e l ds S i t e – F l or a a n d F a u na As s e ss m e n t

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

Executive summary

Eco Logical Australia (ELA) was commissioned by Defence Housing Australia (DHA) to undertake a

Flora and Fauna Assessment of the proposal to undertake bulk earthworks including the importation

and placement of fill and the construction of a temporary haul road and drainage infrastructure on the

Schofields Aerodrome site.

The site is zoned under the State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres)

2006. Part of the site is ‘biodiversity-certified’ under Part 7A of the NSW Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). Development on certified land is taken to not have a significant

impact on threatened species and endangered ecological communities due to the measures of the

Certification Order. This report therefore assesses impacts on the non-certified land.

Two threatened ecological communities (TEC) have been mapped within the DHA Schofields site:

Alluvial Woodland (River-flat Eucalypt Forest under the TSC Act)

Riparian Woodland (Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest under the TSC Act)

One threatened flora species, Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina was identified within the study area.

The vegetation also provides suitable habitat for threatened/migratory fauna species listed under the

TSC Act or Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Previous ecological surveys conducted within the Schofield Precinct have identified the following

threatened or migratory species listed under the TSC / EPBC Act:

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) (migratory under the EPBC Act)

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) (vulnerable under the TSC

Act)

Large-footed Myotis (Myotis macropus) (vulnerable under the TSC Act)

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) (vulnerable under the EPBC and TSC Acts)

Under the proposed actions approximately 0.33 ha of Alluvial Woodland and 0.35 ha of Riparian

Woodland which have been identified as potential habitat for threatened flora/fauna or TEC will be

removed.

An assessment of significance under section 5A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979

(EP&A Act) was prepared for the threatened flora, fauna and TEC’s which will be impacted under the

proposed works. Given that only a small extent of heavily disturbed vegetation will be removed and that

the extensive vegetation will be retained adjacent to the impact areas, the proposed actions are unlikely

to significantly impact the threatened species and TEC listed under the TSC Act.

The construction footprint will not impact on areas mapped as Existing Native Vegetation in the Growth

Centres SEPP.

A list of mitigation measures has been included in Section 5 of this report. These include the

preparation of a vegetation management plan (VMP) for the vegetation to be retained along Eastern

Creek within the DHA land.

It is noted that the discharge point of the stormwater channel passes through non-certified land and may

impact on Existing Native Vegetation mapped under the Growth Centres SEPP – Appendix 7 Schofields


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

Precinct Plan. This part of the stormwater channel is to be assessed by Blacktown City Council under

Part 5 of the EP&A Act 1979 and does not form part of the bulk earthworks DA.


© E CO LO G ICA L A U S T RA L IA P T Y LT D 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Project descript ion

DHA propose to undertake bulk earthworks which require consent from Blacktown City Council (BCC)

(Figure 1). This flora and fauna assessment will address ecological impacts within the non-certified

lands (referred to as the subject site in this report). A list of terms used in the report is provided in

Section 1.3 below.

1.2 Subject site and Extent of works

Schofields Precinct is located within Blacktown Local Government Area (LGA) approximately 45 km

north-west of the Sydney central business district. The DHA parcel of land is bounded by Eastern

Creek to the west, Nirimba Drive in the east and rural lands to the north. The southern-eastern

boundary adjoins TAFE Parade Grounds.

1.3 Key terms

For the purpose of this flora and fauna assessment the following terminology has been adopted:

Extent of works: the area which will be impacted under the proposed development. This area includes

certified and non-certified land as assessed under the DA (identified in red in the Figure 1).

Subject site: is the area of direct impact within the non-certified lands as a result of the proposed bulk

earthworks (identified by the yellow and black dashed line in Figure 1).

Study area: the area which was surveyed for the flora and fauna assessment and vegetation

management plan. The study area incorporates the subject site and surrounding landscape which may

have potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed works. This includes areas within certified

and non-certified lands.

Locality: 5 km buffer around the subject site which is used in the literature review and database

searches.



Figure 1: Subject site within the general locality



Figure 2: Subject site and native vegetation protection areas



1.4 Legislative context

1.4.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning

legislation for the State. It provides a framework for the overall environmental planning and assessment

of development proposals.

The Development Application for the bulk earthworks is to be assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act

which identifies issues to be considered in the development assessment process, including

environmental impacts. Section 5A of the EP&A Act requires consideration of whether there is likely to

be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities or their habitats.

This Assessment of Significance (AoS; also known as the ‘7-part test’) is undertaken in relation to

species, communities, habitat and processes listed under either the Threatened Species Conservation

Act 1995 or the Fisheries Management Act 1994. However, due to the certification of the Growth

Centres SEPP under the TSC Act (discussed below), the assessment of impact on threatened species,

endangered populations and endangered ecological communities listed under the TSC Act is only

required on land that is not biodiversity certified.

1.4.2 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

The NSW TSC Act aims to protect and encourage the recovery of threatened species, populations and

communities listed under the Act. The integration of the TSC Act with the EP&A Act requires

consideration of whether a development under Part 4 of the EP&A Act is likely to have a significant

effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitat. The Act requires the

submission of a Species Impact Statement where a significant impact is considered likely to occur for

threatened species, populations and/or ecological communities listed under the Act.

Under Part 7A of the TSC Act the Minister of the Environment may ‘biodiversity certify’ environmental

planning instruments or land. Biodiversity certification offers planning authorities a streamlined

biodiversity assessment process for areas marked for development at the strategic planning stage,

along with a range of secure options for offsetting impacts on biodiversity. It identifies areas of high

conservation value at a landscape scale, and protects them, as well as identifying areas suitable for

development. Biodiversity certification applies to part of the land on which the works are proposed,

there-by removing the need to assess impacts on threatened species for those areas. Remaining “non-

certified” land does not benefit from the certification and usual assessments of significance are required

for threatened species and endangered ecological communities are required on this land.

ELA understands that the Department of Planning and Environment are expected to update the

biodiversity certified lands maps in the first half of 2015. In accordance with the Biodiversity Consistency

report prepared for Schofields precinct, the update is expected to biodiversity certify all lands in the

precinct other than land mapped as Existing Native Vegetation or Native Vegetation Retention Area.

Should the update proceed as expected all biodiversity impacts associated with the bulk earthworks will

be on biodiversity certified land and no assessment would be required.

1.4.3 Fisheries Management Act 1994

The FM Act provides for the protection, conservation and recovery of threatened species defined under

the FM Act. It also makes provision for the management of threats to threatened species, populations

and ecological communities defined under the Act, as well as the protection of fish and fish habitat in

general. As the proposed works do not impact on marine vegetation or result in the blockage or fish

passage not further assessment is required under this Act.



1.4.4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act is Commonwealth legislation that deals with Matters of National Environmental

Significance (NES). Where a development or activity has the potential to have a significant impact on a

MNES, a referral is made to the Commonwealth Department of Environment (DE). The Department

determines whether the activity can proceed with no further assessment by the Commonwealth, or

whether it will be a controlled action for which an Environmental Impact Assessment must be supplied.

The Act also allows for Strategic Assessments which assess a policy, plan or program rather than

individual developments. On Tuesday February 28th

2012, the Commonwealth Minister for the

Environment announced that the program of development activities within the Growth Centres was

approved under the EPBC Act Strategic Assessment process. Specifically, all actions associated with

the development of the Western Sydney Growth Centres as described in the Sydney Growth Centres

Strategic Assessment Program Report (Nov 2010) have been assessed at the strategic level and

approved in regards to their impact on the following matters of NES:

World Heritage Properties,

National Heritage Places,

Wetlands of International Importance,

Listed threatened species and communities, and

Listed migratory species.

This decision indicates that the Commonwealth is satisfied that the conservation and development

outcomes that will be achieved through the Western Sydney Growth Centres Program will satisfy their

requirements for environmental protection under the EPBC Act. Provided that 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 the above-listed matters of NES.

The Commonwealth approval from February 2012 does not however apply to Commonwealth Actions.

Therefore DHA will consider the impacts of the proposed development and may refer the development

to the Commonwealth if there is likely to be a significant impact on the ‘environment’ but does not need

to assess impacts to listed matters above.

1.4.5 Noxious Weeds Act 1993

The main objectives of this Act are to reduce and monitor the impact of weeds within the NSW state to

protect the state from negative impacts on the economy, community and environment from weeds. The

Minister for Regional Infrastructure and Services together with the Minister for Primary Industries are

responsible for the declaration of noxious weeds, the assignment of an appropriate noxious class and

identification of controls and management for all noxious weeds. The Act is also responsible for the

prevention of new weeds establishing, restrict the spread of existing significant weeds and reduce the

extent of these weeds. Finally, the Act provides for the effective monitoring and reporting of weed

management in NSW.

While only the areas of ‘non-certified’ land, as defined by the TSC Act, and the riparian areas in the

study area were surveyed for noxious weeds, this legislation applies to the entire study area.

1.4.6 Water Management Act 2000

The Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) provide for the management of water resources and

promoting sustainable, environmental and economical use of water both now and in the future. The

WM Act has many other responsibilities including the approval process of ‘controlled activities’ along



waterfront land, which is defined as land within 40m of a watercourse, lake or river. Works including

construction of building, infrastructure and excavation on waterfront land typically requires a Controlled

Activity Approval under s91 of the WM Act. Section 38 of the Water Management Regulation exempts

public authorities from this requirement.

1.4.7 State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres)

The SEPP is an environmental planning instrument that establishes the planning framework for the

Growth Centres. SEPP (Sydney Region Growth Centres) Appendix 7 relates to the Schofields Precinct.

The land subject to this DA is a combination of E2 Environment Protection, SP2 Special Purpose

(Drainage) and RE1 Recreation. The SEPP also contains clauses which aim to protect Existing Native

Vegetation and Native Vegetation Retention Areas as shown on the SEPP maps. The proposed works

will no impact on NVR or ENV (Figure 2).

1.4.8 Infrastructure SEPP

The Infrastructure SEPP aims to facilitate the effective delivery of infrastructure across the State by

means such as improving the regulatory certainty and efficiency through consistent planning regime for

infrastructure and the provision of services.



2 Methodology

2.1 Literature and database review

The following relevant literature was reviewed during desktop and database search:

the Atlas of NSW Wildlife – 5 km buffer search (OEH 2013)

the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool – 5 km buffer searched (SEWPaC 2013)

previous mapping and aerial photography interpretation (NPWS 2002)

Schofield Precinct Biodiversity Assessment (ELA 2011)

Threatened species, populations and migratory species that have been recorded within a 5 km

radius of the subject site have been assessed for their likelihood of occurrence within the subject

site (Appendix A).

Vegetation mapping of Western Sydney (NPWS 2002) was reviewed prior to survey to identify

vegetation types in the study area, and potential threatened ecological communities that may occur

within the subject site. Assessment of the ENV mapping within non-certified lands was also

undertaken.

2.2 Field survey

2.2.1 Vegetation communities and flora

The ecological assessment was undertaken of all non-certified lands within the study area (Figure

2). The field survey was conducted by two ELA ecologists over one day (18th July 2013). The

study area was traversed using a random meander technique. An additional site survey was

conducted on 1st August 2013 and 23

rd September 2015 to assess potential microbat habitat within

culverts in the subject site.

An inventory of flora species encountered was recorded to assist in the identification of vegetation

communities within the study area. NPWS (2002) mapping of western Sydney vegetation and

previous mapping conducted for the Schofields Precinct Biodiversity Assessment (ELA 2011) were

used to validate vegetation communities within the non-certified lands. The NSW Scientific

Committee’s final determination and NPWS (2002) vegetation descriptions were used to assist in

the classification of vegetation communities.

2.2.2 Flora

Flora species were recorded during the traverse of the study area. Target surveys for threatened

species identified likely to occur or predicted to occur was conducted within the study area. Target

flora survey was conducted for two threatened species which have previously been recorded within

the study area:

Pimelea spicata

Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina

2.2.3 Fauna and habitats

Targeted surveys were conducted for threatened species which may inhabit the subject site. A

stormwater drain was identified during 2013 field surveys as potential roosting/breeding habitat for

threatened microbat species. A stag watch and ultrasonic devices (anabat) was conducted to

identify microbat use of the stormwater drain. The stag watch was conducted 1 hour prior to dusk



and one after dusk. Two spotters were positioned at the entrance to the stormwater drain to identify

possible microbat activity. The anabat device was used to determine the type of species. Anabat

recordings were analysis by ELA staff Danielle Adams-Bennett.

An assessment of the available fauna habitat was undertaken during the field survey. Potential

habitat attributes and all opportunistic fauna observations were recorded during traverse of the

study area.

Fauna habitat attributes include specific foraging or nesting resources for fauna groups in particular

threatened fauna species. Habitat features include:

foraging requirements

connectivity of vegetation across landscape

presence of hollow-bearing trees (HBT)

watercourse or standing water.

All HBTs within the subject site were marked with spray paint and flagging tape. The size and number

of hollows for each HBT was recorded to assist in determining how many nest boxes are required for

installation within the riparian corridor.

2.3 Limitations

Although an extensive traverse of the study area was undertaken it is not possible to record all flora

or fauna species known within the study area. The steep banks and thick exotic weeds made

access to some areas difficult to survey. Additionally flora species may be cryptic or exhibit a

period of dormancy especially during the cooler months. Similarly some fauna species have

seasonal or migratory changes in habitats or display seasonal dormancy which may influence the

ability to identify these species. Additionally, the survey was conducted in winter which coincides

with a reduction in the activity of many amphibians, reptiles, birds and microbat species, including

threatened species.

According to the Vertebrate Fauna Survey conducted for the NSW Comprehensive Regional

Assessment (NPWS, 1998) an integration of survey methods over varying climatic and seasonal

conditions are required to produce an extensive census of fauna and flora species utilising the

subject area. However, the methodologies were considered adequate given the current condition

state of the study area and nature of the ecological impacts from the proposed earthworks. To

compensate for these conditions and absence of some flora and fauna species an assessment of

habitat attributes featured within the study area was conducted (Appendix A).

Except where specifically noted, the field survey was undertaken using hand-held GPS units, which

were used to take GPS point locations of flora and fauna observed in the field. It is noted that these

units can have errors in the accuracy of the locations taken of approximately 20 m (subject to

availability of satellites on the day).



3 Existing Environment

3.1 Literature and database results

3.1.1 Landscape context

Eastern Creek flows along the western boundary of the study area and has been mapped as category 1

stream (ELA 2011) according to the Strahler stream classification system. Two small category 2

watercourses also feature in the study area. Both categories are highly disturbed but may provide

habitat for riparian and terrestrial fauna species.

Eastern Creek occurs along the South Creek soil landscape, areas of higher elevation are influence by

Blacktown soil landscape which occurs adjacent to the study area. South Creek soil landscape is

typically alluvial, found along floodplains and drainage lines within the Cumberland Plains (Bannerman

and Hazelton 1990). These occur on quaternary alluvium derived from Wianamatta Group shales and

Hawkesbury Sandstone (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990).

Eastern Creek provides an important vegetative corridor in an urbanised matrix, in particular it forms a

link between conservation areas such as Colebee Nature Reserve located west of Eastern Creek with

Nurragingy Reserve to the south and scattered smaller reserves in the north.

Four native vegetation communities have previously been mapped within Schofields Precinct by NPWS

(2002) and validated by ELA (2011). The vegetation communities include:

Alluvial Woodland (listed as River-flat Eucalypt Forest under the TSC Act)

Riparian Woodland (listed as Swamp Oak Forest under the TSC Act)

Shale Plains Woodland (listed as a sub-community of Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW)

under the TSC and EPBC Acts)

Derived Grassland (listed as a sub-community of Cumberland Plain Woodland community

under the TSC Act)

3.1.2 Threatened species, populations and migratory species

Three threatened ecological communities (TEC) have been mapped or are predicted to occur within a 5

km radius of the subject site. Database searches identified 17 threatened flora species and 47

threatened or migratory fauna species occur or have been predicted likely to occur within a 5 km radius

of the subject site. Threatened fauna species includes six guilds which comprise of: two fish, four

amphibians, one reptile, 12 threatened birds (including one nocturnal species), 17 mammals (including

eight non-flying), one invertebrate and 11 EPBC migratory bird species.

NSW Office and Heritage (OEH) Wildlife Atlas database search identified threatened species which

have been previously recorded within the study area.

Threatened flora species include:

Pimelea spicata endangered under the EPBC and TSC Acts

Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina vulnerable TSC Act

Threatened fauna species include:

Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) vulnerable EPBC and TSC Acts



Falsistrellus tasmaniensis (Eastern False Pipstrelle) vulnerable TSC Act

Mormopterus norfolkensis (Eastern Freetail-bat) vulnerable TSC Act

Miniopterus schreibersii (Eastern Bent-wing Bat) vulnerable TSC Act

Myotis macropus (Southern Myotis) vulnerable TSC Act

Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) vulnerable EPBC and TSC Acts

Two species listed under the EPBC Act Ardea ibis (Cattle Egret) and Meridolum corneovirens

(Cumberland Plain Land Snail) (also listed under the TSC Act) were identified within the Schofields

Precinct during previous surveys by ELA (2011), however, these records were located outside the

current study area.

An assessment of the likelihood of occurrence has been prepared for each threatened species identified

during database search (Appendix A). Those species considered likely to occur require further

assessment in accordance with Section 5A of the EP&A Act (Appendix C).

3.2 Flora and vegetation communities

3.2.1 Flora species

Field survey identified 96 flora species within non-certified lands, including 37 native species of which

one is listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina (Plate 1) was

identified in a new location, not previously recorded. The patch is located west of the detention basins

and contains both mature and regenerating individuals (Figure 3).

A total of 0.5 person hours were spent surveying potential areas for Pimelea spicata. The NPWS

Wildlife Atlas record was dated from 1966 and given the on-going grazing and mowing practices within

the study area it is highly unlikely for this species to exist. No P. spicata was recorded in the study

area.

A high number of exotic species were also recorded within the study area. A total of 59 exotic species

which includes ten species declared as noxious under the Noxious Weeds Act (NW Act) 1993 in

Campbelltown LGA. Six exotic species were also listed under the Weeds of National Significance

(WoNS). A full floristic list is available in Appendix B.

3.2.2 Vegetation communities

Two native vegetation communities, Riparian Woodland and Alluvial Woodland were recorded within

the study area during the recent field survey. Both communities are listed as threatened under the TSC

Act and are associated with alluvial areas. The vegetation along the banks of Eastern Creek

represented small pockets of native vegetation of moderate to high native resilience and large tracts of

vegetation which contained a high percentage of exotic weeds with low resilience. The remaining

cleared areas consisted of exotic grassland subject which do not contribute towards a native vegetation

community.

Alluvial Woodland (AW) is widely dispersed along Eastern Creek and is located within the proposed

road and drainage works (Figure 3). The community is characterised by Casuarina glauca (Swamp

Oak), Angophora floribunda (Apple), Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box) and Melaleuca styphelioides

(Prickly-leaved Tea Tree) at lower densities (Plate 2). The ground cover and midstorey varies greatly

throughout the study area. In the north, high densities of woody weeds occur in AW, namely Ligustrum

sinense (Small-leaved Privet) and Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn). Both species are declared

as noxious, while African Boxthorn is also listed as a Weed of National Significance (WoNS). Exotic

ground cover species also occur in abundance throughout the study area, species include Tradescantia

fluminensis (Trad) and Ehrharta erecta (Panic Veldtgrass).



Regenerating Acacia parramattensis (Parramatta Wattle) thickets and regenerating patches of C.

glauca and mixed eucalyptus species are scattered within the disturbed grassland (Plate 3). Small

pockets of native ground cover species dominated Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides (Weeping Grass)

and Austrostipa ramosissima (Stout Bamboo Grass) are also widely distributed in AW. Evidence of

herbivory of native regenerating native canopy species in this community was noted.

Riparian Woodland (RW) vegetation is poorly represented within the study area (Figure 3). This

community is often difficult to distinguish from other TEC’s especially AW. RW vegetation has

regenerated and is currently fragmented across the study area. This community predominately occurs

adjacent to AW in lower elevations and permanent waterlogged soils (Plate 4). This vegetation was

represented by a single canopy species Casuarina glauca and mixed ground layer of native and exotic

species. In the north RW is in good condition with a dense carpet of Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides

in the south patches are small and impacted by exotic species including Cardiospermum grandiflorum

(Balloon Vine) which has spread into the canopy and suppressed native species regeneration. The

remaining RW occurred as regenerating patches along constructed drainage lines.

Extensive areas of exotic pastoral grasslands (disturbed grassland) dominate the study area (Figure 3).

These are typically cleared of canopy and understorey species and contain limited native groundcover

species. Exotic grasses include Axonopus fissifolius (Narrow-leafed Carpet Grass), Cynodon dactylon

(Couch), Eragrostis curvula (African Lovegrass) and occasional herbs Senecio madagascariensis

(Fireweed) and Hypochaeris radicata (Catsear) (Plate 5). Native vegetation has been highly modified

and the soil seedbank has been disturbed. Canopy is absent. High weed densities occur within the

midstorey and groundcover layers. Exotic species include Ligustrum sinense (Small-leaved Privet),

Blackberry fruticosus agg. sp (Blackberry) and perennial grass Pennisetum clandestinum (Kikuyu)

(Plate 6).

3.3 Fauna species and habitats

3.3.1 Fauna species

The study area contained a high diversity of aves species, in particular small birds. Thirty-five bird

species were heard or observed within the study area (including two introduced species).

An owl pellet was also recorded which potentially could indicate the roosting habitat of nocturnal birds.

It is likely to be the common urban Ninox novaeseelandiae (Southern Boobook) or Tyto alba (Barn Owl)

although threatened species Ninox strenua (Powerful Owl) may also occasionally utilise western

Sydney vegetation.

Despite the cooler climatic conditions three amphibian species were heard calling and one reptile

observed adjacent to Eastern Creek. No suitable habitat for the (Meridolum corneovirens) Cumberland

Plain Land Snail (i.e. Eucalyptus tereticornis or E.moluccana) occurs within the study area.

Domesticated fauna species are widely distributed throughout the study area. Large herbivores Dama

dama (Fallow Deer) and Bos taurus (Domestic Cattle) were observed grazing in exotic grassland and

moving through native vegetation. Indirect evidence also suggests that a second species of deer

Cervus timorensis (Rusa Deer) may also utilise the study area. Native herbivores Macropus giganteus

(Eastern Grey Kangaroo) were seen grazing in similar areas to exotic species. Indirect evidence of

Vulpes vulpes (European Red Fox) and Oryctolagus cuniculus (European Rabbit) was noted and one

sighting of a Canis lupus familiaris (Domestic Dog) was observed inside the study area

A full list of fauna species recorded within the study area is available in Appendix B.



3.3.2 Fauna habitats

Availability of habitat features varied across the vegetation. Clearing of native vegetation, prolonged

grazing and infestation of weeds has reduced the habitat potential for numerous species. A summary of

the habitat features recorded within the study area is available below (Table 1).

Table 1: Habitat features and associated fauna groups (guilds) recorded in the study area.

Habitat Features Guild Presence in study area

Forest vegetation

Birds, microchiropteran bats (microbats),

megachiropteran bats (fruit bats), arboreal

mammals, reptiles

Narrow riparian corridor along

Eastern creek

Winter flowering species Winter migratory birds, arboreal mammals

and megachiropteran bats (fruit bats)

Eucalyptus tereticornis was

located outside study area

Hollow-bearing trees Birds and arboreal mammals (gliders and

microbats)

One hollow bearing tree in the

non-certified land and seven

hollow bearing trees in the

certified land

Stags Birds, particularly birds of prey, reptiles,

amphibians, micro bats Present but limited

Leaf litter Reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates Very limited

Fruiting plants Birds and fruit bat Abundance of exotic fruiting

species such as Privet

Coarse woody debris Terrestrial mammals, reptiles, invertebrates Scattered fallen trees

Drainage lines Amphibians, water birds Pools and flowing water

Rocks Reptiles, invertebrates, Terrestrial mammals Present but limited

Vegetative corridor Reptiles, birds, mammals, amphibians Narrow riparian corridor along

Eastern creek

Mistletoe Birds Present but limited

Exotic grassland Migratory wetland birds (Egrets) and

predator species Abundant

Man-made structures (culverts,

stormwater pipes and bridges)

Microbat and birds roosting (i.e Welcome

Swallow)

Two culverts and a stormwater

pipe are present within the study

area

Birds

Dense woody weeds provide ideal habitat for small bird species. Thickets of exotic species Ligustrum

sinense (Small-leaved Privet) and Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn) are used for foraging



resources and roosting, with several recently constructed nests noted in these thickets during the

survey. AW adjacent to Eastern Creek facilitates the movement of bird species to adjacent habitats and

additional foraging resources. This is an important habitat features within the landscape especially for

owls which maintain a large home range. Stags and hollow-bearing trees (HBT’s) are in low supply and

may limit the presence of hollow-dependant fauna such as some bird species.

Mammals (not including bats)

There is marginal habitat within the study area for native terrestrial and arboreal mammals. Many

possum and glider species rely on an abundance of eucalypt species for foraging and require HBT for

roosting. While there are eucalypts present these are not abundant throughout the study area. HBT

recorded were limited and contained only small (<5cm) entrance. As such mammals may still occur but

in low densities.

Additionally, the high density of exotic weeds may also reduce the availability of foraging resources for

small ground dwelling mammals. However, the exotic grassland with adjacent vegetation provides

grazing opportunities for larger macropod species.

Bats

Small hollows, stormwater pipes and culverts may provide roosting habitats for microchiropteran bat

species (microbats). Roosting for cave roosting: Large-eared Pied Bat, Southern Myotis and Eastern

Bentwing-bats which have been recorded in AW in the north of the study area (Figure 3) may

occasionally utilise the stormwater pipe adjacent to the subject site (Plate 7), although stag watch and

anabat survey of the stormwater pipe in September 2015 did not record any microbat activity.

Tree roosting microbats such as the Eastern False Pipistrelle, Eastern Freetail-bat may utilise Eastern

Creek or adjacent vegetation to foraging. These species have been previously recorded within the

study area and are listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. The Large-eared Pied Bat is also listed as

vulnerable under the EPBC Act. Additionally, the eucalyptus species along Eastern Creek may attract

megachiropteran (fruit bats) into the study area. There is potential that other microbat species not

previously recorded may also forage or roost within the study area.

Amphibians

The abundance of water within pools, creeks and moist depressions are a haven for amphibians.

Fringing vegetation including native sedges/rushes and exotic perennial grasses are ideal habitat for

foraging and sheltering.

Reptiles

Presence of fallen logs and discarded building rubble are perfect basking resources for reptile species.

Additionally, the presence of favourite prey items (amphibians) may support reptiles within the study

area.

Invertebrates

Meridolum corneovirens (Cumberland Plain Land Snail) is listed as endangered under the TSC Act.

This species has been located within the Schofield Precinct during previous surveys in 2003.

Suitable habitat for this species is limited to the Cumberland Plain region of western Sydney in areas

where Eucalyptus tereticornis or E. moluccana are present. Both species were highly limited within the

study area. Scattered individuals were located within the study area although located outside of the

subject site. The main canopy species within the subject site was Casuarina species and Angophora

floribunda which are not considered suitable habitat for this species. Additionally, the study area did not



contain accumulated leaf litter or fallen logs which are important microhabitat for this species. It is

highly unlikely that this species is located within the subject site. Mitigation measures have been

provided to enhance habitat for this species in the future. A VMP has been prepared to ensure these

mitigation measures are implemented.



Figure 3: Updated mapping of native vegetation communities and threatened flora



Plate 1: Threatened flora Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina within the study area

Plate 2: Alluvial Woodland with Angophora floribunda in foreground



Plate 3: Riparian Woodland dominated by Casuarina glauca and native ground cover.

Plate 4: Regenerating Alluvial Woodland and Riparian Woodland within non-certified lands



Plate 5: Cleared grassland dominated by exotic perennial grasses and herbs (Rusa Deer in background)

Plate 6: Exotic vegetation previously mapped as AW within the subject site



Plate 7: Stormwater pipe located adjacent to the haul road provides potential habitat for threatened microbats (marked on map as a culvert)



4 Impact Assessment

4.1 Summary of impacts

The proposed earthworks will result in the removal of native vegetation and disturbance of soil

landscape. The direct impacts associated with the proposed works will include:

removal of 0.68 ha of native vegetation on non-certified land

clearing of exotic grassland and exotic weeds (11.4 ha) in non-certified lands

loss / alteration of threatened fauna habitat

potential minor change in hydrology in Eastern Creek

The following threatened species and TEC are located or are likely to occur within the subject site and

may be directly impacted under the proposed works (Appendix A). These species and TEC have been

assessed under the EPBC Act and the EP&A Act (Appendix C and D respectively).

Table 2: Threatened flora, fauna or TEC’s located or predicted to occur within the subject site.

Scientific Name Common Name TSC Act EPBC Act Occurren

ce

EEC

River-flat Eucalypt Forest on the coastal floodplains of NSW North Coast,

Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions EEC - Known

Swamp Oak Forest of NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East

Corner bioregions EEC Known

FLORA

Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina Known

FAUNA

Ardea alba Great Egret - V Potential

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V Potential

Miniopterus australis Little Bent-wing Bat V - Potential

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis Eastern Bent-wing Bat V - Potential

Falsistrellus tasmaniensis Eastern False Pipistrelle V - Potential

Myotis macropus Southern Myotis V - Potential

(E = Endangered, M = Migratory, V = Vulnerable, EEC = Endangered Ecological Community)

4.2 Direct Impacts

4.2.1 Clearing of vegetation

The majority of the proposed development (i.e. extent of works) occurs on certified lands and does not

require ecological impact assessment. The remaining areas of non-certified land is represented by

exotic grasslands and do not require clearing of native vegetation. A total of 0.68 ha of native

vegetation of varying condition will be impacted under the proposed works on non-certified land.



For the purpose of this assessment AW and RW has been divided into regenerating and existing

vegetation. This was conducted to delineate between new colonised patches with low species diversity

and more established patches, both categories are considered listed under the TSC Act and have been

included below (Table 3).

Table 3: Native vegetation to be cleared in non-certified lands

Vegetation Community Impact

Retained within the VMP area Non-Certified (ha)

Alluvial Woodland (EEC) 0.096 8.75

Regenerating AW (EEC) 0.24

Riparian Woodland (EEC) 0 5.85

Regenerating Riparian Woodland (EEC) 0.35

Total Native vegetation 0.68 17.36

Exotic vegetation 11.4 2.76

The vegetation within the subject site has been highly modified through clearing of native vegetation,

infestation of exotic weeds and fragmentation of habitats. Approximately 0.68 ha of vegetation will be

removed under the proposed bulk earthworks. This includes removal of a native canopy and a mixed

groundcover of native and exotic species. These areas are disturbed by significant weed infestation

and grazing pressures. However, the vegetation may provide foraging habitat for threated species.

The majority of the native vegetation located within the study area including AW and RW will be

retained as part of the Schofields Precinct. A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) has been prepared

to revegetate and rehabilitate Alluvial Woodland (8.75 ha) and Riparian Woodland (5.85 ha) along

Eastern Creek.

4.2.2 Impacts to ENV and NVR

The proposed development will not have an impact on any areas mapped as Existing Native Vegetation

or Native Vegetation Retention Area.

4.2.3 Habitat loss

In addition to the direct loss of native vegetation, 11.4 ha of disturbed exotic vegetation will be removed

which may provide suitable foraging habitat for migratory bird species such as Cattle Egret which was

identified in the study area during previous ELA surveys (2011). A significant amount of disturbed

exotic grassland is present within adjacent areas. The proposed actions are unlikely result in the

removal of significant habitat for this species.

The proposed works will also remove potential microbat foraging habitat for the construction of new

haulage road. The vegetation consists of a narrow riparian corridor which links tributaries with Eastern

Creek. There is potential fragmentation of these habitats however; it is unlikely to impact threatened

microbats given the highly mobile nature of this species.

One hollow bearing tree (HBT) was identified near the proposed haul road during the survey works

(Figure 3). It is possible this tree will be located outside of the impact area and could be retained,

however, it is uncertain. Seven other hollow bearing trees are expected to be removed from the certified

land. Hollow bearing trees should be removed with standard two stage process involving bumping the



tree and then slowly dropping the tree with an ecologist present to safely remove any native fauna. The

tree hollow can be placed in the riparian area to provide habitat. Section 5 of this report identifies other

mitigation measures including the installation of nest boxes.

Finally, the proposed extensive earthworks will result in the loss of soil seed bank and regeneration

potential for the TEC vegetation within the impact areas and the stockpile area.

4.3 Indirect Impacts

4.3.1 Fragmentation of habitats

Eastern Creek forms an extensive vegetative corridor for flora and fauna species to disburse into new

habitats. Several small regenerating patches of vegetation are scattered within a landscape of exotic

grasses. These patches may provide stepping-stones for highly mobile species. However, the removal

of these small patches of vegetation is unlikely to result in the fragmentation of the vegetation retained

along Eastern Creek.

The removal of native vegetation may increase the gap between native vegetation within Eastern Creek

and the southern category 2 watercourse. The two patches are currently separated by access track

over a culvert. The proposed works will increase the distance between the two patches, although it will

not impact on the water flow. The gap is unlikely to prevent movement of highly mobile species from

accessing the vegetation patch and the passage of water under the culvert will assist in the movement

of native seeds into adjacent downstream. As such, fragmentation of the vegetation is unlikely to occur

as a result of the proposed bulk earthworks.

4.3.2 Spread of exotic and introduced species

Noxious weeds and WoNS are prevalent throughout the subject site. Weeds have been listed as a key

threatening process (KTP) under the EPBC and TSC Acts and management of weeds should be

implemented at the completion of the bulk earthworks. Control of weed species within the VMP

retained vegetation is detailed in the VMP.

It is recommended that the VMP includes management strategies and protection of small birds during

weed removal. Other mitigation measures include the implementation of a hygiene protocol to prevent

the spread of pathogens and aquatic pests during construction process. For best management

practices consult the NPWS Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs (DECC 2008).

4.3.3 Impact on threatened species

The stormwater pipe located adjacent to the culvert marked on Figure 3 may contain occasional

roosting habitat for three threatened microbat species (Large-eared Pied Bat, Southern Myotis and

Eastern Bentwing-bat) that have previously been recorded in the Schofields Precinct (ELA 2010). Stag

watching and anabat recording of the pipe on one night in September 2015 did not record any use of

the pipe by bats. As there will be no direct impacts to the pipe and no bats were recorded, no specific

mitigation measures are recommended.

Some of the earthworks are located in close proximity to a population of Grevillea juniperina subsp.

juniperina. No proposed works will be conducted within the patch, however, indirect impacts such as

disturbance to the soil seed bank and fragmentation of habitats may occur. These impacts should be

monitored during and post construction works.

4.3.4 Key threatening processes

The following KTP’s listed under the EPBC and TSC Acts are relevant for the study area;



Relevant KTP’s listed under the EPBC Act;

Dieback caused by the root-rot fungus (Phytophthora cinnamomi)

Infection of amphibians with chytrid fungus resulting in chytridiomycosis

Land clearance

Predation by European red fox

Predation by feral cats

Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden

plants, including aquatic plants.

Relevant KTP’s listed under the TSC Act;

Clearing of native vegetation

Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers (Cardiospermum grandiflorum

Balloon Vine, Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper and Rubus fruticosus sp. agg.

Blackberry)

Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses (Eragrostis curvula

African Lovegrass and Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu)

Competition and grazing by the feral European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

Infection of frogs by amphibian chytrid causing the disease chytridiomycosis

Infection of native plants by Phytophthora cinnamomi

Predation by the European red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Predation by Gambusia holbrooki Girard, 1859 (plague minnow or mosquito fish)

Herbivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer

Given the small extent of vegetation clearance and the disturbed and isolated nature of the patch the

impacts are unlikely to pose significant impact on native flora/fauna species, TEC or waterways.

Mitigation measures have been provided to reduce the potential impacts during the construction works.

Additionally, a VMP will be implemented during the clearing of vegetation and habitat features.

4.3.5 Conclusion of Assessments of Significance (EP&A Act)

Assessments of significance under Section 5A of the EP&A Act were undertaken for the TEC recorded

within the subject site and those species which may occur on or near the subject site (Appendix C). In

summary, the proposed actions are highly unlikely to significantly impact these threatened species or

the EEC. The assessment considered the substantial amount of native habitat retained, the limited

amount of vegetation removed, poor quality of vegetation and amelioration measures. The construction

area was assessed as highly disturbed with minor native resilience.

4.3.6 Conclusion of Assessments of Significance (EPBC Act)

An assessment under the EPBC Act is not required for land which has been assessed under the

Growth Centres. Therefore, no additional assessment is required under the EPBC Act. As such, a

referral to the Minister is not necessary.



5 Mitigation Measures

The following recommendations are proposed to ensure positive environmental outcomes and mitigate potential impacts according to the proposed DA

footprint.

Table 4: Mitigation measures

Impact Action Timing

Specific Environmental Site Awareness All contractor staff are to be aware of sensitivity of the environment including:

Threatened ecological communities (AW and RW)

Threatened flora species Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina

Pre-construction

Loss of vegetation Clearing limits must be clearly marked out prior to clearing of vegetation or

temporary exclusion fence (i.e. chain mesh) installed prior to construction. Fencing

must prevent persons or vehicles from entering sensitive sites including riparian

habitats.

If construction lighting is required at night they should face away from vegetative

areas to protect microbats.

Install nest boxes Install two nest boxes for each hollow to be removed. Nest boxes are to be

installed at least 2 weeks prior to hollow bearing tree removal. The size of the

nest box is to be recommended by the project ecologist.

Pre-construction

Prepare a sediment and erosion control plan Prepare plan in accordance with the Blue Book (Landcom 2004) requirements to

reduce impacts on Eastern Creek and fauna habitats

Pre-construction

Relocation of habitat features into the E2 zone Felled native trees are to be relocated throughout the E2 riparian area as woody

debris or stabilisation along the bank of Eastern Creek

During construction




(VMP area) Seed collection to use for propagation of native species will be undertaken

within the development area prior to vegetation clearance

Soil translocation from suitable donor sites within the impact area will be

relocated to recipient sites within the E2 (VMP area). Donor sites need to

generally be low in weeds and of the same vegetation community as the

recipient area.

Translocation of logs and leaf litter from development footprint into the VMP

area

Supervision of HBT felling is required by a qualified fauna handler (as per

section below)

Implement sediment control plan Install sediment control structures downslope of the spoil pile and impact areas

Ensure sediment stockpile is kept away from drainage and watercourses

Provide a spill kit at each work site

During construction

Disturbance to native fauna Hollow-bearing trees (HBT):

If hollow-bearing trees are to be removed an ecologist should be present to

safely relocate uninjured fauna to the retained vegetation on-site.

If injured fauna is identified the ecologist will transport the fauna to local vet.

Changes to hydrology Concept design for the drainage link with Eastern Creek should consider the following:

Conduct survey of the hydrological flow

Implementation of the guidelines set-out in the document “Why do fish need to

cross the road?” (Fairfull and Witheridge 2003) and prevention of in-stream fish

barriers

Installation of erosion structures along the eastern and western banks to

prevent scouring of creek beds. (Riprap or rock armour structures or similar

design can be used).




Reducing large changes in elevation or sharp bends at the exit into Eastern

Creek

On-going monitoring of erosion issues along the creek bank

Monitoring of water quality above and below the converge location

Spread of exotic flora / fauna and pathogens Prepare and implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) for the

management of weeds and revegetation works.

During construction / post

construction

Remediation works on TAFE lands Remediation works is required following the completion of haul road. These works may

include:

Bank stabilisation structures such as logs, jute-matting or coil logs

Revegetation of native species in impact area

During construction / post

construction

Remediation works on DHA lands Implementation of VMP should commence no later than 6 months from

completion of construction works, although implementation can commence

earlier than this if desired

Maintenance of vegetation after VMP implementation should be conducted for 3

years from the date of implementation

Post construction



Conclusion

The study area contains a highly modified landscape dominated by exotic grasslands. Alluvial and

Riparian Woodlands are represented in varying condition adjacent to Eastern Creek. Regenerating

forms of these two threatened ecological communities were mapped as isolated patches within the

exotic grassland. A patch of Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina which is listed as a vulnerable under

Schedule 2 of the TSC Act is located near the proposed impact area.

Under the proposed bulk earthworks 0.68 ha of native vegetation and 11.4 ha of exotic grasslands will

be cleared on non-certified lands. The vegetation contains suitable foraging or sheltering habitat for a

number threatened fauna species which have previously been located inside the study area. A majority

of the native vegetation will be retained as part of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP).

The application of the Section 5A of the EP&A Act and in accordance with relevant assessment

guidelines, it is concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant effect on threatened species,

endangered populations, ecological communities, or their habitats, and accordingly a Species Impact

Statement is not required for the proposal.

Following consideration of the administrative guidelines for determining significance under the EPBC

Act it is concluded that the proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on matters of National

Environmental Significance or Commonwealth land, and accordingly a referral to the Commonwealth

Environment Minister is not necessary.

No impact to Existing Native Vegetation or Native Vegetation Retention Areas as mapped in the Sydney

Region Growth Centres SEPP.

Recommendations and mitigation strategies have been addressed in Section 5. These strategies

mitigate the effects of the proposal on threatened species, endangered populations, ecological

communities, or their habitats and minimise the impacts of the proposal on the flora and fauna values of

the study area in general.



References

Aumann, T. & D. Baker-Gabb (1991). RAOU Report 75. A Management Plan for the Red Goshawk.

RAOU. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne.

Bannerman, S.M. and Hazelton, P.A. 1990. Soil landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet. Soil

Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Belcher, C.A. (2000b). The Ecology of the Tiger Quoll, Dasyurus maculatus, in south-eastern

Australia. Ph.D. Thesis. Melbourne, Victoria: Deakin University.

Bell, S. (2001) ‘Notes on population size and habitat of the vulnerable Cryptostylis hunteriana

(Orchidaceae) from the Central Coast of New South Wales’, Cunninghamia 7(2): 195-204.

Benson, D. & McDougall, L. (1998) Ecology of Sydney plant species Part 6: Dicotyledon family

Myrtaceae. Cunninghamia 5(4): 808-987.

Blakers, M., Davies, S., and Reilly, P.N 1984. The Atlas of Australian Birds. RAOU Melbourne

University Press.

Catling, P.C., R.J. Burt & R.I. Forrester (2000). Models of the distribution and abundance of ground-

dwelling mammals in the eucalypt forests of north-eastern New South Wales in relation to habitat

variables. Wildlife Research. 27:639-654.

Catling, P.C., R.J. Burt & R.I. Forrester (1998). Models of the distribution and abundance of ground-

dwelling mammals in the eucalypt forests of south-eastern New South Wales. Wildlife Research.

25(5):449-466.

Churchill, S. 1998. Australian Bats, Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Churchill, S. 2008. Australian Bats, Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Debus, S.J.S. (1991). An annotated list of NSW records of the Red Goshawk. Australian Birds.

24:72-89.

Debus, S.J.S. (1993). The status of the Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) in New South

Wales. Olsen, P., ed. Australasian Raptor Studies. Page(s) 182-191. ARA-RAOU, Melbourne.

Debus, S.J.S. and Chafer, C.J. 1994. ‘The Powerful Owl Ninox strenua in New South Wales’,

Australian Birds. 28:s21-s38.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2004. Draft NSW and National Recovery Plan for

Pimelea spicata, Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville NSW.

Department of Environment Climate Change and Water. 2005. Threatened Species Profiles

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx.

Department of Environment and Conservation NSW (2004) Draft NSW and National Recovery Plan

for Pimelea spicata, Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2007. Threatened Species Profiles

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx.

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx



Department of Environment and Climate Change. 2008. Hygiene protocol for the control of disease

in frogs. Information Circular Number 6. DECC (NSW), South Sydney. ISBN 0 7313 6372 8.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 2010. Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan,

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (NSW), Sydney.

Department of Environment and Climate Change, NSW. 2009. Best practive guidelines: Green and

Golden Bell Frog Habitat.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities SEWPaC (2013)

Protected matters search tool website [online] Available: http://deh.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html

(July 2013).

Eco Logical Australia. 2011. Schofields Precinct Biodiversity Assessment. Prepared for Department

of Planning.

Ehmann, H. 1997. Threatened Frogs of New South Wales: Habitats, Status and Conservation. Frog

and Tadpole Study Group of New South Wales Inc. Sydney, NSW.

Environment Australia 2000, Comprehensive and Regional Assessments for North-East NSW.

Report to National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Environment Australia 1999, ‘Action Plan for Australian Bats’ Available:

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/bats/index.html [11 July

2011].

Fairfull, S. and Witheridge, G. 2003 Why do Fish Need to Cross the Road? Fish Passage

Requirements for Waterway Crossing. NSW Fisheries, Cronulla, 16 pp.

Franklin, D., P. Menkhorst & J. Robinson. 1989. Ecology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza

phrygia. Emu. 89:140--154.

Geering, D. & K. French. 1998. Breeding biology of the Regent Honeyeater Xanthomyza phrygia in

the Capertee Valley, New South Wales. Emu. 98:104--116.

Jaensch, R.P. & R.M. Vervest (1988a). Ducks, Swans and Coots in south-western Australia: the

1986 and 1987 counts. RAOU Report Series. 31:1-32.

Jaensch, R.P., R.M. Vervest & M.J. Hewish (1988). Waterbirds in nature reserves of south-western

Australia 1981-1985: reserve accounts. RAOU Report Series. 30.

Ley, A. & M.B. Williams (1992). The conservation status of the Regent Honeyeater near Armidale,

New South Wales. Australian Bird Watcher. 14:277--281.

Mac Nally, R., T. Soderquist & C. Tzaros (2000). The conservation value of mesic gullies in dry

forest landscapes: avian assemblages in the box-ironbark ecosystem of southern Australia.

Biological Conservation. 93:293-302.

Mac Nally, R. & G. Horrocks (2000). Landscape-scale conservation of an endangered migrant: the

Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) in its winter range. Biological Conservation. 92:335-343.

Marchant, S. & P.J. Higgins, eds. (1990). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds.

Volume One - Ratites to Ducks. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

http://deh.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/index.html

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/bats/index.html



Marchant and Higgins 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Oxford

University Press, Melbourne.

McKilligan, N. 2005. Herons, Egrets and Bitterns, CSIRO Publishing.

Morcombe, M. 2004. Field Guide to Australian Birds, Steve Parish Publishing.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. 2001. Giant Burrowing Frog Heleiopporus australiacus

(Shaw and Nodder 1795).

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service. 2002. Threatened Species Information - Grevillea

juniperina subsp. juniperina. Available [online]

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/TSprofileGrevilleaJuniperinaSspJuniperina.pd

f (Accessed 26 July 2013).

NSW Scientific Committee 2011. Final Determinations

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Final+determinations .

NSW Scientific Committee 1999 Final Determinations

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/committee/finaldeterminations.htm

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services (NSW NPWS). 2002. Interpretation

Guidelines for the Native Vegetation Maps of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney, Final Edition.

Hurstville.

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services 1998. Vertebrate Fauna Survey – A project

undertaken as part of the NSW Comprehensive Regional Assessment. Project Number NA 01/EH.

New South Wales Scientific Committee (2004) Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the NSW North

Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions – endangered ecological community listing

– final determination. Available:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/SwampOakFloodplainEndSpListing.htm

Office of Environment and Heritage (2012). Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina – profile.

Available: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10367

(Accessed 29 July 2013)

Office of Environment and Heritage (2013) NSW Wildlife Atlas search database tool (Accessed 19

July 2013).

Pittwater Council 2000. Management Plan for Threatened Fauna and Flora in Pittwater. Prepared

for Pittwater Council by Smith, J. and Smith, P.

Pyke. G. H. and White A. W. (1996). Habitat requirements for the Green and Golden Bell Frog

Litoria aurea (Anura: Hylidae). Australian Zoologist. 30: 224-232

Sheilds, J. and Chrome, F. 1992. Parrots and Pigeons of Australia, Angus and Robinson, Sydney.

Simpson, K. and Day, N. 1999. Field guide to the birds of Australia 6th edn., Penguin Books

Australia Ltd, Ringwood Victoria.

Simpson, K. and Day, N. 2004. Field guide to the birds of Australia 7th edn., Penguin Books

Australia Ltd, Ringwood Victoria.

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

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

http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Final+determinations

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/SwampOakFloodplainEndSpListing.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10367



Strahan, R. (Ed.) 1995. The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mammals, Angus and Robertson Publishers, Sydney.

Walsh, N.G. and Entwisle, T.J. (1999) Flora of Victoria Vol 4 Royal Botanic Gardens Melbourne.



Appendix A: Likelihood of Occurrence

Summary of initial assessment to determine the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species, populations and ecological communities in

the proposal subject site.

An assessment of likelihood of occurrence was made for threatened and migratory species identified from the database search. Five terms for the

likelihood of occurrence of species are used in this report. This assessment was based on database or other records, presence or absence of suitable

habitat, features of the proposal site, results of the field survey and professional judgement. The terms for likelihood of occurrence are defined below:

“known” = the species was or has been observed on the site

“likely” = a medium to high probability that a species uses the site

“potential” = suitable habitat for a species occurs on the site, but there is insufficient information to categorise the spec ies as likely to occur, or

unlikely to occur

“unlikely” = a very low to low probability that a species uses the site

“no” = habitat on site and in the vicinity is unsuitable for the species.

A1 Vegetat ion Communit ies

Community Name

Conservation significance

Habitat Associations Likelihood of

Occurrence TSC Act EPBC Act

VGETATION COMMUNITIES

Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel

Transition Forest

CEEC CEEC Woodland community occurring on shale derived soils throughout low

rainfall areas of western Sydney.

Unlikely – occurs

outside study area

River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC - Found on alluvial soils near watercourse on clay-loam or sand-loam

soils.

Known

Swamp Oak Forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin

and South East corner bioregions

EEC - Occurs on saline or sub-saline conditions in areas prone to

waterlogging and inundation. It is generally located in elevations

below 20 m and is typically dominated by a Casuarina glauca and a

sparse understorey.

Known



Community Name


Habitat Associations Likelihood of

Occurrence TSC Act EPBC Act

Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist

Woodland on Shale

EEC CEEC A closed canopy often associated with humid conditions and supports

epiphytes, vines and mesic shrubs although this varies according to

topography and landform. It is found on shale soil in the

Cumberland Plain Sub-region of the Sydney Basin Bioregion in

elevations below 300m with a mean annual rainfall between 700-

900mm.

Unlikely

CEEC – Critically endangered ecological community

EEC - endangered ecological community

A2 Flora Species

Scientific Name Common Name


Habitat Associations Likelihood of Occurrence

TSC Act EPBC Act

Acacia bynoeana Bynoe’s Wattle E V Acacia bynoeana is found in central eastern NSW, from the Hunter District (Morisset) south to the Southern Highlands and west to the Blue Mountains, and has recently been found in the Colymea and Parma Creek areas west of Nowra. It is found in heath and dry sclerophyll forest, typically on a sand or sandy clay substrate, often with ironstone gravels (DEC 2005).

Unlikely – no suitable habitat

Allocasuarina glareicola E E Allocasuarina glareicola is primarily restricted to the Richmond district on the north-west Cumberland Plain, with an outlier population found at Voyager Point. It grows in Castlereagh woodland on lateritic soil (DEC 2005).







TSC Act EPBC Act

Cryptostylis hunteriana Leafless Tongue Orchid V V Cryptostylis hunteriana is known from a range of vegetation communities including swamp-heath and woodland (DEC 2005). The larger populations typically occur in woodland dominated by Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus sclerophylla), Silvertop Ash (E. sieberi), Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) and Black Sheoak (Allocasuarina littoralis); where it appears to prefer open areas in the understorey of this community and is often found in association with the Large Tongue Orchid (C. subulata) and the Tartan Tongue Orchid (C. erecta) (DEC 2005). Bell (2001) has identified Coastal Plains Scribbly Gum Woodland and Coastal Plains Smoothed-barked Apple Woodland as potential habitat on the Central Coast. Flowers between November and February, although may not flower regularly (DEC 2005; Bell 2001).


Dillwynia tenuifolia V Dillwynia tenuifolia has a core distribution within the Cumberland Plain, where it may be locally abundant within scrubby, dry heath areas within Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and Shale/Gravel Transition Forest on tertiary alluvium or laterised clays (DEC 2005). It may also be common in the ecotone between these areas and Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland (DEC 2005).


Eucalyptus nicholii Narrow-leaved Black Peppermint

V V Eucalyptus nicholii naturally occurs in the New England Tablelands of NSW, where it occurs from Nundle to north of Tenterfield. Grows in dry grassy woodland, on shallow and infertile soils, mainly on granite (DEC 2005). This species is widely planted as an urban street tree and in gardens but is quite rare in the wild (DEC 2005). Plantings undertaken for horticultural and aesthetic purposes are not considered threatened species under the TSC Act.







TSC Act EPBC Act


Juniper-leaved Grevillea V Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina is endemic to Western Sydney, centred on an area bounded by Blacktown, Erskine Park, Londonderry and Windsor with outlier populations at Kemps Creek and Pitt Town. It grows on reddish clay to sandy soils derived from Wianamatta Shale and Tertiary alluvium, typically containing lateritic gravels (DEC 2005).

Known in study area

Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora

Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora population in the Bankstown, Blacktown, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Holroyd, Liverpool and Penrith local government areas

E2 This Endangered Population of Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora occurs in the Prospect, Bankstown, Smithfield, Cabramatta Creek and St Marys areas of western Sydney. It grows in vine thickets and open shale woodland (DEC 2005).


Melaleuca deanei Deane’s Paperbark V V Found in heath on sandstone (DEC 2005), and also associated with woodland on broad ridge tops and slopes on sandy loam and lateritic soils (Benson and McDougall 1998).


Micromyrtus minutiflora Micromyrtus minutiflora E V Micromyrtus minutiflora is restricted to the area between Richmond and Penrith in western Sydney on the Central Coast. It grows in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland, Ironbark Forest, Shale/Gravel Transition Forest, and open forest on tertiary alluvium and consolidated river sediments (DEC 2005).

Unlikely – suitable habitat but not found in this area






TSC Act EPBC Act

Pelargonium sp. Striatellum (G.W.Carr 10345)

Omeo Stork's-bill E In NSW, Pelargonium sp. (G.W. Carr 10345) is known from the Southern Tablelands (PlantNet 2011). Otherwise, only known from the shores of Lake Omeo near Benambra in Victoria where it grows in cracking clay soil that is probably occasionally flooded (Walsh & Entwisle 1999).


Pilularia novae-hollandiae

Austral Pillwort E Pilularia novae-hollandiae has been recorded in

southern NSW from a number of widely separated coastal and inland localities. It grows in shallow swamps and waterways, often among grasses and sedges. It is most often recorded in drying mud as this is when it is most conspicuous (DEC 2005).


Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora

Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora

V V Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora is confined to the coastal area of Sydney between northern Sydney in the south and Maroota in the north-west. It grows on shaley/lateritic soils over sandstone and shale/sandstone transition soils on ridgetops and upper slopes amongst woodlands (DEC 2005). Associated with the Duffys Forest Community, shale lenses on ridges in Hawkesbury sandstone geology (Pittwater Council 2000).


Pimelea spicata Spiked Rice-flower E E In western Sydney, Pimelea spicata occurs on an undulating topography of well structured clay soils, derived from Wianamatta shale (DEC 2004). It is associated with Cumberland Plains Woodland (CPW), in open woodland and grassland often in moist depressions or near creek lines (Ibid.). Has been located in disturbed areas that would have previously supported CPW (Ibid.).

Unlikely – highly disturbed habitat

Pterostylis gibbosa Illawarra Greenhood E E Known from a small number of populations in the upper Hunter Valley (Milbrodale), the Illawarra region (Albion Park and Yallah) and near Nowra (DEC 2005). Plants grow in a variety of woodland and open forest communities with shallow rocky soils.







TSC Act EPBC Act

Pterostylis saxicola Sydney Plains Greenhood E E Terrestrial orchid predominantly found in Hawkesbury Sandstone Gully Forest growing in small pockets of soil that have formed in depressions in sandstone rock shelves (NPWS 1997). Known from Georges River National Park, Ingleburn, Holsworthy, Peter Meadows Creek, St Marys Tower (NSW Scientific Committee 1999).


Pultenaea parviflora E V May be locally abundant, particularly within scrubby/dry heath areas within Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and Shale Gravel Transition Forest on tertiary alluvium or laterised clays (DEC 2005). May also be common in ecotone between these communities and Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland (ibid.). Eucalyptus fibrosa is usually the dominant canopy species (ibid.). E. globoidea, E. longifolia, E. parramattensis, E. sclerophylla and E. sideroxylon may also be present or co-dominant, with Melaleuca decora frequently forming a secondary canopy layer (ibid.). Associated species may include Allocasuarina littoralis, Angophora bakeri, Aristida spp. Banksia spinulosa, Cryptandra spp., Daviesia ulicifolia, Entolasia stricta, Hakea sericea, Lissanthe strigosa, M. nodosa, Ozothamnus diosmifolius and Themeda australis (ibid.). Often found in association with other threatened species such as Dillwynia tenuifolia, Dodonaea falcata, Grevillea juniperina, Micromyrtus minutiflora, Persoonia nutans and Styphelia laeta (ibid.). Flowering may occur between August and November (ibid.).







TSC Act EPBC Act

Streblus pendulinus Siah's Backbone E

On the Australian mainland, Siah’s Backbone is found in warmer rainforests, chiefly along watercourses. The altitudinal range is from near sea level to 800 m above sea level. The species grows in well developed rainforest, gallery forest and drier, more seasonal rainforest (SEWPAC 2012).


Tetratheca glandulosa V V Associated with ridgetop woodland habits on yellow earths also in sandy or rocky heath and scrub (NPWS 1997). Often associated with sandstone / shale interface where soils have a stronger clay influence (NPWS 1997). Flowers July to November.




A3 Fauna Species


Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Ray-finned fish (Actinopterygii)

Macquarie australasica Macquarie Perch - E1 Habitat for the Macquarie perch is on the bottom or mid-water in slow-flowing rivers with deep holes, typically in the upper reaches of forested catchments with intact riparian vegetation. Macquarie perch also do well in some upper catchment lakes. In some parts of its range, the species is reduced to taking refuge in small pools which persist in midland–upland areas through the drier summer periods.

Unlikely - highly disturbed waterways

Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling - V The historic distribution of the Australian Grayling included coastal streams from the Grose River southwards through NSW, Vic. and Tas. On mainland Australia, this species has been recorded from rivers flowing east and south of the main dividing ranges. This species spends only part of its lifecycle in freshwater, mainly inhabiting clear, gravel-bottomed streams with alternating pools and riffles, and granite outcrops but has also been found in muddy-bottomed, heavily silted habitat. Grayling migrate between freshwater streams and the ocean and as such it is generally accepted to be a diadromous (migratory between fresh and salt waters) species.

Unlikely - highly disturbed waterways

Amphibia

Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog V V Forages in woodlands, wet heath, dry and wet sclerophyll forest (Ehmann 1997). Associated with semi-permanent to ephemeral sand or rock based streams (Ehmann 1997), where the soil is soft and sandy so that burrows can be constructed.





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog

E1 V This species has been observed utilising a variety of natural and man-made waterbodies (Pyke & White 1996) such as coastal swamps, marshes, dune swales, lagoons, lakes, other estuary wetlands, riverine floodplain wetlands and billabongs, stormwater detention basins, farm dams, bunded areas, drains, ditches and any other structure capable of storing water (DECC 2009). Fast flowing streams are not utilised for breeding purposes by this species. Preferable habitat for this species includes attributes such as shallow, still or slow flowing, permanent and/or widely fluctuating water bodies that are unpolluted and without heavy shading (DEC 2005). Large permanent swamps and ponds exhibiting well-established fringing vegetation (especially bulrushes–Typha sp. and spikerushes–Eleocharis sp.) adjacent to open grassland areas for foraging are preferable (Ehmann 1997; Robinson 2004). Ponds that are typically inhabited tend to be free from predatory fish such as Mosquito Fish (Gambusia holbrooki) (DEC 2005; NPWS 2003). Formerly distributed from the NSW north coast near Brunswick Heads, southwards along the NSW coast to Victoria where it extends into east Gippsland. Records from west to Bathurst, Tumut and the ACT region. Since 1990 there have been approximately 50 recorded locations in NSW, most of which are small, coastal, or near coastal populations. These locations occur over the species’ former range, however they are widely separated and isolated. Large populations in NSW are located around the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Shoalhaven and mid north coast (one an island population). There is only one known population on the NSW Southern Tablelands. Inhabits marshes, dams and stream-sides, particularly those containing bullrushes (Typha spp.) or spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.).





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Litoria littlejohni Heath Frog V V It appears to be restricted to sandstone woodland and heath communities at mid to high altitude (NSW Scientific Committee 2000). It forages both in the tree canopy and on the ground, and it has been observed sheltering under rocks on high exposed ridges during summer (NSW Scientific Committee 2000). Littlejohn's Tree Frog has a distribution that includes the plateaus and eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range from Watagan State Forest (90 km north of Sydney) south to Buchan in Victoria (DECC 2007). It occurs along permanent rocky streams with thick fringing vegetation associated with eucalypt woodlands and heaths among sandstone outcrops. It hunts either in shrubs or on the ground. Breeding is triggered by heavy rain and can occur from late winter to autumn, but is most likely to occur in spring when conditions are favourable. Males call from low vegetation close to slow flowing pools. Eggs and tadpoles are mostly found in slow flowing pools that receive extended exposure to sunlight, but will also use temporary isolated pools (DECC 2007).


Mixophyes iteratus Giant Barred Frog E1 E1 Found on forested slopes of the escarpment and adjacent ranges in riparian vegetation, subtropical and dry rainforest, wet sclerophyll forests and swamp sclerophyll forest (DECC 2007; Ehmann 1997). This species is associated with flowing streams with high water quality, though habitats may contain weed species (Ehmann 1997). This species is not known from riparian vegetation disturbed by humans (NSW Scientific Committee 1999). During breeding eggs are kicked up onto an overhanging bank or the streams edge (DECC 2007).


Reptilia




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Hoplocephalus bungaroides

Broad-headed Snake E1 V Typical sites consist of exposed sandstone outcrops and benching where the vegetation is predominantly woodland, open woodland and/or heath on Triassic sandstone of the Sydney Basin (DECC 2007). They utilise rock crevices and exfoliating sheets of weathered sandstone during the cooler months and tree hollows during summer. Some of the canopy tree species found to regularly co-occur at known sites include Corymbia eximia, C. gummifera, Eucalyptus sieberi, E. punctata and E.piperita (DECC 2007).


Aves (Diurnal Birds)

Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater CE E1, Mi Regent Honeyeaters mostly occur in dry box-ironbark eucalypt woodland and dry sclerophyll forest associations, wherein they prefer the most fertile sites available, e.g. along creek flats, or in broad river valleys and foothills. In NSW, riparian forests containing Casuarina cunninghamiana (River Oak), and with Amyema cambagei (Needle-leaf Mistletoe), are also important for feeding and breeding. At times of food shortage (e.g. when flowering fails in preferred habitats), Honeyeaters also use other woodland types and wet lowland coastal forest dominated by Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) or E. maculata (Spotted Gum) (Franklin et al. 1989; Geering & French 1998; Ley & Williams 1992; Oliver et al. 1999; Webster & Menkhorst 1992). Regent Honeyeaters sometimes occur in coastal forest, especially in stands dominated by Swamp Mahogany and Spotted Gum, but also in those with Southern Mahogany E. botryoides, and in those on sandstone ranges with banksias Banksia in the understorey (Franklin et al. 1989; Higgins et al. 2001; Menkhorst 1997c). They have been recorded in open forest including forest edges, wooded farmland and urban areas with mature eucalypts (Garnett 1993). The Regent Honeyeater primarily feeds on nectar from box and ironbark eucalypts and occasionally from





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

banksias and mistletoes (NPWS 1995). As such it is reliant on locally abundant nectar sources with different flowering times to provide reliable supply of nectar (Environment Australia 2000). In NSW, most records are scattered on and around the Great Dividing Range, mainly on the North-West Plains, North-West Slopes and adjacent Northern Tablelands, to west of Armidale; the Central Tablelands and Southern Tablelands regions; and the Central Coast and Hunter Valley regions. The species is concentrated around two main locations, the Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba area, but Honeyeaters are also recorded along the coast in the Northern Rivers and Mid-North Coast Regions, and in the Illawarra and South Coast Regions, from Nowra south to Moruya, where small numbers are recorded in most years (D. Geering 1997, unpublished data; Higgins et al. 2001; Webster & Menkhorst 1992).




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern E1 E1 Terrestrial wetlands with tall dense vegetation, occasionally estuarine habitats (Marchant & Higgins 1990). Found along the east coast and in the Murray-Darling Basin, notably in floodplain wetlands of the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir Rivers (Marchant & Higgins 1990; NPWS 1990). Reedbeds, swamps, streams, estuaries (Simpson & Day 1999). Favours permananent shallow waters, edges of pools and waterways, with tall, dense vegetation such as sedges, rushes and reeds on muddy or peaty substrate. Also occurs in Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta and Canegrass Eragrostis australasica on inland wetlands (NSW Scientific Committee, 2010). In WA it probably occurs only on the western coastal plain between Lancelin and Busselton, in the southern coastal region from Augusta to east of Albany and inland to some wetlands in the jarrah forest belt, with small, isolated populations in swamps from west of Esperance eastwards to near Cape Arid (Marchant & Higgins 1990). The largest concentration in WA is said to occur in the Lake Muir wetlands complex (Jaensch & Vervest 1988a; Jaensch et al. 1988).


Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo population in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai local government areas

E2 - The Gang-gang Cockatoo population was once widespread in Sydney region (NSW SC 2011). This population now inhabits urbanbushland and reserves within the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai LGA including Lane Cove N.P and Pennant Hills Park (NSW SC 2011). This is the last known breeding population within Sydney Metropolitian area (NSW SC 2011).


Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo V — During summer in dense, tall, wet forests of mountains and gullies, alpine woodlands (Morcombe 2004). In winter they occur at lower altitudes in drier more open forests and woodlands, particularly box-ironbark assemblages (Shields & Chrome 1992). They sometimes inhabit woodland, farms and suburbs in autumn/winter (Simpson & Day 2004).

As above




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird E1 E1 Habitat is characterised by dense, low vegetation and includes sedgeland, heathland, swampland, shrubland, sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest, as well as open woodland with a heathy understorey. In northern NSW occurs in open forest with tussocky grass understorey. All of these vegetation types are fire prone, aside from the rainforest habitatas utilised by the northern population as fire refuge. Age of habitat since fires (fire-age) is of paramount importance to this species; Illawarra and southern populations reach maximum densities in habitat that has not been burnt for at least 15 years; however, in the northern NSW population a lack of fire in grassy forest may be detrimental as grassy tussock nesting habitat becomes unsuitable after long periods without fire; northern NSW birds are usually found in habitats burnt five to 10 years previously.


Erythrotriorchis radiatus Red Goshawk CE V Associated with forests and woodlands with a mosaic of vegetation types, an abundance of birds and permanent water. In NSW, this species is thought to favour mixed subtropical rainforest, Melaleuca Swamp Forest, and open eucalypt forest along rivers, often in rugged terrain (Marchant & Higgins 1993; Debus 1993 & 1991; DECC 2007). The Red Goshawk nests in large trees, frequently the tallest and most massive in a tall stand, and nest trees are invariably within one km of permanent water (Aumann & Baker-Gabb 1991; Debus & Czechura 1988b).

Unlikely - open vegetation present, however no large trees present




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot E E1, Ma Breeds in Tasmania between September and January. Feeds mostly on nectar, mainly from eucalypts, but also eats psyllid insects and lerps, seeds and fruit. Migrates to mainland in autumn, where it forages on profuse flowering Eucalypts. Favoured feed trees include winter flowering species such as Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Red Bloodwood (C. gummifera), Mugga Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), White Box (E. albens) and Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) (DECC 2007). Box-ironbark habitat in drainage lines, and coastal forest in NSW is thought to provide critical food resources during periods of drought or low food abundance elsewhere (Mac Nally et al. 2000).


Melithreptus gularis gularis

Black-chinned Honeyeater (eastern subspecies)

V — Predominantly associated with box-ironbark association woodlands and River Red Gum (NSW Scientific Committee, 2001). Also associated with drier coastal woodlands of the Cumberland Plain and the Hunter, Richmond and Clarence Valleys (NSW Scientific Committee, 2001).


Neophema pulchella Turquoise Parrot V — Steep rocky ridges and gullies, rolling hills, valleys and river flats and the plains of the Great Dividing Range compromise the topography inhabited by this species (Marchant & Higgins 1993). Spends much of the time on the ground foraging on seed and grasses (DECC 2007). It is associated with coastal scrubland, open forest and timbered grassland, especially low shrub ecotones between dry hardwood forests and grasslands with high proportion of native grasses and forbs (Environment Australia 2000).





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Oxyura australis Blue-billed Duck V — The Blue-billed Duck prefers deep water in large permanent wetlands and swamps with dense aquatic vegetation (DECC 2007). The species is completely aquatic, swimming low in the water along the edge of dense cover (DECC 2007). It will fly if disturbed, but prefers to dive if approached (DECC 2007). Blue-billed Ducks are partly migratory, with short-distance movements between breeding swamps and over-wintering lakes with some long-distance dispersal to breed during spring and early summer (DECC 2007). Young birds disperse in April-May from their breeding swamps in inland NSW to non-breeding areas on the Murray River system and coastal lakes (DECC 2007).


Pyrrholaemus sagittatus Speckled Warbler V - Occupies a wide range of eucalypt dominated communities with a grassy understorey, often on rocky ridges or in gullies (DECC 2007). Typical habitat would include scattered native tussock grasses, a sparse shrub layer, some eucalypt regrowth and an open canopy (DECC 2007). Large, relatively undisturbed remnants are required for the species to persist in an area (DECC 2007). Pairs are sedentary and occupy a breeding territory of about ten hectares, with a slightly larger home-range when not breeding (DECC 2007).


Rostratula benghalensis australis

Painted Snipe (Australian subspecies)

E1 E1 Prefers fringes of swamps, dams and nearby marshy areas where there is a cover of grasses, lignum, low scrub or open timber (DECC 2007). Nests on the ground amongst tall vegetation, such as grasses, tussocks or reeds (ibid.). Breeding is often in response to local conditions; generally occurs from September to December (DECC 2007). Roosts during the day in dense vegetation (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). Forages nocturnally on mud-flats and in shallow water (DECC 2007). Feeds on worms, molluscs, insects and some plant-matter (ibid.).


Aves (Nocturnal birds)




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V Powerful Owls are associated with a wide range of wet and dry forest types with a high density of prey, such as arboreal mammals, large birds and flying foxes (Environment Australia 2000, Debus & Chafer 1994). Large trees with hollows at least 0.5m deep are required for shelter and breeding (Environment Australia 2000).

Unlikely– suitable in study area but not the subject site

Mammalia - terrestrial (excluding bats)

Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll V The Spotted-tailed Quoll inhabits a range of forest communities including wet and dry sclerophyll forests, coastal heathlands and rainforests (Mansergh 1984; DECC 2007j), more frequently recorded near the ecotones of closed and open forest and in NSW within 200km of the coast. Preferred habitat is mature wet forest (Belcher 2000b; Green & Scarborough 1990; Watt 1993), especially in areas with rainfall 600 mm/year (Edgar & Belcher 2008; Mansergh 1984). Unlogged forest or forest that has been less disturbed by timber harvesting is also preferable (Catling et al. 1998, 2000). This species requires habitat features such as maternal den sites, an abundance of food (birds and small mammals) and large areas of relatively intact vegetation to forage in (DECC 2007). Maternal den sites are logs with cryptic entrances; rock outcrops; windrows; burrows (Environment Australia 2000).


Dasyurus maculatus maculatus

Spotted-tailed Quoll (SE Mainland Population)

— E1 see above As above

Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby E1 V Rocky areas in a variety of habitats, typically north facing sites with numerous ledges, caves and crevices (Strahan 1995).


Phascolarctos cinereus Koala in the Pittwater Local Government Area

E2 Unlikely – no suitable habitat




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V — Associated with both wet and dry Eucalypt forest and woodland that contains a canopy cover of approximately 10 to 70%, with acceptable Eucalypt food trees. Some preferred Eucalyptus species are: Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. punctata, E. cypellocarpa, E. viminalis


Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed Potoroo V — Associated with dry coastal heath and dry and wet sclerophyll forests (Strahan 1995) with dense cover for shelter and adjacent more open areas for foraging .


Potorous tridactylus tridactylus

Long-nosed Potoroo (SE Mainland Population)

— V see above

Pseudomys novaehollandiae

New Holland Mouse V This species has been recorded from Queensland to Tasmania, though with a sporadic and patchy distribution. Most records are coastal. However, populations have been recently recorded up to 400km inland. The species includes heathlands, woodands, open forest and paperbark swamps and on sandy, loamy or rocky soils . In coastal populations the species seems to have a preference for sandy substrates, a heathy understorey of legumes less than one metre high and sparse ground litter. This species is generally recorded in regenerating burnt areas occurs that are one or two years post fire and rehabilitated sand-mined areas that are four to five years post-mining .


Mammalia - terrestrial (Bats)

Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V The Large-eared Pied Bat has been recorded in a variety of habitats, including dry sclerophyll forests, woodland, sub-alpine woodland, edges of rainforests and wet sclerophyll forests (Churchill 2008; DECC 2007). This species roosts in caves, rock overhangs and disused mine shafts and as such is usually associated with rock outcrops and cliff faces (Churchill 2008; DECC 2007).

Potential – previously located in study area




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Falsistrellus tasmaniensis

Eastern False Pipistrelle V — Prefers moist habitats with trees taller than 20m (DECC 2007). Roosts in tree hollows but has also been found roosting in buildings or under loose bark (DECC 2007).

Potential – foraging habitat

Miniopterus australis Little Bent-wing Bat V — Prefers well-timbered areas including rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forests, Melaleuca swamps and coastal forests (Churchill 1998). This species shelter in a range of structures including culverts, drains, mines and caves (Environment Australia 2000). Relatively large areas of dense vegetation of either wet sclerophyll forest, rainforest or dense coastal banksia scrub are usually found adjacent to caves in which this species is found (DECC 2007). Breeding occurs in caves, usually in association with M. schreibersii (Environment Australia 2000, DECC 2007).

Potential roosting and foraging habitat

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis

Eastern Bent-wing Bat V — Associated with a range of habitats such as rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, monsoon forest, open woodland, paperbark forests and open grassland (Churchill 1998). It forages above and below the tree canopy on small insects . Will utilise caves, old mines, and stormwater channels, under bridges and occasionally buildings for shelter (Environment Australia 2000).


Mormopterus norfolkensis

Eastern Freetail-bat V — Most records of this species are from dry eucalypt forest and woodland east of the Great Dividing Range (Churchill 1998). Individuals have, however, been recorded flying low over a rocky river in rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest and foraging in clearings at forest edges (Environment Australia 2000). Primarily roosts in hollows or behind loose bark in mature eucalypts, but have been observed roosting in the roof of a hut (Environment Australia 2000).





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Myotis adversus Southern Myotis, Large-footed Myotis

V — Will occupy most habitat types such as mangroves, paperbark swamps, riverine monsoon forest, rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll forest, open woodland and River Red Gum woodland, as long as they are close to water (Churchill 1998). While roosting is most commonly associated with caves, this species has been observed to roost in tree hollows, amongst vegetation, in clumps of Pandanus, under bridges, in mines, tunnels and stormwater drains (Churchill 1998). However the species apparently has specific roost requirements, and only a small percentage of available caves, mines, tunnels and culverts are used.


Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-Fox V V Inhabits a wide range of habitats including rainforest, mangroves, paperbark forests, wet and dry sclerophyll forests and cultivated areas (Churchill 1998, Eby 1998). Camps are often located in gullies, typically close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy (Churchill 1998).


Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat

V — Found in almost all habitats, from wet and dry sclerophyll forest, open woodland (Churchill 1998), open country, mallee, rainforests, heathland and waterbodies (SFNSW 1995). Roosts in tree hollows; may also use caves; has also been recorded in a tree hollow in a paddock (Environment Australia 2000) and in abandoned sugar glider nests (Churchill 1998). The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat is dependent on suitable hollow-bearing trees to provide roost sites, which may be a limiting factor on populations in cleared or fragmented habitats (Environment Australia 2000).


Scoteanax rueppellii Greater Broad-nosed Bat V — Associated with moist gullies in mature coastal forest, or rainforest, east of the Great Dividing Range (Churchill, 1998), tending to be more frequently located in more productive forests (Hoye & Richards 1998). Within denser vegetation types use is made of natural and man made openings such as roads, creeks and small rivers, where it hawks backwards and forwards for prey (Hoye & Richards 1998).





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Invertebrata

Meridolum corneovirens Cumberland Plain Land Snail

E1 Associated with open eucalypt forests, particularly Cumberland Plain Woodland described in Benson (1992). Found under fallen logs, debris and in bark and leaf litter around the trunk of gum trees or burrowing in loose soil around clumps of grass (NPWS 1997). Urban waste may also form suitable habitat (NSW NPWS 1997).


Migratory terrestrial species

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift - Ma, Mi Sometimes travels with Needletails. Varied habitat with a possible tendency to more arid areas but also over coasts and urban areas (Simpson & Day 1999).


Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle — Ma, Mi Forages over large open fresh or saline waterbodies, coastal seas and open terrestrial areas (Marchant & Higgins 1993, Simpson & Day 1999). Breeding habitat consists of tall trees, mangroves, cliffs, rocky outcrops, silts, caves and crevices and is located along the coast or major rivers. Breeding habitat is usually in or close to water, but may occur up to a kilometre away (Marchant & Higgins 1993).


Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail — Mi Forages aerially over a variety of habitats usually over coastal and mountain areas, most likely with a preference for wooded areas (Marchant & Higgins 1993; Simpson & Day 1999). Has been observed roosting in dense foliage of canopy trees, and may seek refuge in tree hollows in inclement weather (Marchant & Higgins 1993).


Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater — Ma, Mi Resident in coastal and subcoastal northern Australia; regular breeding migrant in southern Australia, arriving September to October, departing February to March, some occasionally present April to May. Occurs in open country, chiefly at suitable breeding places in areas of sandy or loamy soil: sand-ridges, riverbanks, road-cuttings, sand-pits, occasionally coastal cliffs (ibid). Nest is a chamber a the end of a burrow, up to 1.6 m long, tunnelled in flat or sloping ground, sandy back or cutting (ibid).





Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch — Mi Rainforest and eucalypt forests, feeding in tangled understorey (Blakers et al. 1984).


Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher — Mi Associated with drier eucalypt forests, absent from rainforests (Blakers et al. 1984), open forests, often at height (Simpson & Day 1999).


Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail — Mi The Rufous Fantail is a summer breeding migrant to southeastern Australia (Morcombe, 2004). The Rufous Fantail is found in rainforest, dense wet eucalypt and monsoon forests, paperbark and mangrove swamps and riverside vegetation (Morcombe, 2004). Open country may be used by the Rufous Fantail during migration (Morcombe, 2004).


Xanthomyza phrygia Regent Honeyeater E1 E1, Mi SEE DIURNAL BIRDS ABOVE Unlikely – no suitable habitat

Migratory Wetland species

Ardea alba Great Egret — Mi The Great Egret is common and widespread in Australia (McKilligan, 2005). It forages in a wide range of wet and dry habitats including permanent and ephemeral freshwaters, wet pasture and estuarine mangroves and mudflats (McKilligan, 2005).

Unlikely – although suitable

habitat located in adjacent areas

Ardea ibis Cattle Egret — Mi Cattle Egrets forage on pasture, marsh, grassy road verges, rain puddles and croplands, but not usually in the open water of streams or lakes and they avoid marine environments (McKilligan, 2005). Some individuals stay close to the natal heronry from one nesting season to the next, but the majority leave the district in autumn and return the next spring. Cattle Egrets are likely to spend the winter dispersed along the coastal plain and only a small number have been recovered west of the Great Dividing Range (McKilligan, 2005).

Unlikely – although suitable habitat located in adjacent areas




Conservation status


TSC Act EPBC Act

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s Snipe — Mi A variety of permanent and ephemeral wetlands, preferring open fresh water wetlands with nearby cover (Marchant and Higgins 1999). Occupies a variety of vegetation around wetlands (Marchant and Higgins 1999) including wetland grasses and open wooded swamps (Simpson and Day 1999).


Rostratula benghalensis s. lat.

Painted Snipe — Mi, E Prefers fringes of swamps, dams and nearby marshy areas where there is a cover of grasses, lignum, low scrub or open timber (DECC 2007). Nests on the ground amongst tall vegetation, such as grasses, tussocks or reeds (ibid.). Breeding is often in response to local conditions; generally occurs from September to December (DECC 2007). Roosts during the day in dense vegetation (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). Forages nocturnally on mud-flats and in shallow water (DECC 2007). Feeds on worms, molluscs, insects and some plant-matter (ibid.).


Disclaimer: Data extracted from the Atlas of NSW Wildlife and DSEWPaC Protected Matters Report are only indicative and cannot be considered a comprehensive inventory. ‘Migratory marine species’ and ‘listed marine species’ listed on the EPBC Act (and listed on the DSEWPaC protected matters report) have not been included in this table, since they are considered unlikely to occur within the study area due to the absence of marine habitat.

E1 = Endangered; E2 = Endangered Population; CE = Critically Endangered; V = Vulnerable; Mi = Migratory; Ma = Marine



Appendix B: Species list

Flora species recorded in the study area

Scientific Name Common Name Native/

Exotic

Noxious

Class WoNS

Acacia parramattensis Parramatta Wattle N

Acetosa sagittata Turkey Rhubarb E

Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed E 3 Yes

Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel E

Araujia sericifera Moth Vine E

Arundo donax Giant Reed E

Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern E Yes

Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper E 4 Yes

Austrostipa ramosissima Stout Bamboo Grass N

Axonopus fissifolius Narrow-leafed Carpet Grass E

Bidens pilosa Cobblers Pegs E

Briza minor Shivery Grass E

Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass E

Brunoniella australis Blue Trumpet N

Bursaria spinosa Blackthorn N

Cardiospermum grandiflorum Balloon Vine E

Carex sp. N

Casuarina cunninghamiana River Oak N

Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak N

Centella asiatica Pennywort N

Cestrum parqui Green Cestrum E 3

Cheilanthes sieberi N

Chloris gayana Rhodes Grass E

Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle E

Clematis aristata Old Man's Beard N

Conyza bonariensis Flaxleaf Fleabane E

Cynodon dactylon Couch E

Desmodium varians N

S c h o f i e l ds D H A S i t e – F lo r a a n d F a u n a As s e s sm e nt



Exotic

Noxious

Class WoNS

Dianella longifolia Blueberry Lily N

Dichelachne micrantha Shorthair Plumegrass N

Dichondra repens Kidney Weed N

Ehrharta erecta Panic Veldtgrass E

Einadia nutans Climbing Saltbush N

Eragrostis brownii Brown's Lovegrass N

Eragrostis curvula African Lovegrass E

Erythrina x sykesii Coral Tree E

Eucalyptus moluccana Grey Box N

Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum N

Foeniculum vulgare Fennel E

Gahnia sp. N

Galium aparine Goosegrass E

Glycine clandestina N

Glycine tabacina N

Gomphocarpus physocarpus Balloon Cotton Plant E

Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina N

Grevillea robusta Silky Oak E

Hypochaeris radicata Catsear E

Imperata cylindrical Blady Grass N

Juncus usitatus N

Kunzea ambigua Tick Bush N

Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaved Privet E 4

Ligustrum sinense Small-leaved Privet E 4

Lomandra longifolia N

Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush N

Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn E 4 Yes

Malva parviflora Small-flowered Mallow E

Medicago sp. E

Melaleuca styphelioides Prickly-leaved Tea Tree N

Melinis repens Red Natal Grass E

Microlaena stipoides Weeping Grass N




Exotic

Noxious

Class WoNS

Modiola caroliniana Red-flowered Mallow E

Nothoscordum gracile Onion Weed E

Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African Olive E

Oplismenus aemulus Australian Basket Grass N

Oxalis sp. E

Ozothamnus diosmifolius Rice Flower N

Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum E

Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu E

Persicaria decipiens Slender Knotweed N

Phragmites australis Common Reed E

Phragmites australis Common Reed N

Phytolacca octandra Inkweed E

Plantago lanceolata Lamb's Tongues E

Plectranthus parviflorus Cockspur Flower N

Pteridium esculentum Common Bracken N

Pultenaea microphylla N

Ricinus communis Castor Oil Plant E 4

Rubus fruticous agg. Blackberry E 4 Yes

Rumex sp. E

Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed E Yes

Senecio sp. E

Setaria parviflora E

Setaria pumila Slender Pigeon Grass E

Sida rhombifolia Paddy's Lucerne E

Sigesbeckia orientalis N

Solanum mauritianum Wild Tobacco Bush E

Solanum nigrum Black-berry Nightshade E

Solanum pseudocapsicum Madeira Winter E

Solanum sp. E

Sonchus oleraceus Common Sowthistle E

Stellaria media Common Chickweed E

Swainsona sp. E




Exotic

Noxious

Class WoNS

Themeda australis Kanagaroo Grass N

Tradescantia fluminensis Trad E

Triadica sebifera Chinese Tallow Tree E

Trifolium repens White Clover E

Verbena bonariensis Purpletop E

Vinca major Blue Perriwinkle E

Fauna species recorded in the study area

Common Name Scientific Name Observation

Amphibians

Common Eastern Froglet Crinia signifera W

Spotted Marsh Frog Limnodynastes tasmaniensis W

Smooth Toadlet Uperoleia laevigata W

Aves

Yellow-rumped Thornbill Acanthiza chrysorrhoa O

Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris W

Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata W

Sulphur-crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita W

Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis W

Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica W

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae O

Australian Raven Corvus coronoides O

Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus W

Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae W

Black-shouldered Kite Elanus axillaris O

Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca O

Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen O

Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena O

Yellow-faced Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops W

Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus W



Common Name Scientific Name Observation

Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala W

Bell Miner Manorina melanophrys W

Leaden Flycatcher Myiagra rubecula W

Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis O

Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis W

Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus W

Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus O

Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax varius O

Noisy Friarbird Philemon corniculatus W

Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus O

Red-whiskered Bulbul* Pycnonotus jocosus O

Grey Fantail Rhipidura albiscapa O

Weebill Smicrornis brevirostris W

Spotted Dove Spilopelia chinensis O

Common Myna* Sturnis tristis W

Common Starling* Sturnus vulgaris O

Double-barred Finch Taeniopygia bichenovii O

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus O

Silvereye Zosterops lateralis O

MAMMALS

Domestic Dog* Canis lupus familiaris O

Domestic Cattle* Bos taurus O

Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus O

European Rabbit* Oryctolagus cuniculus Scats

European Red Fox* Vulpes vulpes Bird kill

Rusa Deer* Rusa timorensis O

REPTILE

Red-bellied Black Snake Pseudechis porphyriacus O

* denotes introduced species



Appendix C: Assessment of Significance

An assessment of likelihood of occurrence was made for threatened and migratory species

identified from the database search. Five terms for the likelihood of occurrence of species are used

in this report. This assessment was based on database or other records, presence or absence of

suitable habitat, features of the proposal site, results of the field survey and professional judgement.

The terms for likelihood of occurrence are defined below:

“known” = the species was or has been observed on the site

“likely” = a medium to high probability that a species uses the site

“potential” = suitable habitat for a species occurs on the site, but there is insufficient

information to categorise the species as likely to occur, or unlikely to occur

“unlikely” = a very low to low probability that a species uses the site

“no” = habitat on site and in the vicinity is unsuitable for the species.

The threatened species and communities that are the subject of 7-part tests for this proposal

include:

Swamp Oak Forest (Riparian Woodland)

River-flat Eucalypt Forest (Alluvial Woodland)

Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina (vulnerable under the TSC Act)

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) (vulnerable under the TSC

Act)

Large-footed Myotis (Myotis macropus) (vulnerable under the TSC Act)

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) (vulnerable under the EPBC and TSC Acts)



Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest (Riparian Woodland)

This community (referred to in this report as Riparian Woodland) is found on the coastal floodplains

of NSW. The structure of the community may vary from open forests to low woodlands, scrubs or

reedlands with scattered trees. This community is generally characterised by a canopy of

Casuarina glauca and absent shrub layer. Ground cover may also be sparse, although this may

vary within the landscape. Typical ground cover sedges and rushes include: Baumea juncea,

Entolasia marginata, Gahnia clarkei, Hypolepis muelleri, Phragmites australis and Viola hederacea

(NSW Scientific Committee 2004). This community occurs on waterlogged or periodically inundated

flats, drainage lines, lake margins and estuarine fringes associated with coastal floodplains

generally below 20 m (rarely above 10 m) elevation.

A number of threats to the survival of this community have been identified and include:

Clearing for urban and rural development, and the subsequent impacts from fragmentation

Flood mitigation and drainage works

Grazing and trampling by stock and feral animals (eg. Deer)

Activation of acid sulfate soils

Landfilling and earthworks associated with urban and industrial development

Pollution from urban and agricultural runoff

Rubbish dumping

Climate change

Localised areas, particularly those within urbanised regions, may also be exposed to

frequent burning which reduces the diversity of woody plant species.

Swamp Oak Forest (SOF) occurs as small pockets within the subject site and broader study area.

This community is often difficult to distinguish from other TEC’s especially River-flat Eucalypt Forest

which dominated Eastern Creek. Regenerating SOF and more intact stands occur within the non-

certified lands and will be removed as part of the proposed extensive earthworks. A total of 5.85 ha

of SOF will be retained within the VMP.

a) In the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an

adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the

species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

This is not a threatened species. Therefore, this question is not applicable.

b) In the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have

an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered

population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk

of extinction

This is not an endangered population. Therefore, this question is not applicable.

c) In the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological

community, whether the action proposed:

i. Is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such

that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

The vegetation along Eastern Creek extends beyond the study area to the furthest extent of the

Schofields Precinct in the north and M7 Motorway in the south. Several patches of Swamp Oak

Forest (SOF) (also known as Riparian Woodland) occur along Eastern Creek (5.57 ha). The flow of



genetic material is likely to travel along vegetative corridors which may include SOF vegetation.

Under the proposed works 0.35 ha of SOF vegetation on non-certified lands will be removed. A

further 5.57 ha will be retained within the study area. The proposed action will remove only a small

proportion of SOF which is unlikely to impact on the flow of genetic material along Eastern Creek

and is unlikely to result in the loss of genetic pathway across the landscape. Therefore, under the

proposed actions it is unlikely to result in the local occurrence of SOF to be placed at risk of

extinction.

ii. is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological

community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

The subject site contained several small regenerating patches of SOF and a small patch of SOF

mapped as existing native vegetation. The majority of the regenerating patches are dominated by a

single canopy species, Casuarina glauca and high weed densities in the ground layer. Invasive

woody vines were present in high densities within the ENV patch. Weed invasion, grazing and

vegetation clearing have limited the regeneration potential of SOF within other areas of the study

area. The removal of a small amount of disturbed and regenerating SOF with low species diversity

is unlikely to significantly impact on the remaining SOF retained along Eastern Creek.

A VMP will be implemented to reduce weeds and enhance native vegetation including SOF.

Overall, the SOF for removal represents 5.6 % of the SOF identified within the Schofields Precinct;

additionally 5.85 ha will be retained within the VMP area. Given that the vegetation is regenerating

SOF and contains a high weed density and low native resilience the proposed actions are unlikely

to result in changes in the composition of the ecological community which will place the local

occurrence at risk of extinction.

d. in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological

community:

i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the

action proposed, and

A total of 0.35 ha of SOF on non-certified lands will be removed for the extent of works (i.e. the

detention basins, road access). All of this amount was assessed as regenerating SOF. The

proposed will result in the removal of 5.6 % of SOF mapped within non-certified lands within the

Schofield Precinct.

ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other

areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

The SOF vegetation marked for removal includes the loss of regenerating native vegetation which

occurs as scattered patches within the study area. The ENV has been cut off from adjacent native

vegetation by high density weed invasion at the western end and a cleared access track to the east.

The proposed actions will increase the gap between the SOF patch by an additional 7 m width.

Given that the vegetation is already impacted and fragmented within the landscape, the proposed

actions are unlikely to result to exacerbate the isolation of vegetation in the area.

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to

the long term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the

locality,



SOF located within the study area is contained within small patches along drainage lines and

adjacent to Alluvial Woodland. Much of the vegetation has regenerated following previous land

clearing and grazing practices and as such contains low species diversity, especially in the ground

layer. The SOF vegetation contains a weed infested patch which is in poor health within the

proposed road haul access path. The remaining vegetation for removal occurs as regenerating

patches which are low in species diversity and highly fragmented. More intact SOF is available

along Eastern Creek (5.85 ha) and represents a more complex assemblage of native species and

will be retained under the proposed works. Therefore, the removal of degraded and isolated

patches of SOF is unlikely to result in the negative impact on the long-term survival of SOF in the

locality.

e. whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat

(either directly or indirectly),

No critical habitat has been declared for this community.

f. whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a

recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

There is currently no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for SOF although priority actions have

been identified. The proposal would not conflict with these actions.

g. whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is

likely to result in the’ operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening

process.

There are several KTP which are relevant to this project:

Clearing of Native Vegetation / land clearance (TSC and EPBC Acts)


plants, including aquatic plants. (EPBC Act)



Blackberry) (TSC Act)

Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses (Eragrostis curvula African

Lovegrass and Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu) (TSC Act)

Herbivory and environmental degradation caused by feral deer (TSC Act)

Although clearing of native vegetation is considered a KTP the removal of 0.35 ha of SOF

vegetation within non-certified lands the proposed activities are unlikely to result in additional

clearing in non-certified lands. KTP which are likely to impact on threatened flora species include

the invasion of invasive exotic species and the impact of large herbivores within the study area.

However, the vegetation to be retained will be managed under a VMP. This includes

recommendations on the treatment of weeds and exotic fauna.

Conclusion

The proposal will result in the permanent removal of 0.35 ha of SOF in non-certified lands. The AW

present within the study area has undergone past disturbance and particularly areas mapped as

regenerating. The proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on SOF for the following reasons:

Vegetation removal is minimal (0.35 ha) compared to that remaining within the study area



5.85 ha of SOF will be retained for VMP management

SOF is present in non-certified lands along Eastern Creek and connectivity to this

vegetation remains.

Consequently, the impact resulting from the proposed bulk earthworks, as determined through the

above 7-part test, is not considered to be significant. Thus, a Species Impact Statement is not

required for this vegetation community.



River-flat Eucalypt Forest (Alluvial Woodland)

River Flat Eucalypt Forest (RFEF) (referred to as Alluvial Woodland in this report) occurs on the river

flats of the coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, the Sydney Basin, and the South East Corner

Bioregions. It has a tall open tree layer of eucalypts, which may exceed 40m in height, but can be

considerably shorter in regrowth stands or under conditions of lower site quality. While the composition

of the tree stratum varies considerably, the most widespread and abundant dominant trees include

Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest red gum), E. amplifolia (Cabbage gum), Angophora floribunda (Rough-

barked Apple), and A. subvelutina (Broad-leaved Apple). Eucalyptus baueriana (Blue Box), E.

botryoides (Bangalay), and E. elata (River Peppermint) may be common south from Sydney, E. ovata

(Swamp Gum) occurs on the far south coast, E. saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) and E. grandis (Flooded

Gum) may occur north of Sydney, while E. benthamii is restricted to the Hawkesbury floodplain (DECC

2005). A layer of small trees may be present, including Melaleuca decora, M. styphelioides (Prickly-

leaved Teatree), Backhousia myrtifolia (Grey Myrtle), Melia azedarach (White Cedar), Casuarina

cunninghamiana (River Oak), and C. glauca (Swamp Oak). Scattered shrubs include Bursaria spinosa,

Solanum prinophyllum, Rubus parvifolius, Breynia oblongifolia, Ozothamnus diosmifolius,

Hymenanthera dentata, Acacia floribunda, and Phyllanthus gunnii. The groundcover is composed of

abundant forbs, scramblers and grasses, including Microlaena stipoides, Dichondra repens, Glycine

clandestina, Oplismenus aemulus, Desmodium gunnii, Pratia purpurascens, Entolasia marginata,

Oxalis perennans, and Veronica plebeia. The composition and structure of the understorey is influenced

by grazing and fire history, changes to hydrology and soil salinity, and other disturbance, and may have

a substantial component of exotic shrubs, grasses, vines and forbs (DECC 2005).

RFEF has been mapped as Alluvial Woodland throughout the non-certified lands within the study area.

a) In the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse

effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is

likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

This is not a threatened species.

b) In the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an

adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population

such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

This is not an endangered population.

c) In the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological


i. Is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that

its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

RFEF (also known as Alluvial Woodland) has been mapped extensively along Eastern Creek within

non-certified lands in the Schofield Precinct (35.65 ha). RFEF dominates the vegetation along Eastern

Creek with 8.75 ha retained in the VMP area and 35.65 ha within the locality. The removal of 0.09 ha of

intact vegetation and 0.24 ha of scattered regenerating RFEF is unlikely to result in the adverse effect

on the local occurrence and result in the vegetation community placed at risk of extinction.


community



RFEF is located along Eastern Creek within non-certified lands. Several scattered patches of

regenerating vegetation have been included in the recent mapping for this flora and fauna assessment.

This includes regenerating vegetation. Regenerating vegetation contains a low species diversity and

high weed infestation. Given that 0.24 ha of the vegetation has been mapped as regenerating RFEF

and only 0.09 ha of intact RFEF will be removed, and an additional 8.75 ha of RFEF will be retained on-

site the proposed work is unlikely to substantially modify the composition of the ecological community.

d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action

proposed, and

The proposed bulk earthworks will result in the removal of 0.33 ha of RFEF. This includes 0.24 ha of

regenerating RFEF which contains a low species diversity and high weed density. A total of 8.75 ha of

RFEF will be retained for VMP within the study area. The impact RFEF represents 3.7 % of the RFEF

within the study area. Under the VMP additional areas will be used to revegetate RFEF vegetation.

ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas

of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

RFEF has been identified along the banks of Eastern Creek. This vegetation is represented as a

continuous corridor throughout the Schofields Precinct. The RFEF to be removed occurs as

fragmented patches of regenerating vegetation, approximately 0.24 ha which is located as edge habitat

and in poor condition. Under the proposed actions the removal of vegetation will not impact on the

genetic flow and connectivity within this vegetation corridor along Eastern Creek.

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the

long term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Scattered regenerating RFEF is not considered significant to the long-term survival of this vegetation

community. Scattered RFEF was generally represented by Acacia parramattensis and occasional

native eucalypt species. Ground cover native species were limited. These patches contain species

which readily colonise new habitats and do not contain significant flora assemblages for this community.

The remaining 0.09 ha of RFEF vegetation not mapped as regenerating, contains a high assemblage of

weeds and is located within edge effect habitat. The remaining vegetation along Eastern Creek

represents varying qualities of RFEF. In some areas RFEF contains a rich native species assemblage

and in other patches woody weeds or vines have reduced the availability of native species, in the

ground or mid-storey. The removal of a small patch of RFEF is unlikely to impact on the long-term

survival of this ecological community given that 8.75 ha will be retained in the study area and managed

under a VMP and an additional 35.65 ha has been identified along Eastern Creek within the Schofields

Precinct.

e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

No critical habitat of this species has been identified by the Director-General of the Office of

Environment and Heritage on the Register of Critical Habitat.

f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

There is currently no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for RFEF although priority actions have

been identified. The proposal would not conflict with these actions.



g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.




plants, including aquatic plants. (EPBC Act)







Although clearing of native vegetation is considered a KTP the removal of 0.89 ha of RFEF vegetation

within non-certified lands the proposed activities are unlikely to result in additional clearing in non-

certified lands. KTP which are likely to impact on threatened flora species include the invasion of

invasive exotic species and the impact of large herbivores within the study area. However, the

vegetation to be retained will be managed under a VMP. This includes recommendations on the

treatment of weeds and exotic fauna.

Whilst the action will involve this KTP, the scale of the impact is not considered to be significant due to

the small size of the habitat to be removed.

Conclusion

The proposal will result in the removal of 0.33 ha of RFEF in non-certified lands. The AW present within

the study area has undergone past disturbance and particularly areas mapped as regenerating. The

proposal is unlikely to have a significant impact on RFEF for the following reasons:

Habitat removal is minimal (0.09 ha existing and 0.24 ha of regenerating) compared to that

remaining within the study area (8.75 ha);

8.75 ha of RFEF will be retained for VMP management

35.65 ha of RFEF present in non-certified lands in Schofields Precinct and connectivity to

this vegetation remains.

Consequently, the impact resulting from the proposed bulk earthworks, as determined through the

above 7-part test, is not considered to be significant. Thus, a Species Impact Statement is not required

for this vegetation community.




Endemic to Western Sydney, this shrub is listed as vulnerable and its extent is centred on an area

bounded by Blacktown, Erskine Park, Londonderry and Windsor with outlier populations at Kemps

Creek and Pitt Town where it is often locally abundant. This species grows on reddish clay to sandy

soils derived from Wianamatta Shale and Tertiary alluvium (often with shale influence), typically

containing lateritic gravels (DECCW 2010). Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina has been recorded

from Cumberland Plain Woodland, Castlereagh Ironbark Woodland, Castlereagh Scribbly Gum

Woodland and Shale/Gravel Transition Forest. Physical disturbance of the soil appears to result in an

increase in seedling recruitment and this species has a tendency to colonise mechanically disturbed

areas (DECCW 2010). Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina was recorded west of the proposed

sediment basin (Figure 4). Mature and regenerating individuals occurred in a large patch and may

represent between 15-20 individuals. No individuals occur within the subject site, however, the

proposed earthworks occurs in close proximity to this population. A second patch occurs near the

TAFE buildings and will not be impacted on. These patches are likely to be separate populations given

the distance between each patch.

a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an



The proposed bulk earthworks are located adjacent to the patch of Grevillea juniperina subsp.

juniperina. The small, fragmented population of Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina is located outside

the direct impact area. Potential impact associated with these works which may impact on the life-cycle

of this species includes: increase in sediments flow into the patch, spread of weeds, changes in

hydrology and clearing of vegetation.

The patch is located downslope of the proposed bulk earthworks; however, with the implementation of

sediment and erosion structures this impact may be mitigated. The spread of weeds is another key risk

during the construction. A VMP will be prepared for the management of weeds within the Grevillea

patch. Finally, change in hydrology is another potential impact for this species. However, the detention

basins are unlikely to result in the significant alteration of the hydrology that this species would be

directly impacted. Clearing of vegetation for the detention basins is limited to disturbed grassland and

scattered regenerating native vegetation. The vegetation for removal is unlikely to remove viable seed

supply or reduce the extent of this population. In summary, the proposed bulk earthworks is unlikely to

adversely affect the life cycle of this species such that a viable local population would be placed at risk

of extinction.

b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have



of extinction

This is not an endangered population and therefore this question does not apply.

c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

i. is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such


ii. ii. is likely to sub’2stantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological




This is not an Endangered or Critically Endangered Ecological Community and therefore this question

does not apply.




The proposed action, within non-certified lands, will result in the removal of approximately 11.4 ha of

disturbed grassland, 0.35 ha RW and 0.33 ha AW. The actions will include disturbance to the soil

seedbank within adjacent disturbed grassland and alteration of the landscape. AW and RW vegetation

are not considered ideal habitat for this species as they prefer more open habitats. The disturbed

grassland may provide suitable habitat for this species, however, the regular slashing practices and

grazing will limit the potential for this species to colonise this area. Therefore, only a small extent of

vegetation adjacent to the Grevillea patch will be impacted. Similar type of habitats is present along the

edge of AW through the study area and may provide additional colonisation sites.

ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other

areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

The study area contains one large patch of Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina and one small patch

within the TAFE grounds. It is possible they are considered two different populations given the distance

between the two patches and the extent of grazing within the disturbed grassland. The installation of

detention basins, haul road and drainage line is unlikely to result in further fragmentation of the

populations. Additionally, the population located within the study area will be protected and managed

under a VMP. Under careful management this population is unlikely to be impacted on by the proposed

actions.

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Disturbed grassland represents 11.4 ha of the vegetation to be removed on non-certified lands. Other

vegetation to be removed includes Alluvial Woodland and Riparian Woodland. Both communities are

not considered not ideal habitat for this species. The exotic grassland is unlikely to be colonised by this

species in the short-term given that seeds are dispersed from 2-3 metres from the adult plant (NPWS

2002). Additionally, the exotic grassland has undergone significant change due to the clearing of native

vegetation and current grazing / slashing land management practices. Given that no clearing of the

patch or disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the existing patch it is unlikely that the proposed

actions will directly impact on the population which will impact on the long-term survival of this species.

Further with implementation of the VMP for the study area additional habitat is likely to increase and

remain. As such the habitat is unlikely to be significant to the long term survival of the species within the

locality.

e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

No critical habitat of this species has been identified by the Director-General of the Office of

Environment and Heritage on the Register of Critical Habitat.

f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

No recovery plan has been prepared for Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina. However, this species

has been identified as a “Site-Managed Species” under the Saving our Species program. There are



three management sites registered by OEH located at Cranebrook in Penrith LGA and Shane’s Park

and Colebee in the Blacktown LGA. Schofield is located to the east of the management sites.

There are additional management strategies which are available in the Draft Cumberland Plain

Recovery Plan which includes this species. A summary of the management actions identified in the

draft plan include: building a protected area network comprising of public and private lands; delivering

best practice management to remnant bushland on the Cumberland Plain; raise community awareness

and understanding; and increase knowledge of the threats to the survival of the threatened biodiversity

of the Cumberland Plain to enable better management of threats. The proposal is consistent with

actions outlined in the draft plan.

g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.



Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden plants,

including aquatic plants. (EPBC Act)

I Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers (Cardiospermum grandiflorum






Although clearing of native vegetation is considered a KTP the removal of 1.40 ha of native vegetation

and 11.4 cleared exotic grasslands within non-certified lands the proposed activities are unlikely to

result in additional clearing in non-certified lands. KTP which are likely to impact on threatened flora

species include the invasion of invasive exotic species and the impact of large herbivores within the

study area. However, the vegetation to be retained will be managed under a VMP. This includes

recommendations on the treatment of weeds and exotic fauna.

Whilst the action will involve this KTP, the scale of the impact is not considered to be significant due to

the small size of the habitat to be removed.

Conclusion

The proposed development is unlikely to impose a significant impact on Grevillea juniperina subsp.

juniperina given that no individuals will be removed. Additionally, the small extent of native vegetation

earmarked for removal does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Disturbed grassland is subject

to grazing, slashing practices which has reduced the potential for this species to colonise new areas.

As such the proposed actions are unlikely to result in the fragmentation of habitat or result in the local

extinction of the population within the study area. Therefore, the proposal is unlikely to have a

significant impact and a Species Impact Statement (SIS) is not required.



Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

The Eastern Bent-wing Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis) is listed as a vulnerable species under

Schedule 2 of the TSC Act. This species occupies a range of forested environments (including wet and

dry sclerophyll forests), along the coastal portion of eastern Australia, and through the Northern

Territory and Kimberley area (subject to subdivision of this species).

This species has a fast, level flight exhibiting swift shallow dives. It forages from just above the tree

canopy, to many times the canopy height in forested areas, and will utilise open areas where it is known

to forage at lower levels. Moths appear to be the main dietary component. This highly mobile species is

capable of large regional movements in relation to seasonal differences in reproductive behaviour and

winter hibernation. Though individuals often use numerous roosts, it congregates in large numbers at a

small number of nursery caves to breed and hibernate. Although roosting primarily occurs in caves, it

has also been recorded in mines, culverts, stormwater channels, buildings, and occasionally tree-

hollows. This species occupies a number of roosts within specific territorial ranges usually within 300

km of the maternity cave, and may travel large distances between roost sites.

The Eastern Bent-wing Bat is threatened by a number of processes including loss of foraging habitat,

damage to or disturbance of roosting caves (particularly during winter or breeding), application of

pesticides in or adjacent to foraging areas, and predation by feral cats and foxes.

The Eastern Bent-wing Bat was identified from database records (OEH 2013) to the north of the study

area. The study area provides suitable foraging habitat and a culvert.



species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

Factors likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the Eastern Bent-wing Bat would include a

substantial loss and/or fragmentation of foraging habitat, loss of suitable roosting or breeding habitat,

and predation by feral cats and foxes. The proposed works will involve the removal of a small amount

of foraging habitat including a minor amount of vegetation adjacent to the culvert (Figure 4). No direct

disturbance is anticipated within the stormwater pipe as part of the proposed works, however, indirect

impacts from clearing of native vegetation and noise production during construction works may impact

roosting Eastern Bent-wing Bats which may utilise the pipe. This species requires very specific

maternity caves and will migrate from urban environments between October to March. Thus the

proposed road is unlikely to impact on breeding habitat for this species. However, marginal foraging

habitat will also be removed as part of the DA footprint. This will include 0.89 ha of AW and 0.51 ha of

RW in non-certified lands. A substantial amount of vegetation along Eastern Creek will be retained for

VMP.

Considering the minor amount of foraging and low impact of the proposed construction activity, it is

unlikely that the proposed works will impact on the life-cycle of this species such that a viable local

population is placed at risk of extinction.




of extinction

Not applicable. Eastern Bent-wing Bat is not an endangered population.



c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological


i. is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such



community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of

extinction

Not applicable. Eastern Bent-wing Bat is not an endangered ecological community.




The vegetation to be removed has been identified as poor condition in the Schofields Precinct

Biodiversity Assessment (ELA 2011). Vegetation for removal in non-certified lands includes

regenerating AW and RW (0.24 ha and 0..35 ha respectively), disturbed grassland (11.4 ha) and a

small of intact vegetation mapped as AW (0.09 ha) which contains a high density of exotic vegetation.

One storm-water pipe was located adjacent to the subject site, although no proposed works will involve

directly disturbing the pipe.

ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of

habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

The proposed clearance of minor amount of native vegetation is unlikely result in the fragmentation of

habitats for this highly mobile species. A small patch of highly disturbed RW will be removed for the

proposed haul road and will result in a 7 m wide clearance corridor through the RW. This will also result

in a patch of RW separated from adjacent vegetation by two access roads (Figure 4). This species is

known to utilize open habitats and is unlikely to be isolated as a result of the clearing of vegetation. It is

possible that the patch of vegetation may continue to act as a stepping-stone for transit fauna species

accessing each side of the track. Additionally, the flow of genetic material is likely to remain, as the

patches are linked by Eastern Creek through culverts. Therefore, the habitat is unlikely to become

fragmented as only a small extent of vegetation will be removing and this species is highly mobile.

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the

long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality

Up to 94% of the non-certified vegetation to be removed will impact on disturbed grasslands. This

vegetation community is not considered foraging or roosting habitat for the Eastern Bent-wing Bat. The

remaining 6% consists of scattered patches of regenerating AW and RW which are fragmented across

the landscape. A small amount of 0.33 ha of AW and 0.35 ha RW along Eastern Creek will removed.

This includes suitable foraging habitat for this species. Under the proposal the vegetation canopy,

ground and shrub layer will be removed. No potential roost location including caves and culverts will be

directly impacted by the proposed construction works. However, there will be addition of a new culvert

under the new access haul road. This is unlikely result in direct impact on the roosting habitat of this

species within the culvert.

Due to the relatively small extent of vegetation within the non-certified lands to be removed along

Eastern Creek and that it is unlikely that the actions will result in the fragmentation of habitats the

actions are unlikely to impact on the long-term survival of the Eastern Bent-wing Bat in the locality.

e) Whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat.



No critical habitat has been declared by the Director-General of the DECC for the Eastern Bent-wing

Bat.

f) Whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan

or threat abatement plan.

No recovery plan or threat abatement plan has been prepared for Eastern Bent-wing Bat. However, this

species has been identified by OEH as a Site-managed species management stream under the Saving

our Species program. There are four management sites registered which are located in western NSW.

The proposed impacts will not impact on management sites.

g) The action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result

in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

One key threatening processes is of particular relevance to Eastern Bent-wing Bat, clearing of native

vegetation. The clearing of native vegetation is listed under the TSC and EPBC Acts. Under the

proposed actions a small loss of potential foraging habitat may occur. Under the VMP vegetation will be

retained and managed to provide additional foraging habitat for this species. Therefore, the bulk

earthwork is unlikely to significantly impact this species within the locality.

Conclusions

The proposal is unlikely to impose a significant effect on Eastern Bent-wing Bat given that:

the proposed works would constitute a minor disturbance to an area of foraging habitat within

the study area;

the proposed works would not disturb potential roosting habitat; and

larger areas of more suitable foraging habitat will be retained within the surrounding landscape.

On the basis of the above considerations, it is not likely that the proposal will result in a significant effect

on the survival of Eastern Bent-wing Bat. Consequently, a Species Impact Statement is not required for

the proposal with respect to this species.



Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus)

This species generally roost in groups of 10 to 15 close to water in caves, mine shafts, hollow-bearing

trees, stormwater channels, buildings, under bridges and in dense foliage. The Southern Myotis

forages over streams and pools catching insects and small fish by raking their feet across the water

surface (DECC 2008s).

This species relies on watercourses for foraging and also requires roosting habitat near water. Eastern

Creek provides suitable foraging habitat for this species. A culvert located in the south of the study area

(Figure 4) has been identified as potential roosting habitat for this species. NSW Wildlife Atlas

database records have identified this species within the far north of the study area. It is possible that

this species may utilise the subject site including maternity roosting habitat.




Eastern Creek provides potential foraging habitat for the Southern Myotis. Factors that may impact on

the life cycle of this species includes loss or modification of foraging habitat, loss of roosting habitat

(maternity sites) or fragmentation of habitats. Under the proposed actions, only a small portion of native

vegetation located in non-certified land was identified as potential corridor for this species. Up to 0.09

ha AW will be removed. An additional 0.24 ha of regenerating AW and 0.35 ha of regenerating RW will

also be impacted.

The Southern Myotis forages over open water, under the proposed there may be impacts associated

with changes in the waterflow and impact on fish habitats. Mitigation measures (Section 5) have been

provided to reduce potential impacts on foraging habitat. No direct impact on the roost sites include a

culvert located adjacent to the subject site is anticipated as part of the proposed works.

The Southern Myotis will utilise the same maternity roost location each year. In northern NSW young

are born between November to December, while in Victoria females have two litters from October.

Young remain with the mother for about 12 weeks from birth (Churchill, 2008).

Given the removal of a small extent of non-certified native vegetation identified adjacent to potential

foraging habitat for the Southern Myotis and no direct impacts on potential roost locations it is unlikely (if

activities occur during winter months) that the actions proposed will adversely affect the life cycle of the

species such that a viable local population is placed at risk of extinction.

b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an

adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such

that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

Not applicable – not an endangered population.



i. is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

ii. is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction.

Not applicable - not an endangered ecological community.




i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

The proposed will remove a small amount of native vegetation identified in non-certified lands. This

includes 0.33 ha AW (of which 0.24 ha is regenerating) and 0.35 ha regenerating RW. Regenerating

AW and RW has been mapped as fragmented patches within the subject site. These patches are not

suitable foraging habitat for this species. Approximately 17.36 ha of AW and RW vegetation has been

identified along Eastern Creek to be retained in the VMP area. Additionally, the vegetation within the

Eastern Creek extends into adjacent lands and up to 44.67 ha of AW and 8.24 ha RW has been

mapped (validated mapping) which provides suitable foraging habitat for the Southern Myotis. A

stormwater pipe adjacent to the proposed haul road may provide roosting and maternity habitat for this

species. No alteration to the entrance of the stormwater pipe will occur.

ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

A small patch of highly disturbed RW will be removed for the proposed haul road and will result in a 7 m

wide clearance corridor through the RW. Although this will result in the isolation of a small patch of RW

between to minor access roads this action is unlikely to result in the fragmentation of habitat and impact

on the Southern Myotis movement. The reason is, the removal of RW is located on a side tributary and

does not fragment vegetation along Eastern Creek where the Southern Myotis may forage. The

proposed actions are also unlikely to deter this microbat species from utilizing the stormwater pipe as

the remaining vegetation located at the mouth of the pipe will not be impacted. This retained vegetation

may act as a stepping-stone for fauna movement between habitats. The entrance to the pipe will not be

obstructed by the construction of the new road and thus will not isolate habitats.

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

The area of vegetation removal under the current proposal consists of highly modified landscape

dominated by disturbed grassland and is not considered habitat for the Southern Myotis. The Southern

Myotis forages over waterbodies for fish. Foraging habitat for the Southern Myotis occurs along the

entire length of Eastern Creek. Under the proposed works increase in water flow may occur within

Eastern Creek (downstream of the culverts). This may increase sediments and cause erosion of the

creek banks. Mitigation measures have been provided to reduce impacts within the subject site.

Additionally, revegetation of the creek bank will be conducted under the VMP to improve the water

quality of Eastern Creek.

e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either

directly or indirectly),

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or

threat abatement plan,

No recovery plan or threat abatement plans have been prepared for this species. This species has

been identified as a Landscape-species in OEH’s Saving our Species program.

OEH is currently developing a targeted approach for managing Landscape species species. In the

interim, the following management actions have been identified for this species.



Ensure the largest hollow bearing trees in riparian zones are given highest priority for retention

in PVP assessments or other land clearing assessment tools.

Prepare EIA guidelines which address the retention of hollow bearing trees maintaining

diversity of age groups, species diversity, structural diversity. Give priority to largest hollow

bearing trees.

Investigate the effectiveness of logging prescriptions.

Undertake long-term monitoring of populations cross tenure in conjunction with other bat

species to document changes.

Identify, protect and enhance roost habitat beneath artificial structures (eg bridges), especially

when due for replacement, and assess effectiveness of the actions.

Study the ecology, habitat requirements and susceptibility to logging and other forestry

practices of this little-known species.

Promote roosting habitat in new artificial structures within the species range.

Better regulate pollution of waterways e.g. sewage and fertilizer run-off (eutrophication) and

pesticide/herbicide leakage (chemical pollution) and thermal pollution.

Encourage recovery of natural hydrological regimes, including retention and rehabilitation of

riparian vegetation. .

Research to identify important foraging range and key habitat components for this species.

Identify the importance of riparian vegetation to the species.

Determine susceptibility to logging.

Identify the spatial population structure, including genetic isolation, movement and persistence

across the species range. .

Survey large inland waterways for this species to determine distribution in Murray Darling Basin.

Resolve species taxonomy by morphology/genetics and reassess conservation status.

Assess the importance by survey of estuaries and other tidal waterways for the species across

its range.

The proposal does not conflict with any of these actions.

g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to

result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Vegetation clearance is listed as a key threatening process. The area of potential habitat to be cleared

is small which includes 0.09 ha of AW which and provides marginal roosting habitat for this species. An

additional amount of scattered regenerating AW (0.24 ha) and RW (0.35 ha) may provide

supplementary roosting habitat for this species. In addition, the proposal will impact on the water flow

and quality in Eastern Creek. Alteration to the natural flow regime of rivers and streams and their

floodplains and wetlands is listed as a KTP under the TSC Act.

Three KTP’s under the FM Act are also relevant:

The introduction of fish to fresh waters within a river catchment outside their natural range

The degradation of native riparian vegetation along New South Wales water course

In-stream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural flow

Mitigation measures have been suggested on how to prevent impact on fish barriers or degradation of

the water quality within Eastern Creek. A sediment and erosion control plan will assist in the mitigation

of impacts during construction. Provided these recommendations are implemented the proposal is

unlikely to exacerbate KTP’s to such an extent that they would place any local populations of these

species at risk of extinction.

Conclusion



The proposal would result in the removal of a small extent of vegetation located adjacent to a culvert

which may provide roosting habitat for the Southern Myotis. There may also be minor changes to the

water flow and quality in Eastern Creek which may impact on foraging resources of the Southern

Myotis. No direct impact on the stormwater pipe is anticipated as part of the proposed actions;

however, indirect impacts during the construction include noise, vibration and obstruction to entrance to

pipe.



Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri)

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri) is listed as vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the TSC Act

and under the EPBC Act. It is a small to medium-sized bat with long, prominent ears and glossy black

fur. The lower body has broad white fringes running under the wings and tail-membrane, meeting in a

V-shape in the pubic area (OEH 2012). The species is found mainly in areas with extensive cliffs and

caves, from Rockhampton in Queensland south to Bungonia in the NSW Southern Highlands. It is

generally rare with a very patchy distribution in NSW. There are scattered records from the New

England Tablelands and North West Slopes (OEH 2012). Large-eared Pied Bat roosts in caves (near

their entrances), crevices in cliffs, old mine workings and in the disused, bottle-shaped mud nests of the

Fairy Martin (Petrochelidon ariel) frequenting low to mid-elevation dry open forest and woodland close

to these. Females have been recorded raising young in maternity roosts (c. 20-40 females) from

November through to January in roof domes in sandstone caves and overhangs. They remain loyal to

the same cave over many years (OEH 2012). The threats to this species include clearing and isolation

of forest and woodland habitats near cliffs, caves and old mine workings for agriculture or development;

loss of foraging habitat close to cliffs, caves and old mine workings from forestry activities; too-frequent

burning, usually associated with grazing; damage to roosting and maternity sites from mining

operations, and recreational caving activities; and use of pesticides (OEH 2012). The Large-eared Pied

Bat has previously been recorded within Alluvial Woodland located to the north of the study area. Two

culverts were recorded within the study area including one culvert adjacent to proposed road

installation.



species is likely to be placed at the risk of extinction.

Factors likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the Large-eared Pied Bat would include a

substantial loss and/or fragmentation of foraging habitat close to cliffs, caves and old mine workings,

disturbance to roosting or breeding habitat, inappropriate fire regimes (too frequent burning of foraging

habitat) and the application of pesticides in or adjacent to foraging areas. The proposed bulk

earthworks will remove 0.33 ha of Alluvial Woodland and 0.35 ha of Riparian Woodland in non-certified

lands within subject site. The works are proposed adjacent to a stormwater pipe which may result in

indirect noise disturbance if Large-eared Pied Bat are located roosting within the pipe. Given that no

roosting habitat (caves or pipe) will be directly impacted and only minor foraging habitat will be removed

it is unlikely the proposed works will adversely impact on the life cycle of this species. As such the

proposed bulk earthworks it is unlikely to adversely affect the life cycle of the species such that a viable

local population will be placed at risk of extinction.




of extinction

Large-eared Pied Bat is not an endangered population and therefore this question does not apply.



i. is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its

local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or





Large-eared Pied Bat is not an endangered ecological community and therefore this question does not

apply.


i. the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action

proposed, and

The proposed action will result in the removal of approximately 0.33 ha of AW (including 0.24 ha of

regenerating scattered AW) and 0.34 ha of regenerating RW foraging habitat for the Large-eared Pied

Bat. No direct impact is to occur within the culvert where this species may or may not utilise for

roosting. There is potential that the construction of the proposed haul road will result in temporary

disturbance to this species. However, this indirect impact is only temporary. Under the proposed

actions a VMP will be prepared for the removal of weed species and enhancement of habitat which is

likely to provide additional and higher quality habitat for this species.

ii. whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of

habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

The Large-eared Pied Bat is a highly mobile species and a cave-roosting microbat. It forages in well

vegetated areas including AW and RW habitats. Under the proposed bulk earthworks a small patch of

RW will be removed to accommodate a 7 m new vehicle haul road. The patch is located adjacent to an

existing vehicle access track. The removal of the vegetation for the road will result in a gap in the

vegetation. However, this is not considered likely to fragment habitats given that this species is highly

mobile. Additionally, 46.77 ha AW and 8.24 ha RW both of which are potential foraging habitat will

remain intact along Eastern Creek. Non-certified lands within the study area also contains 8.75 ha AW

and 5.85 ha RW and will be maintained under the VMP.

iii. the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long

term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

The proposed action will result in the removal of approximately 0.33 ha AW and 0.35 ha RW vegetation

within non-certified lands which may provide potential foraging habitat for the Large-eared Pied Bat.

Habitat earmarked for removal has been described as highly weed infested or scattered regenerating

vegetation, both of which do not provide critical habitat for this species. Vegetation along Eastern

Creek provides vegetation suitable for foraging habitat. Approximately 17.36 ha of combined AW and

RW will be retained in the VMP area. A stormwater pipe located in the south of the study area may

provide roosting habitat for this species. No direct impact within the stormwater pipe is anticipated as

part of the proposed actions. Therefore, the proposed removal of vegetation is unlikely to adversely

affect local population of Large-eared Pied Bat.

e. whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either

directly or indirectly),

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan

or threat abatement plan,

A recovery plan has been prepared for Large-eared Pied Bat. The key objective of the recovery plan is

to protect a viable population is maintained across its geographic distribution. The proposal does not

conflict with the recovery plan for this species.



g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to

result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

The proposal constitutes the key threatening process of clearing of native vegetation under the TSC

Act. However, the proposal will remove only a small part of the vegetation that provides potential

habitat for this species within the study area and locality. Furthermore, no caves (roosting habitat)

would be impacted.

Conclusion

The proposed action is unlikely to impose a significant impact on Large-eared Pied Bat given that the

proposed works:

would constitute a minor disturbance to a small area of foraging habitat within the study area;

would not directly impact the culvert

would not isolate an area of known habitat from currently interconnecting areas of potential

habitat for this species

areas of potential habitat for this species will remain within the study area and surrounds.

On the basis of the above considerations, it is unlikely that the proposed works would result in a

significant impact on the Large-eared Pied Bat. Consequently, a Species Impact Statement is not

required.



HEAD OFFICE

Suite 4, Level 1

2-4 Merton Street

Sutherland NSW 2232

T 02 8536 8600

F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Level 6

299 Sussex Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T 02 8536 8650

F 02 9264 0717

ST GEORGES BASIN

8/128 Island Point Road

St Georges Basin NSW 2540

T 02 4443 5555

F 02 4443 6655

CANBERRA

Level 2

11 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2601

T 02 6103 0145

F 02 6103 0148

NEWCASTLE

Suites 28 & 29, Level 7

19 Bolton Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

T 02 4910 0125

F 02 4910 0126

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street

Narooma NSW 2546

T 02 4476 1151

F 02 4476 1161

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 2681

F 02 6772 1279

MUDGEE

Unit 1, Level 1

79 Market Street

Mudgee NSW 2850

T 02 4302 1230

F 02 6372 9230

PERTH

Suite 1 & 2

49 Ord Street

West Perth WA 6005

T 08 9227 1070

F 08 9322 1358

WOLLONGONG

Suite 204, Level 2

62 Moore Street

Austinmer NSW 2515

T 02 4201 2200

F 02 4268 4361

GOSFORD

Suite 5, Baker One

1-5 Baker Street

Gosford NSW 2250

T 02 4302 1220

F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN

16/56 Marina Boulevard

Cullen Bay NT 0820

T 08 8989 5601

BRISBANE

PO Box 1422

Fortitude Valley QLD 4006 T 07 3503 7193

1300 646 131 www.ecoaus.com.au

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

Date post:	28-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Schofields Aerodrome Bulk Earthworks...David Bonjer 8536 8668 PO Box 20529 World Square, NSW 2002...

Documents