Conservation Act 1999 - Celestino · 2017. 4. 5. · Grey-headed Flying-fox . Pteropus poliocephalus . ... Act and the EPBC Act. Therefore, a referral to the Commonwealth for impacts

CUMBERLAND ECOLOGY © - 15062 - LET10.DOCX 1 23 MARCH 2016

Cumberland Ecology

PO Box 2474

Carlingford Court 2118

NSW Australia

Telephone (02) 9868 1933

Mobile 0425 333 466

Facsimile (02) 9868 1977

Email: [email protected]

23 March 2016

Mark Hall Acting Director, Environment Assessment Branch Department of the Environment, Canberra GPO Box 787 Canberra, ACT 2600

PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION SUMMARY: RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BOX HILL NORTH, NSW (EPBC 2014/7119)

Dear Mark,

Cumberland Ecology, on behalf of E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited, has prepared this letter to provide “preliminary documentation” that summarises the ecological assessment process and final project outcomes for matters of national environmental significance that would be impacted by the residential and commercial development at Box Hill North.

This letter:

explains the final project outcome for matters of national environmentalsignificance as approved by NSW State process;

provides final particulars concerning matters of national environmentalsignificance requested for clarification by the Department of theEnvironment (DoE); and

provides the context for other documentation relevant to matters ofnational environmental significance produced during the process.

This letter and other relevant documents that it makes reference to are to be exhibited as the final stage of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) assessment of the controlled action (EPBC 2014/7119), via the assessment process called Preliminary Documentation.


1. Background

A proposal for a residential community development at Box Hill North (the ‘project’) was referred to the Department of the Environment (DoE) and was determined as a controlled action due to its likely impacts upon endangered ecological communities and threatened species (EPBC 2014/7119). The endangered ecological communities that were the principal focus of the Commonwealth assessment included the communities listed in the table below:

Table 1 EPBC Act Endangered Ecologica l Communities As s es s ed

Legislation Name

Acronym Used in

this Report EPBC Act

Status TSC Act

Status

EPBC Act name:

Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest

CPW Critically Endangered

Critically Endangered

TSC Act name: Cumberland Plain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion

EPBC Act name:

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

SSTF Critically Endangered

Critically Endangered

TSC Act name: as above

The threatened species that were the principal focus of the Commonwealth assessment included those listed in the table below:

Table 2 EPBC Act Threa tened Spec ies As s es s ed

Name Latin Name EPBC Act Status TSC Act Status

Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria auria Vulnerable Endangered

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus Vulnerable Vulnerable

The project will require approval from the Minister for the Environment and approval is to be sought via the process known as “preliminary documentation” whereby documentation prepared for State assessment purposes is to be exhibited and assessed by DoE to satisfy the requirements of the EPBC Act.

The primary report for the preliminary documentation is the SIS prepared by Cumberland Ecology (2015). The SIS addresses the impacts of the project on threatened species and communities as listed under both the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC


Act) and the Commonwealth EPBC Act and also provides details of an offset strategy to be applied to the project.

The SIS went through two reviews with the final version provided to The Hills Shire Council and DoE in May 2015. Both organisations reviewed the SIS and requested further information to clarify a range of issues including such as survey effort for selected species and vegetation communities and biodiversity offsetting. To satisfy the request for information Cumberland Ecology provided an “Updated Assessment Report” (Cumberland Ecology November 2015) to Council (November 2015) and DoE (December 2015). Digital copies of the SIS and Updated Assessment Report can be found at www.celestino.net.au/news/EPBC-Notice

The proponent E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited, its planners and ecologists engaged in a process of consultation with the Hills Shire Council, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and Department of the Environment concerning matters raised in the Updated Assessment Report.

Cumberland Ecology, Willowtree Planning and E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited consulted with Council about the implications of the Updated Assessment Report. Two main adjustments were made to the proposal, firstly to increase the areas of biodiversity offsets for Shale Sandstone Transition Forest and Cumberland Plain Woodland on site and secondly to reduce the impact from construction of Maguires Road upon the State listed threatened plant Dillwynia tenuifolia. Council, being satisfied with the amendments referred the application to the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) seeking their feedback and to issue OEH concurrence.

OEH issued draft concurrence conditions to Council. Council advised their acceptance of the draft conditions and sought acceptance from Cumberland Ecology, Willowtree Planning and E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited. The proponent E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited accepted the draft conditions. OEH then finalised their assessment and issued concurrence conditions. The conditions set out requirements for biodiversity offsetting onsite and offsite, for the establishment of BioBanking conservation areas on site, and for the preparation of flora and fauna management plans.

As a result of the consultation process during NSW State approval, the impact areas and offsetting arrangements for the project evolved. The areas of impacts to endangered ecological communities were reduced and the total offset package was increased.

In order to satisfy EPBC Act requirements for matters of national environmental significance, DoE requested further information that was outlined in the Updated Assessment Report for the SIS. The additional information was discussed at a meeting between the Department of the Environment (DoE), Cumberland Ecology, Willowtree Planning and E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited on 6 November 2015 (as summarised in the email from Chris Wilson (Willowtree Planning), dated 20 November 2015). Additional to this DoE required further information to assist consideration of all relevant issues to undertake the assessment (as outlined in the letter to Matthew Scard, dated 23 July 2015).The correspondence from DoE is reproduced in Appendix C of this letter.


2. The Pre limina ry Documenta tion Package

The final package of information that will be exhibited and which is intended to be assessed using the Preliminary Documentation process relies upon and makes reference to the following State impact assessment documents:

The SIS (Cumberland Ecology 2015);

‘Box Hill North Species Impact Statement – Response to Hills Shire Council’ submitted initially to Council in November 2015 and resubmitted with a minor update in January 2016 ,the “SIS Response Report”(Cumberland Ecology 2016);

The impacts, mitigation and offsetting has summarised in these two documents has evolved during consultation with the Hills Council and OEH. The “final” impacts, mitigation and offsetting as they relate to matters of national environmental significance are now summarised in Appendices A and B of this letter.

The remainder of this letter therefore comprises the following elements of the Preliminary Documentation, and should be read with reference to the SIS and SIS Response Report:

• Appendix A: Summarises the final State approved impact assessment and proposed offsets for the project;

• Appendix B: Provides figures summarising the approved impact assessment, vegetation conservation areas and replanting areas of the State approved project;

• Appendix C: Provides correspondence from DoE requesting additional details raised in within the SIS;

• Appendix D: Provides additional information in response to the request for particulars by DoE;

• Appendix E: Contains the final BioBanking Credit Calculator output that determined the numbers of BioBanking Credits to be acquired by the Project;

• Appendix F: Contains the OEH Concurrence report;

• Appendix G: Contains the formal acceptance of the OEH concurrence conditions by the proponent, E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited; and

• Appendix H: References


Please do not hesitate to contact me, if any further clarification or information is required.

Yours sincerely

Dr David Robertson Director [email protected] Cc: Scott Laidlaw, Department of the Environment Matthew Scard, E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited Chris Wilson, Willowtree Planning

mailto:[email protected]�


Appendix A

Box Hill North: Final Ecological Assessment Summary


A.1 Projec t Background and Rationa le for Referra l

The proposed residential community development at Box Hill North (hereafter referred to as ‘the project’) involves seeking development consent for a Staged Development Application (Concept Proposal or Masterplan Development Application) for a parcel of land (including roads and other infrastructure) at Box Hill North. The Master Plan has provision to accommodate a new sustainable and high quality residential community comprising residential dwellings, a town centre, active and passive open space, a primary school site, new roads and infrastructure.

Ecological investigations determined that the future development of the project will impact on Critically Endangered Ecological Communities (CEECs) and threatened species listed under both the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). In particular, development of the study area is likely to have impacts on Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF), which are both listed as CEECs under the TSC Act and the EPBC Act. Therefore, a referral to the Commonwealth for impacts on CPW and SSTF was prepared and the project has been declared a controlled action (EPBC 2014/7119).

A.2 Projec t Chronolog y

A.2.1 Initial Assessment

The project has been the subject of negotiation between the proponent, The Hills Shire Council, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, and the Department of the Environment between January 2014 and January 2016. A summary of the steps undertaken between these stakeholders is shown in Table 3.

A referral was submitted to DoE in January 2014, based on preliminary survey data and the project was declared a controlled action on March 2014 (letter to Elise Crameri of APP Corporation, dated 10 March 2014). It was determined that the project would be assessed by preliminary documentation and that further information would be required to adequately assess the relevant impacts of the action. The information required by DoE under section 95A of the EPBC Act was detailed in Attachment A to the letter of 10 March 2014. The original proposal area was 380 ha and is shown in Figure 1 (Appendix B).

Table 3 Pro jec t Timeline for Box Hill North (The Gables )

Date Action

30 January 2014 Project Referred to DOE

10 March 2014 Notice of Referral Decision and Request for Additional Information

30 June 2014 Request for Director Generals Requirements (DGRs) for a SIS submitted to OEH

22 July 2014 DGRs for a SIS received from OEH


Table 3 Pro jec t Timeline for Box Hill North (The Gables )

Date Action

8 May 2015 Species Impact Statement for Masterplan Submitted to The Hills Shire Council and Department of the Environment (15062RP1.pdf)

23 July 2015 Comments received from DOE

28 July 2015 Meetings with Hills Shire Council

7 August 2015 Comments received from The Hills Shire Council

24 August 2015 Meetings with Hills Shire Council

10 September 2015 Meetings with Hills Shire Council

September - October 2015 Additional Surveys undertaken across Box Hill North

6 October 2015 Meetings with Hills Shire Council

22 October 2015 Submission of the Updated Assessment Report (15062RP2.pdf)

29 October 2015 Meetings with Hills Shire Council

6 November 2015 Meeting with DOE

18 November 2015 OEH Concurrence sought by Hills Shire Council

27 November 2015 Request to vary the referral submitted to DOE

14 December 2015 Draft Conditions of Consent issued by the Hills Shire Council

18 December 2015 Request to vary the referral approved by The Minister

12 January 2016 Meetings with OEH and modification of the development footprint

15 January 2016 Concurrence received from OEH

The requisite preliminary documentation ecological assessment for the original proposal was prepared in the form of a Species Impact Statement (SIS), which addressed impacts of the project on threatened species and communities as listed under both the TSC Act and EPBC Act and provided details of an offset strategy that applied to the project. An initial SIS report was prepared in December 2014. However ongoing changes to the development of the project in consultation with local and state government resulted in the preparation of a Revised SIS report in May 2015.

A.2.2 Additional Assessment Work Undertaken and Negotiated Outcomes

The May 2015 SIS report was submitted to DoE as preliminary documentation and a response from DoE was received in July 2015 (letter to Matthew Scard, dated 23 July 2015). DoE’s review of the Revised SIS determined that further information, numbered as per the 10 March 2014 information request, was still required to adequately assess the relevant impacts of the action. The May 2015 SIS report was also submitted to the Hills Shire Council (Council). Council raised a series of concerns (letter from Hills Shire Council, dated 7 August 2015) in relation to their review of the May 2015 SIS.


In response to both DoE and Council requests for further information, additional ecological investigations were conducted in spring 2015. The additional work included a revision of the vegetation mapping and targeted threatened fauna surveys, were conducted in September and October 2015 to address the issues raised by Council, and the related offset strategy was updated accordingly. The updated assessment report entitled ‘Box Hill North Species Impact Statement – Response to Hills Shire Council’ was prepared by Cumberland Ecology and submitted to Council in November 2015. It was resubmitted with a minor update in January 2016 and is referred to as the “SIS Response Report” (Cumberland Ecology 2016). As part of the response to Council, several lots that are not under the control of E.J Cooper & Son Pty Limited have now been removed from the proposal and referral area. The varied proposal area has been reduced to 339 ha as shown in Figure 2 in Appendix B and has been approved as a variation to the EPBC Act referral 2014/7119.

As the updated assessment report addresses some of the matters raised by DoE in their review of the May 2015 SIS (letter to Matthew Scard, dated 23 July 2015), the report is to be submitted to DoE as part of the preliminary documentation. Further responses to information requested by DoE, as outlined in the 23 July 2015 letter are detailed in Appendix D of this letter.

Following submission of the updated assessment report, the Hills Shire Council recommended the proposal for approval, and submitted a Concurrence request on 18 November 2015, and subsequently included the draft Council Conditions on 14 December 2015.

OEH issued their draft Concurrence on 6 January 2015 which included the draft conditions for concurrence. Following these draft conditions, a meeting was arranged on 12 January to discuss the conditions between Celestino, Hills Shire Council, and OEH. The outcomes from the meeting were the Concurrence Conditions, which have been agreed to by all parties. The concurrence, which is provided in Appendix F of this letter, was granted subject to the following conditions:

1. Two of the areas zoned E4, as shown in Appendix 5 of the OEH Concurrence (Appendix F), are to be protected as Biobank sites. These Biobank sites must be approved prior to issue of a Construction Certificate for the 2000th lot;

2. Any changes to ecological impacts above or below impacts predicted in the SIS are to be reflected through the purchase and retirement of the appropriate number of ecosystem credits, as calculated by an accredited BioBanking assessor, and in consultation with OEH. Increased impacts (resulting from modifications that increase the developable area) will require purchase and retirement of additional credits, whereas decreased impacts (resulting from modifications that reduce the developable area), will require purchase and retirement of fewer credits; and

3. All Ecology Requirements, as stated in the recommended consent conditions received by OEH on 14 December 2015, and attached as Appendix 6 of the OEH Concurrence (Appendix F), must be included as conditions of consent.


A.3 Fina lis ed Deve lopment Footp rin t and Cons erva tion Outcome

The State approval has finalised the development footprint and the conservation outcome. The conservation outcome includes:

Biodiversity offsetting offsite by purchasing and retiring BioBanking credits as endorsed by the Commonwealth EPBC Condition Setting Policy;

Conservation of CPW and SSTF using a BioBanking covenant within E4 zones on site;

Retention of some areas of CPW and SSTF; and

Replanting of some areas with CPW and SSTF plant species in open space corridors.

These are summarised below, and further details are provided within the SIS and SIS Response Report.

i. Biodiversity Offsetting by Retiring BioBanking Credits

In order to provide a conservative biodiversity offset that compensated for the impacts to CPW, SSTF and Grey-headed Flying-fox, it was assumed for the purposes of BioBanking that all forest and woodland on site would either be completely cleared, or partially cleared/modified. The areas assumed to be cleared, for the purposes of offsetting are shown within Figure 7 of Appendix B. The areas are also summarised within Tables 4 and 5 below.

Based on condition 1 from the OEH concurrence, the two E4 areas in question will be managed and funded in perpetuity as biobank sites under the provisions of future BioBanking Agreements (as outlined in blue on Figure 3). A third E4 area exists adjacent to the RE1 easement, this area will be cleared and all vegetation removed. This has been accounted for in the area of vegetation ‘actually cleared’ in Table 4. The development footprint was adjusted to remove these two areas of E4 from the development footprint, and the BioBanking Credit Calculator was rerun to adjust the offsetting requirement of the amended footprint (Figure 4).

Based on the updated calculations, the updated offsetting requirement for the Masterplan will require the retirement of 466 CPW (HN528) credits and 449 SSTF (HN556) credits as shown in the BioBanking Credit Calculator Final Report in Appendix E. A breakdown of the final credit requirement per precinct is shown in Table 6 below.


Table 4 Fina l Summary of Impacts to MNES Vegetation^

Vegetation Community

Area (ha)

Existing

Assumed to be Cleared

Actually Cleared

Sub-total Retained (impacted but managed)

Total Retained

E4 RE1 APZ

Cumberland Plain Woodland

12.75 10.27 8.78 1.13 0.36 1.5

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest

13.47 12.95 5.81 6.35 0.79 7.14

Grand Total 26.22 23.22 14.59 00 7.49 1.15 8.64

* River Flat Eucalypt Forest is not EPBC Act listed

^ all values shown are for impacts. All RE1, APZ, and ‘retained’ vegetation will be fully offset using BioBanking

Table 5 Areas of MNES Vegeta tion to be Cleared (including APZs , and RE1 Zones ) from each Development Precinc t

Precinct Area (ha)

Cumberland Plain Woodland Shale Sandstone Transition Forest

A 0 0

B 0 0

C 0 0

D 0 0

E 0.08 1.27

F 0 0.04

G 0.0003 11.62

H 0 0

I 10.19 0.003

Total 10.27 12.95


Table 6 Fina l Credit Requirement per Precinc t

Precinct Areas of Vegetation to be Cleared (ha) Ecosystem Credits to be Retired as

Offsets

CPW SSTF CPW (HN528) SSTF (HN556)

A 0 0 0 0

B 0 0 0 0

C 0 0 0 0

D 0 0 0 0

E 0.11 1.31 5 45

F 0 0.06 0 2

G 0.0003 11.58 0 401

H 0 0 0 0

I 10.16 0.003 461 1

Total 10.27 12.95 466 449

Overall, a total of 915 Biobanking “Ecosystem” Credits will be purchased and retired to provide offsite offsets for CPW and SSTF. This will pay for permanent conservation of these vegetation types elsewhere in western Sydney and such woodland and forest will provide habitat for threatened fauna including Grey Headed Flying-fox, which is formally covered by the Ecosystem Credits under BioBanking.

ii. Retention and Replanting of CPW and SSTF on Site

Although it was conservatively assumed for the purposes of BioBanking that most CPW and SSTF on site would be cleared or modified, in reality, native vegetation will remain and be retained in sizeable areas of the site. Such “retained” vegetation is not part of a formal offset. However, the retention of such vegetation will provide a mitigation measure and will maintain some foraging value for threatened species such as the Grey-headed Flying Fox. The areas where forest and woodland will be retained are shown in Figure 9, Appendix B.

As discussed within the SIS and SIS Response Report, scattered trees in the southern portion of the site will be cleared. These are largely Narrow Leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) and are thought to have been of CPW origin, though the vegetation in which they occur is intensively farmed and too highly modified to represent viable EPBC Act or TSC Act CPW currently. The clearance of the scattered trees will be offset by replanting of substantial areas of trees along open space corridors on the subject site. The areas of replanting are also shown in Figure 9, Appendix B.

a. Impacts to Vegetation within Asset Protection Zones


For the purposes of assessing impacts and determining offsets using BioBanking, it was assumed that Asset Protection Zones (APZs) would be maintained as modified vegetation.

Impacts to vegetation within asset protection zones (APZs) were not included within the original Masterplan SIS (Cumberland Ecology 2014), primarily due to lack of project clarity within the northern precincts where APZs would be required. In subsequent analysis of the impacts of the proposal, APZ requirements have now been determined and are included where required, across the development footprint (Figure 8, Appendix B).

APZs will modify an estimated 1.15 ha of forest and woodland vegetation This will include modification of 0.36 ha of CPW and 0.79 ha of SSTF. Within APZs understorey will be cleared and some trees will have canopies thinned to prevent them interconnecting, thereby reducing the condition of the ecological community and the amount of tree canopy and shrubs available as habiat for native species. The BioBanking assessment has made allowance for such vegetation treatment, when calculating the ecosystem credits for offsetting shown in the table above.

The OEH Concurrence conditions recognised that APZ vegetation will effectively be modified to the extent that they will no longer be representative of CPW and STIF of a quality that tht is representative of the EPBC Act listings. Management of vegetation as an APZ will reduce some habitat values for general wildlife but will maintain some canopy as foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox, including canopy of Coastal Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana), Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) and Narrow-leaf Ironbark (E. crebra). Eucalyptus tereticornis is an important forage tree species for Grey-headed Flying-fox as it is a winter flowering species, which can provide a food resource when others are not available.

The impacts to vegetation within APZs are also described in Section 2.3.2.v.b of the updated assessment, and shown on Figure B4, B5, & B9 within the SIS Response Report (Cumberland Ecology 2016). As a result of this reduction in condition, BioBanking Credits will be provided to offset the impacts of APZs. This impact has been calculated and is included within the totals described in Table 6 above.

A.4 Fina l Impac t As s es s ment on EPBC Ac t Lis ted Spec ies and Communities

The SIS and SIS Response Report that formed the basis for the State approval by the Hills Shire Council and OEH was focussed on threatened species and ecological communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). Notwithstanding that, these documents also contain relevant impact assessment and background information about matters of national environmental significance.

CPW and SSTF, the endangered ecological communities that were the focus of the SIS and SIS Response Report are listed under both the EPBC Act and the TSC Act. Both of these ecological communities are listed as Critically Endangered under both the EPBC Act and TSC Act. Both ecological communities have different listing advice under the TSC Act and EPBC Act, and as such have the potential to have alternative distributions onsite for State and


Commonwealth listings. However, this is not the case on the subject site, as shown for the location of TSC Act ecological communities on Figure 5 and EPBC Act listed ecological communities on Figure 6.

The highly modified nature of the subject site for market gardens and agriculture has lead to discrete occurrences or patches of native woodland and forest vegetation. In the areas where native ecological communities remain (as distinct from scattered trees), all remaining forest and woodland are of a standard that meets both the TSC Act and EPBC Act vegetation.

The impacts to these critically endangered ecosystems are also discussed in the SIS as indicated in Table 7 below.

Table 7 SIS As s es s ment of EPBC Act Endangered Communities

Community Name EPBC Act Status TSC Act Status Assessment of Impacts to the Community in the

SIS

Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest

Critically Endangered Critically Endangered 2.4.17, 3.1, 4.1.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.5.1, 6.1.1, 6.2, 6.3, 8.2, 9.4.2

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Critically Endangered Critically Endangered 2.4, 3.1, 4.3.1, 4.5.1x, 6.1.1, 6.2, 6.3 , 8.2 , 9.4.2

The SIS also considered impacts to the two threatened species that are listed under both the TSC Act and the EPBC Act:

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus); and

Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea).

The Grey-headed Flying-fox does not roost on the subject site but is known to forage on flowing trees and shrubs on the site. The Green and Golden Bell Frog has been found not to occur (refer also to Appendix D), though it is likely to have historically occurred on parts of the site at the time of European settlement.

The impacts to these species are discussed in the SIS as indicated in Table 8 below.


Table 8 SIS As s es s ment of EPBC Act s pec ies

Species Name Common Name EPBC Act TSC Act Assessment of Impacts to

the Species within SIS

Pteropus poliocephalus

Grey-headed Flying-fox

Vulnerable Vulnerable 2.1.4 Biodiversity values and land use in the locality

4.3.4 (subsection i) Survey – mammals

4.5.1 Major affected ( C )EECs/Species

5.1.2 Assessment of effects on GHFF & habitat

Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog

Vulnerable Endangered 1.4.2 Recovery Plans

2.1.4 Biodiversity values and land use in the locality

4.1.2 Surveys specific for SIS

4.2 & Table 4.1 Dates of surveys

4.2 (section ii) Targeted threatened species surveys

Table 4.3 Survey and efforts of survey

4.3.3 (subsection f) habitats

4.3.4 (subsection iv) amphibians

4.5.3 (subsection c) EECs/Species that are not affected

Table 4.8 likelihood of occurrence

Table H3 GGBF targeted search metadata

Table H.4 GGBF targeted survey results


A.5 Updated S ignifican t Impact Crite ria fo r Ecolog ica l Communities and Threa tened Spec ies

As stated above, the final development footprint and conservation outcome summarised in the SIS and SIS Response Report were modified during discussions with Council and OEH. The modifications provided for a greater amount of offsetting via BioBanking and a higher proportion of conservation on site. This section provides updated “significant impact assessments” based upon the final proposal by reapplying the Significant Impact Guidelines for the EPBC Act.

For the purpose of the impact assessment and understanding the potential impacts, the vegetation within the project site has been allocated to four categories based on the final proposal of the development:

Vegetation to be cleared: this vegetation will be completely removed during bulk earthworks and occurs throughout the development footprint. This vegetation will be fully offset through retiring of BioBanking Ecosystem Credits (credits) relevant for each plant community type as shown in Table 6.

Vegetation to be retained: this vegetation will be impacted by APZs and RE1 zoning; however the majority of the vegetation will not be removed. This vegetation will be managed under an approved precinct VMP. This vegetation is considered within the impact assessment in the SIS Response Report and will be fully offset as required by the BBAM by retiring credits. These credits also consider and offset loss of habitat for ecosystem species such as the Grey-headed Flying-fox;

Existing vegetation to be conserved: This vegetation occurs within the two areas of land zoned E4 along Maguires Road and Boundary Road whereby the land will be conserved under a BioBanking Agreement in perpetuity. Any credits generated within these areas can be used to offset impacts of either retained or cleared vegetation; and

Vegetation to be planted: This area is a supplementary measure proposed by the proponent to ameliorate the loss of biodiversity through clearing of non-TEC’s across the Project site. Areas of vegeetation to be planted are not to be considered as part of the offset proposal for clearing of TECs and/or threatened species habitat.

A breakdown of the areas of vegetation to be cleared, retained, conserved, and planted is shown in Table 9 below:


Table 9 Areas of vege ta tion to be c leared , re tained , cons erved and p lanted

Vegetation Community

Existing Vegetation

Vegetation to be Cleared

(Impact)

Vegetation to be Retained

(Impact)

Existing Vegetation to be Conserved

(On-site Offset)

Vegetation to be Planted

(Ameliorative Measure)

Cumberland Plain Woodland (EPBC Act CEEC, TSC Act CEEC)

12.75 8.78 1.49 2.48 11.04

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (EPBC Act CEEC, TSC Act CEEC)

13.47 5.81 7.14 0.51 8.26

Scattered Trees (not listed)

8.65 8.46 0.19

River Flat Eucalypt Forest (TSC Act EEC)

6.99

Total 26.22 14.59 8.64 2.99 26.29

Updated Significant Impact Criteria have been undertaken against the listed threatened species and ecological communities which occur within the final development area as shown below.

A.5.1 Cumberland Plain Woodland

i. Significant Impact Criteria

a. Reduce the extent of an ecological community

There are currently 12.75 ha of low to moderate quality patches of this community present in the north-west corner of the subject site and 2.48 ha will be conserved.

The proposal includes the clearing of up to 8.78 ha of low to moderate quality CPW. The patches of this community to be cleared on site are mostly composed of young trees which have grown on the site since the original clearing took place.

A minimum of 11.04 ha of the community will be replanted across the study area to leave a net loss of 3.97 ha of the community.

The proponent has also conservatively assumed that all vegetation on site (other than in the E4 zones, RE1 zones and APZs which will be managed and offset; and conserved vegetation


which will create an offset) will be cleared and so has fully offset the proposed impacts to all occurrences of the community via the purchase and retirement of 466 Ecosystem Credits under the BioBanking Scheme that will allow for permanent conservation management of CPW offsite.

b. Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines

The patches of CPW to be cleared on the subject site are comprised of regrowth with a highly degraded understorey. These patches are not contiguous with larger portions of more intact CPW on neighbouring land. The development is not considered likely to lead to fragmentation of existing CPW in the local area.

c. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community

Some representative vegetation patches of CPW will be conserved on the subject site (approximately 2.48 ha). The patches to be cleared are comprised of young re-growth with a highly degraded understorey and containing only a single tree hollow. The development is not considered likely to adversely affect critical habitat for this community.

d. Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns

The existing drainage pattern on the site will be retained and a riparian buffer and passive open space area implemented for all riparian zones within the study area. The CPW patch proposed to be retained in the north-west corner will be bounded by an existing drainage line subject to the above riparian buffer and passive open space area.

e. Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting

Under the final development footprint, 2.48 ha of low to moderate quality CPW will be conserved on the subject site. A VMP will be enacted to manage the rehabilitation of this remnant patch as well as planting out an additional 11.04 ha of the community within open space areas. The existing species composition of this patch will not be modified by the proposed development.

f. Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but not limited to:- Assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established, or - Causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community, or - interfere with the recovery of an ecological community

The proposed development has the potential to facilitate the introduction of invasive weed species into the CPW remnant patch in the north-west of the study area through the introduction of seeds and fragments in overland flows and increased storm water discharge. This has potential to occur during future construction on the subject site as soil is exposed and mobilised


into the streambed during rain events as well as following the completion of works through the resulting increased storm water discharge. The proposed development will implement a variety of controls during the construction and later revegetation phases of the future development. These measures will reduce the likelihood of significant colonisation by invasive weeds and a VMP will be enacted to manage weed colonisation and the ongoing rehabilitation of the remnant area. The proposed development is unlikely to lead to the significant establishment of invasive species within the study area,

The CPW patch to be retained on site is representative of a recovering community following the original clearing of the subject site. This recovery has proceeded during the use of the site for agricultural purposes. The development proposal is not considered likely to impact on the continued recovery of this remnant vegetation community.

g. Conclusion

The proposed development will remove up to 8.78 ha of CPW within the study area. The proponent will purchase and retire a minimum of 466 CPW (HN528) Ecosystem Credits, commensurate to the full requirement under the BioBanking Assessment Methodology. In addition, the proponent will commit to replanting of a minimum of 6.99 ha of the riparian corridor will reduce the net loss of CPW across the study area to 1.79 ha. (Note that replanting is not considered to be an offset measure under the EPBC Act. It is a mitigation measure).

In the absence of offsetting and replanting, the proposed development would have a significant impact on CPW, reducing the area of this community. However, offsetting and replanting measures will address and these impacts on the ecological community.

A.5.2 Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest


a. Reduce the extent of an ecological community

Approximately 13.47 ha of this community occur within the study area. The majority of this community will be retained within the riparian corridor and areas of passive open space adjacent to Cataract Creek. A small sub-patch extending out from the eastern edge of this patch will be cleared; however this sub-patch is composed of re-growth since the initial clearing of the site, lacking the understorey and mature habitat trees of the main body of the patch. In addition this sub-patch will be included in an area zoned as Environmental Living under the proposed development. This zone type under the draft Box Hill North DCP will allow for the retention of individual trees and facilitate ecologically sensitive practices within this area, such as stipulating the use of local understorey species for landscaping or regeneration purposes.

Notwithstanding the proposal to retain trees and shrubs within the large patch of this community, the proponent has committed to planting an additional 8.26 ha of the community across the study area.

The proponent has also conservatively assumed that all vegetation on site (other than in the E4, RE1 and APZ zones which will be both offset and managed; and areas conserved which will


create an onsite offset) will be cleared and so has fully offset the proposed impacts to all occurrences of the community via the purchase and retirement of 449 Ecosystem Credits under the BioBanking Scheme that will allow for permanent conservation management of SSTF offsite.

b. Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines

The existing SSTF community within the study area is a single patch which is contiguous with a larger patch of forest on the other side of Maguires Rd to the north-east of the subject site. The proposed development will impact upon all but 0.51 ha of the community. The majority of the community will not be cleared, but may be impacted upon through indirect impacts of the adjacent development. These indirect impacts will not fragment the extent of the ecological community within the locality. All clearing for roads and transmission lines has been incorporated into the development footprint.

The proposed development of the subject site will clear and reshape the existing patch of SSTF. It will also entail replanting and restoration of some currently fragmented SSTF the E4 zone in the north eastern corner of the subject site. Overall, although some clearing will take place, it will not significantly fragment this community in the locality.

c. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community

The proposal will impact on 12.96 ha of SSTF within the study area, of which 7.14 ha will be retained and managed under an approved VMP. The proposed development will not impact on any occurrences of habitat for the ecological community outside the study area. The community occurs in large tranches within Maguires Road Priority Conservation Area immediately to the north of the study area. The community is also represented within Scheyville National Park 500m away, and as such the proposal will not adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the ecological community.

d. Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns

The existing drainage pattern on the site will be retained and a riparian buffer and passive open space area implemented for all riparian zones within the study area.

e. Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting

The most intact representative patches of SSTF will be exposed to indirect impacts of adjacent housing and managed under a VMP. The VMP will be enacted to conserve and manage the ongoing rehabilitation of this community. The recovery of this patch has proceeded despite no active management and ongoing use for farming purposes. The existing species composition of these patches will not be significantly modified by the proposed development.


f. Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but not limited to: - Assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established, or - Causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community, or - interfere with the recovery of an ecological community

The proposed development has the potential to facilitate the introduction of invasive weed species through the introduction of seeds and fragments in overland flows and increased storm water discharge. This has potential to occur during future construction on the subject site as soil is exposed and mobilised into the streambed during rain events as well as following the completion of works through the resulting increased storm water discharge. The proposed development will implement a variety of controls during the construction phases of the development. These measures will reduce the likelihood of significant colonisation by invasive weeds and a VMP will be enacted to manage weeds as well as ongoing rehabilitation within the remnant patch. The proposed development is unlikely to lead to the significant establishment of invasive species on the subject site.

The SSTF patch to be indirectly impacted within the subject site is the most intact and mature portion of the community present. Since the original clearing of the subject site this community has been in a state of recovery. Although this area of regrowth will be partially cleared the proposed development will not affect the ongoing recovery of the older and more intact portion of this vegetation. A VMP will also be enacted to manage the ongoing rehabilitation of this remnant patch.

g. Conclusion

The proposed development will impact on 12.96 ha of SSTF within the study area, of which 7.14 ha will be retained.

To offset these impacts, the proponent will purchase and retire a minimum of 449 SSTF (HN556) Ecosystem Credits, commensurate to the full requirement under the BBAM. In addition to fully offsetting the impacts to vegetation not conserved, the proponent will commit to replanting of a minimum of 6.99 ha of the riparian corridor will reduce the net loss of SSTF across the study area to 1.79 ha. (Note that replanting is not considered to be an offset measure under the EPBC Act. It is a mitigation measure).

In the absence of offsetting and replanting, the proposed development would have a significant impact on SSTF, reducing the area of this community. However, offsetting and replanting measures will address and these impacts on the ecological community.

A.5.3 Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

One Grey-headed Flying-fox has been recorded in the Project site as shown in Figure 4.6 of the Species Impact Statement (Cumberland Ecology, 2015). The species is thought to make occaisional foraging use of the forest and woodland on site.


The species roosts within large aggregations called camps, whereby up to 50,000 individuals congregate within a discrete patch of woodland or forest. The species forages daily from their camp on a wide variety of flowers form the eucalypt genera, as well as on fruiting crops. The species can travel up to 50km in a day in search of food, however daily foraging migrations are typically 15km from their camp.

No Flying-fox camps occur on or near the Project Site. The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp has been identified by using the National Flying-fox Monitoring Viewer (DoE). The closest camp of national importance is at Parramatta Park which is 21 km away from the project site as shown in Table 10 and Figure 11.

Table 10 Flying-fox Camp loca tions within the loca lity

Camp Name Camp Type Distance from Study Area (km)

Yarramundi “Other” Flying-fox Camp 19

Gordon Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp 26

Parramatta Park Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp 21

Wetherill Park “Other” Flying-fox Camp 22

Ropes Creek “Other” Flying-fox Camp 18

Emu Plains “Other” Flying-fox Camp 23

“Other” Flying-fox Camps are smaller camps that are not regarded as being of National importance.

The vegetation within the project site contains suitable forage vegetation for the species during flowering periods. Of the vegetation onsite, the occurences of CPW, and SSTF both contain forage species used by Grey-headed Flying-fox including E. moluccana, E. tereticornis, and E. punctata (Eby and Law 2008). Of these, Eucalyptus tereticornis is known to flower in winter and spring (Robinson 1991) and so provide food for Grey-headed Flying-fox when other food supplies are limited.

Eucalyptus crebra also occurs widely throughout the Project site and it dominates the scattered tree areas in the southern half of the site. It is listed as a “potential forage” species, however the report Ranking the Feeding Habitats of Grey-headed Flying-foxes for Conservation Management (Eby and Law 2008) failed to record E. crebra within either the blossom or “fruit” diet of the species.


Several Commonwealth documents are of relevance to considering the impacts on habitat of Grey-headed Flying-fox that will result from the implementation of the Masterplan:

Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus – particularly habitat (foraging / roosting) that is critical to the survival of the species (see pp.13-15) (DECCW 2009);


The Species Profile and Threats Database, for Grey-headed Flying-fox (Department of Environment Grey-headed Flying-fox species profile and threats database (SPRAT) http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186) (DoE 2014); and

EPBC Act Grey-headed Flying-fox guidelines - https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/epbc-act-administrative-guidelines-significance-supplement-grey-headed-flying-fox (DEH 2003)

These have been considered during the preparation of the impact assessment below, and also within the SIS.

These documents note the importance of maintaining existing Flying-fox camps, where Flying-foxes roost by day. They also note the impact that habitat clearance has had on the species overall, and note that it is important to retain foraging habitat. For example, according to the Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox:

The recovery of Grey-headed Flying-foxes is primarily dependent on the protection and rehabilitation of foraging habitat and the expansion of forested areas that are productive during winter and spring. Management practices that destroy significant foraging habitats, or alter them to the extent that their productivity or suitability to the species is diminished, will have an adverse impact. In particular, clearance of key winter or spring habitats should be avoided, as should practices that reduce volumes of nectar available to Grey-headed Flying-foxes during those seasons. Important winter and spring habitats include vegetation communities that contain Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. albens, E. crebra, E. fibrosa, E. melliodora, E. paniculata, E. pilularis, E. robusta, E. siderophloia, Banksia integrifolia, Castanospermum australe, Corymbia citriodora citriodora, C. eximia, C. maculata (south from Nowra), Grevillea robusta and Melaleuca quinquenervia.

All impacts to the forage habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox will be offset through the purchase of BioBanking Ecosystem Credits in accordance with the BBAM as shown in Table 6.

In addition to formal offsets, the proposed development will conserve, retain, and will also replant areas of Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), Narrow Leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) and Red Ironbark (E. fibrosa). The two E4 areas that are required to be conserved under BioBanking Agreements will lead to an improvement of condition with time. All BioBank sites will be managed under a Management Action Plan, funded by a Fund Deposit, and enforced annually. Areas of retained vegetation will be indirectly impacted by the adjacent development, however areas will be managed under an approved VMP. The VMP will strictly outline the required management for the RE1 corridor, and will likely see an improvement in condition through time. Areas managed as APZs will see a reduction in the quality of habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. Replanted areas will provide forage habitat for the species, however this process will take up to 15 years before flowering eucalypts suitable for the species are established.

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186�https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/epbc-act-administrative-guidelines-significance-supplement-grey-headed-flying-fox�https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/epbc-act-administrative-guidelines-significance-supplement-grey-headed-flying-fox�


As explained in the impact assessment below, the final area of forest and woodland vegetation will be comparable to or greater than that which occurs currently.

Additionally, it is important to note that no Grey-headed Flying-fox camps occur on the subject site and that evidence from field surveys and from local database records suggests that the species makes limited foraging use of the vegetation on the subject site.

a. Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

During surveys completed for the SIS, small numbers of Grey-headed Flying-fox were observed on one occasion flying over forest of the subject site. This Flying-fox is expected to occasionally forage on flowering trees and shrubs in the SSTF and CPW areas of the study area. The species is also likely to forage within planted vegetation around farms and houses in the study area.

Although there is some suitable foraging habitat present it is considered that the proposal area does not contain important habitat for the survival of this species. No roosting colonies (camps) occur within the proposal area. More suitable habitat exists in extensive forested areas on Crown land to the north and east, and within the nearby Scheyville National Park.

There is approximately 26 ha of existing EPBC listed forest and woodland on the subject site. There are also other areas of scattered trees and Acacia regrowth. In addition to formal offsets through the retiring of BioBanking Ecosystem Credits, the development will retain (and manage) 11 ha of existing EPBC listed forest and woodland and will plant a further 26 ha. This will mean that in future, there will be at least 38 ha of forest and woodland on the area covered by the Masterplan. Due to the retention and planting of such vegetation, foraging habitat will be retained on the subject land.

The proposed development is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the local population of this species.

b. Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

As explained above, due to the retention and planting of forest and woodland vegetation proposed, sufficient foraging habitat will be retained on the subject land to permit ongoing use by the Grey-headed Flying-fox. The occurrence of this species on the subject site is considered intermittent and the resources present are not significant for any nearby population.

The development is unlikely to significantly reduce the area of occupancy of an important population.

c. Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

The species is considered to be using the subject site intermittently as part of a much wider foraging range. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a highly mobile species capable of crossing large areas of disturbed habitat separating feeding and roosting resources. The proposed development is considered unlikely to lead to the fragmentation of an existing population.


d. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Habitat critical to the survival of the species is defined in both the Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013) and the Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (DECCW 2009).

These documents provide guidance on the assessment of foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat for the species. An assessment of the habitat onsite against these documents is shown below in Table 11 and Table 12 below.

Table 11 Habita t Critical to the Surviva l of a Spec ies as defined by the MNES Significant Impact Guide lines

Neccessary Habitat Requirement

Grey-headed Flying-fox Requirement

Habitat Available within the Project

For Activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting or dispersal

The species forages on a diverse native diet which is supplimented with introduced plants and fruits. Primary food for the species includes nectar and pollen from the flowers of eucalypts from the genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia, and Angophora, as well as several species of melaleucas and banksias.

The species roosts and breeds in camps wherby up to 50,000 individuals may be present. The species maintains fidelity to camps for extended periods of time.

The species is highly mobile and can disperse over large distances. The species travels daily for up to 15km in search of forage habitat. Seasonal winter migration is driven by food availability, however individuals return to their pre-winter camps during the warmer months.

The Project contains several species of eucalypts that are palatable to Grey-headed Flying-foxes including E. moluccana, E. tereticornis, and E. punctata. Food availability is more abundant to the north and west of the site within Maguires Road Priority Conservation Area and Scheyville National Park .

There are no camps within the project. The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp is 21km away at Parramatta Park.

For the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or

Maintenance of Grey-headed Flying-fox camps are essential for the long term maintenance of the species.

There are no camps within the project. The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp is 21km away at Parramatta Park.


Table 11 Habita t Critical to the Surviva l of a Spec ies as defined by the MNES Significant Impact Guide lines




ecological community, such as pollinators)

To maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or

Maintenance of connectivity between Grey-headed Flying-fox camps is required to maintain genetic diversity of the species.

The proposal will not disrupt connectivity between Flying-fox Camps within the locality. The species is highly mobile and the proposal does not intersect any camps.

For the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

Maintaining camps and vegetation around camps is important for the recovery of the species

There are no camps within the project. The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp is 21km away at Parramatta Park

Table 12 Habita t Critica l to the Surviva l of the Spec ies as lis ted in the Draft Nationa l Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus




Foraging habitat critical to the survival of the species

Productive during winter and spring, when food bottlenecks have been identified

Dominant forage species that occur within the Project include E. mollucana and E. punctata which both flower in summer. Eucalyptus tereticornis occurs in the north of the project site in the SSTF, and single occurrence of E. crebra are scattered across the project, and these species are known to flower during winter/spring.

Known to support populations of > 30 000 individuals within an area of 50 km radius (the maximum foraging distance of an adult)

The project site is within 50km of several Nationally Important Flying-fox Camps. The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp is 21km away at Parramatta Park


Table 12 Habita t Critica l to the Surviva l of the Spec ies as lis ted in the Draft Nationa l Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus




Productive during the final weeks of gestation, and during the weeks of birth, lactation and conception (September to May)

The patches of CPW in the north of the project site contain E. moluccana which flowers over summer.

Productive during the final stages of fruit development and ripening in commercial crops affected by Grey-headed Flying-foxes (months vary between regions)

Details of the fruit production within the locality are unknown, however large tranches of native vegetation occurs to the north and west of the project site which contain suitable forage for the species.

Known to support a continuously occupied camp.

The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp is 21km away at Parramatta Park

Roosting habitat critical to survival

Is used as a camp either continuously or seasonally in > 50% of years

The Project site does not contain a camp. The nearest Nationally Important Flying-fox Camp is 21km away at Parramatta Park

Has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995) and is known to have contained > 10 000 individuals, unless such habitat has been used only as a temporary refuge, and the use has been of limited duration (i.e. in the order of days rather than weeks or months)


Has been used as a camp at least once in 10 years (beginning in 1995) and is known to have contained > 2 500 individuals, including reproductive females during the final stages of pregnancy, during lactation, or during the period of conception (i.e. September to May).



Based on the assessment in Table 11 & 12 above, no habitat critical to the survival of this species occurs on site. Although some suitable foraging habitat for this species will be removed under the proposed development, a large proportion of the most suitable habitat will be retained on site (such as mature trees within the SSTF). Whilst this patch will be indirectly impacted by the development, the important habitat features for the Grey-headed Flying-foxes (in the form of mature eucalypts) will be retained and managed under an approved VMP. In addition, the impacts to vegetation under the proposal will be fully offset by retiring the commensurate quantum of credits. The proposed development is considered unlikely to adversely affect critical habitat for this species.

e. Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

No Grey-headed Flying Fox camps occur on the subject site. Although the species has been detected on site, the subject site is not considered to represent critical habitat for breeding or any other purpose. The proposed development is considered unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population of this species.

f. Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

The subject site contains foraging habitat for this species; however the most suitable habitat containing mature flowering eucalypts will be retained. Finally the Grey-headed Flying Fox is a highly mobile species capable of crossing the areas proposed to be cleared on the subject site. The proposed development will not increase habitat fragmentation for this species in the locality.

Due to the retention and planting of forest and woodland vegetation proposed, sufficient foraging habitat will be retained on the subject land to permit ongoing use by the Grey-headed Flying Fox. The species is unlikely to decline as a result of the proposed development.

g. Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

The subject site currently supports populations of invasive predators such as Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes). The proposed development is likely to lead to an increase in domestic cat and dog numbers following inhabitation. The Grey-headed Flying Fox is not vulnerable to these terrestrial invasive predators. Therefore the proposed development is considered unlikely to lead to the introduction of significant invasive species harmful to the Grey-headed Flying Fox

h. Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

The subject site is already highly disturbed due to its long agricultural history. The proposed development is considered unlikely to lead to processes capable of introducing diseases harmful to the Grey-headed Flying Fox.

i. Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species

Some suitable habitat for this species will be cleared or significantly modified as part of the development; however the most suitable habitat will be retained on-site. No camps of Grey-


headed Flying Foxes are known on the subject site and the marginal habitat available is not crucial to the survival of the local population. The proposed development is not considered likely to significantly impact on the recovery of this species.

j. Conclusion

The proposed development will retain, and will also replant substantial areas of important winter forage species for the Grey-headed Flying Fox, including Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), Narrow Leaved Ironbark (E. crebra) and Red Ironbark (E. fibrosa). This is consistent with the aims of the Draft National Recovery Plan for the species in that it will maintain foraging habitat for the species.

Additionally, it is important to note that no Grey-headed Flying Fox camps occur on the subject site and that evidence from field surveys and from local database records suggests that the species makes limited foraging use of the vegetation on the subject site.

Due to the retention and planting of forest and woodland vegetation proposed, sufficient foraging habitat will be retained on the subject land to permit ongoing use by the Grey-headed Flying Fox. The species is unlikely to decline as a result of the proposed development.The proposed development is not considered likely to significantly impact on the Grey-headed Flying Fox.


Appendix B

Final Summary Figures Requested by DoE

I:\...

\150

62\F

igur

es\L

ette

r 10\

2016

0302

\Fig

ure

10. P

roxi

mity

to G

row

th C

entre

Figure 10. Proximity of the Project to the North West Growth Centre

Coordinate System: MGA Zone 56 (GDA 94)

Grid

Nor

th

Image Source:SIX Maps (13 04 2011)

Data Source:© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia

(Geoscience Australia) 2006

NPWS (2012).NPWS Estate Data - Version 2/2012

DECCW (2011). The CumberlandPriority Conservation Lands.

NSW Department of Planning,NW Growth Centreserve

1 0 1 2 3 4 km

I:\...

\150

62\F

igur

es\L

ette

r 10

\201

6031

8\Fi

gure

11.

Gre

y-he

aded

Fly

ing-

fox

Cam

ps

Figure 11. Proximity of Flying-fox Camps to the Subject Site

Coordinate System: MGA Zone 56 (GDA 94)

Grid

Nor

th

Image Source:© 2016 Microsoft Corporation

Data Source:Department of the Environment 2016.

Interactive Flying-fox Web Viewer.Viewed 18-03-2016.

5 0 5 10 15 20 km


Appendix C

Department of the Environment Requests for Further Particulars about Matters Raised in

the SIS

.f!11i~~ Australian Government Department of the Environment

Matthew Scard E J Cooper and Son Pty Ltd 642 Great Western Highway Pend Ie Hill, NSW, 2145

Dear Mr Scard

Review of further information (s.95A)

EPBC Ref: 2014/7119

Residential and commercial development, Box Hill North, NSW (EPBe 2014/7119)

Thank you for submitting the Revised Species Impact Statement (SIS) May 2015, under Section 95A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), providing specified information relating to the proposed residential and commercial development at Box Hill North, NSW (2014/7119).

As you are aware, on 10 March 2014 the Department wrote to APP Corporation Pty Limited, the previously nominated contacts for EJ Cooper and Son Pty Ltd., detailing the additional information required for an assessment on preliminary documentation. A copy of this letter provided at Attachment A.

The Department's review of the Revised SIS indicates that there is still insufficient information on certain matters to allow us to consider all the relevant issues required for assessment. In particular, the Department notes the following information has not been provided (numbers as per the 10 March 2014 further information request):

1 a) A map indicating the proximity of the site to the North West Growth Centre.

2a) Details of how the additional vegetation surveys were conducted, in a manner that is consistent with methodologies described in EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31 Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest: A guide to identifying and protecting the nationally threatened ecological community (www.environment.gov.au/resource/cumberland-plain-shale-woodlands-and-shale-gravel-transition-forest). Presently the Revised SIS states that - "Quadrat data methodologies were conducted using the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (DECC 2009)" (s.4.2.1.iLa, p.4.3).

2c) Clarification on how the condition and extent (in ha) of Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands (CPW) and Shale Transition Forest (SST F) were determined in areas that the Revised SIS's Figure 4.3 (p.4.68) details has not .been surveyed as there was "no access to property"., This clarification is requested as the following Figure 4.4 (p.4.69) clearly indicates areas of CPW (and potentially SSTF) in areas not accessed for on-ground survey.

It therefore appears there is high potential that CPW or SSTF patch size and extent could have been under-estimated, particularly in areas we specifically requested to investigated in item 2d) - see Figure 1 's - Patch 6 and the southern-most patch of woodland mentioned in item 2d(vii-viii).

GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 • Telephone 02 62741111 • Facsimile 02 62741666 www.environment.gov.au

3) The information requested needs to be provided in the context of CPW and SSTF patch areas determined using EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31 methodology.

It is as yet unclear if or how the NSW methodology meets our EPBC policy requirements, which is a matter required for EPBC decision making.

4) Surveys and impact assessment for the Green and Golden Bell Frog.

4a) Please clarify if and when further survey work was undertaken, as requested, for the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and how this or previous survey work conforms to the survey guidelines contained within the EPBC Policy Statement 3. 19 for Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) (www.environment.gov.au/resource/significant-impact-guidelines-vulnerable-green-and-golden-bell-frog-litoria-aurea).

4b-d) as relevant.

5) The proposed Management Plans, or a summary document, as described.

The Department also requests you review the information provided in Attachment C, as there appear to be errors in the cross-referencing of information within the SIS.

Once this information is provided the Department will as to the procedures for public exhibition.

Details on the assessment process for the project and the responsibilities of the proponent are set out in the enclosed fact sheet. Further information is available from the Department's website at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc.

Please also note that once a proposal to take an action has been referred under the EPBC Act, it is an offence under Section 74AA to take the action while the decision making process is on-going (unless that action is specifically excluded from the referral or other exemptions apply). This provision of the EPBC Act carries a maximum penalty · of $425,000. The EPBC Act is available online at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about.

If you have any questions about the assessment process or this request, please contact the project manager, Scott Laidlaw, by email to [email protected], or telephone (02) 62742139 and quote the EPBC reference number shown at the beginning of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Mark Hall A/g Director NSW and ACT Section Assessments (NSW and ACT) and Fuels Branch

2...3 July 2015

cc Dr David Robertson, Cumberland Ecology; and

Mr Thomas Cook, McKenzie Group Consulting Planning (NSW) Pty Limited

2


Appendix D

Response to DoE Request for Additional Information about Particulars covered by the

SIS


D.1 DoE Reques t for Additiona l Information

DoE, in the 23 July 2015 letter, specified that further information was still required on the following matters:

Proximity of the site to the North West Growth Centre;

Details on survey methodology to adequately estimate the extent of CPW and SSTF;

Surveys and impact assessments for the Green and Golden Bell Frog; and

Proposed Management Plans.

These matters were addressed using the information presented below, with appropriate references to the May 2015 SIS and updated November 2015 assessment where relevant. The matters, as listed in the 23 July 2015 letter, have been reproduced verbatim (in italics) below followed by a response to the matter.

Note that this response information has now been superseded by new credit calculations, made to reflect the OEH concurrence conditions. For this reason, the numbers presented in Table 12 are not the latest numbers. The latest impact area and credit calculations are presented in Table 13 of Appendix E.

D.1.1 Proximity of the site to the North West Growth Centre

1 a) A map indicating the proximity of the site to the North West Growth Centre.

Response: The requested map has been provided as Figure 10 in Appendix B of this letter.

D.1.2 Vegetation Survey Methodology

2a) Details of how the additional vegetation surveys were conducted, in a manner that is consistent with methodologies described in EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31 Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest: A guide to identifying and protecting the nationally threatened ecological community (www.environment.gov.au/resource/cumberland-plain-shale-woodlands-and-shalegravel-transition-forest). Presently the Revised SIS states that - "Quadrat data methodologies were conducted using the BioBanking Assessment Methodology (DECC 2009)" (s.4.2.1.iLa, p.4.3).

Response: The methodologies described in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31 require the following diagnostic characteristics and conditions be recorded to identify the presence of CPW and SSTF at a site:

Dominant tree species;

Native tree projected foliage cover;

Patch size and contiguity of ecological community;


Surveys within vegetation patches based on samples of at least 0.04 ha;

Native versus exotic cover in the understorey; and

Diameter at breast height and abundance of trees with hollows.

A total of 20 BioBanking quadrats were sampled across the study area in 2013 and 2014. Each survey quadrat included a 20 x 20 m plot, as well as a 50m x 20m transect and meander. The quadrat locations are shown in Figure 4.1 of the Revised SIS and quadrat data is provided in Appendix D of the Revised SIS. In each quadrat, the following information was recorded as a minimum:

All vascular flora species present within the plot;

The stratum in which each species occurred;

The relative frequency of occurrence of each plant species;

Vegetation structural data (i.e. height and percentage cover of each stratum);

Number of hollows in canopy trees;

The diameter at breast height of canopy trees containing hollows;

Number of logs (and total length);

The ground cover composition (exotic groundcover, native grasses, native shrubs, every meter along a 50 m transect;

Quantum and species of regenerating trees;

A waypoint to mark the location of the quadrat, using a handheld Global Positioning System (GPS); and

Photographs of the quadrat.

The details of the full quantum of data collected, as per the BioBanking Methodology, are detailed in Section 4.2.1 ii b (pg 4.4) of the Revised SIS and include all the criteria listed above. The patch size and contiguity of vegetation are shown in Figures 2.5 and 4.4 of the Revised SIS. The surveys are therefore considered to be consistent with the methodologies described in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31.

2c) Clarification on how the condition and extent (in ha) of Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands (CPW) and Shale Transition Forest (SST F) were determined in areas that the Revised SIS's Figure 4.3 (p.4.68) details has not .been surveyed as there was "no access to property"., This clarification is requested as the following Figure 4.4 (p.4.69) clearly indicates areas of CPW (and potentially SSTF) in areas not accessed for on-ground survey.


It therefore appears there is high potential that CPW or SSTF patch size and extent could have been under-estimated, particularly in areas we specifically requested to investigated in item 2d) - see Figure 1 's - Patch 6 and the southern-most patch of woodland mentioned in item 2d(vii-viii)

Response: Following ongoing negotiations with Council, it has been decided that properties that are not owned by the proponent and for which no commercial arrangements have been made for future acquisition will not form part of the development. Therefore, the following areas have been removed from the original proposal area:

Lots 421-425 in DP 1183810;

Lots 24 & 28 in DP 255616;

Lot 1 in DP 7823600; and

Lots 1 & 3 in DP 253552.

These lots constitute the areas listed in the Revised SIS as not surveyed due to ‘no access to property’. As these areas no longer form part of the proposed development, further surveys to determine the extent and condition of CPW and/or SSTF within these areas have not been conducted.

The additional vegetation surveys conducted in response to Council conditions were used to refine the vegetation mapping of the project. Details on the methods, results and justification for the updated vegetation mapping are provided in Section 2.1 and 2.2 of the updated assessment report while details of the updated offset strategy are provided in Section 2.3 and 2.4 of the updated assessment report.

The updated vegetation mapping has resulted in an increase in the area of CPW and SSTF within the project. The offset strategy has been updated accordingly to compensate for the loss of the increased areas of CPW and SSTF. A summary of the increase in areas of the MNES CPW and SSTF and corresponding increase in the quantum of offsets is provided in Table 9 below. The impacts are to be offset with the purchase of the requisite number of BioBanking credits. Details of the methodology to calculate the requisite number of credits is provided in Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the SIS Response Report (Cumberland Ecology 2016).

Table 13 Extent of MNES Vegetation within the Updated Development Area

Matter of National Environmental Significance

Original Area of Impacted

Vegetation (ha)

Original Quantum of Ecosystem

Credits to Offset Impacts

Updated Area of Impacted

Vegetation (ha)

Updated Quantum of Ecosystem

Credits to Offset Impacts*

Cumberland Plain Woodland (CEEC)

8 210 1.1 10.27 1.2 466


Table 13 Extent of MNES Vegetation within the Updated Development Area

Matter of National Environmental Significance

Original Area of Impacted

Vegetation (ha)

Original Quantum of Ecosystem

Credits to Offset Impacts

Updated Area of Impacted

Vegetation (ha)

Updated Quantum of Ecosystem

Credits to Offset Impacts*

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (CEEC)

3 40 1.3 12.95 1.4 449

Total 11 250 1.5 23.22 1.6 915 * Note that the ‘Updated Quantum of Ecosystem Credits to Offset Impact’ numbers have now been superseded by new

calculations, which were made to reflect the OEH concurrence conditions. The latest numbers are presented in

Appendix E.

The change in the development footprint and the change in quantum of impacts and offsets will require an alteration to the referral which will be conducted via a formal variation to referral. The original proposal area is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B while the varied proposal area is shown in Figure 2 of Appendix B.

3) The information requested needs to be provided in the context of CPW and SSTF patch areas determined using EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31 methodology. It is as yet unclear if or how the NSW methodology meets our EPBC policy requirements, which is a matter required for EPBC decision making.

Response: This has been addressed in Section C.1.2 under 2a above. The detail of the full quantum of data collected, as per the BioBanking Methodology, is detailed in Section 4.2.1 ii b (pg 4.4) of the Revised SIS and includes all the criteria listed in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31 methodology. The surveys are therefore considered to be consistent with the methodologies described in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.31.

D.1.3 Assessment for Green and Golden Bell Frog

4a) Please clarify if and when further survey work was undertaken, as requested, for the Green and Golden Bell Frog, and how this or previous survey work conforms to the survey guidelines contained within the EPBC Policy Statement 3.19 for Significant impact guidelines for the vulnerable green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) (www.environment.gov.au/resource/significant-impact-guidelines-vulnerablegreen-and-golden-bell-frog-litoria-aurea).

4b-d) as relevant.

Response: The methodologies described in the EPBC Act Policy Statement survey guidelines include the following:


Habitat assessment (known records, vegetation, water bodies, connectivity, disturbance and threats);

Minimum of 4 nights spotlighting, call detection and call back survey:

• Between September and March;

• During warm and windless weather conditions following rainfall; and

Diurnal surveys for basking frogs and tadpoles.

Surveys included habitat assessments as well as targeted diurnal and nocturnal surveys (spotlighting and call playback) for Green and Golden Bell Frog. The survey methodology is detailed in Section 3.1.2 of the updated assessment report while the survey results are detailed in Section 3.5.1 and Appendix D of the updated assessment report.

The Green and Golden Bell Frog habitat assessment was undertaken on four days (21, 22 September and 1, 2 October 2015) at all dams and water bodies across the subject site, i.e. at 66 sites across 62 dams. Larger dams were sampled multiple times and the average score was taken to determine the condition of the site. The targeted surveys were conducted over 4 days and nights (7, 8, 13 and 14 October 2015). The weather data from the nearest meteorological monitoring station at Richmond (Station 67105) during and prior to the survey periods are shown below:

Table 14 Weather Conditions Before and During Surveys

Date Daily Minimum Temperature

Daily Maximum Temperature

Wind @ 3pm (km/h) Rainfall (mm)

18/09/2015 12.4 20.3 SSE 15 1.6

19/09/2015 11.6 19.1 E 17 1.4

20/09/2015 11.3 19.8 ESE 9 0.2

21/09/2015 8.8 25.4 WSW 9 0

22/09/2015 11.2 21.7 SE 22 0.2

23/09/2015 8.8 18.5 S 33 0

24/09/2015 7.6 17.9 S 26 0

25/09/2015 11.4 16.8 SSE 24 0

26/09/2015 9.2 20.0 SSW 15 2.6

27/09/2015 10.0 21.3 S 20 0

28/09/2015 5.2 23.1 NE 11 0

29/09/2015 6.3 26.6 NE 11 0

30/09/2015 9.4 23.4 SE 24 0

01/10/2015 13.1 29.6 NE 7 0

02/10/2015 10.5 26.3 NE 20 0


Table 14 Weather Conditions Before and During Surveys

Date Daily Minimum Temperature

Daily Maximum Temperature

Wind @ 3pm (km/h) Rainfall (mm)

03/10/2015 9.0 33.6 NNW 9 0

04/10/2015 10.2 33.2 WSW 26 0

05/10/2015 8.7 37.5 WNW 4 0

06/10/2015 11.8 37.5 NNW 20 0

07/10/2015 11.7 20.2 SE 20 0

08/10/2015 13.9 20.4 NE 15 0

09/10/2015 15.3 26.9 SW 7 0

10/10/2015 13.6 28.3 W 9 0

11/10/2015 9.9 26.0 NNE 11 0

12/10/2015 13.6 32.6 WNW 22 3.2

13/10/2015 17.3 18.5 SW 15 0.2

14/10/2015 13.1 26.6 ENE 15 0.2

Rows in bold show survey dates.

No Green and Golden Bell Frogs were recorded onsite and this species is considered unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat and abundance of Gambusia holbrooki. The Green and Golden Bell Frog surveys conform to the survey guidelines under the EPBC policy.

D.1.4 Proposed Management Plans

5) The proposed Management Plans, or a summary document, as described

Response: A Vegetation Management Plan, a Dam Dewatering Plan, and a Bushfire Management Plan have been prepared for the Masterplan DA. These documents have been prepared as broad, overarching guidance documents and further refinements and details will be progressively addressed for each Staged DA over the long-term development process.

D.2 Summary

Table 11 below shows a summary of how the requests for additio

Documents

Conservation Act 1999 - Celestino · 2017. 4. 5. · Grey-headed Flying-fox . Pteropus poliocephalus . ... Act and the EPBC Act. Therefore, a referral to the Commonwealth for impacts