Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessments...Flora: A total of 170 flora species was recorded for the eight (8) transects established in four (4) Subject Sites in the south-eastern

Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessments – 35 Water Street Wahroonga

UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page i

Executive Summary

Background: UBM Ecological Consultants (‘UBM’) has been retained by the Proponent Mr Peter Borbilas of

Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd undertake ecological investigations in support of a Planning Proposal application to

Ku-ring-gai Council to rezone the Subject Property Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga from

5(a) Special Uses (Hospital) to E4 Environmental Living Zone.

Ku-ring-gai Council is in the process of preparing a new Principal Local Environmental Plan (‘LEP’) to replace

the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (‘KPSO’). The draft LEP has not yet been exhibited, however it is

understood that it is proposed to rezone the Subject Property part R2 Low Density Residential and part E4

Environmental Living. When the draft LEP is finalised and gazetted, the proposed E4 Environmental Living

Zone for the Subject Property would be subsumed into the new LEP.

The existing zoning of the land allows for ‘hospitals’ but does not allow residential subdivision. The E4

Environmental Living Zoning would permit limited residential development, subject to a minimum Lot size of

2,000 m2, the conservation of the ecological heritage values of the site and retention of neighbourhood

character and amenity (Ingham Planning 2013).

Two thirds of the Subject Property has been identified by Ku-ring-gai Council (Draft LEP 218) as part of a

larger area considered to have biodiversity significance. This assessment is based on the presence of the

‘critically endangered’ Blue Gum High Forest (‘BGHF’) on the Subject Property; represented predominantly

by stands of remnant trees - Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna). However, there is sufficient land outside the

primary ecological conservation areas and the primary heritage curtilage of Rippon Grange to enable the

creation of a small number of residential lots. A limited residential development of the site in this manner

will have significantly less heritage, ecological and neighbor impacts than the large hospital buildings that

have been approved over a substantial portion of the site.

The current Report has been prepared at the request of the Proponent and assesses the conservation

significance of the native vegetation known to occur within the Subject Property in regards to the current

State and Commonwealth environmental legislation. The potential impacts of the current rezoning

application and of any future limited development on the Subject Property have also been considered.

The presence of remnant BGHF within the Subject Property established by previous workers is confirmed.

The extent of this ecological community on the Property has been determined by the NSW Land &

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006) to be 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha), and this area has been

adopted in this Report (see Figure 1.3).

The remnant BGHF in the Subject Property now comprises individuals and small stands of native canopy

trees over a predominantly exotic/weedy understorey. These areas are hereafter described in this Ecological

Report as ‘BGHF Habitat’ in order to distinguish the vegetation from a viable BGHF ‘ecological community’,

which is typically floristically diverse and structurally intact (see Final Determination TSC Act, Appendix 1).

Given the considerable number of flora and fauna surveys which have been conducted for the whole of the

2.1318 hectares of the larger Subject Property since 2005 (see Section 6 References), it was not considered

NOTE BY KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL: ALL REFERENCES TO AND DIAGRAMS OF SUBDIVISION LOTS, NUMBERS AND LOCATION DO NOT FORM PART OF THIS PLANNING PROPOSAL

NOTE BY KU-RING-GAI COUNCIL: ALL REFERENCES TO AND DIAGRAMS OF SUBDIVISION LOTS, NUMBERS AND LOCATION DO NOT FORM PART OF THIS PLANNING PROPOSAL


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page ii

necessary to replicate these earlier studies. This Report therefore focuses on the conservations significance

of those parts of the Subject Property which may be the subject of a future development application – i.e.

area substantially outside the mapped BGHF Habitat, as determined by the Land and Environment Court

(2006).

It is proposed to retain historic Rippon Grange, its curtilage and part of the culturally significant gardens.

The house will be restored and used as a family residence. However, there are two (2) areas outside

potentially suitable for environmentally sensitive limited future residential development.

Area 1 is located in the south-western part of the Subject Property wholly outside the area mapped as BGHF

Habitat (see Figure 1.3).

Area 2 is located in the south-eastern corner of the Property, with part of this area abutting the mapped

Core BGHF Habitat area (see Figure 1.3). Ecological investigations presented in this Report focus on the

natural conservation values of Area 2, likely to be subject of a future limited development application.

Results – Flora: A total of 170 flora species was recorded for the eight (8) transects established in four (4)

Subject Sites in the south-eastern corner of the Subject Property and described in this Report as Area 2 (see

Figure 1.3). A total of 220 flora species was recorded in the 11 quadrats established in the nearby BGHF

Habitat Area (see Section 3.3).

More introduced species than natives were recorded throughout the area surveyed. Approximately 75% (in

8 transects) and 79% (in 11 quadrats) recorded were horticultural introductions, non-indigenous native

species (i.e. planted specimens) or weeds. Thirteen (13) plants recorded Sites are declared as ‘noxious

weeds’ in Ku-ring-gai Local Government Area.

Under the draft concept design (see Figure 1.4), the potential loss of BGHF Habitat in the proposed future

development area has been calculated at 173 sq metres, which is only 2.74% of the total area of BGHF extant

within the Subject Property. Eleven (11) BGHF trees are likely to be removed or otherwise impacted under

the development proposal.

Results – Fauna:

Previous surveys have identified a total of 24 native birds, six (6) native mammals, four (4) reptiles and two

(2) amphibians within or nearby the Subject Property. Of these, the Gang-gang Cockatoo and Grey-headed

Flying-fox are listed under the TSC and/or EPBC Acts.

By the completion of the current field survey (May/June 2012), eight (8) bird species were detected within,

adjacent to, or flying over the Subject Property; the latter identified by their distinctive calls as well as

observation (Table 4.2). The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the TSC Act and was

heard calling from outside the Subject Property during nocturnal surveys.

Two (2) native mammalian species were observed on the Subject Property; the Common Ringtail Possum

(Pseudocheirus peregrines) and Swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolour).

Three (3) species listed under the TSC and/or EPBC Acts have been recorded in the vicinity or flying over the

Subject Property during field investigations. Although not observed within the Subject Property, there are


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page iii

some suitable resources available for these species. Therefore, the Seven-part Test of Significance has been

applied under the precautionary principle for the following species:

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum)

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua)

These Assessments (see Section 4.5) have indicated that there would be NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on any of

the threatened species listed above as the result of the Planning Proposal.

Conclusions & Recommendations:

Future development in Area 2 may have some minor impact on the mapped Core BGHF Habitat, depending

on project design; these being limited to parts of potential Lots 3 and 4 in Area 2. The remaining potential

Lots 2 and 5 are located wholly outside the mapped BGHF (see Figure 1.4).

There is however, an opportunity to redesign the limited development in Area 2 so that no area of BGHF

Habitat is impacted. This will be addressed if and when the current proposal rezoning is approved, and

before a development application is submitted. However, for the purposes of the current Report, the draft

concept subdivision plan which considers the potential to establish three (3) Lots in Area 2 will b considered

(see Figure 1.4).

If the subdivision proposal is adopted as envisaged in the subdivision concept plan accompanying the

Planning Proposal, there is likely to be a loss of 173 sq metres of modified BGHF Habitat from Area 2. This

represents a loss of 2.74 % of the total area of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property (@ 6,530 sq metres).

Accordingly the Seven-part Test of Significance has been undertaken as per Section 5A of the NSW

Environment Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (see Section 3.6).

This Assessment has concluded that the loss of 173 sq metres out of a total area of 6,350 sq metres of BGHF

Habitat in the Subject Property (2.74%) is not ‘significant’ in terms of the legislation, and therefore it will not

be necessary to refer the matter to the Minister for Environment & Heritage for future consideration in a

Species Impact Statement relating to flora issues1.

It should however, be noted that the loss of 2.74% of BGHF under the future subdivision proposal compares

favourably with the 4.9% loss of this community which would have occurred under the approved Hospital

development. Under the future subdivision proposal envisaged in the subdivision concept

planaccompanying the Planning Proposal, 6,177 sq metres of BGHF would be retained, rehabilitated and

appropriately managed. This compares to only 6,034 sq metres of the community which would have been

retained under the Hospital development proposal (a net gain of 143 sq metres)

1 Note that a Species Impact Statement was prepared in support of the earlier approved hospital development

(Cumberland Ecology 2007). This SIS considered impacts to a significantly larger area of BGHF Habitat than the current draft Proposal.


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page iv

It is however, recommended that the loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF, although small, should be ‘offset’

against a restoration and management program to rehabilitate the remaining Core BGHF within the Subject

Property.

A Vegetation Management Plan for the restoration and management of BGHF Habitat at 35 Water Street has

been prepared (UBM 2007); approved by DECCW/OEH, and adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council. This Plan

provides for bush regeneration works over a period of at least five (5) years and will guide on-ground

bushland restoration and rehabilitation works in the area mapped as Core and Non-Core BGHF Habitat. This

Plan includes those areas of BGHF Habitat which intrude marginally into possible new Lots 3 and 4, inArea 2.

Scientific Licence 132C for the purposes of science, education or conservation under the National Parks &

W8ldlife Act 1979 has been obtained from the Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) to provide for the

implementation of works. However to date, no works under this Plan have been undertaken. Scientific

License 132C is currently in the name of the previous landowner Waterbrook Pty Ltd, so it will be necessary

to apply to the Licensing Division of OEH to reissue the License in the name of the current landowner

Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd. All other licence conditions will remain unchanged.

Further, it is also recommended that those parts of the Subject Lots located outside the Development Zone

(i.e. house footprints and driveways) and adjoining the Core BGHF (as mapped) be rehabilitated and

thereafter maintained as closely as possible in a ‘near natural’ condition.

It is considered that the implementation of the adopted Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007) for the

remaining 1,677 sq metres of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property, and the rehabilitation of the simplified

and modified BGHF adjoining the Core BGHF (as mapped) will serve to provide an adequate ‘offset’ for the

loss of~173 sq metres of BGHF in the Area 2 potential development area.

Further, the loss of only 2.74% of BGHF Habitat within the Subject Property is well within the maximum 5%

loss for BGHF proposed by Dr P. Smith as an expert witness appearing in the Land and Environment Court

and adopted by the Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006).

Similarly, the loss of a small area (173 sq metres) of habitat which could potentially be utilised by the

threatened species, the Grey-headed Flying-fox, Gang Gang Cockatoo and Powerful Owl is not considered to

be significant to the species, populations or habitats.

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged by the concept plan submitted with the

Planning Proposal, will result in the restoration of historic Rippon Grange, its gardens and arboretum, and

allow for the conservation and future management of the critically endangered BGHF on the Subject

Property.

.


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page v

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background Information ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Site History .............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 The Development Proposal ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Relevant Legal and Planning Policies .....................................................................................................10

2 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Location and Setting ..............................................................................................................................13

2.2 Physical Environment ............................................................................................................................15

2.3 Biological Environment ..........................................................................................................................17

2.3.1 Vegetation Community Mapping ...................................................................................................17

2.3.2 Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property ...............................................................................18

3 FLORA ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................... 20

3.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................................20

3.1.1 Literature Review ...........................................................................................................................20

3.1.2 Field Survey ....................................................................................................................................21

3.1.3 Mapping and Photography .............................................................................................................22

3.2 Limitations to Ecological Field Surveys ..................................................................................................22

3.3 Field Survey Results ...............................................................................................................................25

3.3.1 Vegetation Communities ................................................................................................................25

3.3.2 Indigenous Flora Species ................................................................................................................25

3.3.3 Threatened Species ........................................................................................................................27

3.3.4 Introduced Flora Species ................................................................................................................28

3.4 Description of the Vegetation in the BGHF Habitat Area ......................................................................29

3.5 Description of the Vegetation in the Proposed Subdivision Area .........................................................32

3.6 Assessments of Significance – Flora ......................................................................................................39

3.6.1 Commonwealth Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community

‘Blue Gum High Forest’ ...............................................................................................................................39

3.6.2 NSW Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community Blue Gum

High Forest ..................................................................................................................................................39

4 FAUNA ASSESSMSENT ......................................................................................................... 45


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page vi

4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................45

4.2 Fauna Methods ......................................................................................................................................45

4.3 Limitations to Fauna Field Surveys ........................................................................................................47

4.4 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................48

4.4.1 Fauna Species Recorded .................................................................................................................48

4.4.2 Fauna Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................................49

4.4.3 Threatened Fauna Assessment ......................................................................................................50

4.5 Assessments of Significance - Fauna .....................................................................................................62

5 CONCLUSIONS & R ECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................. 71

6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 73

7 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 76

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Regional Positioning of the Subject Property ..................................................................................... 2

Figure 1.2: Extent of the Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property (UBM 2007) ........................................ 4

Figure 1.3: draft Concept Plan of Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision (courtesy Tanner Architects 2012) ..................... 8

Figure 1.4: draft Concept Plan of Subdivision showing Location of 4 new Lots in Area 2 (Tanner Arcthitects

2011) ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2.1: Soil Landscapes of the Subject Property & Environs (per Chapman & Murphy 1989) ....................16

Figure 2.2: Vegetation mapping (NPWS 2002) ...................................................................................................19

Figure 2.3: Vegetation mapping (SCIVI) by Tozer et al. 2010 .............................................................................19

Figure 3.1: Approximate location of the 11 quadrats established within the BGHF Habitat Area (UBM

May/June 2012) ..................................................................................................................................................26

Figure 4.1: Distance Nearby BGHF Bushland from Subject Property .................................................................50

List of Tables

Table 1.1: Summary of Environmental Policies, Planning & Legislative Requirements * ..................................10

Table 2.1: Site Definition for the Subject Property ............................................................................................14

Table 2.2: Physical Features of the Subject Property & Environs ......................................................................15

Table 3.1: Flora Species of State or National Conservation Significance occurring in the Region .....................27

Table 3.2: Introduced flora species declared as ‘noxious weeds’ in Ku-ring-gai LGA and recorded in the

Subject Property .................................................................................................................................................28


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page vii

Table 3.3: Condition of vegetation in 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area ................................31

Table 3.4: Summary of BGHF Issues in the Proposed Development Subject Sites, Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 ...............37

Table 3.5: Trees described in the Final Determination as BGHF species ...........................................................38

Table 4.1: Summary of surveys conducted and weather conditions .................................................................45

Table 4.2: Native species identified during current field surveys ......................................................................48

Table 4.3: Likelihood of occurrence categories ..................................................................................................51

Table 4.4: Threatened Fauna Speices recorded in the Locality and Region .......................................................52

List of Appendices

APPENDIX 1: Final Determination – Blue Gum High Forest ...............................................................................76

APPENDIX 2: Flora List Recorded for in the eight (8) transects established in the Subject Sites: proposed Lots

2, 3, 4 and 5 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga .....................................................................................................81

APPENDIX 3: List of Flora Species Recorded in the 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area ...........92

APPENDIX 4: Fauna occurring in the Region (OEH 2012) and recorded on the Subject Property from all

studies ..............................................................................................................................................................102

APPENDIX 5: List of Trees to be removed or impacted for proposed subdivision (source Tree Wise Men

(Australia) Pty Ltd October 2011) .....................................................................................................................115


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page viii

Certification

I, Judith Rawling Managing Director of UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd hereby state that this Report,

which comprises a revised Flora and Fauna Survey and Ecological Assessment, has been prepared in support

of a proposed rezoning of land known as Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga. This Report also

considers the potential impacts of any future development on areas outside the mapped Blue Gum High

Forest known to occur within the Subject Property.

The nature of the remnant native vegetation on this site has been determined with reference to its

conservation significance and status under the current State and Commonwealth environmental legislation.

The UBM project team charged with preparing this Report were:

Judith Rawling (BA,DipEd,DipEnv.Stud.MEnvSt)

David Thomas Consultant Botanist

Rebecca Carman (BSc,MPhil,PGDipWldMgt)

Disclaimer

The preparation of this Report has been in accordance with the brief provided by the Client and has relied

upon the data and results collected at or under the times and conditions specified in the Report. All findings,

conclusions or recommendations contained within the Report are based only on the aforementioned

circumstances.

The Report has been prepared for use by the Client Bellevue Projects, and no responsibility for its use by

other parties is accepted by UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd2.

Draft Report 14 June 2012

Revision 21 January 2013

Judith Rawling

BA,DipEd,DipEnvStud,MEnvStud

Managing Director UBM Ecological Consultants

Member Executive Council ECA (NSW), Member AIB, MESA, MEIANZ

2 Copyright © UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd January 2013


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page ix

Definitions

BGHF – Blue Gum High Forest, a Critically Endangered Ecological Community listed under the Schedules of

the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection &

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Council / KC–Ku-ring-gai Council

EEC – Endangered Ecological Community – as determined by the NSW Scientific Committee and described

as–a community facing a risk of extinction in the immediate future, as listed under State and/or

Commonwealth threatened species legislation

CEEC - Critically Endangered Ecological Community – as determined by the Scientific Committee and

described as a community facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the immediate future, as listed under

State and/or Commonwealth threatened species legislation

Characteristic vs. Diagnostic Species - Characteristic species are those typically found in the subject plant

community but which may also be found in a number of other plant communities, e.g. Pittosporum

undulatum, Microlaena stipoides, Pratia purpurascens, Dichondra repens, Entolasia spp, Oplismenus spp etc.

Diagnostic species are those that indicate the type of plant community present and which are usually limited

to the subject community or to a narrow range of communities which have similar or related habitat

requirements. Examples might be Blue Gums indicating BGHF, Sydney Turpentine indicating Sydney

Turpentine Ironbark Forest, Grey Box indicating Cumberland Plain Woodland or Shale Gravel Transition

Forest. Some commonly occurring species are characteristic of quite a few plant communities,

DECCW – NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (formerly ‘DECC’). Now the Office of

Environment & Heritage (‘OEH’) within the Department of Premier & Cabinet.

Direct Impacts are those that directly affect the habitat and individuals. They include, but are not limited to,

death through predation, trampling, poisoning of the animal/plant itself and the removal of suitable habitat.

Indirect Impacts occur when project-related activities affect species, populations or ecological communities

in a manner other than direct loss. Indirect impacts can include loss of individuals through starvation,

exposure, predation by domestic and/or feral animals, loss of breeding opportunities, loss of shade/shelter,

deleterious hydrological changes, increased soil salinity, erosion, inhibition of nitrogen fixation, weed

invasion, fertiliser drift, or increased human activity within or directly adjacent to sensitive habitat areas.

Ecological Community – described as an assemblage of species occupying a particular area at a particular

time, e.g. as set out in the Final Determinations of the Scientific Committee

EPBC Act – Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Habitat – an area or areas occupied, or periodically or occasionally occupied by a species, population or

ecological community, and including any biotic or abiotic components present.


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page x

LGA – Local Government Area – here Ku-ring-gai

Locality – generally, an area within 1-2 kilometres of the Study Area

NPWS – former National Parks & Wildlife Unit of DECCW

Region – area within 10 km of the Subject Property/Study Area

SCIVI – Southeast NSW Native Vegetation Classification and Mapping by Tozer et al. 2010 for the former

NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECCW)3.

Subject Property –existing Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street, Water Street @ 21,318 sq metres (2.1318

hectares) in size and formerly known as Rippon Grange; and latterly as the John Williams Respite Care

Centre or Hospital.

Subject Sites – refers to the area directly affected by the draft concept subdivision proposal i.e. proposed

new Lots 2 (Area 1), 3, 4 and 5 (Area 2) within the Subject Property.

Study Area means the Subject Site and any additional areas which are likely to be affected by the Proposal,

either directly or indirectly. The Study Area extends as far as necessary to take all potential impacts into

account.

TSC Act – NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

UBM – UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd: formerly trading as Urban Bushland Management Consultants

(‘UBMC’)

WoNS – Weed of National Significance

3 Reference: Tozer, M.G., Turner, K., Simpson, C., Keith, D.A., Beukers, P., MacKenzie, B., Tindall, D. & Pennay, C. (2010). Native

vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tableland, in Cunninghamia 11 (3)


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

UBM Ecological Consultants (‘UBM’) has been retained by the Proponent Mr Peter Borbilas of Bellevue

Projects Pty Ltd undertake ecological investigations in support of a Planning Proposal application to Ku-ring-

gai Council to rezone the Subject Property Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga from 5(a)

Special Uses (Hospital) to E4 Environmental Living Zone.

Ku-ring-gai Council is in the process of preparing a new Principal Local Environmental Plan (‘LEP’) to replace

the Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme Ordinance (‘KPSO’). The draft LEP has not yet been exhibited, however it is

understood that it is proposed to rezone the Subject Property part R2 Low Density Residential and part E4

Environmental Living. When the draft LEP is finalised and gazetted, the proposed E4 Environmental Living

Zone for the Subject Property would be subsumed into the new LEP.

The existing zoning of the land allows for ‘hospitals’ but does not allow for residential subdivision. The E4

Environmental Living Zoning would permit limited residential development, subject to a minimum Lot size of

2,000 m2, the conservation of the ecological heritage values of the site and retention of neighbourhood

character and amenity (Ingham Planning 2013).

Two thirds of the Subject Property Lot 1 has been identified by Ku-ring-gai Council (Draft LEP 218) as part of

a larger area considered to have ‘biodiversity significance’. This assessment is based on the presence of the

‘critically endangered’ Blue Gum High Forest (‘BGHF’) on the Subject Property: this community represented

predominantly by stands of remnant Sydney Blue Gum (E. saligna) canopy trees. However, there is sufficient

land on the Subject Property outside the primary ecological conservation areas and the primary heritage

curtilage of Rippon Grange to enable creation of a small number of residential lots.

The presence of remnant BGHF within the Subject Property established by previous workers is confirmed.

The extent of this ecological community on the Property has been determined by the NSW Land &

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006) to be 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha), and this area has been

adopted in this Report (see Figure 1.2).

Given the considerable number of flora and fauna surveys undertaken for the whole of the 2.1318 hectares

of the Subject Property since 2005, it was not considered necessary to replicate these earlier studies,

especially for those areas mapped as Core BGHF. This Report therefore focuses on the conservation

significance of those parts of the Subject Property which may be the subject of a future development

application – i.e. areas outside the mapped Core BGHF, as determined by the Land and Environment Court

(2006).

The current Report- Flora and Fauna Survey and Ecological Assessments for Blue Gum High Forest at 35

Water Street Wahroonga – will, where applicable, update and expand the findings of a number of earlier

surveys and reports prepared for the Subject Property; these earlier reports having been undertaken on

behalf of former Department of Commerce and latterly, the former owners Waterbrook Pty Ltd (see Section

3.1.1 and Section 6 References) for a list of previous reports).



Ecological investigations and Assessments will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the

NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999. The potential impacts of the current rezoning application and of any future limited

development of the Subject Property will also be considered.

The regional positioning of the Subject Property is shown on Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1: Regional Positioning of the Subject Property Rippon Grange



1.2 Site History

The Subject Property (Lot 1 in DP 375262) is part of a historic property known as Rippon Grange. The

Property is 2.1318 hectares in size, with frontages to Water Street and Young Street and is located within the

fully developed residential suburb of Wahroonga. The Property is currently zoned Special Uses 5(a) Hospital

Rippon Grange was constructed as a two (2) storey private dwelling in 1898 and is the main building on the

Subject Property, although a number of significant outbuildings and important landscape elements remain in

situ. Rippon Grange has been classified by the National Trust of Australia (NSW), and it is also listed as an

‘Indicative Place’ on the Australian Heritage Commission’s Register of the National Estate.

In the early 1950s, Rippon Grange was donated to the NSW State government for use as a Hospital,-and it

continued to serve this function - latterly as the John Williams Respite Care Centre - until 2002 when it was

declared ‘surplus to needs’.

In 2005, the State Property Unit of the NSW Department of Commerce commissioned a preliminary

investigation of ecological issues and an opportunities and constraints study (UBMC February 2005), which

identified the presence of ~2,600 sq metres (0.26 ha) of simplified and modified Blue Gum High Forest on

the Property.

On June 30 2005, the Subject Property was acquired by Waterbrook Pty Ltd with the intention of

redeveloping the Property under State Environmental Planning Policy (Senior Living) 2004. Subsequent

ecological surveys carried out on behalf of Waterbrook (UBMC February 2006) confirmed the findings of the

earlier ecological investigations. At that time, Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion was listed

under the Schedules of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (hereafter ‘TSC Act’) as an

‘Endangered Ecological Community’, and as ‘Threatened’ under the Commonwealth Environment Protection

of Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (hereafter ‘EPBC Act’).

Since the acquisition of the Subject Property by Waterbrook in mid-2005, the ecological status of the Blue

Gum High Forest has been reviewed by the NSW Scientific Committee established under the TSC Act; with

this community now being declared as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (‘CEEC’)’ (see Final

Determination 20 April 2007, Appendix 1). Of most import, the criteria for identifying the Blue Gum High

Forest ecological community were also amended, thus providing for a larger proportion of the Subject

Property to be reclassified as BGHF.

As the result of these changes to the legislation, Ku-ring-gai Council and the then-National Parks & Wildlife

Group of the Department of Environment & Climate Change4 (‘DECCW’) required Waterbrook to review and

reassess the extent of the remnant BGHF extant at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga.

Subsequent investigations by Smith & Smith on behalf of Ku-ring-gai Council (December 2006) then revised

the area of BHGF extant on the Subject Property from the original 2,600 sq metres (0.26 ha) mapped by

UBMC (2005) to 6,350 sq metres (0.64 ha) (see Figure 1.2).

4 DECCW is now the Office of Environment & Heritage within the Department of Premier & Cabinet.



The method used by Smith & Smith (2006) to determine the extent of the BGHF at Rippon Grange was to

draw a line around the outside canopy line of each of the large Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) on

the Property and to call this area BGHF, regardless of the nature of the understorey. Polygons were then

joined together to arrive at the larger area of 6,530 sq metres (see Figure 1.2).

The extended area of BGHF was subsequently approved by a Hearing in the NSW Land & Environment Court

(No 11193 of 2006). Therefore, in view of the Court’s decision, the larger area of 6,350 sq metres of BGHF

was adopted as a base point for all subsequent reports and investigations, including the Vegetation

Management Plan prepared to guide the restoration and future management of the BGHF in the Subject

Property (UBM December 2007).

Figure 1.2: Extent of the Mapped Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property (UBM 2007)



1.3 The Planning Proposal

A Planning Proposal Report has been prepared by Ingham Planning Pty Ltd (January 2013) for the Subject

Property Lot 1 DP 375362, 35 Water Street, Wahroonga. This Planning Proposal involves an amendment to

the existing KPSO zoning map to change the zoning of the Subject Property Lot 1 from 5(a) Special Uses –

Hospital to E4 Environmental Living.

The E4 Environmental Living Zoning would permit limited residential development, subject to a minimum Lot

size of 2,000 m2, conservation of the ecological heritage values of the site, and retention of neighbourhood

character and amenity (Ingham Planning 2013). A limited residential development of the site in this manner

will have significantly less heritage, ecological and neighbor impacts than the large hospital buildings that

have been approved over a substantial portion of the site.

The rezoning of the Subject Property will provide for a future development application to Ku-ring-gai Council

to subdivide a limited number of residential allotments in the southwest and southeast corners of the site,

together with a large a) residual Lot containing the heritage-listed buildings and gardens (see Figure 1.3). A

development application for subdivision will be prepared if and when Council indicates support for the

proposed re-zoning.

Assuming the rezoning proposal is approved, the future subdivision of land at Rippon Grange is generally

proposed as follows:

The Heritage Precinct - proposed new Lot 1 will include Rippon Grange and its outbuildings, landscaped

gardens, and a large part of the 19th Century arboretum. The house, which is in a derelict condition, will be

restored and utilised once again as a family residence.

The Potential Development Land - comprises two (2) areas with the potential for environmentally sensitive

limited future development.

Area 1 is located in the south-western part of the Subject Property (see Figure 1.3).

Area 1 can accommodate a a large battle axe block and will include a new driveway from Water

Street running along the western boundary, and a residential Lot sited to the rear of the Property;

i.e. in the south-western corner formerly used as a poultry yard, composting and service area. Lot 2

will be 2,070 sq metres (~0.021 ha) in size, does not include any area mapped as BGHF.

Area 2 is located in the south-eastern corner of the Property, with part of this area abutting the mapped

Core BGHF area (see Figure 1.3).

Area 2 can accommodate up 3 lots frontingYoung Street. Potential Lots 3 and 4 can be accessed by a

common driveway servicing both Lots. Both these Lots incorporate parts of the arboretum, but they also

intrude marginally into the area mapped as BGHF (Smith & Smith 2006, UBM 2007). Lot 3 will be 940 sq

metres (0.094 ha) and Lot 4 will be 1,290 sq metres (0.129 ha) in size. Lot 3 has 572 sq metres of BGHF,

of which 77 sq metres (23 sq metres building and 54 metres driveway) would be affected. Lot 4 has 987

sq metres of BGHF, of which 96 sq metres (27 sq metres building and 69 sq metres driveway) would be

affected.



A potential third lot within Area 2 (Lot 5) is located in the lower SE corner of the Property, adjacent to

the rear gate and driveway on Young Street. It will be located partly on the paved car park which

serviced the former Nurses Quarters on Billyard Avenue, and will incorporate part of the arboretum. Lot

5 will be 1,110 sq metres (0.111 ha) in size. Lot 5 has 353 sq metres of BGHF, of which none would be

affected (calculations courtesy Tanner Architects, pers. comm.).

NOTE: There will be an opportunity to redesign the proposed new Lots in Area 2 so that no area of BGHF is

impacted or the area of impact is reduced. This will be addressed if and when the current rezoning proposal

is approved and before a development application is submitted. However, for the purposes of the current

Report, the draft concept project design which considers the maximum potential to establish three (3) Lots

in Area 2 will be considered in detail (see Figure 1.4).

The subdivision concept plan submitted with the Planning Proposal (see Figure 1.3) provides for services to

potential new Lots 3,,4 and 5 (drainage and sewage facilities) in Area 2 to be installed along the southern

Property boundary; these being located outside the mapped BGHF Habitat area. Alternately, all services will

be installed on the common driveway from Young Street. It is anticipated that no impact to the BGHF is

result as a result of the installation of services.

An Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report prepared by Tree Wise Men (October 2007) in support of a

previous Development Application identified 342 trees in the Subject Property, and of these, a small number

are species considered to be ‘characteristic’ of the BGHF Ecological Community (see Appendix 1). The

remaining trees are horticultural introductions or non-indigenous native plantings.

While some of the characteristic BGHF trees are remnant (i.e. naturally occurring), others have been planted

in the landscaped grounds. Large native canopy trees, particularly Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna)

have been widely used as landscape features in the Locality, occurring as street trees, in neighbourhood

parks and in private gardens

A Preliminary Tree Impact Assessment Report has been prepared by Tree Wise Man (October 2011) in

support of the future concept subdivision proposal. This Assessment suggests that eight (8) BGHF trees will

be removed or otherwise impacted under the subdivision proposal. However of these, two (2) specimens

are mature Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) – a small native tree known to occur is most plant

communities in SE NSW and widely considered by bush regenerators to be a ‘native weed’ (UBMC 2006,

UBM 2007. ). Five (5) of the BGHF trees likely to be impacted have been identified for proposed Lot 3 and

one (1) tree for proposed Lot 4 (see Appendix 3). Another 27 introduced (exotic) trees or large shrubs will

also be impacted, with the majority of these being located in proposed Lot 2, which is part of the landscaped

garden and arboretum and located outside the area mapped as BGHF (Smith & Smith 2006, UBM 2007).

In order to reduce any potential impacts on the BGHF trees on potential Lots 3, 4 and 5, within Area 2, the

development footprint for each allotment has been sited towards the front of the Lot, in what are essentially

open lawns with scattered trees. Pending advice from the new Project Arborists Landscape Matrix (report

December 2011) the configuration of the development footprints will be adjusted to protect any significant

trees which may occur.



Appendix 3 provides information about the species and numbers of trees likely to be impacted under the

Proposal. This information has been sourced from Tree Wise Man (Australia) Pty Ltd (October 2011). The

draft concept plan of potential subdivision showing Areas 1 and 2 is presented as Figure 1.3.



Figure 1.3: draft Concept Plan of Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision (courtesy TKD Architects 2012)



Figure 1.4: draft Concept Plan of Subdivision showing Location of 4 new Lots in Area 2 (TKD Architects 2011)



1.4 Relevant Legal and Planning Policies

A number of local planning policies, State and Commonwealth Acts and policies are relevant to the

management of remnant bushland in Ku-ring-gai LGA. Relevant items are listed in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: Summary of Environmental Policies, Planning & Legislative Requirements5 *

GOVERNMENT LEVEL RELEVANT POLICY /LEGISLATION RELEVANCE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY

LOCAL

Ku-ring-gai Planning Scheme

Ordinance (2006)

Draft Principal Local Environmental

Plan (draft 2012)

Currently Lot 1 DP 726091 is zoned 2(c) Residential. Lot

1 DP 375262 is zoned 5(a) Special Uses (Hospital)

Amendments to the KPSO are proposed which identify

2/3rds

of the Subject Property as having biodiversity

significance. Rezoning is proposed as part R2 Low

Density Residential and part E4 Environmental Living.

This document is currently in draft form and has not

been adopted (Ku-Ring-gai Draft Planning Proposal –

Biodiversity Mapping – Draft LEP 218)”

Plan of Management for KRG Council

Bushland Reserves 2006

Council’s Bushland PoM provides practical overarching

guidance for the management of bushland reserves.

The companion document to the Plan - ‘Operation

Information’ - contains specific requirements & actions

for individual reserves, with species lists and an

overview of the relevant legislation and Recovery Plans.

While not strictly applicable to bushland on private

land, the PoM provides valuable information on local

bushland species, habitats and ecological communities.

Ku-ring-gai Biodiversity Strategy

May 2006

Council has identified a significant part of the Subject

Property has retaining biodiversity values.

Among the Strategy Objectives are:

- to prevent loss of local native biodiversity on public and private lands by eliminating/ameliorating threatening processes

- to protect, enhance and where appropriate, increase local biodiversity on public and private lands

- to protect and enhance aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and habitats and connectivity between reserves.

The Vegetation Management Plan prepared for the

BGHF Habitat at 35 Water Street (UBM 2007) has

addressed each of the objectives listed above.

5 Information in Table 1.2 sourced from the Vegetation Management Plan UBM 2007




STATE

Threatened Species Conservation Act

1995

A single threatened flora species – Magenta Lilly Pilly

(Syzygium paniculatum) – was recorded in the Subject

Property (in proposed Lot 1). This species has been

planted widely throughout the Region, and in the

Subject Property is likely to be of horticultural origin

rather than a natural occurrence (confirmed by DECCW

2007).

Stands of a single critically endangered ecological

community – Blue Gum High Forest (‘BGHF’) – were

recorded for part of the Subject Property (see Figure

1.2). The community has been highly simplified, both

structurally and floristically due to long-term severe

disturbances, past and current land uses.

The following fauna species have been recorded in or

near to the Subject Property, and where these have not

been recorded, suitable habitat is known to be present:

The Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), is

listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the Act.

The Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum) is

listed as a ‘vulnerable’ species throughout NSW.

The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as a

‘vulnerable’ species throughout NSW.

Source material: UBM 2007

Sydney Regional Environmental Plan

Hawkesbury-Nepean River No 20

SREP-20 aims to protect the environment of the

Hawkesbury-Nepean River system by ensuring that the

impacts of future land uses are considered in a regional

context, mainly by maintaining and improving water

quality in the Catchment.

The Subject Property is within the Lovers Jump Creek

sub-catchment. There are no natural drainage lines on

this site, and the land drains into Council’s stormwater

drainage system on Young Street and Billyard Avenue:

then draining into Lovers Jump and Cowan Creeks.

The current Proposal will not adversely impact on the

natural environment of the Hawkesbury-Nepean

Catchment or water quality within the Catchment.

Noxious Weeds Act 1993(Amended

2005)

There are 13 noxious weed species within the larger

Subject Property. Many of these occur in the area

proposed for development (see Section 4.3).

The landowner has a legal responsibility to control

noxious weeds on the property and to prevent their

spread to adjoining land.

Rural Fires Act 1997 / Amendment The Subject Property is not classified as Bush Fire Prone




2002 Land (Ku-ring-gai Council 2002). Accordingly, no Asset

Protection Zones are required to be established.

A Bushfire Risk Assessment has been prepared by

Bushfire Planning Services (12 June 2012). This report

concludes that there is no bushfire hazard within the

Subject Property and that no hazard is presented by a

stand of bushland in nearby Wahroonga Public School

(mapped as ‘buffer’ under Council’s Bushfire Prone

Lands Map). This Map is currently under revision, but

this is unlikely to impact on the BGHF Habitat in the

Subject Property.

State Environmental Planning Policy

19 – Bushland in Urban Areas

SEPP-19 applies aims to protect and preserve bushland

in urban environments but applies only to land zoned as

‘community land’ or ‘public open space’. In accordance

with clause 7a of SEPP-19, public authorities managing

bushland zoned for or reserved for public open space

purposes shall not disturb the bushland for the purpose

referred to in Clause 6(2) unless it has first had regard to

the aims of this Policy.

No areas within, or adjacent to the Subject Property are

zoned as community land or public open space, and the

Property is privately owned. Therefore the SEPP does

not apply.

State Environmental Planning Policy

44 – Koala Habitat

The Subject Property is not considered to constitute

potential Koala habitat. Therefore, a Koala Plan of

Management is not required.

COMMONWEALTH Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

A single threatened flora species – Magenta Lilly Pilly

(Syzygium paniculatum) – was recorded in proposed Lot

1 – outside the area mapped as BGHF. This species has

been frequently planted throughout the Region, and is

likely to be of horticultural origin rather than a natural

occurrence (confirmed DECCW 2007).

A single threatened ecological community – Blue Gum

High Forest (BGHF) – was recorded within part of the

Subject Property (see Figure 1.2). The community has

been highly simplified, both structurally and floristically

due to long-term and severe disturbances.

As this site is < one (1) hectare in size, the

Commonwealth Department of Environment & Water

Resources (‘DEW’) has declined to consider any of the

previous development proposals as significant.

The Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), is

listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the Act.

Source material: UBM 2007



2 SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 Location and Setting

Historic Rippon Grange is located in a fully developed residential setting in the suburb of Wahroonga, in Ku-

ring-gai Local Government Area. It is about one (1) kilometre from the Wahroonga Shopping Centre and

Railway Station and about 22 kilometres north-west of the Sydney CBD.

The suburb of Wahroonga was developed in the late 19th Century, soon after the railway line was extended

to Sydney’s Upper North Shore (c. 1890). For many years, it was used as a private dwelling, and during that

time the grounds were developed and extensively landscaped.

The character of the surrounding area is described as

“…a well established leafy residential area. The Lots are larger than average found in Sydney,

and the gardens are landscaped and well maintained. The exception to the surrounding

residential dwellings is ‘The Bush School’, which is located opposite the site in Water Street”

(R. Olssen for Ku-ring-gai Council, December 2006).

The former John Williams Hospital site occupies land bounded by Water Street (north) and Young Street

(east) and backs onto residential development in Billyard Avenue (south) and Plymouth Close (west). The

original Property was once much larger, but it has been reduced in size as land was progressively sold off for

residential development.

The grounds have been extensively landscaped over a number of years, and include a significant arboretum

with specimen trees sourced from all parts of the world. Some native canopy trees have been retained;

most particularly a stand of Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), and these been incorporated into the

original landscape design; growing over (exotic) garden plantings and lawns. These canopy trees are located

predominantly in the eastern and central parts of the Property (see Figure 1.2). Some of these Blue Gums

may be remnants of the original vegetation; while others (particularly those occurring in a straight line on

the Water/Young Street frontages) appear to have been planted.

In order to provide for the upkeep of a large pleasure garden and latterly a Hospital, parts of the Subject

Property were developed as ‘service areas’ (composting facilities, work sheds), while other areas were used

to provide food for the main house and latterly the Hospital (chicken coops, vegetable gardens and a small

orchard). Surviving plans and photographs show that these facilities were located in the south-western part

of the Subject Property, behind the Stables – an area which has now been identified for ‘reconstruction’ to

BGHF (UBM Vegetation Management Plan 2007).

From 1951 to 2005, when the Property was owned by the State Government and used as a hospital and

respite care centre, the grounds were generally neglected, with invasive garden plants and other weeds

growing unchecked and invading the remnant BGHF along the Water Street / Young Street boundary. The

understorey in this stand of BGHF trees is now wholly composed of introduced species and weeds.



There is also some evidence that a second period of landscaping occurred in the latter part of the 20th

Century, when a number of ‘generally’ Australian native species (i.e. not indigenous to the BGHF) were

planted into the Water and Young Streets remnant, in what was originally an open lawn area towards its

southern end.

The remnant BGHF in the Subject Property now comprises individuals and small stands of native canopy

trees over a predominantly exotic/weedy understorey. These areas are hereafter described in this Ecological

Report as ‘BGHF Habitat’ in order to distinguish the vegetation from a viable BGHF ‘ecological community’,

which is typically floristically diverse and structurally intact (see Final Determination TSC Act, Appendix 1).

The closest area of ‘bushland’ to Rippon Grange is found in the grounds of ‘The Bush School’ (Wahroonga

Public School), which is ~100 metres away, on the northern side of Water Street. While this remnant retains

a stand of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and some other native species, it is badly degraded with an

understorey of Privets (Ligustrum spp) and other woody weeds estimated at >75% density. Flow of native

genetic material (via seed dispersal) between the Bush School and the BGHF Habitat is possible, but unlikely

given that there are very few sites bare soil sites where plant establishment could occur in either location.

Two (2) Council reserves are located to the north-east: Turiban Reserve (@ 250 metres) and Clive Evatt

Reserve (@ 425 metres) (Cumberland Ecology 2007); while other Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna)

have been retained in private gardens (see Plates). Connectivity between these bushland reserves and

through the Locality generally is retained only through the tree canopy; with both native and introduced

trees providing ‘stepping stones’ through a highly urbanised environment (see Figure 4.1).

Table 2.1: Site Definition for the Subject Property

Title Information Rippon Grange - the former John Williams Hospital at 35 Water Street Wahroonga, Ku-

ring-gai Local Government Area, Sydney.

Ownership Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd

Location The land is bounded by Water Street (north) and Young Street (east); backing onto

residential development in Billyard Avenue (south) and Plymouth Close (west).

Co-ordinates Latitude: 33 degrees,43 minutes, 7 seconds

Longitude: 151 degrees,7 minutes,.31 seconds

Total Area Lot 1 DP 375262), with an area of 21, 318 sq metres (2.1318 hectares)

Zoning

Currently Lot 1 DP 375262 is zoned 5(a) Special Uses (Hospital) (Ku-ring-gai Municipal

Council 2006)

Proposed as part R2 Low Density Residential and part E4 Environmental Living under

Council’s proposed Comprehenisive LEP for Ku-ring-gai LGA.



2.2 Physical Environment

The physical characteristics of the Subject Property and the Locality have been summarised in Table 2.3.

Table 2.2: Physical Features of the Subject Property & Environs6

FEATURE DESCRIPTION

Topography

The Subject Property is located on gently sloping land, with a moderately steep (10%)

gradient from north-west to south-east – downslope towards Young Street and Billyard

Avenue.

Site elevation ranges from 200m AHD at the top to 176m AHD at the lower southern

site boundary, sloping towards Billyard Avenue.

Geology

The geology has been mapped as Ashfield Shale (Rwa), which is a unit (or substrate) of

the Wianamatta Group Shales. It typically comprises black to dark-grey shale and

laminite (Herbert 1983).

Soil Landscape Unit

The Subject Property is located on the Glenorie (gn) Soil Landscape Unit.

Glenorie soils are erosional landscapes, comprising shallow to moderately deep red

podzolic soils on crests, moderately deep red and brown podzolic soils on upper

slopes, deep yellow podzolic soils on lower slopes and humic gleys, yellow podzolic

soils and gleyed podzolic soils along drainage lines (Chapman & Murphy 1989).

Glenorie Soil Landscape comprises undulating to rolling low hills with a local relief of

50-80 m, and slopes of 5-20%. Ridges, hillcrests and valleys are narrow (Chapman &

Murphy 1989).

Limitations: As the gardens at Rippon Grange were developed in the late 19th

Century,

and have until recently been maintained as a managed landscape, it may be assumed

that the native soil profile described above has been extensively modified.

Local Hydrology

The Subject Property is located with the Lovers Jump Creek sub-catchment of the

Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment (see Table 1.1). There is no external catchment inflow

to the site. There are no natural drainage lines within, or in close proximity to the

Subject Property. Runoff drains generally overland, to the south-east.

An ephemeral man-made drainage line runs from north to south along the western

side of the driveway in the south-eastern portion of the Subject Property.

Existing stormwater drainage is limited to the developed areas, and consists of building

roof drainage and sparsely located surface inlet pits on pavement, with discharge to

Council’s stormwater system at Billyard Avenue (LHO Group, Drainage Concept Plan

November 2007).

6 Information in Table 2.3 has been sourced from the Vegetation Management Plan UBM 2007



FEATURE DESCRIPTION

Climatic Details

The mean daily maximum temperature is 22.3°C, with highest temperatures recorded

in December, January and February. The mean daily minimum temperature 11.0°C,

with lowest temperatures recorded in June, July and August.

Mean annual rainfall is 1,068.0 mm; with February, March and April recording the

highest mean levels (Bureau of Meteorology 2006, Pennant Hills #067047).

NOTE: the suburb of Wahroonga (along with neighbouring Turramurra) receives the

highest annual rainfall in the Sydney area.

Figure 2.1: Soil Landscapes of the Subject Property & Environs (per Chapman & Murphy 1989)



2.3 Biological Environment

2.3.1 Vegetation Community Mapping

Native vegetation in the Sydney Basin Bioregion has been mapped by a number of authorities (Benson 1992,

NPWS 2002, and Tozer et al. 2010)7.

Over the past 10 years the former-Department of Environment Climate Change & Water (‘DECCW’)8 has

been developing vegetation maps for the greater Sydney area and the south coast of New South Wales. This

is an on-going process of revision and addition as new surveys and community verification take place. Each

subsequent mapping system has sought to refine the previous mapping, which has been based largely on

aerial photography and physical characteristics such as geology, soil type, elevation and aspect. In the more

recent mapping programs there has been an increased emphasis on ground truthing.

A brief summary of these mapping programs as they relate to the native vegetation extant at 35 Water

Street is presented below.

2.3.1.1 National Parks & Wildlife Service 2002

In 2002 the former NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (‘NPWS’) produced a series of vegetation maps

for the Cumberland Plain at the scale of 1:25 000; mapping remnants greater than 0.5 hectares in size. The

NPWS mapped BGHF in part of the Subject Property, with other stands of BGHF occurring in the Locality (see

Figure 2.2). The condition of the BGHF community within the Subject Property was mapped as “Txu”

(canopy cover < 10% over urban development), and its conservation significance was classified as “Urban

Remnant Trees (Critically Endangered Communities)”.

NOTE: most urban areas which retain native canopy trees are coded ‘Txu – canopy <10% over urban

development’, indicating that an intact bushland community, which retains a viable native understorey, does

not occur (see SEPP-19, Table 1.1)

2.3.1.2 Native vegetation of southeast NSW (‘SCIVI’, Tozer et al. 2010)

The NPWS 2002 Cumberland Plain Vegetation Maps (above) have been superseded by the release of a new

series of maps - “Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and

eastern tablelands” (Tozer et al. 2010) - known as ‘SCIVI’ – which maps vegetation communities from Sydney

to the border of Victoria and west to the ranges.

According to Tozer et al. (2010), the vegetation in the Subject Property does not include any area of remnant

BGHF. Vegetation in the Bush School immediately to the north-west is however, mapped as BGHF, while

other small stands of this community occur elsewhere in the Locality (see Figure 2.3).

7 Recent mapping by OEH for the Sydney Metropolitan Catchment Authority does not extend to the Wahroonga area.

8 Now known as the Office of Environment & Heritage within the Department of Premier & Cabinet (‘OEH’)



2.3.2 Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Property

The BGHF Habitat at Water Street as mapped by Smith & Smith (2006) and adopted by the NSW Land &

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006), comprises two (2) separate stands of vegetation located in

the central and eastern sectors of the site (see Figure 1.2). These two (2) areas are described as the ‘Core

BGHF Habitat’.

The area determined as the Core BGHF Habitat forms a reversed ‘L-shape’, running along the residential

boundary on the southern side of Water Street, and extending along Young Street on the eastern boundary.

This area is described in the Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007) as ‘Core Bushland’ and is ~20 to 35

metres in width and 135 metres long along the Young Street boundary, and 15 to 40 metres wide and 125

metres long near the southern boundary. The east-west length of the widest section near the southern

boundary is approximately 50 metres (see Figure 1.2).

The Core BGHF Habitat generally has an intact canopy of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and other

sub-canopy trees which stand over a weed infested mid-storey and groundcover strata. The mid-storey

contains dense weed thickets dominated by Privets (Ligustrum spp), African Olive (Olea europaea subsp

cuspidata) and Lantana (Lantana camara). The groundcover is dominated by garden escapes such as

Asparagus Fern (Asparagus aethiopicus), Fishbone Fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia), Agapanthus (Agapanthus

praecox), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and introduced turf grasses. However, some native

resilience is indicated by the scattered occurrence of a small number of disturbance-tolerant native shrubs

such as Wattles (Acacia spp), She-oak (Casuarina spp) and Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum).

Within the Core BGHF Habitat are several small clearings which comprise areas of open lawn with scattered

or few weeds extant (see Section 4.3 and Appendix 2). These open grassland areas were once managed as

lawns. Some native groundcovers are present here, growing among the sparse turf. These include Wallaby

Grass (Danthonia sp), Glycine, Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus), Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena

stipoides), and Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens).

A third area designated as ‘Non-core BGHF Habitat’ (Smith & Smith 2006) is located in the south-western

sector of the Subject Property (see Figure 1.2). This part of the Property was used for more than 100 years

as a service area; comprising vegetable gardens, composting and storage areas, and a chicken coup.

This Non-core BGHF Habitat area retains some mature canopy trees (Sydney Blue Gums and others) growing

over stone-edged garden beds containing introduced horticultural specimens (Camellia, Azalea, Clivia and

Agapanthus) and bordering remnants of the former lawns. Because of its lack of native floristic diversity and

structural integrity, and its long-term use as a garden and service area, this third Non-core area was not

included in the original BGHF mapping by UBMC 2005 and 2006).

However, this area has since been determined to be ‘potential’ BGHF based on the assumption that native

seed in the soil seed bank is viable (Smith & Smith 2006), and as a result, it has been incorporated into the

larger BGHF Habitat area to be rehabilitated and reconstructed (see Vegetation Management Plan UBM

2007).



Figure 2.2: Vegetation mapping (NPWS 2002)

Figure 2.3: Vegetation mapping (SCIVI) by Tozer et al. 2010



3 FLORA ASSESSMENT

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Literature Review

Previous ecological studies conducted for the Subject Property and general references for the Locality and

Region were searched for descriptions of similar habitats, and for recordings of flora species, populations or

communities of conservation significance known to occur in the area.

The main documents referenced were:

The Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney (NPWS 2002);

Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern

tablelands (Tozer et al. 2010);

Identity and Condition of Native Vegetation at 35 Water Street, Wahroonga (Smith, P. & Smith, J. (December 2006);

Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report for Waterbrook @ Wahroonga, 35 Water Street & 64

Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga (Tree Wise Men (October 2007);

Species Impact Statement for 35 Water Street, Wahroonga (Cumberland Ecology 2007);

Vegetation Management Plan for Blue Gum High Forest Habitat 35 Water Street Wahroonga (UBMC

2007);

Tree Assessment & Impact Report for a potential 5-Lot Subdivision at 35 Water Street Wahroonga

(Landscape Matrix, December 2011); and

Flora Survey & Ecological Assessment for Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision at 35 Water Street Wahroonga

(UBM December 2011).

A number of other studies, reports and databases were reviewed and drawn upon as required, including

relevant reports and mapping conducted by UBM (Chapter 9 References). Particular attention was paid to

records of flora species listed under the Schedules of the Commonwealth EPBC Act and the NSW TSC Act

which have previously been recorded in the Locality and Region.

The current Report has been prepared as a ‘stand alone’ report. Therefore, information has been sourced

from a number of previous studies and reports prepared for the Subject Property in relation to previous

Development Applications. All information sourced from earlier reports has been appropriately referenced.

Plant identifications were made according to nomenclature in Pellow et al. (2009) and Botanic Gardens Trust

(2010). Stands of vegetation were described by their structural and floristic characteristics according to

Tozer et al. (2003, 2006 and 2010).

Critically Endangered and Endangered Ecological Communities were classified and named according to NSW

Scientific Committee’s Final Determinations (various dates).

Noxious weeds were determined using lists of weeds declared for Ku-ring-gai LGA under the NSW Noxious

Weeds Act 1993 (Amended 2005).



3.1.2 Field Survey

Field survey was undertaken by Consultant Botanist David Thomas on two (2) occasions in late May and early

June 2012. A total of ~22 hours was spent actively surveying on site, with another 2-3 hours spent in

laboratory time. Previous investigations by the same worker totalling 12 hours were undertaken in

December 2011. Total field survey effort in the same survey locations is 34 hours.

NOTE: the same worker D. Thomas who surveyed the quadrats established by Cumberland Ecology in 2007,

also subsequently surveyed for UBM in December 2011 and May/June 2012.

The ecological survey was undertaken in the area mapped as BGHF Habitat (per Smith & Smith 2006)

generally, as well as targeting the four (4) Subject Sites proposed for future development (see Figure 1.3).

Field survey was undertaken to assess the floristic composition and diversity of native species occurring

within these areas. Although all parts of the Property outside the formal house gardens were surveyed in

detail, the field survey focused on searching for any rare or endangered species known to occur in the

Locality and Region. The presence of species known to be both ‘characteristic’ and ‘diagnostic’ of the BGHF

(see Final Determination Appendix 1) was the main focus of this targeted survey.

The potential impacts of the concept subdivision proposal on those areas mapped as BGHF Habitat was also

assessed, and examined in the context of the adopted Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007).

Proposed Development Areas: Native vegetation in the area proposed for development Areas 1 and 2

(see Figure 1.3) was first assessed in a ‘general’ survey carried out on foot using the ‘Random Meander’

method as described by Cropper (1993). This repeated the survey methodology used in the same areas

during field surveys in December 2011.

Using the ‘Parallel Line Method’ as described by Cropper (1993), a targeted search was undertaken for

threatened species listed under the Schedules of the NSW TSC Act and/or the Commonwealth EPBC Act

which have been identified as occurring, or potentially occurring, in the Locality and Region (see Table 4.1).

This method involves using a series of parallel line transects within all areas identified for investigation and

recording all vascular flora species located.

Any noxious weeds for Ku-ring-gai (Noxious Weeds Act 1993, Revised 2005) and significant environmental

weeds located were also recorded, and a visual comparison made of existing weed populations with those

occurring in 2007 when the Vegetation Management Plan was prepared (UBM 2007).

BGHF Habitat Areas: Following the Random Meander survey, 11 quadrats were surveyed in the BGHF

Habitat Areas (see Figure 3.1 for location of quadrats). This part of the field survey included a review and

reassessment of all sites surveyed by previous workers (UBMC 2006, 2007, Cumberland Ecology 2007, and

UBM 2011).

The locations of nine (9) of the 20 x 20 metre quadrats established by UBM (December 2011) approximately

corresponded to the 10, 10 x 10 metre quadrats established by Cumberland Ecology as part of the 2007

Species Impact Statement prepared for the previous owners Waterbrook (see Section 4.1 SIS).



The proportions of exotics in each of four (4) assumed vegetation strata (i.e. tree canopy, sub-canopy, shrub,

ground cover) were estimated in each quadrat. Although the quadrat size was larger than those established

the 2007 and 2011 surveys, the current 2012 quadrats incorporated the location of these earlier quadrats.

Each quadrat pair was located in locally uniform vegetation, except in the quadrat 7 pair where the larger

quadrat included a higher proportion of indigenous vegetation.

The survey results were then used to compare the health or condition of the remnant BGHF in approximately

the same locations surveyed in 2006, 2007 and 2011. These results also considered the response of the

vegetation to the absence of any routine maintenance since at least 2005, when the Property was sold by

the NSW State government.

The current health or condition, floristic diversity and structural integrity of the remnant BGHF was assessed

in light of claims made by expert witnesses in the NSW Land & Environment Court hearings in 2007; i.e. that

the BGHF on the Subject Property retained a high degree of resilience, and had the potential to return to a

more natural condition through natural regeneration from in situ seed sources.

3.1.3 Mapping and Photography

The extent of the remnant BGHF has previously been mapped by a number of workers (UBM 2005, 2006,

2007. Smith & Smith 2006, Cumberland 2007, and UBM 2011) and the area adopted by the NSW Land and

Environment Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006), so detailed mapping was not repeated again.

Visual evidence suggests that the vegetation within the BGHF Core Habitat has not changed markedly from

site conditions recorded in 2007, although there has been an increase in the distribution and density of

woody weeds (particularly Privet, African Olive and Lantana), weedy ground covers and introduced vines in

all areas surveyed. The extent and diversity of native understorey species has decreased concurrently.

Mapping showing the location of the BGHF Habitat within the Subject Property were sourced from UBM

2007 and Cumberland Ecology (2006). Similarly, vegetation mapping by NPWS (2002) and Tozer et al (2010)

were sourced from the OEH website at www.environment.nsw.gov.au.

The locations of the proposed new Lots within the Subject Property have been superimposed on an original

drawing prepared by Tanner Architects (see Figure 1.3).

3.2 Limitations to Ecological Field Surveys

The diversity of flora species recorded during the current field survey is expected to be influenced by

seasonal factors, with some species likely to be inconspicuous, or absent from the above-ground populations

during particular times of the year. For these reasons, survey results can always be improved by extending

the time allowed to provide an investigation in all seasons.

However, given the long history of ecological investigations on this Property undertaken in all seasons (see

Literature Review) and given that weather conditions have been favourable for plant growth for the recent

spring and summer growing seasons, it is considered that the time allocated to the field surveys is more than

adequate for the purposes of this Report.

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



Plate 1: Core BGHF Habitat with weedy understorey: looking to Young Street (Photo UBM 2011)

Plate 2: Former Croquet Lawn showing weed invasion (Cootamundra Wattle, Fishbone Fern, Blackberry & Fireweed (photo UBM 2007)



Plate 3: Non-Core BGHF Habitat in the south-western corner: former service area behind stables–(photo facing south) Photo UBM 2011

PLATE 5: View from Bush School looking west on Water Street: Subject Property to centre rear



3.3 Field Survey Results

3.3.1 Vegetation Communities

Previous studies (UBMC 2005, 2006, 2007 & UBM 2011, Smith & Smith 2006, Cumberland Ecology 2007)

have confirmed the remnant native vegetation within the Subject Property as BGHF. The remnant consists

primarily of mature canopy trees (Sydney Blue Gum Eucalyptus saligna) considered to be ‘diagnostic’ of the

BGHF, with a small number of locally indigenous shrubs and ground covers ‘characteristic’ of the CEEC also

present (see Final Determination Appendix 1). While many of the native trees are likely to be remnant

individuals, having been retained when the gardens were developed in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries,

some of the younger trees have been planted since that time.

The extent of the existing (and potential) BGHF on the Subject Property was determined by Smith & Smith

(2006) to be 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha). This area was subsequently adopted by the Land & Environment

Court (Proceedings 11193 of 2006) and it has been used in all subsequent surveys and reports, including the

current UBM flora and fauna survey.

The ‘Core’ BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property is located in the eastern part of the Property, in an L-

shaped distribution fronting Water and Young Streets. The understorey in dominated by woody weeds

(Privets - Ligustrum spp, African Olive - Olea europaea subsp cuspidata, Lantana camara, and Cape Broom -

Genista monspessulana) (see Plates).

A second Core Habitat area is located towards the centre of the Property, within parts of the arboretum and

landscaped gardens, although in these areas the native understorey has been totally cleared and the large

trees under-planted with horticultural introductions and lawns (see Plates and Figure 1.2).

3.3.2 Indigenous Flora Species

A list of plant species recorded for the eight (8) transects 11 quadrats and established and surveyed in the

Subject Property has been provided in Appendix 2 (transects) and Appendix 3 (quadrats) respectively.

Figure 3.1 provides the location of these transects and quadrats within the Subject Property.

Transect Results: For the eight (8) Transects established in the south-eastern part of the Property

proposed for limited future development (i.e. Subject Sites proposed new Lots 3, 4 and 5), 170 flora species

were recorded (see Appendix 2). Of these, 75% were horticultural introductions, non-indigenous native

species, or weeds. See Section 3.5 for a description of the vegetation occurring.

Quadrat Results: For the 11 20 x 20 metre quadrats established through the mapped BGHF Habitat Area

220 flora species were recorded. Of these, 174 species (79.1%) were horticultural introductions, non-

indigenous native species (i.e. planted) or weeds (see Appendix 3).

Only 46 species are considered to be naturally-occurring species ‘characteristic’ of the BGHF ecological

community were present (see Final Determination, Appendix1). See Section 3.4 for a description of the

vegetation occurring.



Figure 3.1: Approximate location of the 11 quadrats established within the BGHF Habitat Area (UBM surveyed May/June 2012)

4

3

2

1

5

6

7 8

9

10

11



3.3.3 Threatened Species

Twenty (20) threatened flora species have previously been recorded within a 10-km radius of the Subject

Property (‘the Region’) (see Table 3.1).

However, none (0) of these threatened species was located during the current (2012) or any of the previous

(2005, 2006, 2007, 2011) field surveys9. Having been managed as an exotic garden for more than 100 years,

the greater part of the Subject Property is considered not to provide suitable habitat for any of the listed

species due to its long-term disturbance history, clearing and planting as an introduced garden, changes to

the soil profile and composition, and the domination of the site by introduced horticultural species and

weeds.

Table 3.1: Flora Species of State or National Conservation Significance occurring in the Region

Source of Records

1 = DECCW/OEH (2011). Search area: 10 x 10 km centred on the Study Area (State Significance)

2 = SEWPAC (2011). Search area: 5 km radius centred on the Study Area (National Significance)

Key

E – Endangered; V – Vulnerable

SPECIES SOURCE STATUS

1 2 TSC Act EPBC Act

Acacia bynoeana Endangered Vulnerable

Acacia gordonii Endangered Endangered

Cryptostylis hunteriana Vulnerable Vulnerable

Darwinia biflora Vulnerable Vulnerable

Darwinia peduncularis Vulnerable -

Deyeuxia appressa Endangered Endangered

Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens Vulnerable -

Eucalyptus camfieldii Vulnerable Vulnerable

Genoplesium baueri Vulnerable -

Grammitis stenophylla Endangered -

Haloragodendron lucasii Endangered Endangered

Lasiopetalum joyaceae Vulnerable Vulnerable

Leptospermum deanei Vulnerable Vulnerable

Melaleuca deanei Vulnerable Vulnerable

Persoonia hirsuta Endangered Endangered

9 Note that one Syzygium paniculatum occurs within the Subject Property but is located out side the current study area.

This specimen is believed to be a horticultural planting (see UBM 2006 and Cumberland Ecology 2007)



SPECIES SOURCE STATUS

1 2 TSC Act EPBC Act

Persoonia mollis ssp. maxima Endangered Endangered

Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora Vulnerable Vulnerable

Prostanthera marifolia Presumed Extinct Extinct

Syzygium paniculatum Vulnerable Vulnerable

Tetratheca glandulosa Vulnerable Vulnerable

3.3.4 Introduced Flora Species

The vegetation in the mapped BGHF Habitat Area and in other parts of the Property is dominated by

introduced species; with the majority of these having been planted as horticultural specimens at some time

in the past. Many horticultural specimens popular in the 1st half of the 20th Century and widely used as

garden plants have since naturalised in local bushland to the detriment of the native flora and fauna. Such

naturalised introductions are described as ‘environmental weeds’.

More introduced species than natives were recorded in the eight (8) transects (75%) and in the 11 quadrats

(79.1%). The overall % cover of introduced species in the tree, shrub and ground strata was approximately

75%. The introduced to indigenous ratio for each stratum was as follows:

Canopy trees - ~80%

Sub-canopy trees ~68%

Shrubs ~78%

Ground covers ~64%

Thirteen (13) plants recorded are declared as ‘noxious weeds’ in the Ku-ring-gai LGA (see Table 3.2). Weeds

of National Significance (‘WoNS’) present include Bridal Creeper (Asparagus asparagoides), Blackberry

(Rubus fruticosus), and Lantana (Lantana camara).

Table 3.2: Introduced flora species declared as ‘noxious weeds’ in Ku-ring-gai LGA and recorded in the Study Area

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CLASS*

Asparagaceae Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern 4

Asparagaceae Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper 4/5

Asparagaceae Asparagus plumosus Climbing Asparagus 4

Lauraceae Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel 4

Fabaceae Genista monspessulana Cape Broom 4

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea indica Morning Glory Vine 4

Verbenaceae Lantana camara Lantana 4/5

Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum Large Leaved Privet 4

Oleaceae Ligustrum sinense Small-leaved Privet 4



FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CLASS*

Ochnaceae Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Bush/Ochna 4

Oxalidaceae Oxalis spp. Oxalis 5

Rosaceae Rubus fruticosus spp agg Blackberry 3

Commelinaceae Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew 4

*Actions Required For Noxious Weed Classes 1 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant 2 The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed 4 The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in a management plan published by the

local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed.

5 The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 for a notifiable weed must be complied with.

3.4 Description of the Vegetation in the BGHF Habitat Area

The vegetation in the mapped BGHF Habitat Area (Smith & Smith 2006) mainly comprised a canopy of

original Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) and the occasional Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora

floribunda), with numerous planted specimens also occurring (Three Wise Men, 2007). Plantings included

non-indigenous or ‘generally Australian’ species, and (in the historic arboretum) many significant specimen

trees from overseas. The canopy height was typically 15-30 metres.

The native understorey had been cleared over 100 years previously in order to establish exotic gardens, an

arboretum and extensive lawns. In some locations, soil levels were altered to construct terraces, as at the

croquet lawn, stone retaining walls, grottos and pathways.

The results of the 11 quadrats established within the mapped BGHF Habitat Area are presented below. See

Figure 3.1 for location of the quadrats.

Exotic vegetation dominated the understorey at the time of the original (2005), subsequent (2006, 2007 and

2011) and current surveys (May/June 2012). The most commonly occurring environmental weeds recorded

were: Large-leaved Privet (Ligustrum lucidum), Small-leaved Privet (Ligustrum sinense), Ground Asparagus

(Asparagus aethiopicus var. densiflorus), Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Mickey Mouse Plant

(Ochna serrulata) and Morning Glory (Ipomoea indica).

Locally indigenous (BGHF) species generally comprised only a small part of the vegetation (2.09%), often

being limited to a few individuals within a quadrat. One (1) area in the south (sampled in quadrat 7)

contained a large proportion of commonly-occurring grasses such as Weeping Meadow-Grass (Microlaena

stipoides) and smaller proportions of Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus).

Nine (9) quadrats were surveyed in similar locations to the 10 quadrats first surveyed by Consultant Botanist

David Thomas for Cumberland Ecology (2007) in order to provide an opportunity to compare any change in

condition of the vegetation. Quadrat 10 was located north of the original quadrat 10 of Cumberland

Ecology. The extra quadrat (quadrat 11) was located in the western part of the former croquet lawn to

determine whether or not the vegetation here might conform to BGHF generally (see Figure 3.1). Results

from 2007 and 2012 quadrats are presented in Appendix 3.



The total area within the quadrats surveyed was ~4,400 square metres. This represents 69.3% of the total

area of BGHF mapped for the Subject Property (6,350 sq metres) by Smith & Smith (2006).

The comparison of the condition of vegetation in each quadrat surveyed in 2007, 2011 and 2012 showed the

vegetation contained a higher proportion of exotics in the 2012 survey (see Appendix 3). This occurred in all

quadrats except the quadrat 7 pair. In this case, the larger quadrat included additional indigenous

vegetation that lowered the proportion of exotics in the upper stratum and ground cover.

The condition and extent of the tree canopy was substantially the same throughout the BGHF Habitat Area in

each survey period (2007 vs. 2012). The trends in condition of the understorey were however significantly

more towards the exotic/weed species. In the small tree stratum (i.e. sub-canopy), there was major increase

in projective foliage cover (255 to 470 cover abundance units). The increase in exotic shrub and ground

covers was minor (715 to 809 units for shrubs and 750 to 824 cover abundance units for ground covers) (see

Table 3.3).

The main increase in exotics/weeds was the result of increases in the canopy cover of Large-leaved Privet

(Ligustrum lucidum); progressing it from the shrub to the small tree stratum. Ligustrum lucidum also

increased its cover in the shrub stratum. The native Pittosporum undulatum increased slightly in canopy

cover in the small tree and shrub stratum, also due to growth of its canopy since 2007.

English Broom (Genista monspessulana) decreased in cover slightly, probably due to the increased shading

by the small trees described above. Indigenous shrubs remained limited to a few scattered individuals.

Regeneration comprised two (2) Bleeding Heart Trees (Homalanthus populifolius) and one (1) Rough-barked

Applebox (Angophora floribunda) seedlings.

In the ground cover stratum, the increase of exotics/weeds was generally small, caused mainly by the spread

of Japanese Honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), English Ivy (Hedera helix), and increases in saplings and

seedlings of Small-leaved Privet (Ligustrum sinense), Camphor laurel (Cinnamomum camphora) and Mickey

Mouse Bush (Ochna serrulata). These species can be expected to have a major influence on the understorey

in the future as they mature to become trees and large shrubs, seed and spread further.

Morning Glory (Ipomoea indica) and Wandering Jew (Tradescantia fluminensis) increased significantly in the

southern section of the BGHF Habitat Area where the ground was largely bare in 2007 and affected by high

nutrient levels from the former poultry run and composting area. There was no significant change in the

populations of other major weeds such as Ground Asparagus (Asparagus aethiopicus var. aethiopicus var.

densiflorus) and Fishbone Fern (Nephrolepis cordifolia).

The native ground covers mainly comprised native grasses such as Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena

stipoides), Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus), and smaller amounts of small forbs such as Common

Storksbill (Geranium homeanum). These formed only a minute component of most areas as in 2007.

Geranium homeanum appears to have decreased in numbers, possibly due to increased shading by small

trees and smothering by exotic vines.

Only one (1) large area of native ground cover occurred - in the southern section of the Property, east of the

former poultry run and composting area, where the small tree and shrub strata was largely absent and the

soil was unaffected by increased nutrient levels (see Figure 1.3). Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena



stipoides) was the main ground cover here, with significant numbers of Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus).

Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) and Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora floribunda) were scattered

through the area. Morning Glory Vine (Ipomoea indica) and Wandering Jew (Tradescantia fluminensis) were

noted to be invading the margins of this more natural ground cover area, and can be expected to eventually

cover it completely unless suitably managed.

Table 3.3: Condition of vegetation in 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area

Quadrat Cumberland Ecology 2007 UBM 2012

CT ST Sh GC CT ST Sh GC

1 40 40 100 95+ 30 80 90 98

2 0 100 70 95+ 0 100 80 99

3 0 70 95+ 95+ 0 100 95 99

4 0 50 80 80 0 100 95 99

5 0 5 100 90 0 40 100 90

6 0 90 70 95+ 50 50 99 90

7 100 a 100 70 30 a 100 60

8 0 a 100 40 10 a 100 99

9* 20 a a 90 0 60 50 90

10# 50 10 95 100 a 80 90 95

11 No equivalent quadrat a a a 90

*Quadrat 9 (2012) was equivalent to Quadrats 9 & 10 (2007).

# Quadrat 10 (2012) did not align with Quadrat 10 (2007).

See Figure 3.1 for locations of quadrats

Key: CT = canopy trees, ST = small trees, Sh = shrubs, GC = ground covers

Numbers indicate cover abundance (modified Braun Blanquet system). “a” indicates stratum absent

NOTE: a colour-coded condition of bushland map has not been prepared as there is little difference between

quadrats, and they would all be classified as being in ‘poor’ condition and be assigned a single colour



3.5 Description of the Vegetation in the Proposed Subdivision Area

The current Proposal is to rezone the Subject Property Lot 1 in DP 375262 at 35 Water Street from 5(a)

Special Uses (Hospital) to E4 Environmental Living. This rezoning will facilitate a future subdivision to be

considered by Ku-ring-gai Council under a future development application.

However, for the purposes of the current Ecological Survey, each of the four (4) proposed new Lots (i.e. one

[1] new Lot in Area 1 and three [3] new Lots in Area 2) has been surveyed separately (see Figure 1.3) and the

potential impacts of the future subdivision proposal have been assessed to consider any loss or impact on

the BGHF Habitat.

The results of the flora survey in the eight (8) transects established in Area 1 and2 are presented below.

Each proposed new Lot has been subdivided into the ‘Development Zone’ – i.e. where the footprint of the

new residence has been proposed; and the ‘Non-development Zone’, which is located to the rear (east) of

the Lot. Figure 1.4 is a preliminary sketch used to determine the area of BGHF Habitat in Area 2 on each of

potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5 which is likely to be impacted (courtesy TKD Architects).

The code provided for the Condition of Vegetation assumes four (4) structural strata: tall tree (canopy), small

tree, shrub and ground cover. The % of exotics is estimated for each of these and entered with a slash /

between. If a stratum is absent this is shown by an “a” in the relevant place. Where there are a few

individuals, but less than the 5% considered necessary to form a structural stratum, “a” might be used with

the % of these species that are exotic (e.g. a-80), in the relevant place. An example would be 0/a/a-20/60.

NOTE: in the descriptions provided below * indicates an introduced or non-indigenous native species.

AREA 1 - POTENTIAL NEW LOT 2

i) Development Zone

Location: potential battle axe Lot located in south-western corner of the Property with a driveway from

Water Street (see Figure 1.3)

Vegetation Type: Non-bushland. Exotic garden with minor occurrences of native species: mostly planted

specimens

Condition of Vegetation:

i) Condition north of existing building: a/100/99/99%

ii) Condition south of existing building: a-100/a-100/99/70%

[“a” refers to the stratum being substantially absent]

Description: the area proposed as a driveway is a landscaped garden which has been overrun with weeds

and horticultural escapes. In the area to the rear – proposed as a battle axe Lot - in 2006 a screening hedge

of BGHF shrubs and small trees was planted along the southern and western boundary fences to provide

privacy for neighbouring properties. These plantings include Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus salignus);

Backhousia myrtifolia; Lilly Pilli (Acmena smithii); Bleeding Heart Tree (Homalanthus populifolius); Acacia



schinoides, and Blueberry Ash (Elaeocarpus reticulatus). Much of this area has now been overtaken by

Morning Glory Vine* (Ipomoea indica) and other weeds.

Most of southern section of proposed Lot 2 (incorporating the former chicken coop and composting areas)

was maintained in the past as a mown lawn surrounded by formal garden beds, although no maintenance

has taken place in the recent past. Where not overrun with introduced vines, the open grassland supports

both native and exotic grasses such as Paspalum (Paspalum dilatatum*), Brome* (Bromus catharticus) and

Perennial Panic Grass* (Ehrharta erecta); with the natives Weeping Meadow Grass (Microlaena stipoides)

and Basket Grass (Oplismenus aemulus).

Native species comprised an estimated 30% of the ground cover, depending on weed density and the

amount of shade cast by the large trees. Typical ground cover species were Weeping Meadow Grass

(Microlaena, Oplismenus), Cranesbill (Geranium homeanum) and Kidney Weed (Dichondra repens).

No (0) threatened or otherwise significant naturally- occurring (native) flora species occurred.

ii) Lot 2 Driveway from Water Street

Location: western Property boundary (see Figure 1.3)

Vegetation Type: Non-bushland. Exotic trees and shrubs with minor occurrences of a few native species

Condition of Vegetation: a-100/90/99/99%.

Description: The new driveway will extend for a distance of 4.6 metres from the existing western boundary

fence, with an entry on Water Street and adjacent to the exiting main gate and carriageway. The new

driveway will traverse an area of landscaped garden and will retain screening vegetation to the carriageway.

Apart from a small number of Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum) trees, scattered occurrences of

the native grass Oplismenus spp., and the planted natives at the southern end, there were no naturally

occurring (native) species in the area proposed for the driveway leading to the Development Zone of Lot 2.

A small clump of native Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum aethiopicum) was recorded near the entry, east of the

proposed driveway. Its origin is unknown; however it is likely to have been planted owing to its location in a

generally unsuitable habitat.

Potential Impacts Lot 2: Lot 2 contains no areas of BGHF and will not be impacted. A number of exotic tree

and shrub species will however be impacted. Appendix 4 provides details of the trees/shrubs to be removed

or otherwise impacted under the Proposal (source material: Tree Wise Men October 2011).

AREA 2 - POTENTIAL NEW LOT 3

i) Development Zone (transect 3w – Appendix 2)

Location: western section of Lot 3, as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this site was

marked as “3w”

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings

Condition of Vegetation: estimated as: a/50/a-100/90%.



Description: This site mainly comprised previously mown exotic and native grasses. Garden escapes and

weed species were also common. Typical species were Paspalum dilatatum*, Sweet Vernal Grass

(Anthoxanthum odoratum), Ribwort*(Plantago lanceolata), Cat’s Ear* (Hypochaeris radicata), Dichondra

repens, Carex inversa, Hedgehog Grass (Echinopogon ovatus), and Hypericum japonicum. Microlaena

stipoides was locally common adjacent to a mature Liquidambar* (Liquidambar styraciflua) which was

planted in the lawn area.

Old garden plantings occurred to the north of the former lawn area. These mainly comprised small trees and

shrubs with under-plantings of Agapanthus* (Agapanthus praecox) and Adiantum formosum. The canopy

comprised small trees such as Pittosporum undulatum, Rhododendron sp.*, Maidenhair Tree* (Gingko

biloba), Cotoneaster *(Cotoneaster glauca), and Japanese Honeysuckle* (Lonicera japonica). Woody weed

species, especially Camphor laurel* (Cinnamomum camphora), Privets* (Ligustrum spp.), and Mickey Mouse

Bush* (Ochna serrulata) were beginning to colonise below the small tree canopy – these spreading from

older plantings elsewhere in the gardens.

No threatened or otherwise significant naturally occurring (native) species occurred.

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: a/50/a-100/90%

ii)Non-Development Zone (Transect 3e – see Appendix 2)

Location: eastern sector of proposed Lot 3, with transect through Non-Development Zone marked as “3e”.

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings, merging into mapped BGHF

Habitat (see Figure 1.3).

Condition of Vegetation: scrub to north estimated to be: a/50/a-100/90

Description: A band of mostly exotic ‘scrub-type’ vegetation occurred immediately below the Development

Zone, extending along the northern edge of the Lot to Young Street. Large-leaved Privet* (Ligustrum

lucidum) and Pittosporum undulatum were the main small tree species; although numerous other species

were also recorded (see Appendix 2.

Scattered Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) formed an open canopy in this part of Lot 3. One (1) small

mature Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora floribunda) occurred near the fence at Young Street. The

understorey was mainly exotic especially Ground Asparagus* (Asparagus aethiopicus var. densiflorus),

English Ivy* (Hedera helix) and Lonicera japonica*. The indigenous vine Native Yam (Parsonsia straminea)

was fairly common in the scrub and adjacent in proposed Lot 4.

Below, and south of the scrub was an introduced lawn (now unmaintained) with Buffalo Grass*

(Stenotaphrum secundatum), Asparagus aethiopicus*, and natives Dichondra repens, Oplismenus aemulus

and Echinopogon ovatus as the main ground cover species.

A small group of native species, including Pomaderris ferruginea, Sydney Golden Wattle (Acacia longifolia),

Sydney Turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera), Forest Oak (Allocasuarina torulosa), Elaeocarpus reticulatus,

Acmena smithii and Sydney Rusty Gum (Angophora costata) had been planted beyond the potential



Development Zone. Records by UBMC in 2006 noted these species as new plantings in what had been an

open grassy area south of the Core BGHF Habitat area.

A young Rusty Fig (Ficus rubiginosa) was observed growing as an epiphyte on a large Eucalyptus saligna at

the Young Street fence. One planted tree, a Small-leaved Tuckeroo* (Cupaniopsis parvifolia), although a

non-indigenous native species, was considered to be a significant planting owing to its general rarity in

landscape works and relatively large size and maturity.

Potential Impacts on BGHF for Lot 3: Lot 3 has 572 sq metres of BGHF, of which 77 sq metres (23 sq metres

building and 54 metres driveway) or ~13.5% would potentially be affected

AREA 2 – POTENTIAL NEW LOT 4

i) Development Zone (Transect 4w - Appendix 2)

Location: western section of potential Lot 4, as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this

site was marked as “4w”

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: a-100/a-90/a-90/50%

Description: Lot 4 is downslope and south of potential Lot 3. It contained trees and scrub-type vegetation

throughout much of the Lot; however a cleared area occurs at its western end. In common with the area

potentially Lot 3, it was previously maintained as mown lawn and contained a grassy ground cover, now

mainly composed of Stenotaphrum secundatum*, Anthoxanthum odoratum* and Microlaena stipoides.

Exotics are rapidly colonising the area; with Plantago lanceolata*, Hypochaeris radicata* and Fireweed*

(Senecio madagascariensis) occurring in the more open areas, and Ligustrum spp*, Olea europaea subsp

cuspidata*, Ochna serrulata*, Hedera helix* and Asparagus aethiopicus* occurring in the more shady

locations.

Part of this area at the boundary with proposed Lot 3 contained a small Pittosporum undulatum10 and a large

Irish Strawberry tree* (Abutus unedo).

No threatened or otherwise significant naturally-occurring (native) species occurred.

Ii) Non-development Zone (Transect 4e – see Appendix 2)

Location: eastern section of potential Lot 4, as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this

site was marked “4e”.

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings, merging into mapped BGHF

Habitat area (see Figure 1.3)

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: 0/90/90/70.

10

NOTE: Pittosporum undulatum is a small native tree which seeds profusely and establishes in bushland in the absence of fire. Pittosporum is very common in the garden, and it has invaded the garden beds, paving and other structures such as the croquet lawn and former children’s play area.



Description: Most of potential Lot 4 was identified for exclusion of development owing to the presence of

several large Eucalyptus saligna. Most of the natural understorey had been removed many years previously

and replaced with exotics. A few native species remained or had re-colonised, including ground covers such

as Microlaena stipoides, Echinopogon spp. and Geranium homeanum.

The native Pittosporum undulatum was noted to be regenerated widely and was beginning to dominate the

sub-canopy to the detriment of more light-demanding native ground covers. Native understorey species

occurred variably owing to the density of large trees, invading woody weeds (mainly Ligustrum lucidum*)

and exotic grounds covers, mainly Asparagus aethiopicus* and Nephrolepis cordifolia*.

Some native trees had also been planted in this part of potential Lot 4, including Allocasuarina torulosa and

Elaeocarpus reticulatus, as well as non-locally-indigenous species including Swamp Oak* (Casuarina glauca)

and White Beech*(Gmelina leichhardtii).

Potential Impacts on BGHF for Lot 4: Lot 4 has 987 sq metres of BGHF, of which 96 sq metres (27 sq metres

building and 69 sq metres driveway) or 9.73% would potentially be affected.

AREA 2 – POTENTIAL NEW LOT 5

i)Development Zone (Transect 5w – see Appendix 2)

Location: western section of potential Lot 5 as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this

site was marked as “5w”: the Non-development Zone was marked “5e”.

Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub plantings (see Figure 1.3)

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: 100/a/a-90/95%.

Description: Trees and scrub-type vegetation occurred in the northern third of Lot 5, based on the presence

of the overhanging Eucalyptus saligna canopy (Smith & Smith 2006). The potential Development Zone

comprised the central and southern parts of the Lot.

Much of this area contained a sealed road and car parking area at the Young Street entrance. The road area

contained exotic herbaceous species and a few natives such as Euchiton sphaericum growing in cracks on the

surface. The planted area north of the road (part of the former arboretum) was dominated by exotic species

including a large Liquidambar styraciflua*, a mature Waterhousea floribunda*; various woody weeds such as

Ligustrum spp.*, Olea europaea*, Cape Broom* (Genista monspessulana) and Cotoneaster spp*, with a

mainly exotic ground cover layer. Typical ground cover species were: Asparagus aethiopicus*, Lonicera

japonica*, Blowfly Grass * (Briza maxima), Fleabane* (Conyza bonariensis), and the native herb Dichondra

repens.

No threatened or otherwise significant naturally occurring (native) species occurred.

ii)Non-development Zone (Transect 5e – see Appendix 2)

Location: western section of Lot 5 as shown on Figure 1.3. In Appendix 2, the species list for this site was

marked as “5e”



Vegetation Type: Open (introduced) grassland with tree and shrub planting, merging into BGHF Habitat at

the rear (east) (see Figure 1.3)

Condition of Vegetation: estimated to be: a-o/80/90/90%.

Description: Trees and scrub-type vegetation occurred in the northern third of Lot 5, based on the presence

of Eucalyptus saligna, and determined entirely (Smith & Smith 2006) by the width or extent of the overhead

tree canopy, which in places overhangs the grassland and arboretum areas.

This area was similar to that in Lot 4, which it adjoined.

Eucalyptus saligna was rare in this zone. Most tree species were exotic plantings, being part of the historic

arboretum. These included Cedars* (Cupressus sp.), Araucaria cunninghamii* and Monterey Pine* (Pinus

radiata). A few native tree species had also been planted: Blackbutt (Eucalyptus pilularis), Turpentine

(Syncarpia glomulifera), and Forest Oak (Allocasuarina torulosa). Pittosporum undulatum occurred naturally

in relatively small numbers; however the weedy Ligustrum lucidum was the main small tree shrub species,

although at the time of the survey most were only shrub-sized.

The ground cover stratum was mainly exotic, with the scrambler Asparagus aethiopicus* being the

dominant. The native herb Dichondra repens was a fairly common species, and numerous other species

occurred in low proportions including: Hypochaeris radicata*, Lonicera japonica*, Climbing Asparagus*

(Asparagus plumosus), Ribwort* (Plantago lanceolata), Agapanthus sp.*, and the natives Microlaena

stipoides and Senecio hispidulus.

Potential Impacts on BGHF for Lot 5: Lot 5 has 353 sq metres of BGHF, of which none would be affected.

Development on Lots 3 and 4 will potentially have some impact on the Blue Gum High Forest. The

approximate area of mapped Blue Gum High Forest in the Subject Lots and the area potentially to be

impacted by development has been summarised in Table 4.3 (Source: Landscape Matrix report 13 December

2011).

Table 3.4: Summary of BGHF Issues in the Proposed Development Subject Sites, Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5

Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Totals

Lot Area ~ 2,070 940 1,290 1,110 5,410

BGHF area sq m 0 572 987 353 1,912

BGHF to be Impacted sq m 0 77 96 0 173

BGHF Trees to be removed or potentially impacted under the Proposal

2 6.5 2.5 0 11

Non-BGHF Trees to be removed or potentially impacted under the Proposal

14 3 6 6 29



NOTE: the non-BGHF trees recommended for removal do NOT include noxious weeds or those trees

considered to be ‘environmental weeds’ which would have to be removed regardless of any Development

Proposal (e.g. Camphor laurel, Indian Coral Tree).

Table 3.5: Trees described in the Final Determination as characteristic BGHF species

Lot Number Tree Number* Species No to be Removed or Potentially Impacted

Diagnostic for BGHF

Lot 2 1B Pittosporum undulatum 1 No

21 Pittosporum undulatum 1 (2) No

Lot 3 322 Pittosporum undulatum 1 No

203 Elaeocarpus reticulatus 0.5 No

323 Eucalyptus saligna 1 Yes

325 Angophora floribunda 1 No



374 Eucalyptus saligna 1 (7) Yes

Lot 4 322 Pittosporum undulatum 1 No

203 Elaeocarpus reticulatus 0.5 No

319 Eucalyptus saligna 1 (3)

Lot 4 None 0

Totals No of BGHF Trees 11

*per Landscape Matrix December 2011

(1) Tree 203 Elaeocarpus reticulates is a single tree, located on the boundary of Lots 3 and 4



3.6 Assessments of Significance – Flora

Assessments which consider the potential direct and indirect impacts of a possible futuresubdivision on the

BGHF have been prepared for each of the possible Subject Sites in Area 2, potential Lots 3, 4 and 5. Potential

Lot 2 in Area 1 is located outside the mapped BGHF area (UBM 2007) and therefore no Assessment of

Impacts has been prepared.

3.6.1 Commonwealth Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological

Community ‘Blue Gum High Forest’

An Assessment of Significance is not required for this patch of remnant vegetation as it does not meet the

condition criteria as set out in the listing advice for Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - a

‘critically endangered ecological community’ under this Act. Specifically, the listing Condition Threshold

requiring remnant patches to be more than one (1) ha in size or adjacent to a remnant more than one (1) ha

in size is not met.

3.6.2 NSW Legislative Considerations for the Critically Endangered Ecological Community Blue

Gum High Forest

A Seven-part Test of Significance under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 is designed to determine "whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological communities or their habitats" (as listed on the Schedules of the NSW TSC Act), and consequently, to determine whether a Species Impact Statement is required.

Each of the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5 are part of the 19th Century arboretum established by

the first landowner. Individual plantings and remnant trees with a highly degraded understorey also occur

throughout the Subject Property, including numerous Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), which have

been retained over lawns and exotic gardens.

A small number of understorey species (grasses and flowering forbs) characteristic of the BGHF also occur in

those areas not overrun with horticultural escapes and weeds. These species generally occur in areas

otherwise devoid of other native vegetation, and are generally found to be regenerating in areas formerly

maintained as lawns or garden beds (see species recorded in potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5 in Appendix 3).

Despite being characteristic of the BGHF ecological community, the understory species occurring are

common to a number of other vegetation communities in the Locality and Region; with only some of these

communities being listed as ‘endangered’.

Even so, in accordance with the precautionary principle the following Seven-part Test has been undertaken

to assess the impacts of the proposed subdivision on BGHF in potential new Lots 3, 4 and 5. A total of 173 sq

metres (0.0173 ha) of BGHF out of a total area of 6,350 sq metres (0.635 ha) in the Subject Property is likely

to be impacted in the proposed Lots 3 and 4. No BGHF will be impacted on Lot 5. A total of 11 BGHF trees

will be removed or otherwise impacted on Lots 2, 3 and 4. Nine (9) BGHF trees will be removed from the

mapped BGHF area in Lots 3 and 4.

This Seven-part Test relates to the possible subdivision of land within the larger Subject Property to

potentially create up to five (5) residential allotments. Potential allotments Lots 3, 4 and 5, retain trees



characteristic of the BGHF (Figure 1.2), with a small number of understorey species also present. While

some of these trees are ‘characteristic’ of the BGHF community, only Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna)

is considered to be ‘diagnostic’ for the community (see Definitions and Abbreviations for definitions of

‘characteristic’ and ‘diagnostic’).

Although two (2) Pittosporum undulatum (found in BGHF and many other communities) may be impacted in

Lots 2, this area is clearly outside the area mapped as BGHF and accepted by the NSW Land & Environment

Court (Proceedings 1113 of 2006). Accordingly no Assessment under the legislation has been required.

This Assessment of Significance has considered the potential impacts of development; including future land

uses on the proposed new Lots, construction impacts and the installation of services and it has also

considered the potential for edge effects. This Assessment also considers the OEH/Council approved

Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007) prepared for the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property which will

be implemented by the Proponent, most likely under a Memorandum of Understanding.

Seven-part Test for BGHF on proposed Lots 3 & 4 (see Figure 1.3)

(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,

Blue Gum High Forest (“BGHF’) is not a threatened species, but occurs as a critically endangered

ecological community; therefore this item 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,

Blue Gum High Forest (“BGHF’) is not an endangered population, but occurs as a critically

endangered ecological community; therefore this item 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 in the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4 (Area 2 – see Figure 1.3) contain some

native species consistent with the description of BGHF set out in the Final Determination of this

community (see Appendices 1 and 2). The BGHF community here is represented mainly by remnant

Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) – however because the understorey comprises >75%

introduced species or weeds, the vegetation within the Subject Sites is not considered to represent a

structurally intact, interactive and viable native ecological community. This is due to the remnant’s

small size, isolation from other bushland areas, very low number and low % cover of locally

indigenous flora species (~25%), chronically degraded nature of the understorey (~75%)as the result

of invasion by garden escapes and weeds, and its long-standing land use and disturbance history.



The larger part of both potential new Lots 3 and 4 in Area 2 comprises an introduced grassland

habitat with scattered remnant and planted canopy trees, some large shrubs, and a small number of

native ground covers. The lawns have not been maintained in recent years, and are rapidly being

overtaken by woody weeds.

The area of remnant vegetation likely to be impacted by the proposed subdivision is very small -173

sq metres or 2.74% of the total mapped BGHF area -highly simplified and dominated by woody weed

and other introduced species (as above). Although it adjoins a larger area of BGHF Habitat in the

eastern part of the Subject Property, this adjoining Habitat is chronically degraded and no longer

functions as a viable interactive native ecological community.

Degradation of good quality bushland at the suburban: bushland interface often results from

inappropriate recreational activities, plantings and encroachments for gardens, storage or vehicle

parking or access, disposal of lawn clippings and garden debris, as well as overzealous under-

scrubbing or clearing for bushfire hazard purposes – these being collectively described as ‘edge

effects’. In Area 2, no such negative impacts are likely to occur because the understorey in the

adjacent BGHF Core Habitat is already chronically degraded, with only remnant canopy and some

sub-canopy trees remaining in situ.

Further, although some connectivity through the local area is retained through the tree canopy, 11

BGHF trees are proposed to be removed or otherwise impacted under the Proposal; and of these,

two (2P individuals are the small native tree Pittosporum undulatum , which is known to be invasive

in numerous bushland communities in the long-term absence of fire. It is however possible that the

concept development footprint can be amended to avoid removing any BGHF trees. This option is

currently being considered.

The closest stand of BGHF is located in Wahroonga Public School (‘the Bush School’), on Water Street

a short distance to the north-east. The modification of 173 sq metres of BGHF in Lots 3 and 4 out of

a total area of 6,350 sq metres being (2.74%) is not likely to reduce this connectivity.

Gene flow (via seed dispersal) between the two (2) BGHF sites is possible but unlikely, as there very

few establishment sites available in either location; the understorey having been colonised by

introduced and weed species. Therfore no effect on the extent of the BGHF in the larger Subject

Property, Locality or Region is expected if the Proposal is allowed to proceed.

(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 vegetation in the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4 (Area 2) contain some native species

consistent with BGHF (primarily mature Sydney Blue Gums (E. saligna),; however is not considered to

represent a viable vegetation community for all of the reasons listed above in item C(i).

The larger part of both proposed Lots 3 and 4 comprises a grassland habitat with scattered remnant

and planted canopy trees, some large shrubs, and a small number of native ground covers. The

lawns have not been maintained in recent years, and are rapidly being overtaken by woody weeds.

On balance, only about 25% of the flora species recorded comprise local native species, and of these,



most are species which commonly occur in a number of different plant communities in the Sydney

Bioregion.

Eleven (11) BGHF trees are likely to be removed or otherwise impacted if the identified potential

subdivision proceeds (8 in potential Lot 3 and 4 in potential Lot 4)11, with two (2) of these being the

widespread Pittosporum undulatum. If the development footprint cannot be modified to avoid

damage to these BGHF trees, their removal will not impact unduly on the composition of the BGHF

Habitat in the Subject Sites potential Lots 3 and 4.

This Report has recommended the retention and rehabilitation of those parts of potential new Lots 3

and 4 not required for development (i.e. areas adjoining the ‘core’ BGHF Habitat to the east). If this

recommendation is adopted, the Proposal will result in a significant improvement in the condition of

the BGHF and provide a net gain.

Minimal modification of the existing BGHF Habitat is expected to result from this Proposal but it is

highly unlikely that the removal of 173 sq metres of simplified and modified BGHF from a total area

of 6,350 sq metres (2.74%) will place the community at risk of local 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

The vegetation in the Subject Sites proposed Lots 3 and 4 retain some native species consistent with

BGHF (primarily mature Sydney Blue Gums (E. saligna), however it is not considered to represent a

viable vegetation community due to the reasons listed above in Item C(i).

The larger part of both potential new Lots 3 and 4 comprises an introduced grassland habitat (former

lawns) with scattered remnant and planted canopy trees, some large shrubs, and a small number of

native ground covers. The lawns have not been maintained in recent years, and are rapidly being

overtaken by woody weeds

About 173 sq metres of simplified and modified BGHF will be impacted under the potential

subdivisionl, being some 2.74% of the total area of BGHF in the Subject Property. Eleven (11) BGHF

trees are likely to be removed or otherwise impacted under the Proposal (6.5 trees in Lot 3 and 2.5

in Lot 412). If the development footprint cannot be modified to avoid damage to these BGHF trees,

their removal will not impact unduly on the composition of the BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property.

This Report has recommended the retention and rehabilitation of those parts of potential new Lots 3

and 4 not required for development (i.e. areas adjoining the ‘core’ BGHF Habitat to the east). If this

recommendation is adopted the Proposal will result in a significant improvement in the condition of

the extant BGHF, and result in a net gain for the ecological community overall.

(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

11

One (1) Pittosporum undulatum may be impacted in Lot 2, however as this area is not within the mapped BGHF area, the Seven-part Test has not been carried out for this commonly occurring species. 12

Tree 203 is a single specimen located on the boundary of Lots 3 and 4 and has only been counted as one (1) tree



The 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat to be removed or otherwise impacted under the Proposal is

located in the rear or eastern sectors of proposed Lots 3 and 4 where the Lots adjoin a much larger

area of ‘Core’ BGHF Habitat along the eastern property boundary. This area is located outside the

potential Development Zone (e.g. house footprints and shared driveway). The BGHF Habitat areas

within the proposed new Lots are proposed as Non-Development Zones. It is likely that these areas

will not be developed under the potential subdivision and as such, they will not be isolated from the

‘Core’ Habitat area.

The closest stand of remnant BGHF is located in the grounds of the Wahroonga Public School (‘The

Bush School’) on the northern side of Water Street. Under the Proposal, the extant area of BGHF on

the Subject Property will not be fragmented or otherwise isolated from other bushland areas. Gene

flow between the two (2) BGHF sites is possible, but not likely given the chronically degraded nature

of the understorey vegetation in both sites, where introduced species and weeds dominant in the

ground cover, thereby excluding suitable establishmen sites.

(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,

Potential new Lots 3 and 4 are located in the south-eastern part of the Subject Property, and with

the exception of potential new Lot 5, they adjoin an area mapped as ‘Core’ BGHF Habitat. The

adjoining area of ‘Core’ Habitat is chronically degraded and comprises stands of remnant Sydney

Blue Gums (E. saligna), and a small number of other trees growing over an understorey composed

almost entirely of woody weeds, scrambling ground covers and introduced vines.

The BGHF in the adjoining Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4 (an area of ~1,559 sq metres) is in

better conditions towards their western ends, being mainly introduced lawns with remnant and

planted canopy trees and large shrubs (part of the former arboretum). The lawns have not been

maintained in recent years, and they are rapidly being colonised by woody weeds (Privets, African

Olive, Broom and Lantana) and ground covers (Asparagus spp, and Fishbone Fern). The weed

species listed above occur widely, and dominate the understorey towardsthe potential Lot’s eastern

ends where they adjoin the Core BGHF Habitat Area along the eastern boundary.

The native ground covers (grasses and some flowering forbs) recorded in the western parts of

potential new Lots 3 and 4 occur in the more open lawn areas and along footpaths where light levels

are higher. However, these native understorey storey species occur in very low numbers and in a

scattered distribution. Further, the species recorded, although ‘characteristic’ species of BGHF they

are all commonly-occurring species in other ecological communities and occur widely in the Locality

and Region. None of these understorey species is considered to be ‘diagnostic’ for BGHF.

The BGHF Habitat to be removed or otherwise impacted under the potential subdivision is minimal

given that it represents only 2.74% of the total area of BGHF in the Subject Property, a considerable

reduction to the approved Hospital development.

Further, the vegetation within the Subject Sites potential Lots 3, 4 and 5 is not considered to

represent a viable ecological community in its present condition. The long-term survival of the BGHF

ecological community within the Subject Property is highly unlikely to be compromised by the



removal of 173 sq metres of simplified and modified BGHF in potential new Lots 3 and 4. Given that

6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat will be retained, rehabilitated and managed in perpetuity,

opportunities exist for a net gain of good quality BGHF in the local area.

Therefore it is considered that the potential subdivision that could occur if the Planning Proposal

proceeds will not significantly modify any stands of remnant BGHF so that it further fragments,

isolates or removes habitat for any listed species or populations.

(e) …whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or

indirectly),

Critical habitat has not been identified for BGHF.

(f) …whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat

abatement plan,

A formal recovery plan has not been developed for BGHF; therefore the Proposal does not conflict

with the objectives of actions of any recovery plan or threat abatement plan for BGHF.

(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.

Within the Subject Sites potential new Lots 3 and 4, the Proposal is not expected to result in any

action that is part of a Key Threatening Process. Key Threatening Processes are relevant in relation

to species, populations or vegetation communities listed under the TSC Act.

The KTP ‘clearing of native vegetation’ will apply as a small number of BGHF trees in the

Development Zone of each Lot will be removed. Several small areas of native understorey

vegetation (commonly occurring grasses and forbs) will also be cleared to facilitate development.

The possibility of invasion by woody weeds, exotic vines and perennial grasses is also not applicable

in this case as all of these elements are already present on site, on large numbers.

No flora species, populations or other ecological communities listed under the TSC Act occur within

the larger Subject Property, Subject Sites or their immediate environs.

Therefore, having given consideration to Section 5(a) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979, it is concluded that a potential future residential subdivision of the Subject Property in the

manner envisaged in the subdivision concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal WOULD NOT

require the preparation of a second Species Impact Statement for the CEEC Blue Gum High Forest in the

Sydney Basin Bioregion.



4 FAUNA ASSESSMSENT

4.1 Overview

The Subject Property at #35 Water Street is located in the developed residential suburb of Wahroonga. The

grounds have been extensively landscaped over a number of years, and include a significant arboretum with

specimen trees sourced from all parts of the world. Some native canopy trees have been retained; most

particularly a stand of Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna), and these been incorporated into the original

landscape design; growing over (exotic) garden plantings and lawns. These canopy trees are located

predominantly in the eastern and central parts of the Property (see Figure 1.2).

In order to assess the likelihood of native fauna species utilising the trees and gardens at 35 Water Street a

diurnal and nocturnal fauna survey was undertaken. Any species listed as threatened under the NSW TSC

Act and/or the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 (see Table 4.4) were targeted during the survey.

4.2 Fauna Methods

The diurnal fauna survey was undertaken by Ecologist Rebecca Carman (BSc, MPhil, PGDipWldMgt) on 29th May and 7th

June 2012. The surveys conducted on each occasion are outlined in Table 4.1.

Table4.1: Summary of surveys conducted and weather conditions

* Temperatures recorded at Terrey Hills (station #066059), 9.9 km away

DATE WEATHER SURVEYS CONDUCTED

29/5/12 Overcast, some rain. No wind Maximum temperature 10.4°C, minimum temperature* 15.5°C

Habitat assessment, active searches and opportunistic observations

7/6/12 Clear sky, ¾ moon. No wind Maximum temperature 14.7°C, minimum temperature 7.9°C

Spotlighting and ultrasonic call recording,

The fauna field survey was aimed at assessing the species richness of the site; to investigate the range of

fauna habitats present, and to determine the potential for local threatened fauna species to occur.

The fauna survey incorporated a range of techniques designed to target species from all fauna groups that

would be expected to occur on the site, including birds, mammals and reptiles. These techniques included a

series of diurnal bird censuses, searches for active herpetofauna (reptiles), and recording of indirect

evidence of fauna presence (e.g. tracks, scats, hollows, nests, diggings, bones and other traces). In addition,

all opportunistic sightings of fauna were recorded.

All relevant previous reports and databases were reviewed and drawn upon (see Reference list for previous

studies and reports). Particular attention was paid to records of species listed under the Schedules of the

EPBC or TSC Acts known to occur in the Locality and Region.

Field surveys were restricted to the land that comprised the residential allotment at #35 Water Street,

although observations of fauna utilising neighbouring properties (manly birds) were also made. While



surveying this area, the condition and structure of any fauna habitats present were identified, and a

consideration of their potential to support locally-occurring populations of threatened fauna was

determined.

Species specific survey methods are set out below.

Diurnal Birds

Formal bird point censuses were conducted in three (3) locations within the Subject Property, one towards

the front, one in the centre, and the other towards the back of the Property. The formal census involved

‘point bird counts’ at these locations. This method was used in addition to the opportunistic bird census

conducted over the remaining areas of the Subject Property. Birds were identified on the basis of visual

identification and by their characteristic calls. All opportunistic observations of bird species were recorded

while undertaking general field survey activities.

Herpetofauna Census

Reptiles and amphibians were surveyed using hand-searches around the Subject Property. Searches

concentrated on areas containing woody debris or urban refuse, those on and around rock terraces and

around the base of trees; and this included techniques such as carefully turning over rocks, logs or garden

furniture wherever these were encountered. These were replaced on site after inspection. All opportunistic

sightings were noted.

Bats

Two (2) stationary ultrasonic bat call detectors (AnaBat SD1, Titley Electronics) were used to record bat calls

throughout the Subject Property. The units were positioned where predicted ‘fly-ways’ exist and left in

position for 4.5 hours from dusk on 7th June.

In relation to the analysis of those microchiropteran bat calls obtained, it is noted that some insectivorous

bat species have distinctive echolocation calls that are unlikely to be confused with those of other species.

Other bats species overlap in both call frequency and structure, making identification problematic in some

cases. The degree of confidence or reliability associated with call identifications will depend on the quality

of the recordings as well as the activity of the bat at the time of recording and flight direction. In some

instances, a particular species may be identified with confidence, while at other times its identification will

be less certain.

Nocturnal fauna

Spotlighting was undertaken for all terrestrial and arboreal mammals and for nocturnal birds using a

Lightforce 100 Watt hand-held spotlight with a red filter to minimise impacts on nocturnal species. The

spotlighting session was carried out during and after dusk for one (1) hour along existing pathways to

minimise disturbance by the observer.



Searches for Evidence of Species Presence

Searches were conducted for animal scats of both predatory and non-predatory species. Where these were

encountered, scats were identified on site; first to genus and then to species level, wherever possible. The

search concentrated on the ground area beneath trees, in garden beds and edge sites, as well as amongst

leaf litter and on the open lawns.

Searches were also made for other characteristic signs of fauna species’ presence; including tracks, bones,

hair, shed skins and animal remains, as well as nests, diggings, burrows, chew marks, scratchings and pellets

(indicative of birds of prey).

4.3 Limitations to Fauna Field Surveys

The diversity of the species recorded during the current field surveys is expected to be influenced by seasonal

factors, with some species likely to be inconspicuous, or absent from the above-ground populations during

particular times of the year. For these reasons, survey results can always be improved by extending the time

allowed to provide an investigation in all seasons.

The cooler autumn/winter months are acknowledged not to be ideal for fauna surveys, and as such, climatic

conditions at the time of survey (May/June) are recognised as a limitation. Unfortunately this could not be

avoided. However, UBM has assembled a list of all previous fauna surveys from previous studies and reports

(see Appendix 4) to provide a point of comparison. The potential for each of these species to occur, or

potentially occur in the Subject Property given favourable seasonal conditions has also been assessed.

The list of fauna species recorded by the current field surveys should not be regarded as being fully

comprehensive, but rather only as providing an indication of the species present at the time of the survey

(May/June 2012). Surveys carried across all seasons over a period of several years are needed to identify all

of the species present in an area, especially as some species are only present at certain times of the year (e.g.

migratory birds), while others may require specific weather patterns and seasonal conditions for optimum

levels of detection, e.g. amphibians.

On establishing the suite of resident native species occurring or potentially occurring in an area by utilising

the habitat requirements and associations of these animals, the diversity of other native species that could

occur on occasion can be determined. For example, if a hollow-associated owl is detected, then there is the

potential that, if previously recorded in the vicinity of the Study Area, other species of owls with similar

nesting requirements may also be present. By using those species recorded to predict the full range of fauna

potentially present in the Study Area helps to overcome some of the limitations associated with seasonal

constraints and of surveys of limited duration.

In this study UBM has considered all fauna species detected during previous studies that may not be present

or detected during the current field investigations (Appendix 4). Given the long history of fauna survey on

this Property, dating from 2005 and repeated in 2006 and 2007, surveys have been carried out in all seasons

in accordance with the Guidelines for threatened species assessment (DECC 2007).



4.4 Survey Results

4.4.1 Fauna Species Recorded

Previous fauna surveys and compilation lists from OEH databases have identified 55 mammals, 186 birds, 47

native reptiles, and 18 native frogs for the Region (i.e. within a 10 x 10 km area centred on the Subject

Property). Of those native species previously recorded in the Region, 31 are listed as ‘vulnerable’,

‘endangered’, ‘critically endangered’ and/or ‘migratory’ under the Schedules of the EPBC and/or TSC Acts

(see Table 3.2).

By the completion of the current field survey (May/June 2012), eight (8) bird species were detected within,

adjacent to, or flying over the Subject Property; the latter identified by their distinctive calls as well as

observation (Table 4.2). The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as ‘vulnerable’ under the TSC Act and was

heard calling from outside the Subject Property during nocturnal surveys.

Two (2) native mammalian species were observed on the Subject Property; the Common Ringtail Possum

(Pseudocheirus peregrines) and Swamp wallaby (Wallabia bicolour).

No (0) calls were recorded by either of the ultrasonic bat call detectors.

Table4.2: Native species identified during current field surveys

Observation Type:

A Stranding/Beaching I Subfossil/Fossil remains S Shot

B Burnt K Dead T Trapped or netted

C Cat kill M Miscellaneous U Anabat

D Dog Kill N Not located V Fox kill

E Nest/Roost O Seen W Heard

F Tracks or scratchings P Scat X In scat

FB Burrow Q Camera Y Bone, teeth, shell

G Crushed cones R Road kill Z In raptor/owl pellet

H Hair, feathers or skin

* Introduced species > greater than + at least (V) vulnerable

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME OBSERVATION

METHOD

COUNT

WITHIN SITE NEARBY/FLY-

OVER

Birds (8)

Australian Brush-turkey Alectura lathami O 1 -

Australian Magpie Cracticus tibicen O/K 1 1

Australian Raven Corvus coronoides O - 1

Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes W 2 -

Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala O >5 -

Pied Currawong Strepera graculina W - 1

Powerful Owl (V) Ninox strenua W - 1

Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus O/W >10 >10

Mammals (2)

Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus O 4 -

Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor O 1 -



4.4.2 Fauna Habitat Assessment

Habitat types

Modified environment: Comprises approximately half of the Subject Property and includes the buildings,

driveways, footpaths, garden beds, cleared land, retaining walls and other built structures. The vegetation

comprises a range of introduced landscape and horticultural species. The majority of these species have

been planted over a period of many years, although there are a few remnant native species present.

Previous arborist reports (Tree Wise Men 2007, 2011 and Landscape Matrix 2011) and observations in the

field have indentified that only one (1) exotic tree in the modified environment is hollow bearing (this being

a Liquidambar styraciflua).

An ephemeral man-made drainage line runs along the western side of the driveway in the south-eastern

section of the Subject Property. It is in poor condition and not considered to provide valuable resources to

any native species.

The native species supported by this habitat type are the typical urban-tolerant fauna species and the

Subject Property provides no unique habitat essential to the survival of any of these species.

Eucalypt Woodland: Occurs mainly within the eastern and southern section of the Subject Property. The

canopy consists of mature eucalypt species while the understory is a mixture of native and exotic shrubs and

groundcovers. Seven (7) native and one (1) exotic hollow bearing trees are present that are suitable for

smaller hollow-dependant native animals.

Wildlife Corridors and Vegetation Links

Reviews of aerial photographs of the Region have identified areas of nearby bushland. The following areas

(and their approximate distance from the Subject Property) have been identified (see Figure 4.1):

Wahroonga Public School (100 metres north) – highly modified Blue Gum High Forest

Turiban Reserve (250 metres north-east)

Clive Evatt Reserve (440 metres north-east)

Lovers Jump Creek (1 km east)

Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park (>1 km north)

The connectivity to these other areas of bushland is limited, with the exception of scattered native canopy

species existing on nearby streets and in residential properties. The urban-tolerant species detected on the

Subject Property are likely to have no difficulty traversing through these urban environments via the tree

canopy, although this is discontinuous. The majority of the species detected within any large areas of

bushland would not travel through urban environments to utilise the resources of the Subject Property.



Figure 4.1: Distance to Nearby BGHF Bushland from Subject Property

4.4.3 Threatened Fauna Assessment

Table 4.4 assesses the likelihood of threatened fauna species (previously recorded, and/or thought to

potentially occur within the Study Region, being present, or utilizing, the Subject Property. A description of

the likelihood of occurrence is given in Table 4.3. It also considers any potential impacts the Proposal may

have on the said threatened species.

Although only (1) threatened fauna species – the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) - was detected during the

current field investigations, there are suitable resources available within the Subject Property to support a

number of other threatened species. Accordingly, Assessments of Significance (commonly called the ‘Seven-

part Test’) have been prepared (see Section 4.5) for those species most likely to occur, being:






Table 4.3: Likelihood of occurrence categories

LIKELIHOOD DESCRIPTION

Low Species considered to have a low likelihood of occurrence include species not recorded during the field surveys that fit one or more of the following criteria:

Have not been recorded previously in the study area and surrounds and for which the study area is beyond the current distribution range.

Require habitat types or resources that are not present in the study area

Are considered locally extinct

Moderate Species considered to have a moderate likelihood of occurrence include species not recorded during the field surveys that fit one or more of the following criteria:

Have infrequently been recorded previously in the study area and surrounds.

Use habitat types or resources that are present in the study area, although generally in a poor or modified condition

Are unlikely to maintain sedentary populations, however, may seasonally use resources within the study area opportunistically during variable seasons or migration

High Species considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence include species recorded during the field surveys or species not recorded that fit one or more of the following criteria:

Have frequently been recorded previously in the study area and surrounds

Use habitat types or resources that are present in the study area that are abundant and/or in good condition within the study area

Are known or likely to maintain resident populations surrounding the study area

Are known or likely to visit the site during regular seasonal movements or migration



Table 4.4: Threatened Fauna Species recorded in the Locality and Region

E1 = Endangered Species, E2 = Endangered Population, E4A = Critically Endangered, V = Vulnerable Species and M = Migratory Species

* Habitat requirements were generally extracted from Churchill (2009) and OEH (2011a), with other references used being identified in the bibliography.

** Within a 10 x 10 km2 area centred on the Study Area

COMMON & SCIENTIFIC NAME

LEGAL STATUS

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS*

DISTRIBUTION IN THE REGION** POTENTIAL UTILISATION

OF STUDY AREA

LIKELY IMPACT & ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

Amphibia (3)

Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus)

V V Occurs in hanging swamps on sandstone shelves and beside perennial creeks, in heath, woodland and open forest with sandy soils.

6 3.65km (1983)

2010 (4.30km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Potential breeding and foraging habitat is not present as the Subject Property is situated in shale soils. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea)

E1 V Prefers sandstone areas, breeds in grass and debris beside non-perennial creeks or gutters. Individuals can also be found under logs and rocks in non breeding periods.

1 1.65km (1998)

1998 (1.54km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Potential breeding and foraging habitat is not present as the Subject Property is situated in shale soils. No records of the species occurring within the Region since 1998. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne australis)

V - Inhabits periodically wet drainage lines below sandstone ridges that often have shale lenses or cappings. Prefers sandstone areas, breeding in dense vegetation and debris beside ephemeral creeks and gutters. Individuals can be found under logs, rocks and leaf-litter in non breeding periods.

62 1.65km (1992)

2009 (6.10km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Potential breeding and foraging habitat is not present as the Subject Property is situated in shale soils. Has been recorded within the Region but is unlikely to occur on the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Aves (17)

Barking Owl (Ninox connivens)

V - Inhabits principally woodlands but also open forests and partially cleared land and utilises hollows for nesting.

1 4.75km (2003)

2003 (4.75km)

Low No suitable habitat present. Only one (1) record of the species occurring within the Region and there are no recognised populations. Unlikely to utilise the resources of the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus)

V,M - In Australia, favours estuarine mudflats, saltmarshes and reefs as feeding and roosting habitat.

2 0.85km (1982)

1982 (0.85km)

Low No suitable habitat present. Has not been recorded within the Region for 30 years. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

Gang-gang Cockatoo (endangered population in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Local Government Areas) (Callocephalon fimbriatum)

V, E2 - In summer, generally found in tall mountain forests and woodlands, particularly in heavily timbered and mature wet sclerophyll forests. In winter, may occur at lower altitudes in drier more open eucalypt forests and woodlands, and often found in urban areas. Favours old growth attributes for nesting and roosting.

31 0.47km (2006)

2008 (6.33km)

High Targeted but not located during field investigations. Has been recorded in the vicinity of the Subject Property during previous field investigations. Some suitable habitat present within the study area. Further assessment of this species has been undertaken (see Seven-part Test Section 4.5).

Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)

V - Prefers open forests with Allocasuarina species as the main food source. Uses hollows for nesting.

26 3.14km (2006)

2006 (6.33km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. No Allocasaurina trees were recorded on the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides)

V - Occupies open eucalypt forest, woodland or open, she-oak, acacia or riparian woodland with abundant prey (birds, reptiles and small mammals including rabbits). Requires tall, living tree in remnant patch for nesting.

6 0.88km (1986)

2002 (3.94km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. No suitable habitat present. Limited prey available. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla)

V - Foraging habitat includes eucalyptus tree canopies with nectar and pollen available. Requires hollow bearing trees for breeding.

6 0.88km (1986)

1995 (4.98km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Some suitable habitat trees present on neighbouring properties. Some hollow trees present on the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae)

V - Large home range (500-1000ha) of dry open woodland. Often hunts along edges of forests for small mammals. Uses large tree hollows for nesting.

5 3.72km (1980)

1995 (5.19km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Potential breeding and foraging habitat is not present. This species is unlikely to utilise the resources of the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Pied Oystercatcher (Haematopus longirostris)

E1 - Favours intertidal flats of inlets and bays, open beaches and sandbanks, foraging for molluscs, worms, crabs and small fish, on exposed sand, mud and rock, at low tide. Nests are shallow scrapes in the sand above the high tide mark, mainly on coastal estuarine beaches, but occasionally in saltmarsh or grassy areas.

1 5.15km (1972)

1972 (5.15km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. No suitable habitat present. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY


V - Forests containing mature trees for shelter or breeding & densely vegetated gullies for roosting.

60 0.46km (2010)

2011 (4.07km)

High Detected field investigations. Suitable habitat present that could be utilised by this highly mobile species. There a many records for the Region dating up to 2011, however, there are no records of the species occurring on the Subject Property. No suitable hollows for nesting or roosting present. Further assessment of this species has been undertaken (see Seven-part Test Section 4.5).

Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia)

E4A E Flagship threatened woodland bird (Box Ironbark/riparian River Sheoak for breeding). Generalist forager of nectar, honeydew and insects.

12 1.34km (1939)

1998 (2.04km)


Scarlet Robin (Petroica boodang)

V - Lives in dry woodlands with abundant logs and fallen timber. In winter may live in open grasslands. Forage for small invertebrates.

3 3.29km (2001)

2001 (3.29km)


Sooty Oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus)

V - Inhabit rocky headlands, rocky shelves, exposed reefs with rock pools, beaches and muddy estuaries. Breeds in spring and summer, almost exclusively on offshore islands.

4 0.85km (1974)

1974 (0.85km)





LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

Superb Fruit-Dove (Ptilinopus superbus)

V - Inhabits rainforest and similar closed forests, and eucalypt or acacia woodland where there are fruit-bearing trees. Forages high in the canopy, eating fruits of many tree species (including figs and palms).

5 0.88km (1977)

1992 (1.18km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Limited suitable foraging habitat. No known populations in the Region. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Superb Parrot (Polytelis swainsonii)

V V Inhabits forests and woodlands dominated by eucalypts, especially River Red Gums (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) and box eucalypts such as Yellow Box (E. melliodora) or Grey Box (E. microcarpa). Mostly occurs west of the Great Divide.

1 1.35km (1986)

1986 (1.35km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. No suitable habitat present. Not known to occur in the Region. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera)

V - Occurs in woodlands and forests preferring rough and stringy barked trees where it searches for insects. Builds nests in forks of trees.

1 2.61km (2002)

2002 (2.61km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Some suitable habitat present, however there is only one (1) record for the Region. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Mammalia (10)

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis)

V - Prefers areas where there are caves, old mines, old buildings, storm water drains & well timbered areas. This species may travel large distances from roosting site

11 1.96km (2007)

2011 (3.58km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Potential roosting sites in old buildings. May find suitable habitat nearby for foraging. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

for foraging.

Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis)

V - Prefers dry and swamp forests, woodlands. Roost in tree hollows, under bark or man-made structures. Insectivorous.

2 3.52km (2002)

2011 (3.69km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Some potential foraging habitat present. Only two (2) records of the species occurring in the Region. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Eastern Pygmy-possum (Cercartetus nanus)

V - Inhabit a broad range of habitats from rainforest through sclerophyll forest and woodland to heath. Woodland and heath are preferred. Feed largely on nectar and pollen from banksias, eucalypts and bottlebrushes, soft fruits and insects. Shelter in tree hollows, rotten stumps, holes in the ground, abandoned bird-nests, Ringtail Possum dreys or thickets of vegetation. Nests usually built in hollows, but also under the bark of eucalypts. Mainly solitary, with home ranges from 0.35 ha (males) - 0.68 ha (females). Generally nocturnal, and frequently spend time in torpor in winter.

30 3.34km (2005)

2011 (4.10km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Unlikely to be detected during winter months. Some suitable habitat present although small home ranges means the species in unlikely to travel in and out of the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY


V V Occur in sub-tropical and temperate forests and urban areas. Roost in trees near food sources (nectar/pollen/fruits). Large numbers in roosts used for breeding and young rearing. Site fidelity is high.

880 <100m (2006)

2011 (3.54km)

High Targeted but not located during field investigations. Unlikely to be detected in the winter months. Likely to utilise the site for foraging when eucalypts are in flower. Nearest camp is located in Gordon (5km SE). Further assessment of this species has been undertaken (see Seven-part Test Section 4.5).

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus)

V - Populations exist in the Wedderburn/ Campbelltown area, in the Blue Mountains in Wollemi National Park and the Colo River area and likely around Little Cattai Creek and the O’Haras Creek/Cattai Creek catchment area. Inhabits eucalypt forest and woodlands with specific primary food trees depending on region.

11 1.58km (1970)

1980 (5.15km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. No suitable feed trees present on the Subject Property. Has not been recorded in the Region since 1980. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri)

V V Prefers sandstone outcrops for roosting and possibly tree hollows in dry or wet sclerophyll forest.

1 1.18km (1992)

1992 (1.18km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Subject Property occurs on Shale soils resulting in limited roosting habitat. Only one (1) record of the species occurring in the Region. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

New Holland Mouse (Pseudomys novaehollandiae)

- V Inhabit open heathlands, open woodlands with a heathland understorey and vegetated sand dunes.

2 5.14km (1980)

1980 (5.14km)


Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern) (Isoodon obesulus obesulus)

E1 E Inhabits heath or open forest with a healthy understorey on sandy or friable soils. During the day nest in shallow depressions in the ground covered by leaf litter, grass or other plant material. Feed on ground-dwelling invertebrates and fruit bodies of underground-fruiting fungi.

179 3.02km (1996)

2009 (3.17km)

Moderate Targeted but not located during field investigations. Some suitable foraging habitat present. Closest records have detected this species 3km from the Subject Property. Unlikely it would travel this distance to forage. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus)

V E Individual animals use hollow-bearing trees, fallen logs, small caves, rock crevices, and rocky-cliff faces as den sites. Mostly nocturnal; spends most of the time on the ground, although also an excellent climber and may raid possum/glider dens and prey on roosting birds; also eats carrion and takes domestic fowl.

12 1.35km (1975)

2010 (5.63km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Only limited hollows as den sites. Limited availability of prey species. Unlikely to utilise the resources of the Subject Property. Further assessment of this species is not required.




LEGAL STATUS



OF STUDY AREA


TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

NUMBER OF

RECORDS

CLOSEST PROXIMITY

& DATE

MOST RECENT &

PROXIMITY

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris)

V - Roosts in groups of up to 6 in tree hollows, mammal burrows or buildings. Forage high over canopy for insects.

1 3.66km (2004)

2004 (3.65km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. Limited suitable foraging and roosting habitat present. No known populations occur in the Region. Further assessment of this species is not required.

Reptilia (1)

Rosenberg's Goanna (Varanus rosenbergi)

V - Inhabits heath, open forest and woodland. Associated with termites and their mounds. Shelters in hollow logs, rock crevices and burrows and require large areas of habitat. Feeds on carrion, birds, eggs, reptiles and small mammals.

6 1.74km (1996)

2009 (6.10km)

Low Targeted but not located during field investigations. No suitable habitat sheltering habitat present and limited prey available. Further assessment of this species is not required.



4.5 Assessments of Significance - Fauna

A previous report, the Species Impact Statement (Cumberland Ecology 2007) prepared in support of the

earlier Hospital Proposal conducted Assessments of Significance under Part 5(a) of the NSW EP&A Act 1979

(commonly called the Seven-part test) for a number of fauna species; being those species listed in the NSW

Atlas of Wildlife as having been recorded within a 10-km radius of the Subject Property, regardless of where

they occurred on the Subject Property or not. Those species were:

Superb Fruit-dove

Glossy Black cockatoo

Gang-gang cockatoo

Masked Owl

Powerful Owl

Barking Owl

Large-eared Pied Bat

Eastern Bentwing-bat

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat

Eastern Free-tail bat

Grey-headed Flying-fox

Each of the Seven-part Tests carried out concluded that the former Hospital Proposal, which would have

removed ~4.9% of the total area of BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property, was NOT LIKELY to impact on the

habitats or life cycles any of these species.

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the

Planning Proposal, would remove only 173 sq metres or 2.74% of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property

(@ 0.635 ha) and therefore have a significantly reduced impact on the habitat of any of the above-listed (if at

all). Specific habitat requirements for each of these species are outlined in Table 4.4.

However, under the precautionary principle, Seven-part Tests have been undertaken and updated for the

following species; being those species actually recorded on site during field investigations carried out

between 2006 and 2012:






Seven-part Test for the Grey-headed Flying-fox

The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 2 of the NSW

TSC Act 1995 and the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999. Although not detected during the current field

investigations; the species was recorded flying over the Subject Property during an earlier survey conducted

by UBM in 2006. The Grey-headed Flying-fox in known to frequent bushland on Sydney’s North Shore, and it

is possible that this species would utilise the resources of the Subject Property when local eucalyptus trees

are in flower; this being a primary food source for this species.

(a) “…in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on


extinction…”

The potential subdivision and associated residential development is unlikely to impact on the

foraging resources for the Grey-headed Flying-fox as only a small area will be cleared. Therefore, the

Planning Proposal or future potential subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying

the Planning Proposal, is unlikely to disrupt the life cycle of the species such that a local viable

population would be 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…”

An ‘endangered population’ is defined as a “population specified in Part 2 of Schedule 1” of the TSC

Act. Therefore the Grey-headed Flying-fox is not an endangered population.

(c) “…in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community,


(i) ..is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local


(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...”

An Endangered Ecological Community means an ecological community specified in Part 3 of Schedule

1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this item is not applicable to a threatened species.

(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

(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

(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…



Five (5) potential feed trees occur within the small (173 sq metres or 2.74%) of BGHF Habitat likely to

be cleared on the Subject Sites potential Lots 3 and 4 may provide seasonal foraging habitat for this

species, however no roost sites occur on the site or nearby. Other much larger areas of foraging

habitat occur in bushland in the Locality and throughout the Region, including a number of dedicated

conservation reserves. The Planning Proposal and the subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan

accompanying the Planning Proposal, is not likely to modify or remove a significant area of habitat.

Trees to be removed that are a potential food source for the Grey-headed Flying-fox are four (4)

Sydney Blue Gums (Eucalyptus saligna) and one (1) Rough-barked Applebox (Angophora floribunda).

Flying-foxes are highly mobile species and regularly fly over cleared and highly urbanised areas. The

Planning Proposal and the potential subdivision envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the

Planning Proposal is unlikely to significantly impact upon habitat connectivity to any other bushland

areas (which are limited), and areas of known habitat are not likely to become isolated from

currently interconnecting or proximate areas of habitat.

Foraging habitat to be removed from the Subject Property (173 sq metres, including five [5] feed

trees), is minimal compared to other available habitat in the Locality. It will not affect the long-term

viability of the species.

(e) “…whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or

indirectly)…”

The Subject Property is not listed as critical habitat under Part 3 Division 1 of the TSC Act. Therefore,

no critical habitat would be adversely affected by the draft Proposal.

(f) “…whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat

abatement plan…”

A Draft National Recovery Plan has been prepared for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DECCW 2009).

The following objective is relevant to this Proposal: to identify and protect foraging habitat critical to

the survival of Grey-headed Flying-foxes throughout their range. However, given the very small

amount of habitat likely to be disturbed by the Proposal (173 sq metres and the removal of five [5]

potential feed trees), it is highly unlikely that this stand of vegetation would be identified as a

priority foraging area.

(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 proposed project will involve land clearance and soil disturbance. As such it will or may involve

a number of Key Threatening Processes under the TSC Act:

Clearing of native vegetation (173 sq metres);

The removal of dead trees, dead wood and logs; and

Predation by the feral European Red Fox, which although not recorded on site, may visit the Subject Property from time to time.



Invasion of native vegetation by exotic vines, perennial grasses and woody weeds does not apply as

these are already on site in large numbers.

With the exception of the European Red Fox threat abatement plan, no threat abatement plans

relevant to the threatening processes mentioned above have been prepared by the NSW National

Parks and Wildlife Service to date.

Expected impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the

Planning Proposal, will remove a small amount of Blue Gum High Forest habitat (173 sq m) that could be

utilised by the Grey-headed Flying-fox seasonally, when eucalypts are in flower. The remainder of the BGHF

Habitat on the Subject Property (@ 6,177 sq metres) will be retained, rehabilitated according to the adopted

BGHF Habitat Vegetation Management Plan (UBM 2007), and managed in perpetuity.

Given the mobility and ability to adapt to the urban environment, as well as the small area of vegetation to

be removed, it is unlikely that the Planning Proposal or a potential future subdivision as envisaged on the

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal will have a detrimental effect on any Grey-headed Flying-

fox individuals or populations that have potential to use the Subject Property.

It is considered that Planning Proposal and future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan submitted

with the Planning Proposal, would not have a significant impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox, its

populations or habitats. Therefore, the preparation of a Species Impact Statement that further considers

the impacts of the Proposal on these fauna species is NOT REQUIRED.

Seven-part Test for the Gang-gang Cockatoo

The Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum), is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 2 of the NSW

TSC Act 1995. The Gang-gang Cockatoo is also listed under the TSC Act as an ‘Endangered Population’ within

the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Local Government Areas. Although not detected during the current field

investigations, there are 31 records of the species occurring within the Region (Table 4.4). Field

investigations conducted by UBM in 2006 indentified Gang-gang Cockatoos flying over the Subject Property.

The Gang-gang Cockatoo has different habitat requirements depending on the season. The resources of the

Subject Property are likely to be only utilised during the winter months when the species is known to

accommodate more open eucalypt forests and woodlands at lower altitudes than during summer.



extinction…”

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan

accompanying the Planning Proposal, is unlikely to impact on the foraging resources for the Gang-

gang Cockatoo as only a small area will be cleared (173 sq metres). Any native trees with nesting



hollows will also be retained. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to disrupt the life cycle of the

species such that a local viable population would be placed at risk of extinction.




The listed endangered population is found in the Ku-ring-gai and Hornsby local government areas. It

is known to inhabit areas of Lane Cove National Park, Pennant Hills Park and other forested gullies in

the area, where most nesting is likely to take place.

The Subject Property is located in a fully developed residential suburb, and at some distance (> one

[1] km) from the species’ known nesting sites in Lane Cove National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase

National Park. As such, the Proposal is unlikely to disrupt the life cycle of the species such that the

endangered population would be placed at risk of extinction.








1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this item is not applicable to a threatened species.



and





Although a small proportion of foraging habitat will be removed from the Subject Property (173 sq

metres), all potential nesting habitat for the species elsewhere on the Property will be retained (@

6,177 sq metres). The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, is not likely to fragment or isolate any areas of

habitat for this species as it is capable of flying over cleared and developed urban areas.

The Subject Property affords foraging habitat and some potential nesting habitat for the species.

However, as the Gang-gang Cockatoo is highly mobile and moves around according to the availability

of foraging habitat, it is likely to use a much broader area of habitat, including the large bushland



areas within Lane Cove National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. Therefore the small area

of habitat potentially affected by subdivision potential envisaged under the Proposal (173 sq metres)

is not essential habitat for the species.


indirectly)…”


no critical habitat would be adversely affected by the draft Proposal.



No Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans (either finalised or draft) have been prepared for the

Gang-gang Cockatoo. However, DECCW has identified a number of priority actions for these species

(DECCW 2009b).

Actions which may be relevant to the management of habitat for the Gang Gang Cockatoo on the

Subject Property include:

Development of a strategy that includes street tree or other plantings, which include browse plant species within reserves and private residences.



The following key threatened processes as they potentially impact on the Gang Gang Cockatoo may

be applicable to the Subject Property:

Clearing of native vegetation, as this will clear foraging habitat. However, potential nesting sites and other potential foraging habitat will be retained elsewhere on the Subject Property;

Competition from feral honeybees, as they can form hives in tree hollows that also form potential nesting habitat for the Gang-gang Cockatoo. The Proposal is not likely to exacerbate this process;

Ecological consequences of high frequency fires, as fire can destroy tree hollows that form potential nesting habitat. It is envisaged that fire will not be part of the management of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property;

Infection by Psittacine circoviral (beak and feather) disease affecting endangered psittacine species and populations, as it can leave Gang-gang Cockatoos prone to other infections. However, the Proposal will not exacerbate the likelihood of this disease infecting a local population;

Predation by the European Red Fox as fledglings can become prey items for foxes. Foxes may occur or visit the Subject Property from time to time (although not recorded), but are not likely to be increased in number by the Proposal; and

The removal of dead wood and dead trees, as dead trees are often hollow and contain potential nesting habitat. Some dead trees may be removed but all trees with hollows will be retained on the Subject Property.



Expected impact on the Gang-gang Cockatoo

The Planning Proposal or potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan accompanying the

Planning Proposal, will potentially remove a small amount of BGHF Habitat (173 sq metres or 2.74% of the

total area) that could potentially be utilised by the Gang-gang Cockatoo during the winter months for

foraging. However, the remainder of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property 6,177 sq metres) will be

retained, rehabilitated under the adopted BGHF Vegetation Management Plan (UBMC 2007), and managed

in perpetuity.

Given the species’ mobility and ability to adapt to the urban environment, as well as the small area of

vegetation to be removed or impacted (173 sq metres or 2.74% of the total BGHF Habitat area), it is unlikely

that potential subdivision envisaged under the Proposal will have a detrimental effect on Gang-gang

Cockatoo individuals or populations that have potential to use the Subject Property from time to time.

It is considered that the Planning Proposal and future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept plan

submitted with the Planning Proposal, would not have a significant impact on the Gang-gang Cockatoo, its


the impacts of the Proposal on these species is NOT REQUIRED.

Seven-part Test for the Powerful Owl

The Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) is listed as ‘Vulnerable’ under Schedule 2 of the NSW TSC Act 1995.

Tree hollows are particularly important for all forest owl species. They not only provide habitat for hollow-

dwelling arboreal marsupials (possums and gliders), which comprise a large proportion of the Owl’s diet, but

are also potential nesting sites (Higgins 1999). Estimates of the home range of the Powerful Owl is 300 –

1500 hectares (DEC 2006).



extinction…”

There is potential for the Powerful Owl to utilise the Subject Property for hunting and roosting. No

hollows of suitable size for nesting are present. The Planning Proposal and potential subdivision as

envisaged under the concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, will potentially remove a

small amount of BGHF Habitat (173 sq metres or 2.74% of the total Habitat area). This Proposal will

not significantly reduce the populations of suitable prey, and is therefore unlikely to have an adverse

effect of the life cycles or place any local populations of the Powerful Owl at risk of extinction.




An endangered population is defined under the TSC Act as ‘a population specified in Part 2 of

Schedule 1’. Therefore the Powerful Owl is not an endangered population.










1 of the TSC Act. Therefore, this item not applicable to a threatened species.



and





Although a small proportion of hunting and roosting habitat will be impacted or removed from the

Subject Property (173 sq metres), the remainder of BHGF habitat on the Property will be retained (@

6,177 sq metres). The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, is not likely to fragment or isolate any areas of

habitat for this species as it is capable of flying over cleared and developed urban areas.

The Subject Property affords some hunting habitat and some potential roosting habitat for the

species. However, as the Powerful Owl is highly mobile and has a large home range, it is likely to use

a much broader area of habitat for these purposes, including the large bushland areas within Lane

Cove National Park and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park. Therefore the small area of habitat

potentially affected by the Proposal (173 sq metres) is not considered to be essential habitat for the

species.

The clearing or otherwise modification of this small area (173 sq metres) of bushland on the Subject

Property is unlikely to impact on the long-term survival of the Powerful Owl within the Locality or

Region.


indirectly)…”


no critical habitat would be adversely affected by the Proposal.





A Recovery Plan has been developed for large Forest Owls (including the Powerful Owl). Two (2) of

the main issues identified in these Recovery Plans are clearing and fragmentation of habitat.

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision will impact upon or clear 173 sq metres of

BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property. This is not expected to have a significant impact on the

resources available to the owls. The remainder of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property will

remain intact.

To date, there is no threat abatement plan for the Powerful Owl.



Currently 32 Key threatening processes are defined under Schedule 3 of the TSC Act. The Planning

Proposal would require the clearing of a small area of native vegetation (listed as a Key Threatening

Process).

No other key threatening processes are likely to be relevant to the protection of the Powerful Owls

which might utilise the resources of the Subject Property.

It is recommended that the largest possible area of BGHF habitat on the Subject Property is retained

to minimise the impact of key threatening processes.

Expected impact on the Powerful Owl

The Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision proposal, as envisaged in the concept plan

accompanying the Planning Proposal, will impact upon or remove a small amount (173 sq metres) of habitat

that could be utilised by the Powerful Owl for hunting and roosting. The remainder of the BGHF habitat

(6,177 sq metres) on the Subject Property will be retained and protected.

Given that the prey of these species is highly adaptable to the urban environment, as well as the small area

of vegetation to be removed, it is unlikely that the Planning Proposal will lead to a reduction of prey species

resulting in a detrimental effect on Powerful Owl individuals or populations that have potential to use the

Subject Property.

It is considered that the Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the concept

plan accompanyingthe Planning Proposal, would not have a significant impact on the Powerful Owl, its


the impacts of the Proposal on this species is NOT REQUIRED.



5 CONCLUSIONS & R ECOMMENDATIONS

In conclusion, land within the Subject Property 35 Water Street Wahroonga has a soil landscape, geology and

topography able to support BGHF – described in this Report as BGHF Habitat. The presence of 6,350 sq

metres (0.635 ha) of BGHF in the Subject Property has been confirmed by the NSW Land & Environment

Court (Proceedings 1113 of 2006) and this figure has been used in all subsequent (Cumberland Ecology 2007,

UBMC 2007, UBM 2011) and current (UBM 2012) reports.

The BGHF Habitat support a number of flora species associated with a number of shale-soil vegetation

communities in the Sydney Bioregion; however the low abundance of native flora species present in the

understorey, the very low % cover of locally indigenous flora species (~25%), the small size of the remnant

vegetation in the Subject Property overall (6,350 sq metres, 0.635 ha), its isolation within a fully developed

residential area, and its long-term land use and disturbance history means that the remnant vegetation in

the Subject Property has not functioned as a viable, interactive native ecological community for many years.

However, the stands of Sydney Blue Gum (Eucalyptus saligna) remaining in the Subject Property provide a

genetic resource for the species and they form part of the remnant BGHF ecological community in the

Locality and Region. Under the Planning Proposal and potential future subdivision, as envisaged on the

concept plan accompanying the Planning Proposal, an area of 173 sq metres (2.74% o f the total BGHF

Habitat area) and 11 BGHF trees will potentially be removed from the area proposed for possible

subdivision, with nine (9) BGHF trees to be removed or impacted in potential Lots 3 and 4.

The large remnant trees on the Subject Property, both native and introduced species, provide connectivity

(albeit discontinuous) to trees in neighbouring properties and local bushland reserves, and they also provide

habitat and food resources for a range of urban-tolerant native fauna; these being important ecological

services within a wholly residential landscape. UBM recommends that wherever possible, in those areas not

proposed for development all trees in good condition and which provide no hazard to public safety should

be protected, retained and incorporated in any future landscape design.

There will be a potential loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat for development in potential Subject Sites 3

and 4. This represents a loss of 2.74% of the total area of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property overall (@

6,350 sq metres). It should also be noted that the loss of only 2.74% of BGHF Habitat identified under the

potential future subdivision compares favourably with the 4.9% loss of this community which would have

occurred under the approved Hospital proposal.

Further, under the potential future subdivision proposal envisaged in the concept plan accompanying the

Planning Proposal, 6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat would be retained, rehabilitated and appropriately

managed under the adopted BGHF Habitat Vegetation Management Plan (UBMC 2007). This compares

favourably to only 6,034 sq metres of the community which would have been retained under the approved

Hospital proposal (providing a net gain of 323 sq metres)

It is however, recommended that the loss of 173 sq metres of BGHF Habitat, although small, should be

‘offset’ against a restoration and management program to rehabilitate the remaining area of BBGHF Habitat

within the larger Subject Property.



A Vegetation Management Plan for the BGHF Habitat at 35 Water Street has been prepared (UBMC 2007),

approved by DECCW/OEH, and adopted by Ku-ring-gai Council. This Plan provides for bush regeneration

works over a period of five (5) years, and will cover bushland restoration and rehabilitation works in all of

the BGHF Habitat Area mapped within the Subject Property, and includes those parts of BGHF Habitat which

intrude marginally into potential new Lots 3 and 4.

Scientific Licence 132C for the purposes of science, education or conservation under the National Parks &

Wildlife Act 1979 has been obtained from OEH to provide for the implementation of on-ground works.

However, to date, no works under this Plan have been undertaken. Scientific License 132C is currently in the

name of the previous landowner Waterbrook Pty Ltd, so it will be necessary to apply to the Licensing Division

of OEH to reissue the License in the name of the current landowner Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd. All other

licence conditions will remain unchanged.

It is considered that the implementation of the adopted Vegetation Management Plan for the remaining

6,177 sq metres of BGHF Habitat in the Subject Property will provide an adequate offset for the loss of173 sq

(2.74%) metres of this Habitat in the Development Areas of potential Lots 3 and 4 within Area 2.

Further, the loss of 2.74% of BGHF Habitat within the Subject Property is well within the maximum 5% loss

for BGHF proposed by Dr P. Smith as an expert witness appearing in the Land and Environment Court and

adopted by the Court.

The Planning Proposal and potential subdivision proposal, as envisaged by the concept plan accompanying

the Planning Proposal, will result in the restoration of historic Rippon Grange, its gardens and arboretum,

and allow for the conservation and future management of the BGHF Habitat on the Subject Property.



6 REFERENCES

Botanic Gardens Trust (2009). PlantNET - The Plant Information Network System of Botanic Gardens Trust,

Sydney, Australia (version 2.0) http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au [Accessed December 2011].

Chapman, G.A. & Murphy C.L. (1989). Soil Landscapes of the Sydney 1: 100 000 Sheet, Soil Conservation

Service NSW, Sydney.

Cook, Kerrin (1991). The Railway Comes to Ku-ring-gai: a pictorial history of Ku-ring-gai Municipality 1890-

1991. Genlin Investments, Pymble NSW

Cropper, S. (1993). Management of Endangered Plants. CSIRO, Melbourne.

Cumberland Ecology (September 2007). Species Impact Statement for 35 Water Street, Wahroonga.

Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting.

Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) (2006). NSW Recovery Plan for the Large Forest Owls:

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa) and Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae).

DEC, Sydney.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2004). Threatened biodiversity survey and assessment:

Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft). Department of Environment and Climate

Change, Hurstville, NSW (now Office of Environment & Heritage).

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011a). Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database.

http://wildlifeatlas.npws.gov.au. (now Office of Environment & Heritage). [Accessed December 2011]

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (2011b). Threatened species information.

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/index.aspx (now Office of Environment &

Heritage). [Accessed December 2011].

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water Populations and Communities (2011). Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Online Databases.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/db/index.html(now SEWPAC) [Accessed December 2011].

Herbert, C. (ed.) (1983). Geology of the Sydney 1:100 000 Sheet. NSW Department of Mineral Resources.

Higgins, P.J. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds, Volume 4, Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne

Ingham Planning (January 2013). Planning Proposal Report: draft Amendment to Ku-ring-gai Planning

Scheme Ordinance. Unpublished report prepared for Mr Peter Borbilas

Keith, D.A. (2009). The interpretation, assessment and conservation of ecological communities, in Ecological

Management and Restoration 10 (S3 – S15)

Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (1995). Bushland Weed Assessment Guidelines. Parks & Landscape Services,

Ku-ring-gai M. Council, Gordon NSW

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/

http://wildlifeatlas.npws.gov.au/

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

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/db/index.html(now



Ku-ring-gai Municipal Council (2002). Bushfire Prone Lands Map (website)

Ku-ring-gai Council (2012). draft Planning Proposal Biodiversity Mapping Ku-Ring-gai Council, Gordon NSW

Landscape Matrix 13 December 2011). Arboricultural Impact Statements, proposed Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 at 35

Water Street Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Peter Borbilas, Bellevue Projects Pty Ltd

Wahroonga

LesryK Environmental Consultants (2004). Flora and fauna survey, proposed hazard reduction works,

Wahroonga, NSW. Prepared for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority by LesryK Environmental

Consultants, Bundeena, NSW.

LHO Group (October 2007). Hydraulic Services Report for Residential Development 35 Water Street,

Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd.

Moore, P.D. & Chapman S.B. (1986). Methods in Plant Ecology. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Melbourne

NSW Industry & Investment (formerly Primary Industries) (2011). Noxious Weeds Declarations online at

http://ww.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture (Accessed November 2011)

NSW Land & Environment Court (xx). Proceedings No 11193 of 2006, Ku-ring-gai Council ats. Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd, 35 Water Street & 64 Billyard Avenue.

NSW Scientific Committee (1998). Final Determination for Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Bioregion

Pellow B.J., Henwood M, Carolin, R.C. (2009). Flora of the Sydney Region. 5th Edition. Sydney University

Press, Sydney.

Richardson F.J., Richardson R.G., Shepherd R.C.H. (2007). Weeds of the South-East: an Identification Guide

for Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Meredith

Smith, P. & Smith, J. (December 2006). Identity and Condition of Native Vegetation at 35 Water Street,

Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for the Commonwealth Department of Environment &

Heritage (now DEW), Canberra.

Smith, P & Smith, J (April 2007). Supplementary Ecological Report NSW Land & Environment Court Proceedings No 11193 of 2006, Ku-ring-gai Council ats. Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd, 35 Water Street & 64 Billyard Avenue.

Taylor Brammer (October 2007). Landscape Strategy Plan, LA.DA.05 Taylor Brammer Landscape Architect,

Sydney, NSW.

Tree Wise Men (October 2007). Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report for Waterbrook @ Wahroonga, 35

Water Street & 64 Billyard Avenue, Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting,

Pty Ltd.

Tree Wise Men (October 2011). Preliminary Arboricultural Advice in relation to a 5-Lot Subdivision at 35

Water Street, Wahroonga. Correspondence to Bellevue Projects

http://ww.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture



Tozer, M. G., Turner, K., Simpson, C., Keith, D.A., Beukers, P., MacKenzie, B., Tindall, D. & Pennay, C.

(2010). ‘SCIVI’ - native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and

eastern tableland, in Cunninghamia 11 (3) 2010. RBG Sydney

Urban Bushland Management Consultants (2003). Flora and Fauna Assessment for Site 1 for SEPP 53, #2, 4,

8, 10 & 12 Avon Road and #1, 1A, 3, 5 & 5A Pymble Avenue, Pymble. Report prepared for Multiplex

and Australand (Avon Road Pymble Pty Ltd).

Urban Bushland Management Consultants (2005). Flora & Fauna Assessment, Opportunities and

Constraints for Lot 1 DP 375262 (John Williams Respite Care Centre) and Lot 1 DP 726091 (64 Billyard

Avenue, Wahroonga). Unpublished report prepared for State Property - Department of Commerce

and Department of Ageing, Disability & Home Care.

Urban Bushland Management Consultants (2006). Flora & Fauna Assessment for the former John Williams

Respite Care Centre. Unpublished report prepared for Murlan Consulting Pty Ltd.

UBM Ecological Consultants (December 2007). Vegetation Management Plan for Blue Gum High Forest Habitat:

a guide to the rehabilitation and reconstruction of a native plant community at 35 Water Street Wahroonga.

Unpublished report prepared for Waterbrook @ Wahroonga

UBM Ecological Consultants (December 2011). Flora Survey & Ecological Assessment in support of a 5-Lot

Subdivision at 35 Water Street Wahroonga. Unpublished report prepared for Peter Borbilas, Bellevue

Projects Pty Ltd. Wahroonga



7 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: Final Determination – Blue Gum High Forest

Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion - critically endangered ecological community listing

NSW Scientific Committee - final determination

The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Final

Determination to list the Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, as a critically endangered

ecological community in Part 2 of Schedule 1A of the Act, and as a consequence omit reference to the Blue

Gum High Forest in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Act. Listing of critically endangered ecological communities is

provided for by Part 2 of the Act.

The Scientific Committee has found that:

1. Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is the name given to the ecological community

characterised by the species assemblage listed in paragraph 2. All sites are within the Sydney Basin

Bioregion.

2. Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is characterised by the following assemblage of

species:

Acmena smithii Adiantum aethiopicum

Allocasuarina torulosa Alphitonia excelsa

Angophora costata Angophora floribunda

Asplenium flabellifolium Backhousia myrtifolia

Blechnum cartilagineum Breynia oblongifolia

Calochlaena dubia Carex maculata

Cissus hypoglauca Clematis aristata

Clerodendrum tomentosum Dianella caerulea

Doodia aspera Elaeocarpus reticulatus

Entolasia marginata Entolasia stricta

Eucalyptus globoidea Eucalyptus paniculata

Eucalyptus pilularis Eucalyptus saligna

Eustrephus latifolius Ficus coronata

Glochidion ferdinandi var. ferdinandi Glycine clandestina

Hydrocotyle laxiflora Leucopogon juniperinus

Lomandra longifolia Marsdenia rostrata

Maytenus silvestris Morinda jasminoides

Notelaea longifolia forma longifolia Oplismenus aemulus

Oplismenus imbecillis Oxalis perennans

Pandorea pandorana Persoonia linearis

Pittosporum revolutum Pittosporum undulatum



Platylobium formosum Poa affinis

Polyscias sambucifolia subsp. A Pratia purpurascens

Pseuderanthemum variabile Pteridium esculentum

Rapanea variabilis Smilax australis

Smilax glyciphylla Tylophora barbata

Viola hederacea

3. The total species list of the community is considerably larger than that given above, with many species

present in only one or two sites or in low abundance. The species composition of a site will be influenced by

the size of the site, recent rainfall or drought condition and by its disturbance (including fire) history. The

number of species and the above ground relative abundance of species will change with time since fire, and

may also change in response to changes in fire regime (including changes in fire frequency). At any one time,

above ground individuals of some species may be absent, but the species may be represented below ground

in the soil seed banks or as dormant structures such as bulbs, corms, rhizomes, rootstocks or lignotubers.

The list of species given above is of vascular plant species; the community also includes micro-organisms,

fungi, cryptogamic plants and a diverse fauna, both vertebrate and invertebrate. These components of the

community are poorly documented.

4. Blue Gum High Forest is dominated by a tall canopy of eucalypts that may exceed 30 m in height. Its

understorey is typically multi-layered with a midstorey of mesophyllous shrubs and small trees and a diverse

ground layer of herbs, ferns and some grasses. Most stands of the community are in a state of regrowth

after past clearing or logging activities, and consequently trees may be shorter, less dense or more dense

than less disturbed stands. Blue Gum High Forest is dominated by either Eucalyptus pilularis (Blackbutt) or E.

saligna (Sydney Blue Gum). Angophora costata (Smooth-barked Applebox) is frequently observed in

remnants close to the shale/sandstone boundary, but also occurs infrequently on deep shale soils, as does A.

floribunda (Rough-barked Applebox). Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark) is typically found on upper

slopes. A relatively diverse stratum of small trees is usually present, and includes Pittosporum undulatum

(Sweet Pittosporum), Elaeocarpus reticulatus (Blueberry Ash) and Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak). Shrub

species are typically mesophyllous, such as Breynia oblongifolia (Coffee Bush), Pittosporum revolutum,

(Yellow Pittosporum), Clerodendrum tomentosum, Notelaea longifolia forma longifolia (Large Mock-olive),

Maytenus sylvestris (Narrow-leaved Orange Bark), Polyscias sambucifolia subsp. A (Elderberry Panax) and

Rapanea variabilis (Muttonwood). Mesophyllous species are generally more common in gullies associated

with both shale and volcanic soils than slopes and ridgetops. Sclerophyllous species such as Persoonia

linearis (Narrow-leaved Geebung) and Leucopogon juniperinum (Prickly Bearded-heath) occur more

frequently closer to the shale/sandstone boundary. The ground stratum is often dense and contains a

mixture of herb, grass and fern species including Adiantum aethiopicum, Entolasia marginata (Bordered

Panic), Lomandra longifolia (Spiny-headed Matrush), Calochlaena dubia (Common Groundfern), Dianella

caerulea (Blue Flax Lily), Pseuderanthemum variabile (Pastel Flower) and Oplismenus imbecillis. Vine species

are also frequently present, in particular Tylophora barbata (Bearded Tylophora), Eustrephus latifolia,

(Wombat Berry), Clematis aristata (Old Man's Beard) and Pandorea pandorana (Wonga Wonga Vine).

5. While no systematic fauna surveys have been carried out across the range of Blue Gum High Forest a

number of mammal and bird species listed as threatened in NSW have been recorded as resident or



transient in the community. These include the Grey-headed Flying Fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Yellow-

bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris), Glossy Black cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) and the

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua).

6. Blue Gum High Forest is typically associated with soils derived from Wianamatta Shale (Tozer 2003),

though may occur in adjacent areas underlain by Hawkesbury Sandstone. The community also occurs on

soils associated with localised volcanic intrusions, 'diatremes' (Benson and Howell 1994). Typically, Blue Gum

High Forest occurs more than 100m above sea level, where rainfall exceeds 1050 mm per annum, although it

may be present in sheltered locations with lower rainfall (Tozer 2003). In drier areas and approaching the

shale/sandstone boundary, it intergrades with Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest, which is currently listed as

an Endangered Ecological Community under the TSC Act. Stands that exhibit intermediate characteristics are

collectively covered by the Determinations of these communities and may be diagnosed by detailed

consideration of the assemblage of species present at the site.

7. Vegetation surveys carried out across the range of Blue Gum High Forest include those of Benson and

Howell (1990, 1994) and Tozer (2003). All of these studies describe and map this community as 'Blue Gum

High Forest', including map unit 6b 'Tall open-forest: Eucalyptus pilularis – Eucalyptus saligna' of Benson and

Howell (1994) and map unit 153 of Tozer (2003). In addition, Benson and Howell (1994) map separately that

part of this community which occurs on soils associated with diatremes as 'Glen Forest, map unit 6c, i. Tall

open-forest: Eucalyptus saligna', noting that this vegetation was 'very similar to the Blue Gum High Forest of

the north shore [i. e. map unit 6b]'. Blue Gum High Forest belongs to the North Coast Wet Sclerophyll Forests

vegetation class of Keith (2004).

8. Blue Gum High Forest is found on the north shore and northern suburbs of Sydney and has been recorded

from the local government areas of Lane Cove, Willoughby, Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby, Baulkham Hills, Ryde and

Parramatta within the Sydney Basin Bioregion and may occur elsewhere in the Bioregion.

9. Blue Gum High Forest has a very highly restricted geographic distribution, and is currently estimated to

cover an extant area of less than 200 ha (Tozer 2003). The distribution comprises a series of small remnant

patches, the largest of which is less than 20ha. Highly modified relics of the community also persist as small

clumps of trees without a native understorey. All remnants of the community are now surrounded by urban

development. Consequently, the distribution of Blue Gum High Forest is severely fragmented. Fragmentation

of habitat contributes to a very large reduction in the ecological function of the community.

10. Prior to European settlement, about 200 years ago, Blue Gum High Forest is estimated to have covered

an area of approximately 3700 ha (Tozer 2003). Its current extent amounts to less than 5% of this original

distribution. The dominant eucalypts of the community live for several hundred years. Blue Gum High Forest

has therefore undergone a very large reduction in its geographic distribution within a time span appropriate

to the life cycle and habitat characteristics of its component species. Small-scale clearing associated with

residential subdivision, road upgrading, extension and maintenance of service easements, etc. pose a threat

of ongoing decline in the extent of the community. Clearing of native vegetation is listed as a Key

Threatening Process under the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.



11. Changes in structure of Blue Gum High Forest have occurred as a consequence of the extensive removal

of large old trees. A number of stands of Blue Gum Forests have highly modified understories, in which the

native woody component has been largely replaced by woody exotic species or by increased abundance of

native and exotic grasses. Continued underscrubbing, frequent burning and mowing may maintain the

understorey in an artificially open state and prevent recruitment of species with the community. The loss of

large trees removes essential habitat for a range of tree-dependent fauna (Gibbons and Lindenmeyer 1996).

The reduction of understorey complexity, through the reduction of native shrub cover, degrades habitat for

a range of bird and mammal species (Catling 1991). These processes contribute to a very large reduction in

the ecological function of the community.

12. The influx of stormwater, which brings excessive moisture, pollutants and nutrients to the remnant

forests from surrounding urban areas, is a significant ongoing threat to the ecological integrity of Blue Gum

High Forest. This, together with the legacy of past disturbances and the abundance and dispersal of weed

propagules from nearby urban areas, results in the invasion, establishment and spread of weeds (Thomson

and Leishman 2005). Problematic weed species in Blue Gum High Forest include the following:

Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper

Cinnamomum camphora Camphor laurel

Lantana camara Lantana

Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaved Privet

Ligustrum sinense Small-leaved Privet

Ochna serrulata Passiflora edulis Passionfruit

Passiflora subpeltata Passionfruit

Pennisetum clandestunum Kikuyu

Rubus ulmifolius Blackberry

Senna colutioides Tradescantia fluminensis

'Invasion and establishment of exotic vines and scramblers', 'Invasion of native plant communities by exotic

perennial grasses' and 'Invasion, establishment and spread of Lantana (Lantana camara L. sens. lat)' are

listed as Key Threatening Processes under the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The influx of

stormwater, pollutants and nutrients, and the invasion of weeds contribute to a very large reduction in the

ecological function of the community.

13. Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion is eligible to be listed as a critically endangered

ecological community as, in the opinion of the Scientific Committee, it is facing an extremely high risk of

extinction in New South Wales in the immediate future, as determined in accordance with the following

criteria as prescribed by the Threatened Species Conservation Regulation 2002:

Clause 25

The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have

undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics

of its component species:

(a) a very large reduction in geographic distribution.



Clause 26

The ecological community's geographic distribution is estimated or inferred to be:

(b) very highly restricted,

and the nature of its distribution makes it likely that the action of a threatening process could cause it to

decline or degrade in extent or ecological function over a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat

characteristics of the ecological community's component species.

Clause 27

The ecological community has undergone, is observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have

undergone, or is likely to undergo within a time span appropriate to the life cycle and habitat characteristics

of its component species:

(a) a very large reduction in ecological function,

as indicated by any of the following:

(b) change in community structure

(c) change in species composition

(f) disruption of ecological processes

(g) invasion and establishment of exotic species

(h) degradation of habitat

(i) fragmentation of habitat

Associate Professor Lesley Hughes

Chairperson

Scientific Committee

Proposed Gazettal date: 20/04/07

Exhibition period: 20/04/07 – 15/06/07

References

Benson DH, Howell J (1990) The natural vegetation of the Penrith 1:100 000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2,

541-596.

Benson DH, Howell J (1990) Taken for granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs. (Kangaroo Press:

Sydney)

Catling PC (1991) Ecological effects of prescribed burning practices on the mammals of south-eastern

Australia. In: 'Conservation of Australia's forest fauna' (Ed. D Lunney), pp 353-363. (Surrey Beatty and Sons:

Sydney).

Gibbons P, Lindenmeyer DB (1996) A review of issues associated with the retention of trees with hollows in

wood production forests. Forest Ecology and Management 83, 245-279.

Keith DA (2004) Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. NSW

Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney.

Thomson VP, Leishman MR (2005) Post-fire vegetation dynamics in nutrient-enriched and non-enriched

sclerophyll woodland. Austral Ecology 30, 250-260

Tozer MG (2003) The native vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney: systematic classification

and field identification of communities. Cunninghamia 8, 1-75.



APPENDIX 2: Flora List Recorded for in the eight (8) transects surveyed in the Subject Sites: proposed Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 at 35 Water Street Wahroonga

FAMILY SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME

LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2

Lot 2s Lot 2d Lot 3w Lot 3e Lot 4w Lot 4e Lot 5w Lot 5e

Canopy Trees

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine r

Cupressaceae *Cupressus sp Cypress

r

r

Pinaceae *Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar

r

Aceraceae *Liquidambar styraciflua

Liquidambar

r

r r

Anacardiaceae *Harpephyllum caffrum Kaffir Plum r

Juglandaceae *Carya illinoensis Pecan

r

Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Applebox

r

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus saligna Blue Gum

c

o

r

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta Silky Oak r

Sterculiaceae *Brachychiton acerifolius

Flame Tree

r

Small Trees

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine r

Araucariaceae *A. cunninghamii Hoop Pine

r

r

Cupressaceae *Cupressus spp. Cypress r

r

o

Pinaceae *Cedrus deodara Himalayan Cedar r r

Pinaceae *Pinus radiata Monterey Pine

r

r

r

Podocarpaceae *Podocarpus elatus Plum Pine

r

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda r

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina torulosa - pl

Forest Oak

r

o

o

Casuarinaceae *Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak

r




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Ericaceae *Arbutus unedo Strawberry Tree

r

Ericaceae *Rhododendron sp cv Rhododendron r r r

Fabaceae *Acacia schinoides r

Gingkoaceae *Gingko biloba Maidenhair Tree

r

Juglandaceae *Carya illinoensis Pecan

r

Lauraceae *Cinnamomum camphora

Camphor Laurel r

Magnoliaceae *Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia

o

Myrtaceae Angophora costata - pl Smooth-barked Applebox

r

Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda - pl

Rough-barked Applebox

r

Myrtaceae *Callistemon salignus - pl

Willow Bottlebrush

r r

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus pilularis - pl Blackbutt

r r r

Myrtaceae E. saligna - pl Blue Gum o

Myrtaceae Syncarpia glomulifera - pl

Turpentine

r

r

Myrtaceae *Waterhousea floribunda

Weeping Lilly Pilly

r

Oleaceae *Olea europaea ssp cuspidata

African Olive

r

r

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum adj r c v

o

o

Sapindaceae *Cupaniopsis parvifolia Small-leaved Tuckeroo

r


Flame Tree

r

r

Verbenaceae *Gmelina leichhardtii White Beech

r

Arecaceae *Phoenix canariensis Canary Island Date

r r




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Palm

Shrubs

Cyatheaceae Cyathea australis Rough Tree Fern r - pl

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine sapling o

Araucariaceae *Araucaria cunninghamii

Hoop Pine sapling

r

Cupressaceae *Cupressus sp.

r

Aceraceae *Acer negundo Hard Alder sapling r


saplings

r

Amygdalaceae *Prunus sp cv Flowering Cherry

o o o o o o r

Anacardiaceae *Pistachio chinensis saplings

r o

r

Apocynaceae *Oleander neriifolia Oleander r r

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans Celerywood sapling

r r

r r

Asteraceae *Ageratina megaphylla

r

r

r

Atherospermaceae *Doryphora sassafras Sassafras

r

Berberidaceae *Nandina domestica Sacred Bamboo

r r r r o r

Bignoniaceae *Bignonia sp. o r

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda sapling

r

Caprifoliaceae *Lonicera sp.

r

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina torulosa - pl

Forest Oak saplings

r

Casuarinaceae *Casuarina glauca saplings

r

r

Cunoniaceae *Callicoma serratifolia Callicoma sapling o - pl

Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus reticulatus - pl

Blueberry Ash o o

r

r

r




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Ericaceae *Arbutus enedo saplings

r

Escalloniaceae *Escallonia sp. Escallonia

r

Euphorbiaceae Homalanthus populifolius - pl

Bleeding Heart r o

Fabaceae *Genista monspessulana

Montpellier Broom o r

o r o o o

Fabaceae *Acacia decurrens - pl Green Wattle saplings

r

Fabaceae Acacia floribunda - pl Sally Wattle

r

Fabaceae Acacia longifolia - pl Sydney Golden Wattle

r

Fabaceae *Senna pendula var glabrata

Cassia r r

r r

Flacourtiaceae *Xylosma sp.

r

Lamiaceae *Westringia fruticosa Coast Rosemary

r r


Camphor Laurel saplings

r o

o

o

Lythraceae *Lagerstroemia indica Crepe Myrtle

r

r

Magnoliaceae *Magnolia grandiflora saplings r

Malaceae *Cotoneaster glaucophylla

Cotoneaster

r

r

Malaceae *Cotoneaster pannosus Cotoneaster r r

r r

Meliaceae *Melia azedarach White Cedar sapling

r

r

r

Myrtaceae *Acmena smithii - pl Lilly Pilly o r

r

r

Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda - pl

saplings

r

Myrtaceae *Backhousia myrtifolia - pl

Grey Myrtle saplings c o

Ochnaceae *Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant

o o o o r r

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaved Privet o o o v o v c v




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


saplings

Oleaceae *Ligustrum sinense Small-leaved Privet

o r o

Oleaceae *Olea europea ssp. cuspidata

African Olive saplings o

o o o o o

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum saplings

r r

c o c

c

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta saplings

r

Rhamnaceae Pomaderris ferruginea - pl

r

Rosaceae *Photinia serrulata var robusta

o

Rosaceae *Rosa sp. cv. Rose hyrbids r

Sapindaceae *Alectryon tomentosus Hairy Birds Eye

r

Sapindaceae *Cupaniopsis parvifolia Small-leaved Tuckeroo sapling

r

Saxifragaceae *Hydrangea sp.

r

Solanaceae *Solanum mauritianum Tobacco Weed r r

r


Flame Tree saplings

r

r

Theaceae *Cammellia japonica

o

Theaceae *Commellia sassanqua o o

Ulmaceae *Celtis occidentalis Hackberry saplings

r

r

r

Arecaceae *Phoenix canariensis

r

Bambusaceae *Bambusa sp.

o

Herbs - Ferns

Adiantaceae Adiantum aethiopicum Common Maidenhair Fern

adj c

Adiantaceae *Adiantum formosum Giant Maidenhair Fern

1




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Cyatheaceae Cyathea australis - pl Rough Tree Fern

r

Pteridaceae Pteris tremula o

r

Thelypteridaceae Christella dentata Binung r

Herbs - Dicots

Acanthaceae *Acanthus mollis Oyster Plant r

Acanthaceae Pseuderanthemum variabile

Pastel Flower

r


seedlings

r

Amygdalaceae *Prunus sp cv Flowering Cherry

o

Apiaceae Centella asiatica Pennywort

r r

r

Apiaceae *Ciclosperma leptophylla

Slender Celery o

o r

Asteraceae *Ageratina adenophora Crofton Weed r

o

r

Asteraceae *Ageratina riparia Mistweed o

r r

Asteraceae *Bidens pilosa Farmers Friends c o r r r

o o

Asteraceae *Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle r r

r

r

Asteraceae *Conyza bonariensis Fleabane o r o

r

c o

Asteraceae *Erigeron karvinksianus Brazilian Fireweed r

r

Asteraceae Euryops pectinatus Brighteyes

o

r

Asteraceae Euchiton sphaericum

o

Asteraceae *Gnaphalium americanum

Cudweed

r

r

Asteraceae *Hypochaeris radicata Flatweed c

v o c o o o

Asteraceae Senecio hispidulus var hispidulus

r o

Asteraceae *Senecio Fireweed

o

o




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


madagascariensis

Asteraceae *Sonchus oleraceus Sow Thistle o

r

Asteraceae *Taraxacum officinale Dandelion

r

r

r

Begoniaceae *Begonia sp. r

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia gracilis Small Bluebell

r

Caryophyllaceae *Polycarpon tetraphyllum

Four-leaf-all-seed

o

Clusiaceae Hypericum japonicum

v

o

Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Plant o

v c v

c c

Crassulaceae *Crassula sp.

r

Euphorbiaceae *Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge r o

r

Euphorbiaceae *Trifolium sp. Clover r

c

r

o

Fumariaceae *Fumaria sp Fumaria o r

Gentianaceae *Centaurium tenuiflorum

r

r

Geraniaceae Geranium homeanum Trailing Storksbill o

r o o o


Camphor Laurel seedlings

o o

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot

r

Ochnaceae *Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant seedlings

o

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum seedlings r

r

o

Oleaceae *Ligustrum sinense seedlings r o

o

Oleaceae *Olea europea ssp africana

African Olive seedlings

o o

r

Onagraceae Epilobium sp. Sheoards Purse o

Oxalidaceae *Oxalis carnea r

r o




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Oxalidaceae Oxalis ?perennans

o

o

Oxalidaceae *Oxalis sp. r

r

r

Plantaginaceae *Plantago lanceolata Lambs Tongue c

v c c o o o

Polygonaceae Rumex brownii o

r

Primulaceae *Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel o

Rosaceae *Duchesnea indica Indian Strawberry o

Rutaceae *Murraya paniculata seedling

r

Scrophulariaceae *Veronica arvensis Wall Speedwell

r

Scrophulariaceae Veronica plebeia Trailing Speedwell

r

r

Solanaceae *Solanum nigrum Blackberry Nightshade r

Tropaeolaceae *Tropolaea majus Nasturtium r

Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis Purpletop r

r

Violaceae *Viola odorata Violet

r

Herbs - Monocots

Agavaceae *Cordyline fruticosa a Broad-leaved Palm Lily

o

r

Alliaceae *Nothoscordum borbonicum *

Onion Weed o

Amaryllidaceae *Agapanthus sp Agapanthus o

v

o o

o

Anthericaceae *Chlorophytum comosum

Spider lily r c

r o

Asparagaceae *Asparagus densiflora Fern Asparagus o c c v o o v v

Commelinaceae *Tradescantia fluminensis

Wandering Jew o o

o

Cyperaceae Carex inversa o

c o

r

Cyperaceae Cyperus gracilis o

r r




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Cyperaceae C. imbecillis

r

Iridaceae *Freesia refracta Freesia

o

r

Iridaceae *Dietes vegeta Peacock Lily o o c o o o

o

Iridaceae *?Homeria sp o

o r o r r

Juncaceae *Juncus capitatus

r

r

Liliaceae *Lilium formosanum Formosan Lily

o o

Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush r - pl

Musaceae *Strelitzia reginae Strelitzia

o

r

o

r

Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var producta

Rough Flax Lily

r o r r

r

Poaceae * Anthoxanthum odoratum *

Sweet Vernal Grass r

v

v

Poaceae *Avena fatua Wild oats

r r

Poaceae *Axonopus affinis Carpet Grass

r

Poaceae *Briza maxima Quaking Grass o

r r

r c o

Poaceae *Briza minor Shivery Grass o

r

r

Poaceae *Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass c o

o

Poaceae *Cynodon dactylon Couch Grass

o

o

Poaceae Danthonia ?racemosa a Wallaby Grass

r

r

r

Poaceae Dichelachne micrantha Short-haired Plume Grass

r

Poaceae Echinopogon caespitosus

a Hedgehog Grass

o o

Poaceae Echinopogon ovatus a Hedgehog Grass

c c o o r r

Poaceae *Ehrharta erecta Veldt Grass o c r o

c o

Poaceae Entolasia marginata Margined Panic

r

r




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Poaceae Lachnogrostis aemula

r

o

Poaceae Microlaena stipoides Weeping Meadow-grass

c

o c v c r o

Poaceae Oplismenus aemulus Basket Grass c r o o o

r r

Poaceae Oplismenus imbecillis

r

Poaceae *Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum c r v v c c o r

Poaceae *Pennisetum clandestinum

Kikuyu r

Poaceae Poa affinis Winter Grass

r r

Poaceae *Sporobolus indica var capensis

Parramatta Grass

r

r

Poaceae *Stenotaphrum succedanea

Buffalo Grass

c v v v

Zingiberaceae *Hedychium gardnerianum

Indian Ginger r

o o

r

Vines

Apocynaceae Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod

r c r

Araceae *Monstera deliciosa Fruit Salad Plant

r

Araliaceae *Hedera helix English Ivy o v c c c c o o

Asclepiadaceae *Araujia sericifera Moth Vine o r

r

Basellaceae *Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine r

Bignoniaceae *Campsis radicans American Trumpet Creeper

o o

Caprifoliaceae *Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle

r

v c c c o

Convolvulaceae *Ipomoea indica Purple Glory c

r

Fabaceae Glycine microphylla A love twiner

r r

o

Fabaceae Hardenbergia violacea Purple Coral Pea

r




LOCATION

Area 1 Area 2


Fabaceae Kennedia rubicunda - pl Dusky Coral Pea

r

Fabaceae *Vicia sativa Vetch c

r

r

Fabaceae *Wisteria chinensis Wisteria

o

r

Oleaceae *Jasminum sp cv Jasmine o r

Passifloraceae *Passiflora edulis Passionfruit Vine

r

Rosaceae Rubus parvifolia Small-leaved Bramble

r

Vitaceae Cissus antarctica - pl Kangaroo Vine

r

Vitaceae *Parthenocissus sp. Boston Ivy o o

r

Asparagaceae *Asparagus asparagoides

Bridal Creeper

Asparagaceae *Asparagus scandens

r

r

r r o

Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius Wombat Berry

r

r

Epiphytes

Polypodiaceae *Platycerium bifurcatum

Elkhorn Fern

adj

Loranthaceae ?Amyema sp. (on E. saligna branch)

r

Moraceae Ficus rubiginosa (on E. saligna, Tree 373)

r



APPENDIX 3: List of Flora Species Recorded in the 11 quadrats established in the BGHF Habitat Area

NOTE: results from the quadrats established by Cumberland Ecology (2007) have been included to provide points of comparison.

KEY

D – dead

adj - indicates species recorded adjacent to survey site

pl - indicates planted potentially local species

* indicates introduced species

Cover abundance in 20 x 20 m quadrat (modified Braun Blanquet system) 1 = rare 2 = occasional 3 = common 4 = very common but less than 5% 5 = 5-25% 6 = 26-50% 7 = 51-75% 8 = more than 75%

FAMILY SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME Cumberland 16

th August 2007 UBM 29

th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Trees

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine

1

*A. cunninghamii Hoop Pine

1

Cupressaceae *Callitris rhomboidea Port Jackson Pine

5

1

*Cupressus spp Cypress

5

1 1

2

Pinaceae *Pinus radiata Monterey Pine

1

1

1

Podocarpaceae *Podocarpus elatus Plum Pine

1

5

Aceraceae *Liquidambar styraciflua Liquidambar

1

5

D 1

Araceae *Schefflera actinophylla Umbrella Tree

1

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans Celery Wood

5

1

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 1

1

Casuarinaceae *Casuarina glauca Swamp Oak

1

Allocasuarina torulosa Forest Oak

1

1 1

Cunoniaceae *Ceratopetalum apetalum - pl Coachwood

1

Ericaceae *Rhododendron sp cv Rhododendron 5

1 5





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Fabaceae *Acacia elata Cedar Wattle

1

1

*A. decurrens Green Wattle

1

Magnoliaceae *Magnolia grandiflora

1

Malaceae *Cotoneaster glauca Cotoneaster

5

Moraceae *Ficus rubiginosa - pl Rusty Fig

1 pl

1

5 pl

Myrtaceae Acmena smithii - pl Lilly Pilly

1

Angophora costata - pl Smooth-barked Applebox

1

Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Applebox 5 D D

5 D

1

1

*Callistemon salignus - pl Willow Bottlebrush

6

5

5

*Corymbia citriodora Lemon-scented Gum

1

5

*Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum

5

5

*Eucalyptus crebra Narrow-leaved Ironbark

1

*E. grandis Flooded Gum

5

E. pilularis Blackbutt

5

1 1

1

E. saligna Blue Gum 5 1 6 6 6 5

7 5 6 5 5 6 1 6 6 5 5 6

1 o/h

1 o/h

Syncarpia glomulifera - pl Turpentine

1 1

1 1 1

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum Large-Leaved Privet

5 5 6

5

1

*Olea eurpaea ssp cuspidata African Olive

1

1

1 1

Pittosporaceae Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum 5

5

5 5

1

5 5 1

2 1 1 o/h

Proteaceae *Grevillea robusta Silky Oak

1

*Stenocarpus sinuatus Wheel-of-fire Tree

1

Rutaceae *Acronychia oblongifolia White Lilly Pilly

5

Sapindaceae *Alectryon subdentatus Holly-leaved Birds Eye

1





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

*Cupaniopsis parvifolia Small-leaved Tuckeroo

5

5

Sterculiaceae *Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree

1

*B. discolor Lacebark Tree

1

Arecaceae *Livistona australis Cabbage Palm

1

1

Shrubs

Cyatheaceae *Cyathea australis Rough Tree Fern

D

1

Araucariaceae *Araucaria bidwillii Bunya Pine sapling

1

1

*A. cunninghamii Hoop Pine sapling

1

Cupressaceae *Cupressus sp.

1

Aceraceae *Liquidambar saplings

1

Amygdalaceae *Prunus sp cv Flowering Cherry 1 1

1

1

1 1 2

1

Anacardiaceae *Pistacia chinensis

1 1

*Toxicadendron succedanea Rhus

1

1

Apocynaceae *Oleander neriifolia Oleander

1

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans Celerywood sapling

1

1 1

1

Asteraceae *Ageratina megalophylla

6

6

1

1

*Euryops pectinatus

1

1 3

Berberidaceae *Nandina domestica Sacred Bamboo 1

1

1

Bignoniaceae *Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda sapling 1

1

1 1

1

1

Cunoniaceae *Callicoma serratifolia - pl Callicoma sapling

2 1

2

*Ceratopetalum gummiferum - pl Christmas Bush

2

Elaeocarpaceae Elaeocarpus reticulatus - pl Blueberry Ash

1

2

2

1

Ericaceae *Rhododendron sp cv Rhododendron juvenile 1

1

1

Escalloniaceae *Escallonia sp

1

1

1 3

Euphorbiaceae Omalanthus nutans Bleeding Heart

3

1

1 1 1 1

Fabaceae *Genista monspessulana Montpellier Broom

7 2

2 5 1

4 2

2

3





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

*Pultenaea villosa

1

*Acacia baileyana Cootamundra Wattle

1

*Acacia decurrens Green Wattle saplings

1 2

A. floribunda Sally Wattle

2

1

A. longifolia - pl Sydney Golden Wattle

2

*Senna pendula var glabrata Cassia

1

1 1

Lauraceae *Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel saplings 2

3

3 2

3

3 3

3 2

Malaceae *Cotoneaster glaucophylla Cotoneaster

1

1

*Pyracantha sp. Firethorn

1

*Rhaphiolepis indica Indian Hawthorn

1 1

Malvaceae *Abutilon sp. Chinese Lantern

2

Meliaceae *Melia azedarach White Cedar sapling

1

1

Moraceae *Morus alba Mulberry

1

Myrtaceae *Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly saplings

1

*Acmena smithii var minor Lilly Pilly (small-leaved race)

2

2 2

Angophora floribunda saplings

1

*Backhousia myrtifolia Grey Myrtle

2 2

2

*Corymbia citriodora sapling

1

Eucalyptus saligna - pl Blue Gum sapling

1 1

*Melaleuca armillaris Bracelet Honey-myrtle

1

Syncarpia glomulifera - pl saplings

1

Ochnaceae *Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant 2 2

2

2 3 2 2 2 1

1 1

Oleaceae *Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaved Privet saplings 3 6 2 2 5 2

7 5 5 3 5 4 5 2

3 2

*L. sinense Small-leaved Privet 1

1

2 2 1 1

1 2

2

*Olea europea ssp africana African Olive saplings

1

1

1 1 2 1 1

1 1

Pittosporaceae *Pittosporum obovatum

1

2





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

P. revolutum Yellow Pittosporum

1

P. undulatum Sweet Pittosporum saplings 2 2

1 1

1 2 2 3 2 1

1

2 2

Rhamnaceae Pomaderris feruginea - pl

adj

Rosaceae *Eriobotrya japonica Loquat

1

*Photinia glabra robusta

2

Rutaceae *Murraya paniculata

1

Sapindaceae *Alectryon tomentosus saplings 1 1

2

1

*Cupaniopsis parvifolia

Small-leaved Tuckeroo sapling

1

Solanaceae *Solanum mauritianum Tobacco Weed

1 1

Sterculiaceae *Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree saplings

1

1

1 1 1

1

1

Theaceae *Camellia japonica Camellia

1

Ulmaceae *Celtis occidentalis Hackberry saplings 1

1

2

1 1 1

1

Verbenaceae *Duranta repens

1

1

Herbs - Ferns

Adiantaceae Adiantum aethiopicum Comon Maidenhair Fern

adj

*A. formosum Giant Maidenhair Fern

1

Davaliaceae *Nephrolepis cordifolia Fishbone Fern

7 5

3 5 6

5

Dicksoniaceae Calochlaena dubia False Bracken Fern

2

Pteridaceae Pteris tremula Tender Brake

1

Herbs - Dicots

Acanthaceae *Acanthus spinosus Oyster Plant

2

1 2

unidentified sp

2 1

Pseuderanthemum variabile Pastel Flower

3 2

2 1 1

Apiaceae Centella asiatica Pennywort

2

3





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

*Ciclosperma leptophylla Slender Celery

2 2 2

*Hydrocotyle bonariensis

1

H. pedunculata

2

Araliaceae *Polyscias elegans seedlings

1

1

Asteraceae *Ageratina adenophora Crofton Weed

1

1 2

3

*Bidens pilosa Farmers Friends

1 1 3

2 2 2 2 1 2 2

*Cirsium vulgare Spear Thistle

2 2

2

*Conyza bonariensis Tall Fleabane 1

2 2 3 3

2 2

*Erechtites valerianifolia Brazilian Fireweed

3

*Erigeron karvinskianus Seaside Daisy

1 1

1

*Hypochaeris radicata Flatweed

1

1

3

2

1 4

Senecio hispidulus var hispidulus

1

*Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed

2

2

4

*Sonchus oleraceus Sow Thistle

1

2

*Taraxacum officinale Dandelion

1

1

Brassicaceae *Cardamine hirsuta Flickweed

3

Caryophyllaceae *Cerastium glomeratum Mouse-eared Chickweed

1

Clusiaceae Hypericum japonicum

1

Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Plant 1

3 1 2

2

1

1 3 3 2

1 3

Euphorbiaceae *Euphorbia peplus Petty Spurge

3 3 3

Poranthera microphylla

1

Fabaceae *Genista monspessulana seedlings

2

*Medicago polymorpha Medic

1

1

*Trifolium repens White Clover

2

*T. sp.

2

Fumariaceae *Fumaria sp Fumaria

2

1





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Geraniaceae Geranium homeanum Trailing Storksbill

1

2 2 6 2

1

2 2 2

2

Lauraceae *Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Laurel seedlings 1

1

2

2

Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot

2

1

1

1 1

1

Malvaceae *Modiola caroliniana

2 2

*Sida rhombifolia Paddys Lucerne

1 2 1

2

Moraceae *Ficus rubiginosa seedling

1

Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Applebox seedling

1

Ochnaceae *Ochna serrulata Mickey Mouse Plant seedlings

1 1

1 2

1 2

Oleaceae *Olea europea ssp africana African Olive seedlings

1

1

1

Oxalidaceae Oxalis exilis/perennans

1

1

2

*O. corniculata

2

2

1 1

1 1 1 1 2 2

*O. carnea

1 1 2

2

2

2

Phytolaccaceae *Phytolacca octandra Inkweed

1

Plantaginaceae Plantago debile

1

*P. lanceolata Lambs Tongue

2 5 2 4

2 1 2

2 2

Polygonaceae *Persicaria capitata

1

Rumex brownii

1

1

Primulaceae *Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel

4 2

*Primula sp cv Primula

2

Ranunculaceae *Ranuncula repens Buttercup

1

2 5

Rosaceae *Duchesnia indica Irish Strawberry

1 1

Solanaceae *Solanum nigrum Blackberry Nightshade

1 1

1

Thunbergiaceae *Thunbergia alata Black-eyed Susan

2

Tropolaeaceae *Tropolaea majus Nasturtium

3

1 3 2

Ulmaceae *Celtis occidentalis seedling

1





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Verbenaceae *Verbena bonariensis Purpletop

1

1 1 1

Herbs - Monocots

Agavaceae *Cordyline fruticosa a Broad-leaved Palm Lily

1

1

*C. stricta Narrow-leaved Plam Lily

1

Amaryllidaceae *Agapanthus sp Agapanthus

2

2

2 2

1 1

2 2 1

*Clivea miniata Clivea

3

*Crinum pedunculatum Swamp Lily

1

1

Anthericaceae *Chlorophytum comosum Spider Lily

2 2

2

Araceae *Typhonium spp.

1

1

Asparagaceae *Asparagus densiflora Fern Asparagus 4 4 5 4 5 5 3

2 6 5 3 5 5 6 6 2

6 3 2

Bambusaceae *Phyllostachys aurea Fishpole Bamboo

2 1

2 2

Commelinaceae *Tradescantia fluminensis Wandering Jew

2

2 5

Cyperaceae *Cyperus eragrostis

1

C. gracilis

2 2

2

C. imbecillis

1

Iridaceae *Freesia refracta Freesia

4 3 2

2

1

2

2 2

*Dietes vegeta

2

5

1 2

3

*Crocosmia x crocosmiflora Montbrecia 2

Liliaceae *Lilium formosanum Formosan Lily

2

1

Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush

1

Musaceae *Musa sp cv Banana 1 1

*Strelitzia nicolai Giant Strelitzia 2 1

1

1 2 1

1 1 1

1 2

Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var producta Rough Flax Lily 1 1

1 2 2 2 pl

1 1

2

1

adj

1

Poaceae *Axonopus affinis Carpet Grass 1

1

5

*Bromus catharticus Prairie Grass

2

2 2

2





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

*Cynodon dactylon Couch Grass

1

2

5

Danthonia ?racemosa var racemosa a Wallaby Grass

3

1 1

Echinopogon caespitosus a Hedgehog Grass

1

1

E. ovatus a Hedgehog Grass

1

*Ehrharta erecta Veldt Grass 1

3

3

1

2

2 2

Entolasia marginata Margined Panic

1

2

1

E. stricta Wiry Panic

1

*Eragrostis sp.

1

Microlaena stipoides Weeping Meadow-grass 2

2

1

2

2

5 2 2

2

Oplismenus aemulus Basket Grass 2

2

3 1 2

1

2 2 3 2 2 1 1

O. imbecillis

1

*Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum

1 2 3

1

*Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu

1

*Sporobolus indica var capensis Parramatta Grass

1

*Stenotaphrum succedanea Buffalo Grass 2

5 6

6

2 3 5 2

5 1

Zingiberaceae *Hedychium gardnerianum Indian Ginger 1

1

1

1 1 1

1

Vines

Apocynaceae Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod

3 2

2 3 2

2

Araceae *Monstera deliciosa Fruit Salad Plant

1 1

Araliaceae *Hedera helix English Ivy 2

1

1 2 1 2 2 2

1

Asclepiadaceae *Araujia sericifera Moth Vine

1 1

1

Basellaceae *Anredera cordifolia Madeira Vine

1

1

Caprifoliaceae *Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle 4 3

3 2

5 3 3

3 3 1

3 5 5

Convolvulaceae *Ipomoea indica Purple Glory

2 5

7 8 5

Fabaceae *Dipogon lignosus Dolicos Pea

2

Glycine microphylla

1 1

1





th May 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Glycine tabacina

2 2 3

Hardenbergia violacea Purple Coral Pea

1

Kennedia rubicunda Dusky Coral Pea

1 1

*Vicia sativa Vetch

3

2

Oleaceae *Jasminum sp cv Jasmine

2

1

Passifloraceae *Passiflora edulis Passionfruit Vine

1

1

1

1

Ranunculaceae Clematis glycinoides Travellers Joy

1

Rosaceae *Rubus fruticosus Blackberry

1

1

Thunbergiaceae *Thunbergia alata Black-eyed Susan

2

2

Vitaceae *Parthenocissus sp Boston Ivy

2

2 1

Asparagaceae *Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Veil Creeper

1

*A. plumosus

1

*A. scandens

3

2

1 1

1

2 2

Luzuriagaceae Eustrephus latifolius Wombat Berry 2 1

1

2 1 1 1 1



APPENDIX 4: Fauna occurring in the Region (OEH 2012) and recorded on the Subject Property from all studies

* Occurring within a 10km radius centred on the Subject Property

** Surveys conducted on or nearby the Subject Property

FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

LEGAL STATUS OEH RECORDS (2012)*

DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Amphibia (18)

Myobatrachidae Crinia signifera Common Eastern Froglet

67 x

x

Myobatrachidae Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog V V 6 x

Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes dumerilii Eastern Banjo Frog

6 x

Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes peronii Brown-striped Frog

27 x

x

Myobatrachidae Limnodynastes tasmaniensis Spotted Grass Frog

1

Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne australis Red-crowned Toadlet V

62 x

Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne bibronii Bibron's Toadlet

4 x

Myobatrachidae Uperoleia laevigata Smooth Toadlet

4 x

Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog E1 V 1 x

Hylidae Litoria caerulea Green Tree Frog

4 x

Hylidae Litoria dentata Bleating Tree Frog

2

Hylidae Litoria fallax Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog

3 x

Hylidae Litoria gracilenta Dainty Green Tree Frog

1 x

Hylidae Litoria latopalmata Broad-palmed Frog

1 x

Hylidae Litoria lesueuri Lesueur's Frog

2

Hylidae Litoria peronii Peron's Tree Frog

19 x

Hylidae Litoria phyllochroa Leaf-green Tree Frog

8 x

Hylidae Litoria verreauxii Verreaux's Frog

5

Aves (186)

Megapodiidae Alectura lathami Australian Brush-turkey

13 x x

x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Phasianidae Coturnix pectoralis Stubble Quail

1 x

Anatidae Anas castanea Chestnut Teal

4 x

Anatidae Anas gracilis Grey Teal

1 x

Anatidae Anas superciliosa Pacific Black Duck

9 x

Anatidae Chenonetta jubata Australian Wood Duck

10 x

Columbidae Chalcophaps indica Emerald Dove

2 x

Columbidae Columba leucomela White-headed Pigeon

23 x

Columbidae Columba livia Rock Dove *

5 x

x

Columbidae Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered Dove

2 x

Columbidae Geopelia striata Peaceful Dove

4 x

Columbidae Leucosarcia picata Wonga Pigeon

7 x

Columbidae Lopholaimus antarcticus Topknot Pigeon

2 x

Columbidae Macropygia amboinensis Brown Cuckoo-Dove

24 x

Columbidae Ocyphaps lophotes Crested Pigeon

45 x x

Columbidae Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing

2 x

Columbidae Phaps elegans Brush Bronzewing

3 x

Columbidae Ptilinopus superbus Superb Fruit-Dove V

5

Columbidae Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove *

32 x

Podargidae Podargus strigoides Tawny Frogmouth

50 x

x

x

Aegothelidae Aegotheles cristatus Australian Owlet-nightjar

4 x

Apodidae Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift

3 x

Apodidae Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail

22 x

Procellariidae Pterodroma lessonii White-headed Petrel

1 x

Phalacrocoracidae Microcarbo melanoleucos Little Pied Cormorant

2 x

Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax carbo Great Cormorant

1 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax sulcirostris Little Black Cormorant

1

Phalacrocoracidae Phalacrocorax varius Pied Cormorant

1 x

Ardeidae Ardea intermedia Intermediate Egret

1 x

Ardeidae Ardea pacifica White-necked Heron

1 x

Ardeidae Egretta novaehollandiae White-faced Heron

3 x

Threskiornithidae Platalea flavipes Yellow-billed Spoonbill

1 x

Threskiornithidae Threskiornis molucca Australian White Ibis

4 x

Threskiornithidae Threskiornis spinicollis Straw-necked Ibis

1 x

Accipitridae Accipiter cirrocephalus Collared Sparrowhawk

7 x

Accipitridae Accipiter fasciatus Brown Goshawk

15 x

Accipitridae Accipiter novaehollandiae Grey Goshawk

2 x

Accipitridae Aquila audax Wedge-tailed Eagle

1 x

Accipitridae Aviceda subcristata Pacific Baza

19 x

Accipitridae Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle

4

Accipitridae Haliastur sphenurus Whistling Kite

1 x

Accipitridae Hieraaetus morphnoides Little Eagle V

6 x

Falconidae Falco berigora Brown Falcon

1 x

Falconidae Falco longipennis Australian Hobby

1 x

Falconidae Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon

9 x

Rallidae Fulica atra Eurasian Coot

1

Rallidae Gallinula tenebrosa Dusky Moorhen

3 x

Rallidae Gallirallus philippensis Buff-banded Rail

1 x

Rallidae Lewinia pectoralis Lewin's Rail

1 x

Rallidae Porphyrio porphyrio Purple Swamphen

1 x

Rallidae Porzana fluminea Australian Spotted Crake

1 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Rallidae Porzana tabuensis Spotless Crake

2 x

Haematopodidae Haematopus fuliginosus Sooty Oystercatcher V

4

Haematopodidae Haematopus longirostris Pied Oystercatcher E1

1

Charadriidae Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover

3 x

Charadriidae Vanellus miles Masked Lapwing

11 x

x

Scolopacidae Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

9

Scolopacidae Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper E1

5

Scolopacidae Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper V

2

Turnicidae Turnix varius Painted Button-quail

4

Laridae Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae Silver Gull

5 x

Laridae Thalasseus bergii Crested Tern

1

Cacatuidae Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo population in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Local Government Areas

E2

31

Cacatuidae Callocephalon fimbriatum Gang-gang Cockatoo V

31 x

x

Cacatuidae Calyptorhynchus lathami Glossy Black-Cockatoo V

26 x

Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo

80 x

x x x x

Cacatuidae Cacatua sanguinea Little Corella

36 x

Cacatuidae Cacatua tenuirostris Long-billed Corella

10 x

Cacatuidae Calyptorhynchus funereus Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo

21 x

Cacatuidae Eolophus roseicapillus Galah

30 x

x

Psittacidae Polytelis swainsonii Superb Parrot V V 1 x

Psittacidae Alisterus scapularis Australian King-Parrot

48 x

x

Psittacidae Glossopsitta concinna Musk Lorikeet

2 x

Psittacidae Glossopsitta pusilla Little Lorikeet V

6 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Psittacidae Platycercus adscitus White Cheeked Rosella

2

Psittacidae Platycercus adscitus adscitus x eximius

Eastern/Pale-headed Rosella

1

Psittacidae Platycercus elegans Crimson Rosella

65 x

x

Psittacidae Platycercus eximius Eastern Rosella

42 x

x

x

Psittacidae Psephotus haematonotus Red-rumped Parrot

1 x

Psittacidae Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus Scaly-breasted Lorikeet

2 x

Psittacidae Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet

111 x x x x x x

Cuculidae Cacomantis flabelliformis Fan-tailed Cuckoo

19 x

Cuculidae Cacomantis pallidus Pallid Cuckoo

5 x

Cuculidae Cacomantis variolosus Brush Cuckoo

4 x

Cuculidae Chalcites basalis Horsfield's Bronze-Cuckoo

6 x

Cuculidae Chalcites lucidus Shining Bronze-Cuckoo

6 x

Cuculidae Cuculus saturatus Himalayan Cuckoo

2 x

Cuculidae Eudynamys orientalis Eastern (Common) Koel

42 x

x

Cuculidae Eudynamys orientalis cyanocephala

1

Cuculidae Scythrops novaehollandiae Channel-billed Cuckoo

30 x

Strigidae Ninox connivens Barking Owl V

1 x

Strigidae Ninox strenua Powerful Owl V

60 x x

Strigidae Ninox novaeseelandiae Southern Boobook

30 x

Tytonidae Tyto novaehollandiae Masked Owl V

5 x

Tytonidae Tyto javanica Eastern Barn Owl

1

Alcedinidae Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra

105 x

x x x x

Alcedinidae Todiramphus macleayii Forest Kingfisher

1

Alcedinidae Todiramphus sanctus Sacred Kingfisher

23 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Coraciidae Eurystomus orientalis Dollarbird

25 x

Pittidae Pitta versicolor Noisy Pitta

1 x

Menuridae Menura novaehollandiae Superb Lyrebird

27 x

Climacteridae Cormobates leucophaea White-throated Treecreeper

29 x

Ptilonorhynchidae Ptilonorhynchus violaceus Satin Bowerbird

9 x

Ptilonorhynchidae Sericulus chrysocephalus Regent Bowerbird

1 x

Maluridae Malurus cyaneus Superb Fairy-wren

37 x

x

Maluridae Malurus lamberti Variegated Fairy-wren

32 x

Maluridae Malurus lamberti lamberti

1

Acanthizidae Acanthiza lineata Striated Thornbill

13 x

Acanthizidae Acanthiza nana Yellow Thornbill

3 x

Acanthizidae Acanthiza pusilla Brown Thornbill

43 x

Acanthizidae Acanthiza sp. Unidentified Thornbill

2

Acanthizidae Gerygone albogularis White-throated Gerygone

6

Acanthizidae Gerygone mouki Brown Gerygone

17 x

Acanthizidae Hylacola pyrrhopygia Chestnut-rumped Heathwren

3 x

Acanthizidae Origma solitaria Rockwarbler

7 x

Acanthizidae Sericornis frontalis White-browed Scrubwren

59 x

x x

Acanthizidae Sericornis magnirostra Large-billed Scrubwren

1 x

Pardalotidae Pardalotus punctatus Spotted Pardalote

43 x

x

Pardalotidae Pardalotus striatus Striated Pardalote

2 x

Meliphagidae Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris Eastern Spinebill

51 x

Meliphagidae Anthochaera carunculata Red Wattlebird

59 x

x x

Meliphagidae Anthochaera chrysoptera Little Wattlebird

39 x

Meliphagidae Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater E4A E 12 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus chrysops Yellow-faced Honeyeater

21 x

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus fuscus Fuscous Honeyeater

1 x

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus leucotis White-eared Honeyeater

13 x

Meliphagidae Lichenostomus melanops Yellow-tufted Honeyeater

91 x

Meliphagidae Lichmera indistincta Brown Honeyeater

1

Meliphagidae Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner

135 x x x x x x

Meliphagidae Manorina melanophrys Bell Miner

2

Meliphagidae Meliphaga lewinii Lewin's Honeyeater

18 x

Meliphagidae Melithreptus brevirostris Brown-headed Honeyeater

2 x

Meliphagidae Melithreptus lunatus White-naped Honeyeater

3 x

Meliphagidae Myzomela sanguinolenta Scarlet Honeyeater

3 x

Meliphagidae Philemon corniculatus Noisy Friarbird

10 x

Meliphagidae Phylidonyris niger White-cheeked Honeyeater

20 x

Meliphagidae Phylidonyris niger niger

1

Meliphagidae Phylidonyris novaehollandiae New Holland Honeyeater

20 x

Psophodidae Cinclosoma punctatum Spotted Quail-thrush

3 x

Psophodidae Psophodes olivaceus Eastern Whipbird

53 x

x

Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera Varied Sittella V

1 x

Campephagidae Coracina novaehollandiae Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike

28 x

x

x

Campephagidae Coracina papuensis White-bellied Cuckoo-shrike

1

Campephagidae Coracina tenuirostris Cicadabird

5 x

Campephagidae Lalage sueurii White-winged Triller

1 x

Pachycephalidae Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush

19 x

Pachycephalidae Falcunculus frontatus frontatus Eastern Shrike-tit

1

Pachycephalidae Pachycephala pectoralis Golden Whistler

32 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Pachycephalidae Pachycephala rufiventris Rufous Whistler

10 x

Oriolidae Oriolus sagittatus Olive-backed Oriole

4 x

Oriolidae Sphecotheres vieilloti Australasian Figbird

1 x

Artamidae Artamus cyanopterus Dusky Woodswallow

1 x

Artamidae Artamus superciliosus White-browed Woodswallow

1 x

Artamidae Cracticus nigrogularis Pied Butcherbird

6 x

x

Artamidae Cracticus tibicen Australian Magpie

76 x x x x x x

Artamidae Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird

53 x

x x x x

Artamidae Strepera graculina Pied Currawong

128 x x x x x x

Dicruridae Dicrurus bracteatus Spangled Drongo

4 x

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa Grey Fantail

38 x

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura albiscapa alisteri

1

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura leucophrys Willie Wagtail

7 x

Rhipiduridae Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail

13 x

Corvidae Corvus coronoides Australian Raven

64 x x x x x x

Corvidae Corvus mellori Little Raven

1

Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark

21 x

Monarchidae Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch

13 x

Monarchidae Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher

2 x

Monarchidae Myiagra rubecula Leaden Flycatcher

11 x

Petroicidae Eopsaltria australis Eastern Yellow Robin

60 x

Petroicidae Eopsaltria australis australis

2

Petroicidae Microeca fascinans Jacky Winter

3

Petroicidae Petroica boodang Scarlet Robin V

3 x

Petroicidae Petroica rosea Rose Robin

6 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Timaliidae Zosterops lateralis Silvereye

65 x

Hirundinidae Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow

27 x

x

x x

Hirundinidae Petrochelidon ariel Fairy Martin

1

Hirundinidae Petrochelidon nigricans Tree Martin

1 x

Pycnonotidae Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul *

11 x

Turdidae Turdus merula Eurasian Blackbird *

5 x

Turdidae Zoothera lunulata Bassian Thrush

1

Turdidae Zoothera sp. Unidentified ground thrush

1

Sturnidae Sturnus tristis Common Myna *

40 x

x x

x

Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling *

9 x

Nectariniidae Dicaeum hirundinaceum Mistletoebird

4 x

Estrildidae Neochmia temporalis Red-browed Finch

41 x

Passeridae Passer domesticus House Sparrow *

6 x

Mammalia (55)

Ornithorhynchidae Ornithorhynchus anatinus Platypus

1 x

Tachyglossidae Tachyglossus aculeatus Short-beaked Echidna

21 x

Dasyuridae Antechinus flavipes Yellow-footed Antechinus

4 x

Dasyuridae Antechinus sp. Unidentified Antechinus

1

Dasyuridae Antechinus stuartii Brown Antechinus

113 x

Dasyuridae Antechinus swainsonii Dusky Antechinus

1

Dasyuridae Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll V E 12 x

Dasyuridae Sminthopsis murina Common Dunnart

8 x

Peramelidae Isoodon macrourus Northern Brown Bandicoot

2

Peramelidae Isoodon obesulus obesulus Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern)

E1 E 179 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Peramelidae Isoodon/Perameles sp. Unidentified Bandicoot

2

Peramelidae Perameles nasuta Long-nosed Bandicoot

72 x

Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V

11 x

Vombatidae Vombatus ursinus Common Wombat

4 x

Burramyidae Cercartetus nanus Eastern Pygmy-possum V

30 x

Petauridae Petaurus breviceps Sugar Glider

42 x

Pseudocheiridae Petauroides volans Greater Glider

1 x

Pseudocheiridae Pseudocheirus peregrinus Common Ringtail Possum

116 x x x

x x

Acrobatidae Acrobates pygmaeus Feathertail Glider

3 x

Phalangeridae Trichosurus sp. brushtail possum

9 x

Phalangeridae Trichosurus vulpecula Common Brushtail Possum

279 x

x

x

Macropodidae Macropus robustus Common Wallaroo

2 x

Macropodidae Macropus rufogriseus Red-necked Wallaby

4 x

Macropodidae Wallabia bicolor Swamp Wallaby

94 x x

Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox V V 880 x

x

x x

Emballonuridae Saccolaimus flaviventris Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat V

1

Molossidae Mormopterus "Species 2" Undescribed Freetail Bat

6

Molossidae Mormopterus norfolkensis Eastern Freetail-bat V

2 x

Molossidae Tadarida australis White-striped Freetail-bat

15 x

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V 1 x

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat

21 x

x

x x

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat

4 x

Vespertilionidae Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis Eastern Bentwing-bat V

11 x

x

Vespertilionidae Nyctophilus geoffroyi Lesser Long-eared Bat

3 x

Vespertilionidae Nyctophilus sp. Long-eared bat

1



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Vespertilionidae Scotorepens orion Eastern Broad-nosed Bat

5 x

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus darlingtoni Large Forest Bat

1

x

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus pumilus Eastern Forest Bat

1

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus regulus Southern Forest Bat

3 x

Vespertilionidae Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat

10 x

Muridae Hydromys chrysogaster Water-rat

1

Muridae Mus musculus House Mouse *

20 x

x

Muridae Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse

V 2 x

Muridae Rattus fuscipes Bush Rat

92 x

Muridae Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat *

2 x

Muridae Rattus rattus Black Rat *

35 x

x

x

Muridae Rattus sp. Rat

6

Canidae Canis lupus Dingo, domestic dog *

9 x

Canidae Canis lupus familiaris Dog *

16 x

x

Canidae Vulpes vulpes Fox *

39 x

Felidae Felis catus Cat *

10 x

x

Leporidae Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit *

15 x

Equidae Equus caballus Horse *

4 x

x

Bovidae Capra hircus Goat *

2 x

Delphinidae Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose Dolphin

1

Reptilia (47)

Dermochelyidae Dermochelys coriacea Leathery Turtle E1 E 1

Chelidae Chelodina longicollis Eastern Snake-necked Turtle

3 x

Chelidae Emydura sp. Unidentified Emydura

1

Gekkonidae Diplodactylus vittatus Wood Gecko

4 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Gekkonidae Oedura lesueurii Lesueur's Velvet Gecko

1 x

Gekkonidae Phyllurus platurus Broad-tailed Gecko

9 x

Gekkonidae Underwoodisaurus milii Thick-tailed Gecko

8 x

Pygopodidae Lialis burtonis Burton's Snake-lizard

13 x

Pygopodidae Pygopus lepidopodus Common Scaly-foot

20 x

Scincidae Acritoscincus duperreyi Eastern Three-lined Skink

1

Scincidae Acritoscincus platynota Red-throated Skink

4 x

Scincidae Cryptoblepharus virgatus Cream-striped Shinning-skink

5 x

Scincidae Ctenotus robustus Robust Ctenotus

1 x

Scincidae Ctenotus taeniolatus Copper-tailed Skink

12 x

Scincidae Egernia cunninghami Cunningham's Skink

6 x

Scincidae Egernia whitii White's Skink

2 x

Scincidae Eulamprus quoyii Eastern Water-skink

54 x

x

Scincidae Eulamprus tenuis Barred-sided Skink

5 x

Scincidae Lampropholis delicata Dark-flecked Garden Sunskink

52 x

x

x

Scincidae Lampropholis guichenoti Pale-flecked Garden Sunskink

23 x

x

Scincidae Saiphos equalis Three-toed Skink

4 x

Scincidae Saproscincus mustelinus Weasel Skink

11 x

x

Scincidae Tiliqua rugosa Shingle-back

1 x

Scincidae Tiliqua scincoides Eastern Blue-tongue

54 x

Agamidae Amphibolurus muricatus Jacky Lizard

2 x

Agamidae Physignathus lesueurii Eastern Water Dragon

40 x

Agamidae Physignathus lesueurii lesueurii Eastern Water Dragon

1

Agamidae Pogona barbata Bearded Dragon

14 x

Agamidae Rankinia diemensis Mountain Dragon

1 x



FAMILY

SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME


DEC 2006

Surveys completed**

TSC ACT

EPBC ACT

UBM 2012

UBM 2006

UBM 2005

LesryK 2004

UBM 2003

Varanidae Varanus gouldii Gould's Goanna

1 x

Varanidae Varanus rosenbergi Rosenberg's Goanna V

6 x

Varanidae Varanus varius Lace Monitor

18 x

Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops nigrescens Blackish Blind Snake

11 x

Typhlopidae Ramphotyphlops sp. Blind snake

1

Boidae Morelia spilota Carpet & Diamond Pythons

4

Boidae Morelia spilota spilota Diamond Python

2 x

Colubridae Dendrelaphis punctulatus Common Tree Snake

11 x

Elapidae Acanthophis antarcticus Common Death Adder

11 x

Elapidae Cacophis squamulosus Golden-crowned Snake

9 x

Elapidae Cryptophis nigrescens Eastern Small-eyed Snake

1

Elapidae Demansia psammophis Yellow-faced Whip Snake

7 x

Elapidae Furina diadema Red-naped Snake

8 x

Elapidae Hemiaspis signata Black-bellied Swamp Snake

3 x

Elapidae Notechis scutatus Tiger Snake

5 x

Elapidae Pseudechis porphyriacus Red-bellied Black Snake

15 x

Elapidae Pseudonaja textilis Eastern Brown Snake

4 x

Elapidae Vermicella annulata Bandy-bandy

5 x



APPENDIX 5: List of Trees to be removed or impacted for proposed subdivision (source Tree Wise Men (Australia) Pty Ltd October 2011)

TREES TO BE REMOVED (NUMBER & SPECIES NAME)

LOT 2* LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5

Number of Blue Gum High Forest tree species

1 6 1 nil

T22 Pittosporum undulatum T321 Polyscias elegans T319 Eucalyptus.saligna

T25A Eucalyptus saligna

T322 Pittosporum undulatum

T325 Angophora floribunda

T326 Eucalyptus saligna

T374 Eucalyptus saligna

19 2 4 2

Number of non-Blue Gum High Forest tree species

T19 Phoenix canariensis T132 Liquidambar styracifua T135 Liquidambar styracifua T142 Waterhousea floribunda

T20 Strelitzia nicolai T324 Corymbia citriodora T318 Cupressus sp. T144 Calllitrus sp.

T22Pittosporum undulatum T320 Arbutus enudo

T23 Magnolia grandiflora T136 Braychiton acerifolius

T27Magnolia grandiflora

T28 Rhododendron sp.

T29 Rhododendron sp



TREES TO BE REMOVED (NUMBER & SPECIES NAME)

LOT 2* LOT 3 LOT 4 LOT 5

T30 Strelitzia nicolai

T31 Cedrus deodara

T32 Strelitzia nicolai

T40 Camellia japonica

T42 Jacaranda mimosifolia

T49 Rhododendron sp.


T54 Cinnamomum camphora

T55 Photinia robusta




Total number of trees

20 8 5 2

*Lot 2 is not in the BGHF mapped area (Smith & Smith 2006, UBM 2007)

Documents

Flora & Fauna Survey & Ecological Assessments...Flora: A total of 170 flora species was recorded for the eight (8) transects established in four (4) Subject Sites in the south-eastern