gunninah - Kempsey Shire › council › public-exhibition › ... · • Flora & Fauna Assessment Report (FFAR) – Flametree Ecological Consulting Jan 2014 • Belle O’Connor

gunninah

Saltwater Residential Development South West Rocks

Proposed Stage 1 and Concept Plan

Section 5A Assessments of Significance

F Dominic Fanning - Gunninah

October 2015

f dominic fanning - gunninah

gunninah

Saltwater Residential Development

South West Rocks

Proposed Stage 1 and Concept Plan

Section 5A Assessments of Significance

F Dominic Fanning - Gunninah

October 2015

© Copyright Statement

This document and the intellectual material it contains are the property of F Dominic Fanning. It may not be copied, reproduced or otherwise used, in whole or in part, other than in accordance with the express written permission of F Dominic Fanning.

f dominic fanning - gunninah 1

SALTWATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTH WEST ROCKS

PROPOSED STAGE 1 and CONCEPT PLAN

SECTION 5A ASSESSMENTS of SIGNIFICANCE

October 2015

TABLE of CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 The Subject Land 1 1.3 Current Circumstances 2 1.4 Existing Reports and Documentation 3

2 DESCRIPTION of the SUBJECT LAND 4 2.1 The Subject Land 4 2.2 The Stage 1 Site 4

3 THREATENED BIOTA 5 3.1 Wallum Froglet 5 3.2 Other Threatened Fauna 6

4 SECTION 5A of the EP&A ACT 7 4.1 Statutory Considerations 7 4.2 Definitions Used in This Assessment 7

5 FACTORS for CONSIDERATION 9

6 ASSESSMENTS of SIGNIFICANCE 10 6.1 Relevant Threatened Biota 10 6.2 Considerations and Assumptions 10

7 WALLUM FROGLET 12 7.1 Stage 1 Development Application 12 7.2 Concept Plan Development Application 14

8 OTHER THREATENED FAUNA 16 8.1 Stage 1 Development Application 16 8.2 Concept Plan Development Application 17

f dominic fanning – gunninah 1

SALTWATER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SOUTH WEST ROCKS

PROPOSED STAGE 1 and CONCEPT PLAN

SECTION 5A ASSESSMENTS of SIGNIFICANCE

October 2015

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The project which is the subject of this Report is the proposed residential development of the Saltwater site at South West Rocks (Figure 1). The ultimate project is the staged development of the subject land – pursuant to a Concept Plan for the whole of the development (Figure 1). The current Development Application (DA) is for Stage 1 of the proposal – which is a 29-lot residential subdivision occupying 3.2 hectares in the northeast of the land (Figure 2). The Stage 1 DA will involve:

• the creation of 29 residential lots

• the installation of infrastructure and services

• the construction of two stormwater detention and treatment basins and a number of bioretention swales

It is noted that all future stages of the Saltwater development project would be the subject of individual merit-based assessment pursuant to the relevant statutes and environmental planning policies. Whilst the Concept Plan for the whole project is part of the current considerations relating to the site, there is no application for a consent for implementation or construction of the Concept Plan at this juncture. 1.2 The Subject Land The Saltwater Development site is located on Lot 35 in DP 1167775 at South West Rocks, and occupies a total of 65.53 hectares. It is zoned variously R1 – General Residential, RU2 – Rural Landscape and E2 – Environmental Conservation. The subject land is located to the east of the existing township of South West Rocks – between the South West Rocks Golf Club and Saltwater Lagoon, with a small area of existing residential development to the north and newly approved residential developments to the south.


A two-lot subdivision of the subject land has been approved by Council (in March 2014) – resulting in a small lot of 4.15ha in the northeast of the land (within which Stage 1 of the project is located) and a residue of 61.38ha. The Stage 1 development proposal is to be undertaken on the small lot (zoned R1 – General Residential) – in the northeast of the subject land. A further detailed description of the subject land is provided below.

STATEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS SALTWATER RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION

Our Ref: G1302.SEE 14 February 2014; Amended: 10 December 2014 Page 38

Illustration 5.1 LEP Zoning Map

Clause 5.5 Development within the coastal zone. The subject land is located within the coastal zone, therefore the provision of this clause applies. The main objective of this clause is to implement the provisions of the NSW Coastal Policy. Development within the coastal zone should be consistent with the principles listed below: (i) protect, enhance, maintain and restore the coastal environment, its associated

ecosystems, ecological processes and biological diversity and its water quality, and (ii) protect and preserve the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of

the NSW coast, and (iii) provide opportunities for pedestrian public access to and along the coastal

foreshore, and (iv) recognise and accommodate coastal processes and climate change, and (v) protect amenity and scenic quality, and

1.3 Current Circumstances The proposed Stage 1 development and the Concept Plan for the remainder of the land have been documented in an array of documents (see below) – including relevantly a Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) and a Flora & Fauna Assessment Report (FFAR). The project is the subject of consideration and assessment by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP) – which has received submissions from a number of opponents to the project, and is to receive further submissions from the proponent and the Council.


Opponents of the project, with the support of the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), have commissioned Dr Arthur White (Biosphere Environmental Consultants P/L) to undertake a review of the SEE and FFAR. I have been asked to prepare an Assessment of Significance for the Stage 1 DA and for the Concept Plan – for presentation to the JRPP on behalf of the proponent. 1.4 Existing Reports and Documentation There are a number of relevant Reports and documents regarding the proposed development of the subject land and the relevant threatened biota.

• Statement of Environmental Effects (SEE) – Geoff Smyth & Associates P/L Dec 2014

• Flora & Fauna Assessment Report (FFAR) – Flametree Ecological Consulting Jan 2014

• Belle O’Connor Street, South West Rocks. Ecological Issues & Assessment Report – Whelans InSites Aug 2009

• Belle O’Connor Street, South West Rocks. Response to Submissions – Whelans InSites April 2010

• South West Rocks LES Investigations. Detailed Wallum Froglet Study – Connell Wagner P/L Feb 2008

• Saltwater Development Area Phillip Drive & Belle O’Connor Street South West Rocks – Connell Wagner P/L Feb 2008

• South West Rocks Fauna Study – Cumberland Ecology July 2008

• Review of Statement of Environmental Effects. Saltwater Residential Subdivision Waianbar Avenue, South West Rocks. Impacts on the Wallum Froglet – Dr Arthur White, Biosphere Environmental Consultants 08 Feb 2015

Other information regarding the Wallum Froglet has been gleaned from the published literature and websites – including:

• National Recovery Plan for the Wallum Sedgefrog and Other Wallum-dependent Frog Species

• Wallum Froglet Fact Sheet – Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage Protection Feb 2013

• Wallum Froglet Profile – NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Mar 2014


2 DESCRIPTION of the SUBJECT LAND 2.1 The Subject Land The subject land has been substantially cleared and used in part as a tree plantation – with significant areas of permanently slashed grassland, sedgeland and low heath (see photographs in Appendices A and B). Specific characteristics of the subject land include the following.

• Areas of cleared grassland and sedgeland that are maintained by regular slashing – in the southeast and northwest of the land.

• Areas of low heath that are also maintained by slashing (at a slightly higher level) – in the southwest and patchily throughout.

• Areas of tree plantation – consisting of a series of slightly raised linear mounds for the paperbarks or tea-trees, with intervening low areas for drainage (slashed and filled with grasses and sedges.

• Small to moderate patches of moist heathland – at various locations.

• Paperbark or eucalypt woodland stands at various locations – along the eastern side, along Saltwater Creek (the southern side), and the western and northern boundaries.

• The broad band of woodland, forest and heathland surrounding Saltwater Creek – approximately along the southern boundary of the land,

• Two notable drains through the centre of the land.

• Cleared and highly disturbed land – particularly in the western half of the Stage 1 site. The subject land is clearly highly modified from its original circumstances, although it is not highly degraded or contaminated. Nevertheless, most of the subject land is artificial as a result of its ongoing management and maintenance. 2.2 The Stage 1 Site The Stage 1 site on the subject land at South West Rocks is more disturbed than most of the subject land (Appendix A) – with areas of high disturbance, tracks and gravel roads, rubble and debris and patches of weeds. The eastern and southern parts of the Lot containing the Stage 1 development are only lightly disturbed woodland and heathland, and have been incorporated into the Conservation Area between Stage 1 and Saltwater Lagoon. The area between (ie the eastern part of Stage 1) is a slashed grassland/sedgeland of both native and introduced species.


3 THREATENED BIOTA 3.1 Wallum Froglet The Wallum Froglet Crinia tinnula is the only threatened species of real relevance to the Stage 1 DA, and is the main threatened species of relevance to the Concept Plan. A substantial proportion of the subject land has been identified as habitat or potential habitat for the Wallum Froglet (Connell Wagner 2008; pers obs). The water table over much of the land is close to the surface, large portions of the land are frequently inundated as a result of substantial rainfall events, and the undulations in the land (natural and/or artificial) can hold water for reasonable periods. These circumstances facilitate expansions and contractions in the distribution of the Wallum Froglet over the subject land – based on rainfall events and on periods of ‘consistent’ (or persistent) rainfall.

• During droughts or prolonged dry periods, Wallum Froglets will be confined to the moister parts of the land – close to Saltwater Creek (approximately along the southern boundary of the land) and Saltwater Lagoon (to the immediate east of the land).

• When climatic circumstances are more favourable (with frequent and/or heavy rainfall), large areas of the subject land will be inundated for varying periods of time – enabling Wallum Froglets to expand into broad areas of the land with ephemeral ponds and drainage ditches, and to forage in moist grasslands, sedgelands and heaths.

During prolonged droughts or dry periods, therefore, the Wallum Froglet population on the subject land and on adjoining lands around Saltwater Creek and Lagoon must be able to survive in the more constrained moist habitats remaining around and adjacent to those features. If that were not so, then the population of Wallum Froglets at this general location would not be able to survive such conditions. It is also relevant to note that Wallum Froglets are moderately widespread at this general location and in the “locality” (see attached figures):

• Connell Wagner (2008) identified Wallum Froglets calling from a broad band across the central parts of the subject land

• calls have been recorded from the Stage 1 development area (Whelans InSites 2009; Biosphere 2015)

• there are records in the northern part of the land to the immediate south (Cumberland Ecology 2008) and in flooded paddocks further to the south (Whelans InSites 2009)

• there are many records of the Wallum Froglet in the “locality” – EOH Wildlife Atlas. Most of the subject land at South West Rocks has been substantially modified over a long period. It has been cleared, levelled, drained and managed as a functioning tree plantation – involving both the earthworks noted and regular management and slashing of most of the land. There is an array of artificial drains across the subject land, as well as other depressions, that would function as ephemeral ponds during wet periods. The Wallum Froglet is capable of utilising such artificial habitats and structures – including drainage ditches and artificial depressions. As noted by Dr Arthur White (Biosphere 2015) – “it is most probable that Wallum Froglets use sections of the open drains that cross the site as breeding locations”.


As further noted by Dr White (Biosphere 2015):

• Wallum Froglets “were found to move up to 200 metres depending on water availability of [sic] food resources” in a study at Kurnell

• “Breeding sites used were often ephemeral and located a short distance away from refuge areas”

• “Wallum Froglets utilise wet heath areas as refuge areas. They retreat to these areas when conditions are dry and they are unable to forage elsewhere”

• “When conditions are more suitable for movement away from refugia, Wallum Froglets crawl through the heath and may venture out into much more open areas, including grassland or even bare ground. They may remain in grassland for several days if conditions are not too hot and dry; they will not remain in bare sites during the day”

The behaviours and circumstances described by Dr White certainly apply in broad measure at least to the subject land at South West Rocks. In this regard, my own observations from previous investigations and currently are as follows.

• There is substantial suitable habitat – refugia as well as temporary foraging habitat and ephemeral breeding ponds – for Wallum Froglets around Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon, including widely on the subject land

• There are substantial areas of both refugia and ephemeral habitat for the Wallum Froglet in the conserved lands around both Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon – set aside in the zoning process for the lands, and respected and protected in the approved Malbec Major Project (to the south of Saltwater Creek)

• The use of artificial habitats and resources on the subject land and adjoining sites, and on other sites within the distribution of the Wallum Froglet, demonstrates that elements of the proposed developments (such as bioretention swales and detention basins) can provide suitable habitat for the Wallum Froglet

3.2 Other Threatened Fauna Other threatened fauna that have been recorded in the vicinity include several microchiropteran bats, the Grey-headed Flying Fox, Squirrel Glider, Brush-tailed Phascogale and Glossy Black Cockatoo. All of these species are dependent on forest and woodland habitats and resources. A number of other threatened fauna have been raised as potentially present on the subject land – including an array of bird species (all of which are nomadic or migratory) and the Common Planigale (which utilises a range of coastal vegetation types and habitats). Again, all of the bird species are dependent on forest and woodland habitats, and the Common Planigale (if present) would ustilise the undisturbed heath and woodland habitats, rather than the cleared, slashed and disturbed vegetation on the subject land.


4 SECTION 5A of the EP&A ACT 4.1 Statutory Considerations The NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) has modified the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) by, inter alia, including a requirement to determine “whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats”. Section 5A of the EP&A Act details seven factors which “must be taken into account”, as relevant, by a consent or determining authority in administering Sections 78A, 79B, 79C, 111 and 112 of the EP&A Act, as relevant. In addition to the seven factors which “must be taken into account” (where relevant) pursuant to Section 5A(2) of the EP&A Act (see below), Section 5A(1)(b) of the EP&A Act requires that “any [relevant] assessment guidelines” promulgated by the relevant authorities (particularly in this instance the OEH) also “must be taken into account in deciding whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats”. In undertaking the formal Section 5A Assessments of Significance documented below, the author has “taken into account” the Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines: the Assessment of Significance prepared by the then Department of Environment & Climate Change (now OEH), dated August 2007. 4.2 Definitions Used in This Assessment The definitions of areas relevant to the assessment of potential or real impacts arising from the proposed development are:

• Stage 1 site the Stage 1 development area in the northeastern corner of Lot 35 in DP 1167775 at South West Rocks

• subject land the whole of Lot 35 in DP 1167775 at South West Rocks

• study area 1 the “subject site” and areas which may be indirectly affected – which would include areas around and downslope of Stage 1 (potentially as far as Saltwater Lagoon) and soils and groundwater to the south and east of the subject site. It is used inter alia to define a “local population”

• locality an area of 5 kilometre radius around the “subject site” Local Population The DECC Assessment Guidelines state inter alia that the “local population” of a threatened species is “the population that occurs in the study area” (see above). However, the Guidelines also state that:

• the “local population of resident fauna species comprises those individuals known or likely to occur in study area, as well as any individuals occurring in adjoining areas (contiguous or otherwise) that are known or likely to utilise habitats in the study area”.

1 This definition accords with that in the DECCW 2007 Guidelines


The Wallum Froglet is the threatened species of most relevance to the proposed Stage 1 development proposal at Saltwater. As detailed above, this species is widely distributed on the Saltwater development site, as well as on other lands in the vicinity (see Chapter 3.1). This species is addressed in the detailed Section 5A Assessment of Significance below. There are a number of other threatened fauna species that have been recorded on and/or could occur on or near to the subject site - as discussed in the FFAR for Stage 1 (Flametree 2014). However, given the nature and condition of the subject site (as documented above), there is no likelihood that a “local population” of any such species would be dependent on the site for their survival at this location. Indeed, it is not likely that even individuals of any such species would be dependent on the subject site – given the nature and condition of the subject site itself. Further, given the high mobility of the potentially relevant threatened fauna species, those individuals that have been recorded on the site or which might occur would also doubtless also use other available foraging habitat in the vicinity and locality. There is no likelihood that the proposed development of Stage 1 of the Saltwater project would, or indeed even could, place “a viable local population” of any such species “at risk of extinction”. Risk of Extinction It is to be noted that Factors a, b and c of Section 5A of the EP&A Act address the issue of whether the relevant biota “is likely to be placed at risk of extinction” (emphasis added). The DECC Assessment Guidelines define the “risk of extinction” as:

• “the likelihood that the local population will become extinct over the short-term or in the long-term as a result of direct or indirect impacts on the viability of that population”.

In considering the likelihood of a “significant effect” to be imposed as a result of any proposed development, therefore, it is necessary to consider whether that activity renders the relevant biota “likely” to be completely obliterated or rendered totally unviable on a “local” scale (noting the definition of “local population” cited above). In this regard, it is not sufficient that a proposal be likely to adversely affect such biota in an adverse way, or even that there be some notable reduction in population or the distribution or abundance of relevant resources. Rather, it must be “likely” that the “local occurrence” of an “endangered ecological community” be rendered incapable of surviving in the locality. The relevant ‘test’ is “extinction” - not merely ‘reduction’ (in population or habitat).


5 FACTORS for CONSIDERATION There are seven factors which “must be taken into account”, where relevant, pursuant to Section 5A of the EP&A Act (as amended in 2005) – in order to determine “whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats”.

(a) in the case of 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.

(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.

(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

(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.

(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.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly).

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.


6 ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE 6.1 Relevant Threatened Biota The threatened species which has been identified as of particular relevance to the residential development of the subject land at South West Rocks, especially to the Stage 1 development proposal, is the Wallum Froglet Crinia tinnula. Information regarding this species and its circumstances at South West Rocks is provided in Chapter 3.1 of this Report. The detailed Section 5A Assessments of Significance provided below (Chapter 7) address the likelihood of a “significant effect” being imposed upon the Wallum Froglet as a consequence of (a) the Stage 1 DA and (b) the proposed Concept Plan. The “viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet at this location is taken to be the population of this species based in and around Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon – including on the subject land, on lands to the south (the Malbec site and flooded paddocks to its south), and doubtless on lands to the immediate south and east of Saltwater Lagoon. This “viable local population” would rely on the moister refugia in wet heath and swamp forest vegetation around Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon during dry periods, and would expand into the ephemeral habitats of flooded grasslands and sedgelands (including where slashed) inter alia on the subject land and in the eastern parts of Stage 1. Other threatened fauna that have been recorded on or adjacent to the subject land at South West Rocks (Chapter 3.2) are addressed in the Section 5A Assessments of Significance provided in Chapter 8 of this Report. There are no threatened flora species present or likely on the subject land (Connell Wagner 2008; Flametree 2015). There are no “threatened ecological communities” or “endangered populations” of relevance to that part of the subject land to be affected by the proposed Concept Plan or the Stage 1 development of the subject land at South West Rocks (Connell Wagner 2008; Flametree 2015). 6.2 Considerations and Assumptions The following considerations and assumptions have been applied by the author of this Report to the proposed Stage 1 development and the Concept Plan for the subject land at South West Rocks.

• Development of the subject land will be undertaken in a sensitive manner – subject to a comprehensive Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP), which will be vigorously implemented and enforced.

• A Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) will be prepared for the Conservation Area and implemented as relevant with each DA.


• Approval of the Concept Plan at this juncture does not ensure that all, or any, of the development depicted is approved or even will be approved pursuant to subsequent DAs for each Stage of the project.

• Each DA for each Stage will need to satisfy the merit-based approvals process pursuant to the EP&A Act and the TSC Act.

• It is assumed by the author of this Report that some modifications to the Concept Plan will be likely prior to the submission of subsequent DAs.

• Wallum Froglets are capable of using artificial features (including excavated drains and depressions, drainage swales and flooded introduced grasslands) as habitat. Indeed, as noted by Dr Arthur White – “it is most probable that Wallum Froglets use sections of the open [artificial] drains that cross the site as breeding locations”.

• On that basis, it can reasonably be assumed likely that the bioretention swales and detention basins proposed for the development can and will be utilised by Wallum Froglets – especially if specifically designed, planted and maintained inter alia for that purpose.


7 WALLUM FROGLET 7.1 Stage 1 Development Application Factors (b), (c) and (e) of Section 5A of the EP&A Act are of no relevance to the Wallum Froglet. Factor (a) Viable Local Population – Risk of Extinction The area to be occupied by the Stage 1 development is predominantly cleared, and much of it is highly degraded (see photographs in Appendix A) - and has been so for a considerable time. The western part in particular is somewhat elevated, dry for much of the time, and modified in part by tracks, debris and earthworks. Most of the western part of the Stage 1 development area is of no particular or likely relevance for the Wallum Froglet, even on an occasional basis – given the levels of disturbance and degradation (see photographs in Appendix A). Nevertheless, on the basis of evidence provided to Dr Arthur White, it appears that Wallum Froglets do use artificial features on the western boundary (constructed drains and disturbed vegetation) on occasions at least. As noted by Dr Arthur White – “it is most probable that Wallum Froglets use sections of the open drains that cross the site as breeding locations”. No Wallum Froglet calls were heard on the date of my site inspection (which was a warm dry day). Conversely, the eastern part of Stage 1 (with slashed grassland/sedgeland or low heath) is likely to be utilised by Wallum Froglets – during periods of high rainfall when the ground is inundated and contains patches of standing water. Currently, however, the eastern part of the Stage 1 site is not being used by Wallum Froglets – as it is too dry. Furthermore, and very importantly, the Stage 1 development area occupies only a minute fraction of potential habitat for the Wallum Froglet at this location. The most relevant potential habitat for the Wallum Froglet on the small lot on which the Stage 1 development is to occur (along the southeastern side of that lot) has been zoned for environmental protection purposes, and is to be retained (Figure 2). Further, the detention basins and bioretention swales within and around Stage 1 will provide supplementary habitat for this species at this location. And, the stormwater management regime for Stage 1 has been designed inter alia to avoid or minimise the discharge of contaminants or pollutants into the groundwater or into any of the vegetation surrounding Saltwater Lagoon – including areas of slashed grassland/sedgeland or low heath within the Conservation Area adjacent to the Stage 1 development. Additionally, the Wallum Froglets that reside in the vicinity of the Stage 1 development area, or which utilise the Stage 1 site on occasions, constitute only a very small proportion of the “viable local population” at this location, as discussed above. Whilst the Stage 1 development of the subject land will remove some patches of artificial and/or highly modified habitat for the Wallum Froglet, there is no likelihood of the Stage 1 DA of the Saltwater project per se “placing a viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet “at risk of extinction”.


Factor (d) Habitat Removal or Modification The area of potential habitat to be ‘removed or modified’ for the Stage 1 development at Saltwater is very small relative to the extent of habitat for this species at this location. Further, much of the area to be affected (particularly in the western half of Stage 1) is regarded as of poor quality, and it is not likely that most of this area would be utilised to a significant extent by Wallum Froglets – because of the levels of disturbance and degradation (see photographs in Appendix A). Conversely, Wallum Froglets have been recorded using the artificial drainage features along the western boundary of the Stage 1 site. This demonstrates the adaptability of the Wallum Froglet, and the ready opportunities for the creation of supplementary habitat for this species - in the bioretention swales and detention basins to be constructed for the project. The eastern parts of Stage 1, although likely to be used by Wallum Froglets on occasions, are currently too dry for the Wallum Froglet. Some of this area is doubtless utilised when climatic conditions are suitable, but there are also other large areas of such ephemeral habitat within the Conservation Area as well as much more extensively within the subject land and on other lands in the vicinity. The Stage 1 development will not fragment any habitat for the Wallum Froglet, given that suitable habitat (including ephemeral habitat will be retained in the Conservation Area on the eastern side of Stage 1 and that suitable ephemeral habitat will be provided within the development footprint. The Stage 1 development of the subject land at South West Rocks will not remove an area of habitat that could be considered of “importance … to the long-term survival of the species … in the locality”. The Stage 1 development will remove a small area of ephemeral habitat for the Wallum Froglet, but will also retain and provide for the management of both ephemeral and refuge habitat for this species within Stage 1 itself. In terms of “the locality”, the area to be affected is extremely small. The “removal or modification of habitat” as a consequence of the Stage 1 development at Saltwater will not place “a viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet “in the locality” at any increased “risk of extinction”. Factor (f) Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans A National Recovery Plan for Wallum Frogs has been prepared, addressing inter alia the Wallum Froglet. The proposed Stage 1 development at South West Rocks will not impose any relevant adverse impacts in contravention of the Recovery Plan – despite the removal of some ephemeral habitat for the Wallum Froglet. It is not a requirement of any development, pursuant to NSW legislation, to impose no adverse impacts on threatened biota or their habitats. As documented above, however, the proposed Stage 1 development at South West Rocks will not result in “a viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet being “placed at risk of extinction”, or even threatened with a significant reduction in habitat or population size.


Factor (g) Key Threatening Processes The imposition or exacerbation of any relevant, or even potentially relevant, “key threatening processes” on the Stage 1 site at South West Rocks will not place “a viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet “ at risk of extinction”. Nor would it constitute a “significant effect” on that species. Conclusions It is accepted by the author of this Report that some “effect” (albeit only a very minor effect) on the Wallum Froglet is likely as a consequence of the proposed Stage 1 residential development at South West Rocks. However, it is my opinion that there is NO likelihood that the Stage 1 development proposal per se would impose a “significant effect” on the Wallum Froglet – as only very small area of ephemeral habitat is to be removed and the proposed development will provide supplementary habitat of likely utility for this species. 7.2 Concept Plan Development Application Factors (b), (c) and (e) of Section 5A of the EP&A Act are of no relevance to the Wallum Froglet. Factor (a) Viable Local Population – Risk of Extinction There are substantial areas of ephemeral habitat for the Wallum Froglet to be retained within the substantial conservation areas on the subject land at South West Rocks, and on adjoining lands. All of the refuge areas for the Wallum Froglet are to be retained within the substantial conservation areas on the subject land. There are also very substantial areas of suitable ephemeral habitat for the Wallum Froglet protected within the substantial conservation areas on the subject land, as well as on adjoining lands (such as the Malbec land to the immediate south). It is NOT “likely” that the Saltwater project would place “a viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet “at risk of extinction” – because of the extent of habitat (refuge and ephemeral) that will be retained, (noting that the ephemeral habitat will be retained close to the refuge habitat, and not separated from it) and that supplementary habitat for this species will be provided - in the bioretention swales and detention basins to be constructed for the project. Factor (d) Habitat Removal or Modification Substantial areas of ephemeral habitat are to be retained and maintained within the Conservation Area to the south and east of the Saltwater project, as well as much more extensively within the subject land and


on other lands in the vicinity. All of the refuge habitat around Saltwater Creek and Saltwater Lagoon is to be retained and protected. The “removal or modification of habitat” as a consequence of the Saltwater project is not “likely” to place the “viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet present “in the locality” at any increased “risk of extinction”. Factor (f) Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans The proposed Saltwater development at South West Rocks will not impose any relevant adverse impacts in contravention of the Recovery Plan – despite the removal of some ephemeral habitat for the Wallum Froglet. It is not a requirement of any development, pursuant to NSW legislation, to impose no adverse impacts on threatened biota or their habitats. Factor (g) Key Threatening Processes The imposition or exacerbation of any relevant “key threatening processes” on the Saltwater site at South West Rocks will not place “a viable local population” of the Wallum Froglet “ at risk of extinction”. Nor would it constitute the imposition of a “significant effect” on that species. Conclusions It is accepted by the author of this Report that some “effect” on the Wallum Froglet will be imposed as a consequence of the proposed Saltwater residential development at South West Rocks – given that a proportion of the ephemeral habitat at this general location is to be removed. However, it is my opinion that the proposed Saltwater residential development is not “likely” to impose a “significant effect” on the Wallum Froglet – given the retention of all refuge habitat and the retention and protection of a substantial area of ephemeral habitat. Additional ephemeral habitat will also be created – in the detention basins and bioretention swales within and around the periphery of the proposed development.


8 OTHER THREATENED FAUNA Factors (b), (c) and (e) of Section 5A of the EP&A Act are of no relevance to any of the potential additional threatened species which have been recorded in the vicinity (see Chapter 3.2. 8.1 Stage 1 Development Application Factor (a) Viable Local Population – Risk of Extinction As noted above, the area to be occupied by the Stage 1 development is predominantly cleared, and much of it is highly degraded or modified (see photographs in Appendix A) - and has been so for a considerable time. Parts are somewhat elevated, dry for much of the time, and modified by tracks, debris and earthworks. The Stage 1 development area has very few resources for the other threatened fauna species known to occur in the locality (see Connell Wagner 2005; Cumberland Ecology 2008; InSites 2009). There are just a few trees or tall shrubs on the Stage 1 site, and these would be of little or no relevance for any of the other threatened species that could even potentially occur on the site. The overwhelming majority of suitable habitat for these biota adjacent to the Stage 1 (woodland and tall shrubland) site is located to the east and southeast (around Saltwater Lagoon), and will be retained for conservation purposes in the long-term. Similarly, most of the heathland present (which might be habitat for the Common Planigale) will be retained around the southeastern boundary of the Stage 1 site. There is no likelihood of the Stage 1 DA of the Saltwater project per se “placing a viable local population” of any of the additional threatened fauna species “at risk of extinction” – given the retention of all or most of the relevant habitat and resources for those biota. Factor (d) Habitat Removal or Modification The Stage 1 development at Saltwater will remove essentially very little or no potential habitat for any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site. Virtually all of the additional threatened fauna species that could potentially occur are dependent on woodland, forest or tall shrubland habitats – and these resources are scarce on the Stage 1 site. They are also isolated from other areas of such habitat. The Common Planigale also utilises these habitats, as well as areas of heath. The Stage 1 development of the subject land at South West Rocks will not remove an area of habitat that could be considered of “importance … to the long-term survival” of any of theses species “in the locality”, and will not isolate any habitat for these species. The “removal or modification of habitat” as a consequence of the Stage 1 development at Saltwater will not place “a viable local population” of any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site “in the locality” at any increased “risk of extinction”.


Factor (f) Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans Given the circumstances (as described above), the proposed Stage 1 development at South West Rocks will not impose any relevant adverse impacts in contravention of any Recovery Plan for any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site. As documented above, the proposed Stage 1 development at South West Rocks will not result in “a viable local population” of any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site being “placed at risk of extinction”. Factor (g) Key Threatening Processes The only likely relevant “key threatening process” would be the “clearing of native vegetation”. However, the loss of the small patches of tall shrubland or woodland from the Stage 1 site would be of no relevance to any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site. The imposition or exacerbation of any relevant “key threatening processes” on the Stage 1 site at South West Rocks will not place “a viable local population” of any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site “at risk of extinction”. Nor would it constitute a “significant effect” on any of those species. Conclusions It is the opinion of the author of this Report opinion that there is no likelihood that the Stage 1 development proposal per se would impose a “significant effect” on any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site. 8.2 Concept Plan Development Application Factors (b), (c) and (e) of Section 5A of the EP&A Act are of no relevance to any of the potential additional threatened species Factor (a) Viable Local Population – Risk of Extinction Most of the Saltwater site is characterised by slashed grasslands, sedgelands or heathlands, with patches of intact heathlands and peripheral bands of forest, woodland or tall shrubland. These bands of taller vegetation types essentially surround the subject land – although they are most extensive to the south (around Saltwater Creek), the west (adjacent to Saltwater Lagoon) and in the northwest. Most of those vegetation types present on the subject land are to be retained along the eastern and southern sides of the subject land – within the extensive Conservation Area on the subject land. However, the Concept Plan does indicate the removal much of the existing area of these vegetation types in the northwest.


There are extensive areas of woodland, open forest and tall shrublands, as well as heathlands, around the subject land, as well as on adjoining lands. There are also very substantial areas of these vegetation types in the extensive National Parks and other reserves in the vicinity and locality. Whilst the removal of some of the woodland, open forest, tall shrublands and heathlands from the subject land is proposed as part of the Concept Plan, it is the opinion of the author of this Report that this loss of habitat would not be likely to impose significant adverse impacts upon any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject land – because of the extent of those habitats and resources in the immediate vicinity and locality. It is NOT “likely”, in my opinion, that the Saltwater project would place “a viable local population” of any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site “at risk of extinction”. Factor (d) Habitat Removal or Modification The proposed Saltwater project will remove only a relatively small area of potential habitat and resources for any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site. By contrast, there are substantial areas of such habitats and resources in the surrounding environment, including very extensive areas in the nearby National Parks and other reserves in the vicinity and locality. Further:

• the proposed development will not isolate any habitat for any of these threatened species from any other habitat for any such species – given that the areas of woodland, open forest, tall shrublands and heathlands proposed to be removed are located at boundaries with existing residential development, the golf course and toe STP; and

• the vegetation which will be removed is not likely to be of “importance … to the long-term survival” of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site “in the locality” – because of the extent of such habitats and resources in the surrounding environment, including very extensive areas in the nearby National Parks and other reserves in the vicinity and locality.

The “removal or modification of habitat” as a consequence of the Saltwater project is not “likely” to place a “viable local population” of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site at any increased “risk of extinction” - “in the locality”. Factor (f) Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans The proposed Saltwater development at South West Rocks is not likely to impose any significant adverse impacts in contravention of any Recovery Plans for any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site – despite the removal of some potential habitat for some of those species. As noted above, there are substantial areas of such habitats and resources in the surrounding environment, including very extensive areas in the nearby National Parks and other reserves in the vicinity and locality. It is not “likely”, therefore, that any of those species would be placed at “risk of extinction” as a consequence of the proposed Saltwater project.


Factor (g) Key Threatening Processes The imposition or exacerbation of any “key threatening processes” on the Saltwater site at South West Rocks would not be likely to place “a viable local population” of any of the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site “at risk of extinction” – because of:

• the relatively small area of suitable or potential habitat to be removed compared to these resources in the vicinity and locality;

• the substantial area of suitable habitat and resources for any such biota in the immediate vicinity and locality;

• the retention of suitable resources in the Conservation Area on and around the subject land; and

• the mobility of most of the relevant or potentially relevant species. Conclusions It is accepted by the author of this Report that some “effect” on the additional threatened fauna species which might possibly occur on the subject site will be imposed as a consequence of the proposed Saltwater residential development at South West Rocks. However, it is my opinion that the proposed Saltwater residential development is not “likely” to impose a “significant effect” on these biota – given the retention of relevant habitat and resources on the subject land and in the vicinity and locality.

F Dominic Fanning Gunninah

Documents

gunninah - Kempsey Shire › council › public-exhibition › ... · • Flora & Fauna Assessment Report (FFAR) – Flametree Ecological Consulting Jan 2014 • Belle O’Connor