ecological assessment for the tramway oval and moore...

Ecological Assessment for the Tramway Oval and Moore Park Tennis Centre Work Sites, Moore Park

Prepared for

Laing O’Rourke

8 September 2014

Tr am wa y O va l a n d M o or e P a r k T e n n is C e n t r e W or k S i te , M o or e P ar k – E c o l o g i c a l As s e ss m e n t

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

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name Ecological Assessment for the Tramway Oval and Moore Park Tennis Centre Work Sites,

Moore Park

Project Number 14SUTECO-0063

Project Manager John Gollan

Prepared by John Gollan

Reviewed by Lucas McKinnon

Approved by Lucas McKinnon

Status Final

Version Number 3

Last saved on 8 September 2014

Cover

photographs

Two large figs (Ficus rubiginosa) and Castanospermum australe (Black bean) at the Moore

Park Tennis Centre Site (Photo by J. Gollan).

This report should be cited as „ELA 2014. Ecological Assessment for the Tramway Oval and Moore

Park Tennis Centre Work Sites, Moore Park. Prepared for Laing O‟Rourke by Eco Logical Australia,

Sutherland.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd.

Disclaimer

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and the Western Sydney Parklands Trust. The scope of services was defined in consultation with

the Western Sydney Parklands Trust, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and

other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and

readers should obtain up to date information.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this

report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific

assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 08/05/2014


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

Contents

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................. v

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

1.1 Subject site ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Description of the proposed works ............................................................................................... 1

2 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Database and literature review ..................................................................................................... 7

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

2.2.1 Impact assessment ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Survey limitations ......................................................................................................................... 8

3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Database and literature review ..................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Field survey .................................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.1 Fauna ............................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2.2 Fauna habitats .............................................................................................................................. 9

4 Direct and indirect impacts ..................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Direct impacts ............................................................................................................................. 11

4.1.1 Loss of fauna habitat .................................................................................................................. 11

4.2 Indirect impacts .......................................................................................................................... 11

5 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...................................................................................... 12

6 Impact assessment .................................................................................................................. 13

6.1 State listings ............................................................................................................................... 13

6.2 Commonwealth listings ............................................................................................................... 13

7 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 14

References ............................................................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A : Threatened species likelihood of occurrence ............................................................. 16

Appendix B Impact assessments (TSC Act listed species) .............................................................. 26

Appendix C - Impact Assessments (EPBC Act listed species) ........................................................ 29


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

List of figures

Figure 1: Location of the subject site ......................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Feature trees lining a pedestrian walkway (Lophostemon confertus on left of pathway) at the

Tramway Oval Site ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Feature trees (Araucaria cunninghamiana) delineated by bollards and among lawns at

Tramway Oval ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Figure 4: A feature tree (Ficus macrophylla; Tree# 16 in Table 1) amongst lawn at Moore Park Tennis

Centre ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 5 Feature trees adjacent to existing car park at the Moore Park Tennis Centre ............................ 5

Figure 6: Deep fissures and crevices on a Fig tree (Tree #13, Table 1) at the Moore Park Tennis Centre

provide potential roosting and shelter sites for microbats ........................................................................ 10

List of tables

Table 1: Trees recommended to be removed and retained by Bird (2014) at the subject site. Tree

numbers correspond to those of Bird (2014). ............................................................................................. 6

Table 2: List of fauna observed at the subject site ..................................................................................... 9


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

Executive summary

This report provides an ecological assessment of two small areas (2.49 ha) at Moore Park, south east

of the central business district (CBD) of Sydney, associated with the CBD and South East Light Rail

project (the Project), which was assessed as State Significant Infrastructure (DoP 2014). Although

Project Approval was received (SSI-6042), the original Environmental Impact Statement (CBD and

South East Light Rail Project, Environmental Impact Statement, TfNSW November 2013) and

associated Submissions Report (CBD and South East Light Rail Project, Submissions Report, TfNSW

March 2014) did not include an assessment for these ancillary work areas. The works at the subject

site includes reconfiguration of an existing parking lot and driveway, extension of existing turfed areas

and establishment of a temporary compound. The proposed works at the site will require removal of

native trees. These trees have been documented in a previous arborist report (the Moore Park Works

Tree Report, Bird, August 2014).

The impacts of the proposed development on those threatened entities considered known, likely or with

potential to occur at the subject site were analysed under Part 4.1 of the EP&A Act (provisions for State

Significant Development). Significant Impact Criteria (SIC) tests were undertaken for Matters of NES

listed under the EPBC Act that were known, likely or had the potential to occur in the study area.

A database search identified 32 threatened fauna that have been recorded or are likely to occur within a

10 x 10 km area of the subject site. The results of a likelihood of occurrence analysis identified two

threatened species that have the potential to use the subject site and may be impacted by the proposed

works. These species include:

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Eastern Bentwing Bat)

Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying Fox)

The species are highly mobile and there are adequate forage trees in the adjacent area. The site visit

found no evidence of threatened fauna occupancy and reaffirmed that the site was within a highly

disturbed and urbanised zone. Any disturbance to fauna that may use the area is not likely to be any

more significant than what is already experienced at the site. No threatened flora and ecological

communities were recorded or considered to have the potential to occur within the subject site.

An assessment consistent with the Draft Guidelines for Threatened Species Assessment (DEC and DPI

2005) and the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 for Matters of National Environmental Significant (DoE

2013) revealed that these species are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed works.

Tr am wa y O va l a n d M o or e P a r k T e n n is C e n t r e W or k S i te , M o or e P ar k – F l or a a nd F a u n a As s e s sm e nt

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

1 Introduction

This report has been commissioned by Laing O‟Rourke to provide an ecological assessment within two

sites at Moore Park, Sydney, New South Wales. The sites are situated within the development footprint

associated with the CBD and South East Light Rail (CSELR) Project. It is ELAs understanding that the

two sites, referred to as „Tramway Oval‟ and „Moore Park Tennis Centre‟, will be work areas during

construction phases (i.e. work compounds during construction) and/or be subject to upgrades of

existing driveways, parking areas and buildings.

The purpose of this report is to provide an ecological assessment of the two areas, reporting on the

ecological values of the two areas for threatened species, populations and ecological communities, the

likelihood of the areas to be utilised by threatened fauna and the potential impacts (if any) of the

proposed works to threatened fauna. A tree report (Bird2014) has been conducted for the site, which

identified trees that would be removed as part of the development. It is noted that the proposed car park

at the Tennis Centre site has been redesigned to allow for the retention of two large fig trees within the

site which is not currently reflected in the Tree Report.

As these trees are situated within a highly disturbed and managed landscape (lawns and ornamentals

gardens), it can be assumed that they represent the only habitat feature that could provide either forage

or roosting habitat for threatened fauna. Therefore this report focuses on the ecological value of these

trees.

1.1 Subject site

The subject site is defined as the area of „direct impact‟ from the proposal, and is located approximately

2.5 km southeast of Sydney‟s CBD (Figure 1). The sites are accessed on Anzac Parade, within the

area known as the Moore Park Precinct, which includes a mix of parklands, sports centres, transport

corridors and urban development. Tramway Oval is comprised of lawns and feature trees

(predominately Lophostemon confertus, Ficus rubiginosa, Phoenix canariensis and Araucaria

cunninghamii). The trees are demarcated with bollards and well-maintained with mulch (Figure 2 and

3). Most of the trees are around six metres tall with the exception of a few specimens of Canary Island

Date Palm (Phoenix canariensis) that reach around 10 metres. The Moore Park Tennis Centre consists

of lawns, feature trees and ornamental garden beds. Trees that are not maintained as hedges are

between three and 10 metres tall (Figure 4 and 5). Tree species include Ficus rubiginosa (Port

Jackson Fig), Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum), Eucalyptus saligna (Sydney Blue Gum) and

Castanospermum australe (Black Bean). Tree locations and species are documented in Bird (2014).

The study area for the proposed works is defined as the area of direct and indirect impacts, and for the

purposes of this report the term is synonymous with subject site, as there are not considered to be any

indirect impacts.

1.2 Descript ion of the proposed works

It is ELAs understanding that works at the subject site includes reconfiguration of driveway and car

park, and replacement of existing amenities blocks (Moore Park Tennis Centre only). Works at the

Tramway Oval include an extension of the turfed area, a bus loop and turning circle, and establishment

and operation of a temporary compound to support the CSELR Moore Park works.

Tr am wa y O va l a n d M o or e P a r k T e n n is C e n t r e W or k S i te , M o or e P ar k – F l or a a nd F a u n a As s e s sm e nt


A number of trees at the subject site, identified by Bird (2014), are to be removed to accommodate the

development, with the exception of the two figs (trees 13 and 14) which are proposed to be retained as

per the re-design of the car park currently being finalised by Laing O‟Rourke in consultation with

Centennial and Moore Park Trust. These are listed in Table 1.



Figure 1: Location of the subject site



Figure 2: Feature trees lining a pedestrian walkway (Lophostemon confertus on left of pathway) at the Tramway Oval Site

Figure 3: Feature trees (Araucaria cunninghamiana) delineated by bollards and among lawns at Tramway Oval



Figure 4: A feature tree (Ficus macrophylla; Tree# 16 in Table 1) amongst lawn at Moore Park Tennis Centre

Figure 5 Feature trees adjacent to existing car park at the Moore Park Tennis Centre – including two large fig trees likely to be retained due to proposed car park re-design



Table 1: Trees recommended to be removed and retained by Bird (2014) at the subject site. Tree numbers correspond to those of Bird (2014).

Tree Number(s) Species Recommendation

1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11 Eucalyptus botryoides Required to be removed due to

development

2, 10 Eucalyptus saligna Required to be removed due to

development

5 Eucalyptus saligna Remove due to poor health

6 Corymbia maculata Required to be removed due to

development

9, 12, 16 Ficus macrophylla Required to be removed due to

development

33, 34 Ficus macrophylla Retain

13*, 15 Ficus rubiginosa Required to be removed due to

development

14* Ficus rubiginosa Not viable for retention

17, 18, 20, 22 Araucaria cunninghamiana Required to be removed due to

development

19, 21, 23, 24 Araucaria cunninghamiana Retain

25, 26, 27, 29 Lophostemon confertus Required to be removed due to

development

30 Lophostemon confertus Retain

28 Phoenix canariensis Required to be removed due to

development

31, 32 Castenospermum australe Retain

*at time of report, the development was being redesigned in order to retain these trees (pers. comm. Jason Ambler, Project

Environmental Manager, Laing O‟Rourke).



2 Methods

2.1 Database and literature review

The following datasets, literature, maps and interpretation guidelines were reviewed to evaluate the

ecological values for threatened species at the study area:

Aerial photographs of the study area were used to locate ecological features.

BioNet (Atlas of NSW Wildlife) using a 10 x 10 km search area around the subject site

EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool using a search area with a 10 km radius of the

subject site

Threatened species, populations, ecological communities (TECs) and migratory species recorded

during the database searches (excluding aquatic and wetland species) were combined into a likelihood

of occurrence table (Appendix A). This was assembled by:

reviewing historical and recent records (i.e. the last 15 years)

reviewing the available habitat at the study and surrounding areas

reviewing the ecological and biological literature pertaining to each species, and,

applying expert knowledge of each species.

This information was then used to define likelihood of occurrence as either:

“Known” = species that have been observed or are likely to occur on the site

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

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

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

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

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

2.2 Field survey

The subject site was visited by ELA ecologist Dr John Gollan on the 29th of August 2014. Survey was

undertaken over approximately two hours. Trees that were identified for removal (as in Bird 2014 and

Table 1) were inspected and identified for signs of occupancy by fauna. Trees at the Tramway Oval

Site and not targeted by Bird (2014) were also inspected. Inspection involved looking for: scratchings

on trunks of trees, fur/hair, and faecal pellets on the ground around the trees, and nesting birds. The

presence of trees with hollows was also searched for as these are considered critical and significant

habitat for owls, microbats and arboreal mammals. Opportunistic sightings for amphibians, reptiles and

mammals were also recorded.

2.2.1 Impact assessment

The impacts of the proposed development on those threatened entities considered known, likely or with

potential to occur at the subject site were analysed under Part 4.1 of the EP&A Act (provisions for SSI).

Significant Impact Criteria (SIC) tests were undertaken for Matters of NES listed under the EPBC Act

that were known, likely or had the potential to occur in the study area.



2.2.2 Survey limitations

The survey aimed to record as many species as possible. However, it is acknowledged that this is not a

definitive list of fauna within the study area. More species would likely be recorded during a longer

survey over various seasons. Nevertheless, the techniques used in this investigation are considered

adequate to gather the data necessary to complete the project brief.

Full fauna survey following Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines were not

undertaken as sufficient detail to determine the likelihood of occurrence of threatened and migratory

species was achieved through habitat assessment. As such, further detailed fauna survey was not

considered necessary.



3 Results

3.1 Database and literature review

Database searches identified 32 threatened fauna that have been recorded or are likely to occur within

a 10 x 10 km area of the subject site. The results of the likelihood of occurrence analysis identified four

threatened species that have the potential to use the subject site and may be impacted by the proposed

works (Appendix A). Following site assessment this was reduced to two, as there were no aquatic

habitats that might be used by Large-footed Myotis, which is an aquatic foraging specialist, and East

Coast Freetail Bat is considered very rare in Sydney urban areas (Basham et al. 2010). These

following two species are included as potentially utilising the site for foraging:

Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis (Eastern Bentwing Bat) – foraging habitat

Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying Fox) – foraging habitat

3.2 Field survey

3.2.1 Fauna

Only six species (all birds) were observed during the two hour survey. These species (Table 2) are all

natives and are typical of those encountered in highly urbanised landscapes. Of note was the presence

of noisy miners (Manorina melanocephala), which is an aggressive species thought to displace other

bird species. Moreover, they can be considered urban specialists as they have increased in abundance

in highly urbanised areas frequented by humans (Parsons et al. 2006). No threatened fauna were

observed and other signs (hair, scats, etc.) of fauna were not found.

Table 2: List of fauna observed at the subject site

Species Common Name

Manorina melanocephala Noisy Miner

Cacatua galerita Sulphur Crested Cockatoo

Corvus sp. Australian Raven

Trichoglossus haematodus Rainbow Lorikeet

Threskiornis molucca Australian White Ibis

Hirundo neoxena Welcome Swallow

3.2.2 Fauna habitats

There were no hollow bearing trees at the subject site, so the potential to support breeding and roosting

for fauna is limited. There were two trees (#13 and #14 in Table 1) that offer the most potential to

support roosting areas for microbats. These trees contain deep fissures and crevices that offer good

shelter potential for these fauna (Figure 6). At the time of survey, these trees were fruiting heavily, and

so also offer forage trees for the Grey-headed Flying Fox. However, it is noted that construction

designs are currently being modified to retain these trees. Retaining these two trees will be useful for

mitigating any potential impacts from the removal of other trees at the site. There were no aquatic

habitats or man-made structure present at the subject sites.



Figure 6: Deep fissures and crevices on a Fig tree (Tree #13, Table 1) at the Moore Park Tennis Centre provide potential roosting and shelter sites for microbats



4 Direct and indirect impacts

This section outlines the anticipated direct and indirect impacts of the development on the ecological

values of the study area.

4.1 Direct impacts

4.1.1 Loss of fauna habitat

The study area provides potential habitat for a limited range of threatened and non-threatened fauna

species. The proposal will remove potential foraging, and roosting/sheltering habitat for fauna species

from the subject site.

Threatened and migratory fauna known or considered likely to utilise the subject site are:



In particular, Ficus spp., Eucalyptus spp. and Lophostemon confertus present at the site could provide a

food source for foraging Grey-Headed Flying Fox. However, these trees are common street trees in the

area and given that Flying Foxes are a very mobile, the impact of removing these trees at the subject site

is not considered significant. There are also no hollow bearing trees present at the study site that may be

used by East Coast Freetail Bat, although fissures in trees of the Ficus spp. may provide temporary

daytime refuge for this species. For, so there is no impact to roosting habitat for threatened microbats.

4.2 Indirect impacts

The proposed developments could indirectly impact on fauna species present in the study area through

changing noise and lighting levels, microclimates, increased human activity, introducing potential impacts

from rubbish, dumping and encouraging weed incursion through pedestrian traffic. However, given the

highly disturbed nature of the area and that the broader area is highly managed and maintained for

recreation, the proposed works are not expected to have indirect impacts above those already present at

the site.



5 Avoidance and mitigation measures

It is recommended that trees are retained where possible, and it is understood that Laing O‟Rourke are

currently looking to achieve this in relation to the two fig trees within the Tennis Centre site through

redesign works. Given it is unlikely that that threatened microbats will be roosting onsite, and that Grey-

headed Flying Foxes will not be roosting onsite during the daytime (they will return to preferred camp

locations), no further mitigation measures are recommended. Should night work be necessary to clear

trees, all care should be taken ensure no roosting or foraging Flying Foxes are present in the trees and all

works should cease until such times as the animals have moved on. It is recommended that this be

included in the Construction Environmental Management Plan for the proposed works, including

consideration of a supervising ecologist being present during the soft felling of trees if undertaken at night

time to ensure the protection of any fauna and to undertake potential injured animal responses.



6 Impact assessment

6.1 State l ist ings

Impact assessments in accordance with Part 4.1 of the EP&A Act was applied to the following species:



Individual assessments of the potential impacts of the proposal have been completed in accordance with

Draft Guidelines for Threatened Species Assessment (DEC and DPI 2005). These assessments are

included in Appendix B.

6.2 Commonwealth l ist ings

One matter of NES was assessed against the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013) for:


The test concluded that significant impacts are unlikely to occur to this threatened species (Appendix C).



7 Conclusions

This assessment revealed: (1) there would be no significant direct or indirect impacts to threatened

species and (2) the ecological values at the subject are low. Because of the highly disturbed and

urbanised nature of the surrounding area, and the intensive management at the subject site, any

impacts to the ecological values are considered minimal. While the development requires the removal

of trees that could be used for roosting or foraging by microbats and Grey-headed Flying Foxes, there

are similar habitats and resources in the surrounding area. These areas are abundant and accessible

in the immediate and wider area. Furthermore, the retention of two trees at the subject site (#13 and

14) is considered a useful mitigation strategy to minimise any impact to the ecological values of the site.

It is recommended that if trees are proposed to be removed during the evening, that all works should

cease if Grey-headed Flying Foxes are foraging in the trees until such times as the animals have moved

on. The presence of a supervising ecologist may be considered during soft felling of trees if undertaken

at night time to provide advice on fauna management and respond to any potential fauna injuries. This

should be included in the CEMP.



References

Basham, R., Law, B. and Banks, P. 2011. Microbats in a „leafy‟ urban landscape: are they persisting,

and what factors influence their presence? Austral Ecology, 36 (6), pp. 663-678.

Bird, G 2014. Moore Park Works Tree Report and Arboricultural Development Impact Assessment. A

report prepared for Laing O‟Rourke by Birds Tree Consultancy, www.birdstrees.com.au.

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

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) 2007. Threatened species assessment

guidelines – The Assessment of Significance. DECC, Heathcote.

Department of the Environment (DoE) 2014. Protected Matters Search Tool. Online

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html. Accessed 28/08/2014

Hoye, G. A., and Hall, L. S. 2008. Little Bent-wing Bat Minopterus australis. Pp 503-504. In van Dyck,

S. and Strahan, R. (eds). The Mammals of Australia. Third Edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Hoye, G. A., Law. B. S., and Allison. F. R. 2008. East-coast Free-tailed Bat Mormopterus norfolkensis.

Pp.491 - 492. In van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (eds). The Mammals of Australia. Third Edition. Reed

New Holland, Sydney.

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW OEH) 2014 BioNet the website for the Atlas of NSW

Wildlife. Online www://bionet.nsw.gov.au. Accessed 28/08/2014

Parsons, H., Major, R. E., and French, K. 2006. Species interactions and habitat associations of birds

inhabiting urban areas of Sydney, Australia. 31(2), pp. 217-227.

http://www.birdstrees.com.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html



Appendix A : Threatened species likelihood of occurrence

Summary of initial assessment to determine the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species,

populations and ecological communities in the proposal site.

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

from the database search within 5km radius of the subject site. These results are presented below.

Five terms for the likelihood of occurrence of species are used in this report. This assessment was

based on database or other records, presence or absence of suitable habitat, features of the proposal

site, results of the field survey and professional judgement. The terms for likelihood of occurrence are:

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

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

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

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

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

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



Scientific Name Common

Name

TSC

Act

EPBC

Act Habitat Associations*

Likelihood of Occurrence

Before site

visit

After site

visit

Amphibians

Litoria aurea

Green and

Golden Bell

Frog

E V

Inhabits marshes, dams and stream-sides, particularly those containing bullrushes (Typha

spp.) or spikerushes (Eleocharis spp.). Optimum habitat includes water-bodies that are

unshaded, free of predatory fish such as Plague Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki), have a

grassy area nearby and diurnal sheltering sites available. Some sites, particularly in the

Greater Sydney region occur in highly disturbed areas.

No No

Pseudophryne

australis

Red-

crowned

Toadlet

V

Occurs in open forests, mostly on Hawkesbury and Narrabeen Sandstones. Inhabits

periodically wet drainage lines below sandstone ridges that often have shale lenses or

cappings. Shelters under rocks and amongst masses of dense vegetation or thick piles of

leaf litter.

No No

Heleioporus

australiacus

Giant

Burrowing

Frog

V V

Forages in woodlands, wet heath, dry and wet sclerophyll forest (Ehmann 1997).

Associated with semi-permanent to ephemeral sand or rock based streams (Ehmann

1997), where the soil is soft and sandy so that burrows can be constructed (Environment

Australia 2000).

No No

Mixophyes

balbus

Stuttering

Frog E V

A variety of forest habitats from rainforest through wet and moist sclerophyll forest to

riparian habitat in dry sclerophyll forest (DECC 2007) that are generally characterised by

deep leaf litter or thick cover from understorey vegetation (Ehmann 1997). Breeding

habitats are streams and occasionally springs. Usually found fairly close to permanent

running water (Robinson 1998 ). Not known from streams disturbed by humans (Ehmann

1997) or still water environments (NSW Scientific Committee 2002).

No No

Birds




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Burhinus

grallarius

Bush

Stone-

curlew

E1 Inhabits open forests and grassy woodlands No No

Lathamus

discolor Swift Parrot E E

Swift Parrots breed in Tasmania between September and January and then migrates to

the mainland in autumn, where it forages on profuse flowering Eucalypts. This species

will occur in NSW during the autumn and winter eucalypt flowering period.

No No

Stictonetta

naevosa

Freckled

Duck V

Prefer permanent freshwater swamps and creeks with heavy growth of Cumbungi, Lignum

or Tea-tree. During drier times they move from ephemeral breeding swamps to more

permanent waters such as lakes, reservoirs, farm dams and sewage ponds

No No

Ninox strenua Powerful

Owl V

The Powerful Owl inhabits a range of vegetation types, from woodland and open

sclerophyll forest to tall open wet forest and rainforest. The Powerful Owl requires large

tracts of forest or woodland habitat but can occur in fragmented landscapes as well. The

species breeds and hunts in open or closed sclerophyll forest or woodlands and

occasionally hunts in open habitats. It roosts by day in dense vegetation comprising

species such as Turpentine (Syncarpia glomulifera), Black She-oak (Allocasuarina

littoralis), Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon), Rough-barked Apple (Angophora floribunda),

Cherry Ballart (Exocarpus cupressiformis) and a number of eucalypt species

Unlikely Unlikely




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Anthochaera

phrygia

Regent

Honey

Eater

E E, Mi

Regent Honeyeaters mostly occur in dry box-ironbark eucalypt woodland and dry

sclerophyll forest associations, wherein they prefer the most fertile sites available, e.g.

along creek flats, or in broad river valleys and foothills. In NSW, riparian forests containing

Casuarina cunninghamiana (River Oak), and with Amyema cambagei (Needle-leaf

Mistletoe), are also important for feeding and breeding. At times of food shortage (e.g.

when flowering fails in preferred habitats), Honeyeaters also use other woodland types

and wet lowland coastal forest dominated by Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) or

E. maculata (Spotted Gum) (Franklin et al. 1989; Geering & French 1998; Ley & Williams

1992; Oliver et al. 1999; Webster & Menkhorst 1992). Regent Honeyeaters sometimes

occur in coastal forest, especially in stands dominated by Swamp Mahogany and Spotted

Gum, but also in those with Southern Mahogany E. botryoides, and in those on sandstone

ranges with banksias Banksia in the understorey (Franklin et al. 1989; Higgins et al. 2001;

Menkhorst 1997c). They have been recorded in open forest including forest edges,

wooded farmland and urban areas with mature eucalypts (Garnett 1993). The Regent

Honeyeater primarily feeds on nectar from box and ironbark eucalypts and occasionally

from banksias and mistletoes (NPWS 1995). As such it is reliant on locally abundant

nectar sources with different flowering times to provide reliable supply of nectar

(Environment Australia 2000). In NSW, most records are scattered on and around the

Great Dividing Range, mainly on the North-West Plains, North-West Slopes and adjacent

Northern Tablelands, to west of Armidale; the Central Tablelands and Southern

Tablelands regions; and the Central Coast and Hunter Valley regions. The species is

concentrated around two main locations, the Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba

area, but Honeyeaters are also recorded along the coast in the Northern Rivers and Mid-

North Coast Regions, and in the Illawarra and South Coast Regions, from Nowra south to

Moruya, where small numbers are recorded in most years (D. Geering 1997, unpublished

data; Higgins et al. 2001; Webster & Menkhorst 1992).

No No




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Botaurus

poiciloptilus

Australasia

n Bittern E E

Terrestrial wetlands with tall dense vegetation, occasionally estuarine habitats (Marchant

& Higgins 1990). Found along the east coast and in the Murray-Darling Basin, notably in

floodplain wetlands of the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir Rivers

(Marchant & Higgins 1990; NPWS 1990). Reedbeds, swamps, streams, estuaries

(Simpson & Day 1999). Favours permananent shallow waters, edges of pools and

waterways, with tall, dense vegetation such as sedges, rushes and reeds on muddy or

peaty substrate. Also occurs in Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta and Canegrass

Eragrostis australasica on inland wetlands (NSW Scientific Committee, 2010). In WA it

probably occurs only on the western coastal plain between Lancelin and Busselton, in the

southern coastal region from Augusta to east of Albany and inland to some wetlands in

the jarrah forest belt, with small, isolated populations in swamps from west of Esperance

eastwards to near Cape Arid (Marchant & Higgins 1990). The largest concentration in WA

is said to occur in the Lake Muir wetlands complex (Jaensch & Vervest 1988a; Jaensch et

al. 1988).

No No

Dasyornis

brachypterus

Eastern

Bristlebird E E

Habitat is characterised by dense, low vegetation and includes sedgeland, heathland,

swampland, shrubland, sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest, as well as open

woodland with a heathy understorey. In northern NSW occurs in open forest with tussocky

grass understorey. All of these vegetation types are fire prone, aside from the rainforest

habitatas utilised by the northern population as fire refuge. Age of habitat since fires (fire-

age) is of paramount importance to this species; Illawarra and southern populations reach

maximum densities in habitat that has not been burnt for at least 15 years; however, in the

northern NSW population a lack of fire in grassy forest may be detrimental as grassy

tussock nesting habitat becomes unsuitable after long periods without fire; northern NSW

birds are usually found in habitats burnt five to 10 years previously.

No No




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Neophema

chrysogaster

Orange-

bellied

Parrot

CE

Breeds only in coastal south-west Tasmania and spends the winter in coastal Victoria and

South Australia (March/April - October/November), mostly within 3 km of the coast (Starks

et al. 1992). It nests in hollows in eucalypt trees which grow adjacent to its feeding plains.

It feeds on the seeds of several sedges and heath plants, including buttongrass. Its main

food preferences are found in sedgelands which have not been burned for between 3-15

years. Also included in the diet are seeds of three Boronia species and the everlasting

daisy Helichrysum pumilum.Migrating birds usually feed in coastal saltmarshes and

dunes, on beach-front vegetation including salt tolerant species such as sea rocket Cakile

maritima. They also eat various coastal native and introduced grasses. Recent records of

this species in NSW are rare, but it has been recorded at Comerong Island, Shoalhaven

Estuary, June 1986 (Morris 1986b; Starks 1988), a single bird at Shellharbour (G.

Southwell pers. comm. in Starks & Holdsworth 2003) and at Maroubra (B. Henson pers.

comm. in Starks & Holdsworth 2003) in 2003, possibly the same bird (Starks & Holdsworth

2003).

No No

Rostratula

australis

Australian

Painted

Snipe

E

Prefers fringes of swamps, dams and nearby marshy areas where there is a cover of

grasses, lignum, low scrub or open timber (DECC 2007). Nests on the ground amongst

tall vegetation, such as grasses, tussocks or reeds (ibid.). Breeding is often in response to

local conditions; generally occurs from September to December (DECC 2007). Roosts

during the day in dense vegetation (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). Forages nocturnally

on mud-flats and in shallow water (DECC 2007). Feeds on worms, molluscs, insects and

some plant-matter (ibid.).

No No




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Mammals

Dasyurus

maculatus

Spotted-

tailed Quoll V E

The Spotted-tailed Quoll inhabits a range of forest communities including wet and

dry sclerophyll forests, coastal heathlands and rainforests, more frequently

recorded near the ecotones of closed and open forest. This species requires

habitat features such as maternal den sites, an abundance of food (birds and

small mammals) and large areas of relatively intact vegetation to forage in.

Maternal den sites are logs with cryptic entrances; rock outcrops; windrows;

burrows.

No No

Pteropus

poliocephalus

Grey-

headed

flying fox

V V

Inhabits a wide range of habitats including rainforest, mangroves, paperbark

forests, wet and dry sclerophyll forests and cultivated areas. Camps are often

located in gullies, typically close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy.

Likely

Likely –

foraging

only

Miniopterus

schreibersii

oceanensis

Eastern

Bentwing

Bat

V

Associated with a range of habitats such as rainforest, wet and dry sclerophyll

forest, monsoon forest, open woodland, paperbark forests and open grassland. It

forages above and below the tree canopy on small insects. Will utilise caves, old

mines, and stormwater channels, under bridges and occasionally buildings for

shelter.

Potential

Potential –

foraging

only

Mormopterus

norfolkensis

East Coast

Freetail Bat V

Most records of this species are from dry eucalypt forest and woodland east of

the Great Dividing Range. Individuals have, however, been recorded flying low

over a rocky river in rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest and foraging in clearings

at forest edges. Primarily roosts in hollows or behind loose bark in mature

eucalypts, but have been observed roosting in the roof of a hut.

Unlikely Unlikely




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Myotis macropus

(formerly M.

adversus)

Large-

footed

Myotis

V

Large-footed Myotis is found in the coastal band from the north-west of Australia,

across the top-end and south to western Victoria. It is rarely found more than 100

km inland, except along major rivers. Will occupy most habitat types such as

mangroves, paperbark swamps, riverine monsoon forest, rainforest, wet and dry

sclerophyll forest, open woodland and River Red Gum woodland, as long as they

are close to water. This species forages over streams and pools catching insects

and small fish by raking their feet across the water surface

Potential No

Chalinolobus

dwyeri

Large-eared

Pied Bat V V

Roosts in caves (near their entrances), crevices in cliffs, old mine workings and in

the disused, bottle-shaped mud nests of the Fairy Martin (Petrochelidon ariel),

frequenting low to mid-elevation dry open forest and woodland close to these

features.

No No

Isoodon

obesulus

obesulus

Southern

Brown

Bandicoot

E E

Southern Brown Bandicoots are largely crepuscular (active mainly after dusk

and/or before dawn). They are generally only found in heath or open forest with a

heathy understorey on sandy or friable soils.

No No

Petrogale

penicillata

Brush-tailed

Rock

Wallaby

V V

Brush-tailed rock-wallabies live in highly rocky terrain such as escarpments,

boulder piles and rocky pinnacles. They generally prefer sites that are north-

facing and contain numerous ledges and crevices.

No No

Phascolarctos

cinereus Koala V V

Koalas are found between south-eastern South Australia and Queensland, but

only where enough suitable trees have been left. No No

Pseudomys

novaehollandiae

New

Holland

Mouse

V V

Known to inhabit open heathlands, woodlands and forests with a heathland

understorey and vegetated sand dunes

No No




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Reptiles

Hoplocephalus

bungaroides

Broad-

headed

Snake

V V

Shelters in rock crevices and under flat sandstone rocks on exposed cliff edges during

autumn, winter and spring. Moves from the sandstone rocks to shelters in crevices or

hollows in large trees within 500m of escarpments in summer

No No

Migratory Terrestrial Species

Haliaeetus

leucogaster

White-

bellied Sea-

Eagle

Mi

Found in coastal habitats (especially those close to the sea-shore) and around terrestrial

wetlands in tropical and temperate regions of mainland Australia and its offshore islands.

The habitats occupied by the sea-eagle are characterised by the presence of large areas

of open water (larger rivers, swamps, lakes, the sea). Birds have been recorded in (or

flying over) a variety of terrestrial habitats

No No

Hirundapus

caudacutus

White-

throated

Needletail

Mi

An aerial species, and while they occur over most types of habitat, they are probably

recorded most often above wooded areas, including open forest and rainforest, and may

also fly between trees or in clearings, below the canopy, but they are less commonly

recorded flying above woodland

No No

Merops ornatus Rainbow

Bee-eater Mi

The Rainbow Bee-eater occurs mainly in open forests and woodlands, shrublands, and in

various cleared or semi-cleared habitats, including farmland and areas of human

habitation. It usually occurs in open, cleared or lightly-timbered areas that are often, but

not always, located in close proximity to permanent water

No No

Monarcha

melanopsis

Black-faced

Monarch Mi

The Black-faced Monarch mainly occurs in rainforest ecosystems, including semi-

deciduous vine-thickets, complex notophyll vine-forest, tropical (mesophyll) rainforest,

subtropical (notophyll) rainforest, mesophyll (broadleaf) thicket/shrubland, warm

temperate rainforest, dry (monsoon) rainforest and (occasionally) cool temperate

rainforest.

No No




Name

TSC

Act

EPBC



Before site

visit

After site

visit

Monarcha

trivirgatus

Spectacled

Monarch Mi Wet forests, mangroves (Simpson and Day 1999). No No

Myiagra

cyanoleuca

Satin

Flycatcher Mi Satin Flycatchers mainly inhabit eucalypt forests, often near wetlands or watercourses. No No

Rhipidura

rufifrons

Rufous

Fantail Mi

In east and south-east Australia, the Rufous Fantail mainly inhabits wet sclerophyll

forests, often in gullies dominated by eucalypts. No No

Disclaimer: Data extracted from the Atlas of NSW Wildlife and DoE Protected Matters Report are only indicative and cannot be considered a comprehensive inventory.

„Migratory marine species‟, „listed marine species‟ listed on the EPBC Act (and listed on the DoE protected matters report), and migratory wetland species have not been

included in this table, since they are considered unlikely to occur within the study area due to the absence of marine habitat. Please note that all obligate marine species were

not included.

*All information taken from Threatened Species Profile Information of NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (www.

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/ ) and/or the Department of Environment (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl)

Terms: CE = Critically Endangered; E = Endangered; E2 = Endangered Population; V = Vulnerable; M = Migratory.



Appendix B Impact assessments (TSC Act listed species)

An assessment of the impacts of the proposal on species, populations and ecological communities

listed under Schedules 1 and 2 of the TSC Act was conducted. The Project will be assessed under Part

4.1 of the EP&A Act (provisions for SSD) and consequently this impact assessment was undertaken in

accordance with the Guidelines for threatened species assessment (DEC and DPI 2005).

The study area contains highly managed parkland area and so does not support areas of native

vegetation. Impacts to native flora have not been considered. The subject site does, however, contain

trees that could provide habitat and roosting structure for a number of threatened fauna species.

Potentially impacted species are listed below and a full list of species recorded within a 10 x 10 km area

of the study area is found in Appendix A. Each species has been assessed for potential impacts that

may result.

Threatened Ecological Community

None

Threatened Fauna


Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey headed flying fox)

Migratory species

None




The species has recently been revised to Miniopterus orianae oceanensis (Churchill 2008), recognising

the subspecies to full species status. Eastern Bentwing Bat occupies a range of forested environments

(including wet and dry sclerophyll forests, monsoon forest, open woodland, Melaleuca forests and open

grasslands) that occur along the coastal portion of eastern Australia, from Cape York in north

Queensland to Castlemaine in Victoria (Churchill 2008).

This highly mobile species is capable of large regional movements in relation to seasonal differences in

reproductive behaviour and winter hibernation. Though individuals often use numerous roosts, it

congregates in large numbers at a small number of nursery caves to breed and hibernate (breeding or

roosting colonies can number from 100 to 150,000 individuals).

This species primary roost in caves but has been recorded in mines, culverts, stormwater channels,

buildings, and occasionally tree-hollows (Hoye and Hall 2008). This species occupies a number of

roosts within specific territorial ranges usually within 300 km of the maternity cave, and may travel large

distances between roost sites (Hoye and Hall 2008).

How is the proposal likely to affect the lifecycle of a threatened species and/or population?

The subject site potentially provides foraging habitat for Eastern Bentwing Bat, but due to the absence

of caves and structures, roosting habitat is not present at the subject site. The loss of trees due to the

development (as listed in Table 1) is unlikely to affect the lifecycle of these species.

How is the proposal likely to affect the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological

community?

As there are no caves at the subject site, the proposal would not impact on preferred roosting or

breeding habitat for the species (i.e. caves, culverts). The species are highly mobile and would be able

to access foraging resources in the locality.

How is the proposal likely to affect current disturbance regimes?

The entire subject site has been highly modified due to previous management as parkland, ornamental

garden beds and roadside verges. While the proposed works will not affect the current disturbance

regime.

How is the proposal likely to affect habitat connectivity?

The proposed development will not affect connectivity of habitat of the area. The Eastern Bentwing Bat

highly mobile and alternative habitat is available in the surrounding study areas.

How is the proposal likely to affect critical habitat?

Not applicable - critical habitat cannot be declared for vulnerable species.


How is the proposal likely to affect the lifecycle of a threatened species and/or population?

The development at the subject site will not affect the lifecycle of this species. While the native trees at

the site are potential food/forage trees, the site does not support a camp (a roosting site).

How is the proposal likely to affect the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological

community?



The proposed development will remove native vegetation that is a potential food source for this species.

However, the Grey-headed Flying Fox is a mobile species and alternative forage trees are available in

the immediate and surrounding area.

How is the proposal likely to affect current disturbance regimes?

The proposal is not likely to affect current disturbance regimes. The subject site is within a highly

disturbed and urbanised area, and so disturbance regimes are not expected to be above what is

currently expected at the site.

How is the proposal likely to affect habitat connectivity?

The proposal is not likely to affect habitat connectivity. There are adequate and ample trees in the

surrounding area to compensate for any losses as a result of the proposed development.


© E C O L O G I C A L A U S T R A L I A P T Y L T D 29

Appendix C - Impact Assessments (EPBC Act listed species)

The EPBC Act Administrative Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. set out ‘Significant Impact Criteria’

that is used to assist in determining whether a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on

matters of national environmental significance. Matters listed under the EPBC Act as being of having

national environmental significance include:

Listed threatened species and ecological communities

Listed migratory species

Wetlands of International Importance

The Commonwealth marine environment

World Heritage properties

National Heritage places

Nuclear actions

Specific Significant Impact Criteria are provided for each matter of national environmental significance

except for threatened species and ecological communities in which case separate criteria are provided

for species listed as endangered and vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The species subject to the

Significant Impact Criteria are:

• Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey headed flying fox)

Matters to be addressed Impact (Commonwealth legislation)

a. any

environmental

impact on a

World Heritage

Property;

No

No Commonwealth listed World Heritage Property will be directly or indirectly impacted

by the proposed works.

b. any

environmental

impact on

Wetlands of

International

Importance;

No

No RAMSAR or internationally important wetlands will be directly or indirectly affected

by the proposed works.

c. any impact on

Commonwealth

Listed Critically

Endangered or

No.

No Commonwealth Listed Critically Endangered or Endangered Species will be directly

or indirectly affected by the proposed works.



Matters to be addressed Impact (Commonwealth legislation)

Endangered

Species.

c. any impact on

Commonwealth

Listed threatened

Species.

Yes. The proposed works may impact the Grey-headed Flying Fox through the

removal of native vegetation trees. These trees are likely to be used as food resources

However, the impact is expected to be minimal as there are native trees in the

immediate area.

d. Any impact on

Commonwealth

Listed

Threatened

Ecological

Communities of

Critically

Endangered

Ecological

Community

No.

The project will not impact on Commonwealth Listed Threatened Ecological

Communities of Critically Endangered Ecological Community

e. any

environmental

impact on

Commonwealth

Listed Migratory

Species;

No.

The project does not include Commonwealth Listed Migratory Species

f. does any part of

the Proposal

involve a Nuclear

Action;

No

The project does not include a Nuclear Action.

g. any

environmental

impact on a

Commonwealth

Marine Area;

No

There are no Commonwealth Marine Areas within the subject site.

h. In addition, any

direct or indirect

impact on

Commonwealth

lands

No

The project does not directly or indirectly affect Commonwealth land.

Conclusion of EPBC Act Assessment

It is unlikely that the impact of the proposed work will result in a significant impact to Grey-headed

Flying Foxes. Therefore, referral to the Commonwealth under the EPBC Act is not required.

P r o j ec t N am e


HEAD OFFICE

Suite 4, Level 1

2-4 Merton Street

Sutherland NSW 2232

T 02 8536 8600

F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Level 6

299 Sussex Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T 02 8536 8650

F 02 9264 0717

ST GEORGES BASIN

8/128 Island Point Road

St Georges Basin NSW 2540

T 02 4443 5555

F 02 4443 6655

CANBERRA

Level 2

11 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2601

T 02 6103 0145

F 02 6103 0148

NEWCASTLE

Suites 28 & 29, Level 7

19 Bolton Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

T 02 4910 0125

F 02 4910 0126

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street

Narooma NSW 2546

T 02 4476 1151

F 02 4476 1161

COFFS HARBOUR

35 Orlando Street

Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450

T 02 6651 5484

F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE

92 Taylor Street

Armidale NSW 2350

T 02 8081 2681

F 02 6772 1279

MUDGEE

Unit 1, Level 1

79 Market Street

Mudgee NSW 2850

T 02 4302 1230

F 02 6372 9230

PERTH

Suite 1 & 2

49 Ord Street

West Perth WA 6005

T 08 9227 1070

F 08 9322 1358

WOLLONGONG

Suite 204, Level 2

62 Moore Street

Austinmer NSW 2515

T 02 4201 2200

F 02 4268 4361

GOSFORD

Suite 5, Baker One

1-5 Baker Street

Gosford NSW 2250

T 02 4302 1220

F 02 4322 2897

DARWIN

16/56 Marina Boulevard

Cullen Bay NT 0820

T 08 8989 5601

F 08 8941 1220

BRISBANE

Suite 1 Level 3

471 Adelaide Street

Brisbane QLD 4000 T 07 3503 7191 F 07 3854 0310

1300 646 131 www.ecoaus.com.au

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

ecological assessment for the tramway oval and moore...

Documents