flora & fauna survey subdivision at 452 greggs road ... · flora & fauna survey –...

Flora & Fauna Survey – Subdivision at 452 Greggs Road, Kurrajong

UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd i

Asociat

DRAFT V1

Flora & Fauna

Surveys for a

Proposed

Subdivision:

Lot E in DP 373372

at

452 Greggs Road,

Kurrajong

Prepared for Glenn Falson & Associates

on behalf of Ms. Nicole Hatherly

15th December 2016

Prepared by UBM Ecological

Consultants Pty Ltd

UBM Ecological Consultants P/L

‘St Clements’ 1238 Bells Line of Road

Kurrajong Heights Tel/Fax:(02) 4567 7979

[email protected] www.urbanbushland.com.au


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

UBM Ecological Consultants has been commissioned by Glenn Falson & Associates on behalf of Ms

Nicole Hatherly to undertake a Flora and Fauna Survey for Lot E at 452 Greggs Road at Kurrajong

(hereafter ‘the Subject Property’). The current Proposal is to subdivide existing Lot E into two (2)

residential allotments; with each new allotment retaining an established residential dwelling. The

Property is currently zoned RU-1 Primary Production.

The purpose of these investigations is to provide accurate information about the ecological resources

of the Subject Property and to identify any species, populations or ecological communities listed under

the legislation (TSC Act/EPBC Act) that occur, or have the potential to occur on site.

The presence of any threatened entity may provide some level of constraint for the Proposal to

subdivide the Subject Property for residential purposes. If any such threatened entities are present,

the direct and indirect impacts of the development must be assessed under Section 5(a) of the NSW

Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) (this Assessment of Significance is

commonly referred to as the ‘Seven-part Test’).

For any threatened entity, (that is deemed to be of National Significance) the impacts of the Proposal

must be reviewed under the Commonwealth Significant Assessment Guidelines. The role of the

Ecological Investigations (this Report) is to flag any issues of ecological significance to be addressed in

the subdivision proposal.

Results

Plant Communities: Hawkesbury City Council maps the vegetation on the Subject Property as Shale

Sandstone Transition Woodland (a threatened plant community), while Tozer et al. (2010) mapping

for the former DECCW, maps the Property as ‘Cleared’, with a small area of bushland in the north-

eastern corner. The recent survey by UBM (December 2016) confirms the vegetation mapping by

Tozer et al. for the Subject Property. No intact bushland remains on the Property, which has been

developed over many years as a managed garden, although retaining some native canopy trees in the

gardens and small paddock.

Given the long-term use of the Property as a residential garden with a small paddock, which has

cleared all the native understorey vegetation, it is considered that the remaining vegetation (being

composed of scattered native canopy trees) does not conform to the definition of bushland provided

under State Environmental Planning Policy – 19 Urban Bushland, and as such, no Assessments of

Significance have been required.

Flora: About 100 flora species were recorded on the Subject Property. Of these only about 15 are

locally-occurring native species (see James, McDougall and Benson 1999). The remainder are either

non-local natives and exotic planted specimens, garden escapes, or weed species.


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd ii

No (0) threatened flora species were observed, and there is no appropriate habitat for the 11-

threatened species known to the Region. It is likely that the previous and long-term management

history of the vegetation on the Subject Property has removed all suitable growing conditions.

Fauna: The Subject Property is situated within a moderately fragmented peri-urban landscape.

Maintained Gardens within the Subject Property are considered to be of moderate fauna conservation

significance. The most important habitat features on the Property are hollow-bearing trees, none of

which will be removed by the Proposal.

A total of 33 fauna species were detected within the Subject Property or adjacent areas, including

seven (7) threatened microbats (recorded with varying levels of confidence in identification): Eastern

Freetail Bat; Eastern Bentwing-bat; Greater Broad-nosed Bat; Eastern False Pipistrelle; Southern

Myotis; Large-eared Pied Bat; and Eastern Cave Bat. An Assessment of Significance (seven-part test)

carried out for these seven (7) species concluded that the Proposal is not expected to significantly

impact any of these species or their habitats. No (0) other fauna species listed under the EPBC Act

and/or TSC Act were detected during the survey, or are considered likely to use the resources of the

Subject Propety.

Recommendations:

In considering the Proposal to subdivide land in the Subject Property at 452 Kurrajong to create two

(2) residential allotments, UBM comments and recommends as follows.

It will be necessary to remove two (2) trees and a number of introduced Palms from the

Subject Property to create a new driveway on the western boundary. Further tree loss on the

road verge (Council land) may be required to provide access to the new driveway from Greggs

Road.

A new effluent disposal system will be installed in the garden behind the existing residence

fronting Greggs Road. It is recommended that it is located in an area which minimises impact

on the vegetation.

Vegetation clearing should be confined to the smallest area required for the driveway and (if

required) the effluent disposal system.

Appropriate tree protection measures should be in place prior to any construction works

commencing for all trees in the development footprint identified for retention (e.g. wooden

tree guards, exclusion fencing).

Immediately prior to felling of any known habitat trees for construction purposes, a pre-

clearance survey should be undertaken by a qualified Ecologist or Wildlife Spotter Catcher to

identify and relocate fauna that may be disturbed, injured or killed during clearing (e.g.

nesting birds, roosting microbats).

If the removal of an identified habitat tree is necessary, a slow-drop method should be used,

and a qualified Ecologist or member of WIRES should be present on site to ensure that any

fauna encountered while clearing is removed to a carer or relocated to a nearby safe site.

If an unexpected threatened species is found during construction, all work must stop, and the

Council and both Council and OEH notified immediately. Work is not to resume until an


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd iii

Assessment of Significance has been conducted for the threatened species and it is

determined that an impact is not likely to occur.

Noxious and keystone environmental weeds should be controlled as a matter of priority

(certainly before construction starts). See Table 2-1 for a list of target weeds.

Where native trees are unavoidably impacted (e.g. new driveway), supplementary indigenous

flowering and fruiting trees and shrubs should be planted post construction, thus retaining

local landscape character, but also maintaining habitat connectivity.

The installation of nest boxes1 or sculptured hollows2 (specifically targeting threatened

microbats) should be undertaken by a qualified Ecologist or Arborist in order to mitigate the

loss of any hollow-bearing canopy trees from the road verge.

Maintain a high standard of hygiene that requires the cleaning of vehicles and other plant

equipment. This will ensure the site is free of dirt and debris imported from other sites and

will help to minimise the potential spread of weeds as well as bacterial and fungal disease

(such as Phytophthora cinnamomi and Chytridiomycosis).

By adopting the recommendations identified in this Report, the impacts on native vegetation

communities and the native flora and fauna species known to utilise the resources of the Subject

Property and Locality generally, will be minimised.

Plates – Front Cover:

Plate 1 – Lavender Brae

Plate 2 – Location of proposed new driveway, north-western boundary

Plate 3 – Open paddock looking upslope with new house in background

Plate 4 – Eucalyptus tereticornis with lerp infestation, Greggs Road boundary

1 Constructed species-specific nest boxes and tree mounting kits may be purchased [Nest Boxes Australia http://www.nestingboxes.com.au/epages/shsh6893.sf/en_AU/?ObjectPath=/Shops/shsh6893/Products/106] 2 Sydney Arbor Trees: http://www.sydneyarbor.com.au/habitat-creation.html

http://www.nestingboxes.com.au/epages/shsh6893.sf/en_AU/?ObjectPath=/Shops/shsh6893/Products/106

http://www.sydneyarbor.com.au/habitat-creation.html


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd iv

Table of Contents

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

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

1.2 The Proposed Development ................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Site Definition ......................................................................................................................... 6

1.3.1 Location and Setting ....................................................................................................... 6

1.3.2 Physical Environment ...................................................................................................... 7

1.3.3 Biological Environment ................................................................................................... 9

1.4 Legislative Context ................................................................................................................ 12

2 FLORA ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 13

2.1.1 Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 13

2.1.2 Flora Field Survey .......................................................................................................... 13

2.1.3 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 14

2.2 Survey Results ....................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 14

2.2.2 Vegetation Types .......................................................................................................... 15

2.2.3 Flora Species ................................................................................................................. 15

2.3 Conservation Significance ..................................................................................................... 20

2.3.1 Plant Communities ........................................................................................................ 20

2.3.2 Plant Species/Populations............................................................................................. 20

2.4 Flora Assessment of Significance .......................................................................................... 20

3 FAUNA ASSESSMENT ..................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................ 22

3.1.1 Survey Limitations ......................................................................................................... 23

3.1.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 23

3.2 Results ................................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.1 Habitat Connectivity ..................................................................................................... 25

3.2.2 Habitat Assessment....................................................................................................... 26

3.2.3 Records of Fauna in the Region .................................................................................... 29

3.2.4 Fauna Recorded in the Current Survey ......................................................................... 29

3.2.5 Threatened Fauna Assessment ..................................................................................... 30

4 CONCLUSION, DECLARATION & SIGN-OFF .................................................................................... 36


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd v

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................................. 39

6 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................. 43

List of Figures

Figure 1-1: Local Positioning of the Subject Property ............................................................................. 2

Figure 1-2: Aerial Imagery of the Subject Property ................................................................................ 3

Figure 1-3: Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property (McKinlay Morgan & Associates 2016) ....... 5

Figure 1-4: Land Zoning of the Subject Property & Environs (LEP 2012) ................................................ 6

Figure 1-5: Terrestrial Biodiversity (LEP 2012) ........................................................................................ 7

Figure 1-6: Soil Landscape of the Subject Property & Environs .............................................................. 8

Figure 1-7: Local Hydrology .................................................................................................................... 8

Figure 1-8: Vegetation Mapping (Hawkesbury City Council 2007) ....................................................... 10

Figure 1-9: Vegetation Mapping (SCIVI, Tozer et al. 2010) ................................................................... 11

Figure 3-1: Connectivity to Protected Vegetation (NPWS 2016) .......................................................... 25

Figure 3-2: Location of Fauna Habitat Features, Survey Effort and Monitoring Equipment (UBM

December 2016) ................................................................................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Site Definition ........................................................................................................................ 6

Table 1-2: Physical Features of the Subject Property & Environs ........................................................... 7

Table 1-3: Summary of Policies, Local Planning & Legislative Requirements ....................................... 12

Table 2-1: Declared Noxious Weed Species Recorded for the Subject Property ................................. 16

Table 2-2: Threatened Flora Recorded in the Region ........................................................................... 18

Table 3-1: Fauna Survey Methods ........................................................................................................ 22

Table 3-2: Fauna Survey Effort & Weather Conditions ......................................................................... 23

Table 3-3: Reliability of Identification of Bat Calls ................................................................................ 24

Table 3-4: Fauna Recorded in the Region ............................................................................................. 29

Table 3-5: Assessment Criteria for Listed Fauna Species’ Potential to Use Subject Property .............. 31

Table 3-6: Threatened Fauna Assessment ............................................................................................ 32

List of Appendices

Appendix 1: Shale Sandstone Transition Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion .................................. 43

Appendix 2: List of Flora Species Recorded on the Subject Property (UBM December 2016) ............. 47

Appendix 3: List of Fauna Species Recorded in the Subject Property (UBM December 2016) ............ 52

Appendix 4: Assessments of Significance for Threatened Microbats ................................................... 54


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd vi

Certification

I, Judith Rawling Managing Director of UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd hereby state that the Flora

and Fauna Surveys undertaken for the Subject Property at 452 Greggs Road Kurrajong have been

prepared in consideration of the schedules and requirements of the NSW Threatened Species

Conservation Act 1995 and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999.

Survey methods confirm to the ‘Threatened Species Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for

developments and activities (working draft)’ (DEC 2004). Reference has also been made to the

Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012, Tree Preservation Order and other relevant plans and

policies.

The UBM Ecological Consultants project team charged with preparing this Report were:

Judith Rawling (BA, DipEd, DipEnvStud, MEnvSt)

Kiarrah Smith (B. Zoo, BSc Conservation & Wildlife Biology [Hons])

Brendon True (BSc, CMA)

Jessie Bear (BNatSc pending)

Disclaimer

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

relied upon the data and results collected at or under the times and conditions specified in the Report.

All findings, conclusions or recommendations contained within the Report are based on the

aforementioned circumstances.

The Report has been prepared for use by the Client and no responsibility for its use by other parties is

accepted by UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd.

Judith Rawling BA,DipEd,DipEnvStud,MEnvStud

Managing Director UBM Ecological Consultants P/L Member AIB, MESA, MEIANZ, Former Member Executive Council ECA (NSW)

Draft V1 15th December 2016

Copyright © UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd December 2016


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd vii

Definition of Terms

DECCW – NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now the Office of

Environment & Heritage under the Department of Premier and Cabinet)

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

limited to, death through predation, trampling, poisoning of the animal/plant itself and the removal

of suitable habitat.

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

communities in a manner other than direct loss. Indirect impacts can include loss of individuals

through starvation, exposure, predation by domestic and/or feral animals, loss of breeding

opportunities, loss of shade/shelter, deleterious hydrological changes, increased soil salinity, erosion,

inhibition of nitrogen fixation, weed invasion, fertiliser drift, or increased human activity within or

directly adjacent to sensitive habitat areas.

Ecological Community – an assemblage of species with six (6) types of properties, composition;

structure; habitat; distribution; interactions between their component species, and ecological

processes and function (Keith 2009); and occupying a particular area at a particular time.

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

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

and/or Commonwealth threatened species legislation.

CEEC – being a critically endangered entity, described as a community facing an extremely high risk of

extinction in the immediate future, as listed under State and/or Commonwealth threatened species

legislation

EPBC Act – Commonwealth Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

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

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

HCC – Hawkesbury City Council

LGA – Local Government Area, here Hawkesbury City Council

Locality – generally, an area within 1-2 kilometres of the Subject Property

Noxious Weed – a species gazetted for the LGA under the Noxious Weeds Act 1995 (amended 2000)

NPWS – National Parks & Wildlife Unit of the Office of Environment & Heritage

OEH – Office of Environment & Heritage under the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet (formerly

DECCW)


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd viii

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

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

SSTF – Cumberland4 Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (‘SSTF’); listed as ‘critically endangered’ under

both State and Commonwealth legislation. Low or high sandstone inference.

Subject Property - means those parts of the Subject Property Lot E likely to be affected by the

Proposal, either directly or indirectly. This includes all area of native vegetation (bushland) on the

Property. The Subject Property extends as far as necessary to take all potential impacts into account

(see Figure 1-2).

TEC – Threatened Ecological Community

TSC Act – NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

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

Consultants (UBMC)

Vegetation Community – described as an assemblage of native flora species known to occur in

association with each other because of topography, soil landscape and rainfall.

WoNS – Weed of National Significance (Commonwealth Listing)

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

C. (2010). Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tableland, in

Cunninghamia 11 (3)

4 Tozer uses the prefix ‘Cumberland’ for plant communities on the Cumberland Plain west of Sydney City, but this is not used in the Final Determinations for any TEC listed under the environmental legislation.


UBM Ecological Consultants Pty Ltd 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Information

UBM Ecological Consultants (UBM) has been commissioned by Glenn Falson & Associates on behalf

his client Ms. Nicole Hatherly to undertake a Flora and Fauna Survey on private property at 452 Greggs

Road, Kurrajong (hereafter ‘the Subject Property’).

The Proposal is to subdivide existing Lot E to create two (2) residential allotments. There are currently

two (2) residences on Lot E, both of which are proposed to be retained. One of the new allotments

will be on-sold by the owner Ms Nicole Hatherly. Under Hawkesbury Local Environmental Plan 2012,

the Subject Property is zoned RU1 Primary Production

The purpose of these investigations is to provide accurate information about the ecological resources

of the Subject Property and to identify any species, populations or ecological communities listed under

the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and Environment Protection & Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) that either occur, or have the potential to occur, on site.

The presence of any threatened entity may provide some level of constraint for the Proposal to

subdivide the Subject Property for on-going residential purposes. If any such threatened entities are

present and listed under the TSC Act, the direct and indirect impacts of the Proposal must be assessed

under Section 5(a) of the NSW Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) (this

Assessment of Significance is commonly referred to as the ‘Seven-part Test’). For any threatened

entity that is present and listed under the EPBC Act, the impacts of the Proposal must be reviewed

under the Commonwealth Significant Assessment Guidelines.

The role of the Ecological Investigations (this Report) is to assess the conservation significance of the

ecological communities, flora and fauna species and populations which occur in the Subject Property,

Locality and Region, and to flag any issues of ecological significance regarding the TSC Act and EPBC

Act. The presence of any threatened ecological community (TEC), migratory species, or Endangered,

Vulnerable or Near Threated (EVNT) species may provide some constraint to the Proposal.

The local positioning of the Subject Property is shown on Figure 1-1, while an aerial image is provided

in Figure 1-2).



Figure 1-1: Local Positioning of the Subject Property



Figure 1-2: Aerial Imagery of the Subject Property



1.2 The Proposed Development

The Subject Property, Lot E in DP 373372, is 0.87 ha in size. It is privately owned by the Proponent.

There are two (2) houses on the Property, along with two (2) sheds and supporting maintained gardens

(including cleared lawns) throughout. A small paddock is located to the rear. The older house closest

to Greggs Road is Lavender Brae, circa 1920 (see Plate 1 front cover), while a new residence has been

constructed immediately to the rear, with access via a shared driveway off Greggs Road.

The Property is currently zoned RU1 Primary Production. Under the Proposal, zoning will probably

remain the same, with an altered Lot Size Map and a restricted lot yield

The current Proposal is to subdivide existing Lot E to create two (2) new allotments. Existing dwellings

will remain unmodified and retained in their current locations. However, a new effluent disposal

system and separate access driveways are proposed (see Figure 1-3).

A new driveway along the western boundary will be created to provide access to the newer residence

to the rear (see Plate 2, front cover). This will require the removal of two (2) mature native trees and

a number of introduced Palm trees. Some trees on the road verge (Council land) may be removed to

provide access to the driveway from Greggs Road.

The new effluent disposal system is proposed to be located directly behind the older residence,

through an area which is now managed as a garden. It should be possible to locate this system on

cleared land (lawn), thereby avoiding damage to any trees (native or introduced).

Although subdivision strategies are not currently defined in detail, it is proposed to retain all other

native and introduced trees on the Property, and to manage these to retain their conservation value

in the long term.



Figure 1-3: Proposed Subdivision of the Subject Property (McKinlay Morgan & Associates 2016)



1.3 Site Definition

1.3.1 Location and Setting

The Subject Property is in the suburb of Kurrajong, which is about 70 km north-west of the Sydney CBD

in the Hawkesbury Local Government Area. The Property is bounded to the south by Greggs Road,

which runs east off Grose Vale Road and extends to Bells Line of Road.

The Subject Property is composed of exotic gardens and maintained lawns, with no remnant bushland

remaining on site. Neighbouring properties support hobby farms and rural residential development

of varying sizes. Table 1-1 further defines the site.

Table 1-1: Site Definition

TITLE INFORMATION Lot E in DP 373372

LOCATION 452 Greggs Road, Kurrajong

TOTAL AREA 0.87 ha

TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Kurrajong 9030-4N

COORDINATES Lat.: -33.561928; Long: 150.664808

CATCHMENT/SUB-CATCHMENT Hawkesbury Nepean River. Sub-catchment Redbank Creek

OWNERSHIP Ms Nicole Hatherly – freehold land

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA Hawkesbury

LAND ZONING RU1 Primary Production and Significant Vegetation (Hawkesbury LEP

2012) (Figure 1-4 and Figure 1-5).

CURRENT LAND USE Residential

Figure 1-4: Land Zoning of the Subject Property & Environs (LEP 2012)



Figure 1-5: Terrestrial Biodiversity (LEP 2012)

1.3.2 Physical Environment

The physical characteristics of the land in the Subject Property are summarised in Table 1-2 below.

Table 1-2: Physical Features of the Subject Property & Environs

FEATURE DESCRIPTION

SOIL LANDSCAPE

UNITS

Regional scale mapping by Hazelton, Bannerman and Tille (1989) indicates the presence of the Luddenham (lu) Soil Landscape Unit on the Subject Property (see Figure 1-6).

The Luddenham SLU consists of undulating to rolling low hills on Wianamatta Group shales, often associated with Minchinbury Sandstone, with a local relief 50–80 m and slopes 5–20%. Depending on topography, soils are shallow dark podzolic soils and massive earthy clays, or moderately deep red podzolic soils, yellow podzolic soils and prairie soils. Limitations: Water erosion hazard. Subject to localised steep slopes, mass movement hazard, shallow soils, surface movement potential and has a moderately reactive, impermeable highly plastic subsoil.

Soils are predominantly sandy with evidence of an altered profile due to the construction

of dwellings and associated infrastructure.

TOPOGRAPHY Topography is level on the ridge-top adjacent to Greggs Road, to gently inclined to the rear, on the north-facing slopes.

LOCAL HYDROLOGY

Part of the Hawkesbury-Nepean River Catchment. Unnamed tributaries to Redbank Creek are located north and south of the Subject Property (Figure 1-7). Farm dams and natural drainage lines also occur on surrounding properties, but there are no dams or other watercourses on the Subject Property itself.

CLIMATIC DETAILS

January is the hottest month, with an average maximum temperature of 30.0°C. The coldest month is July, with a mean minimum temperature of 3.7°C.

Mean annual rainfall is 737.2 mm, with February recording the highest mean rainfall, and July being the driest month on average (BOM 2016).



Figure 1-6: Soil Landscape of the Subject Property & Environs

Figure 1-7: Local Hydrology



1.3.3 Biological Environment

Vegetation Communities

Vegetation mapping by Hawkesbury City Council (2007) maps the vegetation on the Subject Property

as Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (low sandstone influence) with a low recovery potential. A small

area of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (high sandstone influence) is mapped for the north-east

corner (Figure 1-8).

Regional-scale vegetation mapping by Tozer et al. (2010) for the former Department of Environment

Climate Change & Water (‘DECCW’)5 describes most of the native vegetation on the Subject Property

as Cleared, with small areas of Cumberland6 Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (‘SSTF’) and Sydney

Turpentine Ironbark Forest (‘STIF’) in the north-eastern corner (Figure 1-9).

SSTF is listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (‘CEEC’) in both Part 2 of Schedule 1A

of the TSC Act and under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. STIF is an Endangered Ecological Community

(EEC) under the TSC Act and a CEEC under the EPBC Act.

Vegetation mapping is usually based on local geology and soil type with limited ground-truthing, so it

is possible that detailed site survey will modify these community descriptions. See Section 2.2 for the

results of field investigations undertaken by UBM in December 2016.

A description of SSTF per Tozer et al. (2010) is provided in Appendix 1.

5 DECCW is now the Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) within the Department of Premier & Cabinet 6 Tozer uses the prefix ‘Cumberland’ for plant communities on the Cumberland Plain west of Sydney City but this word is generally not used in the Final Determinations for any TEC listed under the environmental legislation.



Figure 1-8: Vegetation Mapping (Hawkesbury City Council 2007)



Figure 1-9: Vegetation Mapping (SCIVI, Tozer et al. 2010)



1.4 Legislative Context

Comments and assessments within this Report are based on the requirements of the Environmental

Planning and Assessment Act 1979 – with consideration given to the principals of Ecologically

Sustainable Development, NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, and the Commonwealth

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Table 1-3 provides a summary of policies, local planning and legislative requirements applicable to the

Subject Property and the current Proposal.

Table 1-3: Summary of Policies, Local Planning & Legislative Requirements

RELEVANT POLICY

/LEGISLATION RELEVANCE TO SUBJECT PROPERTY

LOC

AL Hawkesbury Local

Environmental Plan (HLEP)

2012

Under HLEP 2012 the Subject Property is zoned RU1 Primary Production and

listed as Significant Vegetation (Terrestrial Biodiversity).

Among the relevant Objectives of RU1 are:

To ensure that development does not detract from the existing rural

character or create unreasonable demands for the provision or

extension of public amenities and services; and

To minimise conflict between land uses within this zone and land uses

within adjoining zones.

Under the Proposal, zoning will probably remain the same, with an altered

Lot Size Map and a restricted lot yield.

STA

TE

Threatened Species

Conservation (TSC) Act 1995

Remnants (predominantly scattered canopy trees over garden and lawns) of

one (1) Threatened Ecological Community (TEC) occurs: Shale Sandstone

Transition Forest.

No (0) threatened flora species were observed.

Seven (7) Vulnerable microbats listed under the Act were recorded with

varying levels of confidence: Eastern Freetail Bat; Eastern Bentwing-bat;

Greater Broad-nosed Bat; Eastern False Pipistrelle; Southern Myotis; Large-

eared Pied Bat; and Eastern Cave Bat.

Noxious Weeds Act 1993

(Amended 2005)

At least four (4) noxious weeds listed for Hawkesbury River County Council (of

which HCC is a constituent) were recorded for the Subject Property (see Table

2-1).

SEPP 44 – Koala Habitat

Protection

SEPP-44 aims to encourage the proper conservation and management of

areas that provide habitat for Koalas. SEPP 44 does not apply to the current

Proposal as the Subject Property is less than 1 ha in size.

CO

MM

ON

WEA

LTH

Environment Protection &

Biodiversity Conservation

(EPBC) Act 1999

Remnants (predominantly isolated trees) of one (1) Threatened Ecological

Community (TEC) occurs: Shale Sandstone Transition Forest.

No (0) flora species or populations listed under the EPBC Act were recorded.

The Vulnerable Large-eared Pied Bat was recorded with a ‘Definite’ reliability

of identification during the current survey.



2 FLORA ASSESSMENT

The flora assessment was undertaken to determine the ecological communities occurring within and

adjacent to the Subject Property and to describe the status of the indigenous vascular vegetation

present. The conservation value of the vegetation in the National, State and regional context has been

considered in relation to vegetation community types and flora species present.

2.1 Methods

2.1.1 Literature Review

During the preparation of this Report, relevant databases and other studies were accessed, including previous studies and investigations for the Locality.

The main documents referenced were:

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

tablelands (Tozer et al. for DECCW 2010);

Flora and Fauna Study for a residential subdivision, Bells Line of Road & Masons Lane,

Kurrajong (UBM 2014);

Flora and Fauna Study & Ecological Assessment for 535 Bells Line of Road, Kurmond (UBM

November 2016).

In addition, the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage Atlas of New South Wales Wildlife Database

(OEH 2016) was accessed to identify previous recordings of flora species of conservation significance

within the Region (search area 10 km x 10 km centred on the Subject Property).

2.1.2 Flora Field Survey

A General Flora Survey (see Walker & Hopkins 1990) of the Subject Property was undertaken on 5th

December 2016 by Botanist Brendon True, assisted by Judith Rawling Restoration Ecologist. A

supplementary survey was carried out by J Rawling in the following week. The survey covered all

vegetated parts of the Subject Property to establish a list of plant species and to identify the locations

and extent of vegetation communities or types. Search methodology was based on the

recommendations made in Thompson (2013) and OEH (2013). Approximately four (4) hours was spent

surveying the vegetation.

Eleven (11) threatened plant species listed under the Schedules of the NSW TSC Act and/or the

Commonwealth EPBC Act, have previously been recorded in a 10 x 10 km square area centred over

the Subject Property (see Table 2-2). Targeted searches were carried out for each of these species,

but none were found as it is likely that the previous and current management history of the Property

has removed all suitable growing conditions.

Plant identifications were made according to nomenclature in PlantNet (2007). Stands of vegetation

were described by their structural characteristics according to Specht (1981). Ecological communities

were classified and named according to Tozer et al. (2003 & 2010). The National and State



conservation significance of flora was made regarding the NSW TSC Act (1995) and Commonwealth

EPBC Act (1999).

2.1.3 Limitations

Despite the field surveys being conducted in spring (December), flowering rates of native flora were

lower than expected. Where flowers were absent, identification relied on assessment using

vegetation characteristics. However, there were no obvious floristic limitations. All parts of the

Property were readily accessible on foot. Weather was overcast and very hot (30o C). Some rain was

experienced on the previous, and subsequent, nights.

The diversity of the species recorded during the field surveys is expected to be influenced by seasonal

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

population. This is particularly true of terrestrial orchids, which can persist for extended periods as

dormant underground tubers. Other species, especially those growing in areas of long grass or in

dense woody weeds thickets, can be difficult to find unless they are experiencing a period of new

growth or they are flowering.

For these reasons, when required, survey results can often be improved by extending the time allowed

to provide an investigation in all seasons. However, given the long-standing use of most parts of both

sites for other land uses, and that there was ready access to all areas proposed for development, it is

unlikely that further surveys would locate any significant native species and it is considered that the

time allocated to field survey was adequate for the purposes.

2.2 Survey Results

2.2.1 Overview

The Subject Property is located on the northern side of Greggs Road at Kurrajong, in an area which

was previously used for primary production (stock grazing, orcharding). The southern boundary

adjoins other properties which retain individual and small stands of native trees over retired pasture.

There is no intact bushland on the Subject Property or on any of the immediately adjoining properties,

which have been used for rural residential purposes for many years.

The proposed subdivision layout for the Subject Property is indicated in a plan prepared by McKinlay

Morgan and Associates (2016). The subdivision plan indicates that the existing buildings will be

retained in their present locations, with only 2-3 native trees proposed for removal to facilitate the

construction of the new driveway on the western boundary (Figure 1-3).

Regional-scale mapping of Soil Landscape Groups by Hazelton, Bannerman and Tille (1989) indicate

the occurrence of soils derived from the Luddenham Group over the Subject Property. The

Luddenham Group “….is underlain by Wianamatta Group Ashfield Shale and Bringelly Shale

Formations….” and “….between these two shale members is the Minchinbury Sandstone consisting of

fine to medium-grained lithic quartz sandstone.” (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990).

Regional-scale vegetation mapping by Tozer et al. (2010) describes most of the native vegetation on

the Subject Property as ‘Cleared,’ with small stands of remnant bushland in the north-eastern corner.



Vegetation in the Subject Property

The Subject Property is devoid of any recognisable intact bushland due to previous clearing, past and

current land uses. Remaining significant native vegetation is largely confined to a sparse overstorey

of Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and Grey Gum (Eucalyptus punctata), located abutting

Greggs Road and occurring as isolated paddock trees.

An underdeveloped shrub layer is also present along the Greggs Road frontage, which includes Coastal

Banksia (Banksia integrifolia), Silver Banksia (B. marginata), Red Ash (Alphitonia excels), Coffee Bush

(Breynia oblongifolia), Finger Hakea (Hakea dactyloides) and Crimson Bottlebrush (Callistemon

citrinus). Most of these are non-local native species (i.e. horticultural plantings). Notable native

groundcover is absent.

There is a row of small trees lining the fence on the western boundary, being Sydney Golden Wattle

(Acacia longifolia), Two Veined Hickory (A. binervata) and Red Ash.

The remaining areas of vegetation encompass regularly maintained lawns, small paddock and

ornamental garden beds.

Plant Communities

Review of previous mapping (HCC 2007 and Tozer et al. 2010) suggests that small occurrences of

following ecological communities may be present within the Study Area:

Cumberland Shale Sandstone Transition Forest, and

Sydney Turpentine Ironbark Forest.

Note: Most of the vegetation in the Subject Property does not have a corresponding map unit.

Detailed on-ground survey (UBM December 2016) confirms that that the Subject Property. has

undergone extensive clearing in the past, and has been developed and managed as a residential

garden for at least 30 years. As such no naturally occurring ecological communities were identified.

2.2.2 Vegetation Types

There are two (2) vegetation types: Exotic Plantings (Managed Gardens) and Open Grassland (ex-

pasture). Both vegetation types retain individual or small groups of native canopy trees. There is no

bushland on the Property per se, and despite the occurrence of some native canopy trees, the

vegetation generally lacks a native mid-storey and ground-cover.

2.2.3 Flora Species

Flora: About 100 flora species were recorded on the Subject Property7. Of these only about 15 are

considered to be locally-occurring native species (see James, McDougall and Benson 1999). The

remainder are either non-local native and exotic planted specimens, garden escapes, or weed species.

7 Not all horticultural species in the gardens were recorded to species level.



No (0) threatened flora species were observed, and it is likely that the previous management history

of the vegetation on the Subject Property has removed all suitable growing conditions. A plant species

list is included as Appendix 2.

Although it is apparent that the vegetation on the Subject Property has been modified over a period

of at least 30 years to form a residential garden, there is a discontinuous (scattered) occurrence of

native canopy trees over the Property. Native trees vary in height and age class, with many specimens

aged 15-25 years. The mid-storey, where present, consists of exotic shrub species, with the occasional

Wattle regenerating in the paddock.

Introduced Species

At least four (4) noxious weeds listed for the Hawkesbury LGA are present in the Subject Property, one

of which is also listed as a Weeds of National Significance (see Table 2-1). The land owner is required

under the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (as Amended 2005) to control all noxious weeds on private land,

and to prevent weed spread to adjoining properties. Council (through Hawkesbury River Local Control

Authority) is the body responsible for enforcing the Act on private property.

Table 2-1: Declared Noxious Weed Species Recorded for the Subject Property

FAMILY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME NOXIOUS WEED CLASS

Aspagaraceae Asparagus aethiopicus. Asparagus ‘fern’ Class 4; WoNS

Fabaceae Dolichandra unguis-cati Cat’s Claw Creeper Class 4

Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum Broad-Privet Class 4

Oleaceae Ligustrum sinense Narrow-leaf Privet Class 4

Actions Required for Noxious Weed Classes

1 State Prohibited Weed. The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant.

2 Regionally Prohibited Weed. The plant must be eradicated from the land and the land must be kept free of the plant.

3 Regionally Controlled Weed. The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed.

4 Locally Controlled Weed. The growth and spread of the plant must be controlled according to the measures specified in

a management plan* published by the local control authority and the plant may not be sold, propagated or knowingly

distributed.

5 Restricted Plant. The requirements in the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (as amended 2005) for a notifiable weed must be

complied with.



Horticultural Introductions

The greater part of the Subject Property is planted and managed as an exotic garden. Overhead

canopy trees are a mixture of remnant native species and introduced horticultural species. Although

there is ‘no’ bushland on the property per se, Council has mapped the vegetation on this site as the

CEEC Shale Sandstone Transition Forest. This is based on aerial photography and is incorrect.

A list of horticultural introductions (including exotics and non-indigenous natives) has been included

in Appendix 2.

Note that the flora lists presented in Appendix 2 is not meant to be a list of all species occurring on the

Subject Property, but represent only those species identified while searching for rare or threatened

flora (as determined under the Schedules of the TSC and EPBC Acts).

Threatened Species

A database search of the Atlas of NSW Wildlife (‘BioNet’; OEH 2016) found only one (1) record of a

threatened flora species in the Region (10 km2 centred on the Subject Property) within the last ten

(10) years. An expanded search for all historical records in the Region found an additional ten (10)

threatened species (Table 2-2).


threatened species previously recorded in the Region (see Table 2-2). Given the management history

of the vegetation on the Subject Property the likelihood of occurrence of threatened species is highly

unlikely



Table 2-2: Threatened Flora Recorded in the Region

Legislative Classification: E4A/CE = Critically Endangered; E1/E = Endangered Species; V = Vulnerable Species.

Species listed under the Sensitive Species Data Policy may have their locations denatured: 3 = rounded to 0.01°; 2 = rounded to 0.1°.

* Habitat requirements generally extracted from OEH (2012-2016); other references are identified in the bibliography. ^ Within a 10 x 10 km2 area centered on the Subject Property (Parameters: North: -33.51 West: 150.61 East: 150.71 South: -33.61).

SCIENTIFIC & COMMON NAME

STATUS ^NO. OF

RECORDS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS*

LIKELY PRESENCE IN STUDY AREA TSC

ACT EPBC ACT

Within last 10 yrs

Grammitis stenophylla (Narrow-leaf Finger Fern)

E1,3 - 5

A little fern with fronds 1-5cm in length and grows in small colonies on rocks and trees near streams and in other moist places in eastern New South Wales and Queensland (OEH 2012).

Very low, no available habitat.

Before 2006

Cynanchum elegans (White-flowered Wax Plant)

E1 E 2

A climber, usually occurring on the edge of dry rainforests, but also associated with: Littoral rainforest; coastal Leptospermum laevigatum and Banksia integrifolia scrub; Eucalyptus tereticornis woodland; Corymbia maculata woodland; and Melaleuca armillaris scrub (OEH 2014). Flowers between August and May, peaking in November (OEH 2014).


Tetratheca glandulosa (Black-eyed Susan)

V - 2

A small, spreading shrub with distribution restricted to northern/north-western LGAs in Sydney (Baulkham Hills, Gosford, Hawkesbury, Hornsby, Ku-ring-gai, Pittwater, Ryde, Warringah, and Wyong (OEH, 2013). Associated with shale-sandstone transition habitat, and shallow soils consisting of clayey/sandy loam (OEH, 2013).


Leucopogon exolasius (Woronora Beard-heath)

V V 1

Found in woodland on sandstone along the upper Georges River area and in Heathcote National Park (OEH 2014). Flowers in August and September.


Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. fletcheri

E1 - 2 A dense, erect shrub restricted to north-western Sydney, extending from Baulkham Hills to the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains (OEH, 2012). Prefers dry eucalypt woodland with clayey lateritic soils, with flat to sloping terrain along ridges.


Dillwynia tenuifolia V - 3

In Western Sydney, may be locally abundant, particularly within scrubby/dry heath areas within Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and Shale Gravel Transition Forest on tertiary alluvium or laterised clays. There is a Dillwynia tenuifolia Sieber ex D.C. population in the Baulkham




Hills local government area. It may also be common in transitional areas where these communities adjoin Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland.

Eucalyptus benthamii (Camden White Gum)

V V 1

Grows up to 40m tall with smooth white bark, flakey bark stocking at the base and long, loose bark ribbons. Occurs on the alluvial flats of the Nepean River in Bents Basin State Recreation Area and around Camden and Cobbitty. A second sub-population occurs in the Kedumba Valley of the Blue Mountains National Park. The Camden White Gum requires a flooding regime for seedling establishment.


Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly)

E1 V 2

Only found in NSW in a narrow, linear coastal strip from Upper Lansdowne to Conjola State Forest, and occurs on gravels, sands, silts, and clays north of Sydney (OEH, 2014).


Persoonia nutans (Nodding Geebung) E1 E 3

An erect spreading shrub restricted to the Cumberland Plain in western Sydney, between Richmond and Macquarie Fields (OEH, 2013b). Confined to Aeolian and alluvial sediments in a range of sclerophyll forest and woodland communities in the north; southern populations also occupy tertiary alluvium but extend onto shale sandstone transition communities (OEH, 2013b). Peak flowering is from November to March (OEH, 2013b).


Zieria involucrata

E1 V 3

Has a disjunct distribution north and west of Sydney, in the Baulkham Hills, Hawkesbury, Hornsby and Blue Mountains local government areas. Occurs primarily on Hawkesbury sandstone. Also, occurs on Narrabeen Group sandstone and on Quaternary alluvium. Found primarily in sheltered forests on mid- to lower slopes and valleys. The canopy typically includes Syncarpia glomulifera subsp. glomulifera (Turpentine), Angophora costata (Smooth-barked Apple), Eucalyptus agglomerata (Blue-leaved Stringybark) and Allocasuarina torulosa (Forest Oak) (OEH 2016).


Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice-flower) E1 E 1

A Shrub stands erect or spreads up to 50cm tall. The Spiked Rice-flower occurs in two disconnected areas; the Cumberland Plain (Marayong and Prospect Reservoir south to Narellan and Douglas Park) and the Illawarra (Lansdowne to Shellharbour to northern Kiama) and in both areas, it is found on well-structured clay soils (OEH 2015). Associated with Grey Box communities and Ironbark areas in Cumberland Plain sites (OEH 2015).




2.3 Conservation Significance

2.3.1 Plant Communities

No (0) threatened ecological community (TEC) recorded within the Subject Property is listed under the

TSC Act or EPBC Act.

2.3.2 Plant Species/Populations

No (0) naturally occurring Endangered, Vulnerable, Near-threatened and/or Threatened (EVNT) flora

species listed under the TSC Act or Commonwealth EPBC Act were recorded within the Subject

Property.

2.4 Flora Assessment of Significance

The TSC Act aims to conserve threatened species, populations, ecological communities and their

habitats; to promote their recovery; and manage the processes that threaten or endanger them.

Threatened species are listed under Schedules 1 and 2 of the Act, while communities considered ‘at

risk of extinction’ are listed as endangered ecological communities (‘EECs’) under Part 3, Schedule 1.

Under the terms of the legislation, Local Government must assess the impacts of any proposed activity,

which might adversely impact on the EEC or any threatened species or populations, and where these

are likely to occur, must identify strategies to minimise any such impacts. Further, development on

adjoining land may also have a significant impact on the bushland’s natural values, so that such

activities must be carefully assessed by the Consent Authority (here HCC) prior to development

consent being granted.

Under Section 5A of the EP&A Act, any development activity impacting on a species, population or

ecological community listed under the TSC Act requires the application of an “Assessment of

Significance”. As well, listings under the Commonwealth EPBC Act require are subject to a similar

Assessment process under its Significant Impact Guidelines (Department of the Environment &

Heritage 2006).

An Assessment of Significance (commonly called ‘the Seven-part Test’) is designed to determine

"whether there is likely to be a significant effect on threatened species, populations, ecological

communities or their habitats" (as listed on the Schedules of the NSW TSC Act), and consequently, to

determine whether a Species Impact Statement is required.

To determine whether further studies are required, a search of the relevant ecological databases is

required to identify those ecological communities, threatened species or populations known for the

Locality and Region. This is followed by a comprehensive site survey to determine the presence, or

potential presence of any threatened entities.

The field investigations undertaken provide the required ecological studies. Results of those

investigations are presented in Section 2.2 (flora) and Section 3.23.2 (fauna) of this Report. The



decision to apply the Seven-part Test or not has been made with respect to the outcomes of these

investigations.

Where intact, Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological

Community (CEEC). However, given that the vegetation on the Subject Property has been highly

modified and has been managed as an exotic garden for at least 30 years, only scattered native trees

remain on the Property; growing over garden beds or an open grassland (paddock).

Lacking both structural diversity and floristic diversity, the vegetation on the Subject Property cannot

be considered to constitute a fully functional plant community, nor does it comply with the definition

of ‘urban bushland’ given under State Environmental Planning Policy – 19 Urban Bushland8. Therefore,

a Section 5a Assessment of Significance (the Seven-part Test) under Part 5C of the NSW EP&A Act has

not been required.

Similarly, within the Subject Property there are no ‘patches’ that contain a representative suite of

native mid-storey and groundcover species; and as such, the vegetation does not comply with the

description of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest under the Commonwealth EPBC Act. Therefore, an

Assessment using the Commonwealth EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines is not required.

8 8 Definition of Bushland per SEPP-19 “Bushland is defined as ‘land on which there is vegetation which is either a

remainder of the natural vegetation of the land or, if altered, is still representative of the structure and floristics of the natural vegetation”.



3 FAUNA ASSESSMENT

3.1 Methods

A fauna survey and habitat assessment was undertaken by Fauna Ecologist Kiarrah Smith on the 5th

and 8th December 2016 (Table 3-2). These field investigations aimed to assess the species richness of

the Subject Property; investigate the range of fauna habitats present, and determine the potential for

local threatened and migratory fauna species to occur within the Subject Property. A GPS (GPSmap

62s, Garmin) was used to record habitat features and the placement of fauna monitoring equipment

(Figure 3-2).

The fauna survey incorporated a range of techniques designed to target species from all fauna groups

that would be expected to occur on the site (Table 3-1). The Study Area comprised the entire Subject

Property (Figure 1-2), but observations of fauna utilising adjacent habitat were also recorded, along

with opportunistic sightings. The condition and structure of fauna habitats present were identified,

and a consideration of their potential to support locally occurring populations of threatened fauna was

determined. Any previous reports and databases were reviewed and drawn upon.

Table 3-1: Fauna Survey Methods

Note: All methods modified from survey guidelines for threatened species (DEWHA 2010a; DEWHA 2010b; DSEWPaC

2011a; DSEWPaC 2011b).

METHOD TARGET DESCRIPTION

Anabat Microbats One (1) stationary ultrasonic bat call recorder (AnaBat Express, Titley Electronics) positioned where predicted ‘fly-ways’ exist.

Area Search All Fauna

Randomly traverse the Subject Property; stopping or moving to investigate sightings, calls or signs of fauna presence, which include: Scats; scratches; sap-feeding scars; diggings; nests; dreys; bones; hair; shed skins; tracks; burrows; orts (chewed cones) and feeding pellets. Signs verified with reference to Triggs (2004).

Camera Trapping

All Fauna

One (1) infrared camera (SG550V8, ScoutGuard) set to a sensitivity level of ‘normal’, capturing three (3) images when triggered with a one (1) minute recovery time; placed at a height of ~1 m above ground level and angled slightly downwards towards a ‘universal bait’ of oats, peanut butter and honey.

Point Survey

Birds Conducted for varying lengths of time at several habitat determined positions. Birds identified visually and/or by their characteristic calls (Morcombe & Stewart 2014; Pizzey & Knight 2013).

Visual & Hand

Search

Reptiles & Frogs

Carefully turn over rocks, logs and large debris (replacing these on site after inspection); search through leaf litter and vegetation. Concentrating on woody debris, urban refuse and around the base of trees.



Table 3-2: Fauna Survey Effort & Weather Conditions

*Derived from Meteorological Station #067105 Richmond RAAF (BOM 2016).

DATE PERIOD TIME

OF DAY

WEATHER CONDITIONS* ACTIVITY

TEMP. WIND CLOUD RAIN

5th Dec 2016

1 hour 20 mins

7 am ~22°C 6

km/hr Overcast

2.6 mm

Initial habitat assessment, bird survey, herpetofauna, and trace search. Deploy equipment.

5th–8th Dec 2016

3 nights

Night 17.1–37.6°C

2–19 km/hr

Variable 10.6 mm

Anabat ultrasonic monitoring.

All One (1) camera trap.

8th Dec 2016

10 mins 11 am ~29°C 11

km/hr Clear

0.2 mm

Supplementary bird survey, collect equipment.

3.1.1 Survey Limitations

Surveys carried across all seasons over a period of several years are needed to identify all species

present in an area, especially as some species are only present at certain times of the year (e.g.

migratory birds), while others are cryptic or may require specific weather patterns and seasonal

conditions for optimum levels of detection (e.g. amphibians and microbats).

Due to time and budget constraints relating to the current project, it was not possible to survey the

Subject Property during all seasons. Therefore, the list of fauna species recorded by the current field

surveys (Appendix 3) should not be regarded as being fully comprehensive, but rather as providing an

indication of the species present at the time of the survey (December 2016). The limitations associated

with seasonality were minimised by maximising survey effort through a combination of active diurnal

searches, deployment of monitoring equipment, and desktop research.

Furthermore, knowledge of the habitat requirements and associations of animals recorded in the

Subject Property can help predict the full range of fauna potentially present therein. For example, if a

hollow-associated owl is detected, then there is the potential that, if previously recorded in the vicinity

of the Subject Property, other owl species with similar nesting requirements may also be present.

The period of Anabat monitoring (Table 3-2) undertaken is considered sufficient to guard against

decreased microbat detectability, which may result from the reduced activity of these fauna during

the small amount of rain that fell during the survey period.

3.1.2 Data Analysis

Bat calls were identified by Fauna Ecologist Amanda Lo Cascio using AnalookW (Version 4.1t) with

reference to the Pennay et al. (2004) and Reinhold et al. (2001). A total of 603 out of 616 recorded

bat call sequences were recognisable. Note that some bat species overlap in both call frequency and

structure, making identification problematic in some cases. The degree of confidence or reliability

associated with call identifications (Table 3-3) will depend on the quality of the recordings as well as

the activity of the bat at the time of recording and flight direction. In some instances, a particular

species may be identified with confidence, while at other times its identification will be less certain

(see Pennay et al. 2004).



Table 3-3: Reliability of Identification of Bat Calls

Definite One or more calls were there is no doubt about the identification of the species.

Probable Most likely to be the species named, low probability of confusion with species that use similar calls.

Possible Call is comparable with the named species, with a moderate to high probability of confusion with species of similar calls.



3.2 Results

3.2.1 Habitat Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is vital in promoting the movement of individuals and the exchange of genetic

material amongst native flora and fauna. Natural habitat linkages are used in different ways by

different species (Gleeson & Gleeson 2012) depending on their mobility and habitat requirements.

The Subject Property is situated within a moderately fragmented peri-urban landscape (Figure 3-1).

Very large stands of high quality protected native vegetation exist approximately 2.4 km to the west,

in Blue Mountains National Park. Major lines of connectivity in the Locality are provided by vegetation

in the riparian zone of Redbank Creek and its tributaries, located north and south of the Subject

Property, along with Little Wheeny Creek, ~1.2 km north-west of the Subject Property. However, given

the fragmented landscape, these riparian corridors are likely to be degraded and subject to edge

effects, including weed invasion and aggressive exclusion by over-abundant Noisy Miners (Manorina

melanocephala), which potentially impact their suitability as wildlife corridors for a number of species.

Habitat fragmentation and edge effects (e.g. noise and light pollution) become increasingly intense

moving farther south-east of the Subject Property, towards more developed areas. Remnant and

planted stands of vegetation in paddocks and residential gardens in and around the Subject Property

maintain some habitat connectivity throughout the Locality and Region. However, cleared paddocks,

fences, roads, and buildings may present a barrier or obstacle to the movement of more sensitive

fauna. For this reason, efforts should be made to maintain and enhance habitat connectivity provided

by the Subject Property, where possible.

Figure 3-1: Connectivity to Protected Vegetation (NPWS 2016)



3.2.2 Habitat Assessment

The Subject Property contains one (1) broad habitat type - Maintained Gardens – which comprises

mowed lawns with scattered native and introduced canopy trees and little shrub layer. The native

canopy trees are generally in poor condition, with thin crowns, dead branches and brown leaves. Bell

Miner (Manorina melanophrys) associated dieback (i.e. lerp infestation) is widespread within the

Subject Property and in the Locality generally. Additionally, much of the Subject Property lacks

structural complexity in the mid- and understorey. However, some horticultural groundcovers and

shrubs, along with artificial stone retaining walls and debris piles offer shelter and basking habitat for

reptiles.

There are at least two (2) hollow-bearing trees within the Subject Property, and another four (4) on

the road verge fronting the Subject Property (Figure 3-2). A broad range of native fauna is known to

utilise tree hollows (including those in dead stags) which provide opportunities for foraging, shelter,

roosting, and nesting. Three (3) nests were also recorded within the Subject Property. Note that due

to the limitations of detecting hollows and nests viewed from the ground, additional habitat trees may

be present that were not observed during field investigations.

The Maintained Gardens primarily provide habitat for disturbance tolerant species and support

abundant Bell Miners and Noisy Miners (Manorina melanocephala), which are known to aggressively

exclude other native birds (Kemmerer et al. 2008; OEH 2015), especially given that there is little shrub

layer to provide refuge for more sensitive species. Nonetheless, threatened microbats are expected

to forage in and amongst the degraded canopy and may roost in hollow trees, as well as underneath

the roof and floor of existing structures on the Subject Property. As such, Maintained Gardens are

considered to be of ‘moderate’ fauna conservation significance.



Plates: Maintained Gardens & Habitat Features

Top Left: Mown lawn with scattered canopy trees, introduced garden plants and debris pile. Top Right: Crown thinning and Bell Miner associated dieback is widespread. Middle Left: Microbats may roost within existing structures. Middle Right: Fences around three (3) sides on the Subject Property present a barrier to the movement of large fauna, such as Koalas. Bottom Left: Tree Hollows offer shelter and nesting habitat. Bottom Right: At least three (3) nests were recorded within the Subject Property.



Figure 3-2: Location of Fauna Habitat Features, Survey Effort and Monitoring Equipment (UBM December 2016)



3.2.3 Records of Fauna in the Region

A database search of the Region within a ten (10) km2 area centred on the Subject Property

(parameters – North: 33.51, West: 150.61, East: 150.71, South: -33.61) identified records for 284

species in the Region, including 24 introduced species (Table 3-4) (OEH 2016).

Table 3-4: Fauna Recorded in the Region

Class Common Name Native Species Introduced Species Total

Actinopterygii Fish 2 1 3

Amphibia Frogs 15 0 15

Aves Birds 173 8 181

Gastropoda Snails 1 0 1

Mammalia Mammals 41 15 56

Reptilia Reptiles 28 0 28

Total 260 24 284

3.2.4 Fauna Recorded in the Current Survey

During the site survey, evidence was found of 33 fauna species within the Subject Property or adjacent

areas: One (1) reptile, 17 birds, and 15 microbats (detected with varying levels of confidence). Of the

species recorded, seven (7) were threatened microbats, and one (1) is introduced. All other native

species are protected under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, but these are considered to be

common to abundant throughout their distribution ranges. A full list of species detected in the Subject

Property is presented in Appendix 3.

Plates: Observed Fauna

Top Left: Noisy Miners are abundant within the Subject Property. Top Right: Common Bronzewing (Phaps chalcoptera). Bottom Left: Dark-flecked Garden Sunskink (Lampropholis delicata) Bottom Right: Grey Butcherbird (Cracticus torquatus).



3.2.5 Threatened Fauna Assessment

Of those native species occurring in the Region within the last ten (10) years (OEH 2016), 19 are listed

as threatened and/or migratory species under the EPBC and/or TSC Acts. An assessment of the

potential for these listed fauna to use the Subject Property, is provided in Table 3-6 using the

assessment criteria detailed in Table 3-5.

Assessments were generally based on the habitat requirements described by OEH (2012-2016) and

DOE (2016), with other references used being identified in the bibliography. When considering the

likely impacts of the Proposal upon the local and regional presence of listed species presented in Table

3-6, the Assessment Criteria provided under Section 5A of the NSW Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act 1979 have been referred to and drawn upon.

Overall, the presence of seven (7) threatened microbats was confirmed (with varying reliabilities of

identification) during the current survey: Eastern Freetail Bat; Eastern Bentwing-bat; Greater Broad-

nosed Bat; Eastern False Pipistrelle; Southern Myotis; Large-eared Pied Bat; and Eastern Cave Bat. An

Assessment of Significance (seven-part test) for these seven (7) species is provided in Appendix 4. This

assessment concluded that the Proposal is not expected to significantly impact any of these species or

their habitats. No (0) other fauna species listed under the EPBC Act and/or TSC Act were detected

during the survey, or are considered likely to use the resources of the Subject Property.



Table 3-5: Assessment Criteria for Listed Fauna Species’ Potential to Use Subject Property

LIKELIHOOD CRITERIA FOR UTILISATION

Unlikely Species considered unlikely to occur/use the Subject Property fit one or more of the following

criteria:

species not recorded in the field survey; species not recorded previously in the Subject Property or Region (within 5 km of the

Subject Property); species with a known distribution or range outside of the Subject Property; and/or Species that rely on habitats and habitat features that do not occur in the Subject

Property.

Possible Species considered possibly to occur/use the Subject Property fit one or more of the following

criteria:

Species with occasional records (within the last ten [10] years) of occurring within the Region (within 5 km of the Subject Property);

Species with preferred habitat or habitat features occur on the Subject Property, however they occur in poor or modified condition or extremely limited; and/or

Species that may use or occur in habitats within the Subject Property opportunistically i.e. seasonally, however unlikely to be present on the property permanently and hence have no immediate impact on nesting/roosting or feeding habitat.

Likely Species considered likely to occur/use the Subject Property fit one or more of the following

criteria:

Species that have frequent and recent (within the last ten [10] years) incidence of previous records on the Subject Property and/or Region (within 5 km of the Subject Property);

Species that preferentially use habitat and/or habitat features that occur within the Subject Property and which are abundant and/or in good condition;

Species with resident populations known to occur in the Subject Property; and/or Species are known to frequently use habitat or habitat features within the Subject

Property or Region (within 5 km of the Subject Property) and/or are highly likely to visit the Subject Property in particular, during seasonal dispersal or migration.

Confirmed A species identified within the Subject Property during the fauna field survey conducted in

December 2016 or by another recent fauna field survey conducted by an independent

consultant and/or qualified Ecologist/Environmental Representative.



Table 3-6: Threatened Fauna Assessment

Legislative Classification: CE = Critically Endangered; E1/E = Endangered Species; V = Vulnerable; C = CAMBA Migratory; J = JAMBA Migratory; K = KAMBA Migratory.

Species listed under the Sensitive Species Data Policy may have their locations denatured: 3 = rounded to 0.01°; 2 = rounded to 0.1°.

* Within a 10 km2 area centered on the Subject Property (Parameters North: 33.51, West: 150.61, East: 150.71, South: -33.61).

Note: Assessments were generally based on the habitat requirements described by OEH (2012-2016) and DOE (2016), with other references used being identified in the bibliography.

COMMON &

SCIENTIFIC NAME

STATUS RECORDS IN THE REGION* POTENTIAL TO USE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LIKELY IMPACTS & ASSESSMENT

CONSIDERATIONS TSC

ACT

EPBC

ACT

WITHIN

5 KM

WITHIN

1 KM

MOST

RECENT

Amphibians (2)

Giant Burrowing Frog,

Heleioporus

australiacus

V V 1 0 May

2015

Unlikely: Subject Property is not typical of preferred habitat as it is largely cleared, modified

and maintained, lacks aquatic breeding habitat, lies on shale/clay soils and is somewhat

isolated by infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to impact this species. No

further assessment required.

Red-crowned Toadlet,

Pseudophryne

australis

V - 3 0 Mar

2012

Unlikely: Subject Property is not located on a sandstone ridgetop or talus slope and lacks

bush rock and ephemeral waterbodies. It is largely cleared, modified and maintained, and

is somewhat isolated by infrastructure. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to impact this

species. No further assessment required.

Birds (8)

Black-chinned

Honeyeater (eastern

subspecies),

Melithreptus gularis

gularis

V - 1 0 Jan

2008

Unlikely: generally only persists in large patches (> 200 ha) of remnant vegetation. Subject

Property is largely cleared, modified, maintained, and is situated within a fragmented

landscape. Native canopy trees are in poor condition. May be excluded from Subject

Property by aggressive Noisy Miners and Bell Miners. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to

impact this species. No further assessment required.

Gang-gang Cockatoo,

Callocephalon

fimbriatum

V,3 - 8 0 Feb

2016

Unlikely: Native canopy trees are in poor condition. Subject Property lacks acacia food trees

and suitable hollows for breeding. It is largely cleared, modified and maintained, and is

situated within a fragmented landscape. Removal of two (2) potential foraging trees from

the Subject Property will have little impact. No further assessment required.

Glossy Black-

Cockatoo,

Calyptorhynchus

lathami

V,2 - 2 0 Mar

2012

Unlikely: Subject Property lacks She-oak (Casuarina and Allocasuarina) food trees and

suitable hollows for breeding. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to impact this species. No

further assessment required.



COMMON &

SCIENTIFIC NAME


CONSIDERATIONS TSC

ACT

EPBC

ACT

WITHIN

5 KM

WITHIN

1 KM

MOST

RECENT

Little Lorikeet,

Glossopsitta pusilla

V - 2 0 Jun

2010

Unlikely: Native canopy trees are in poor condition. May be excluded from Subject Property

by aggressive Noisy Miners and Bell Miners. Subject Property lacks suitable hollows for

breeding. It is largely cleared, modified and maintained, and is situated within a

fragmented landscape. Removal of two (2) potential foraging trees from the Subject

Property will have little impact. No further assessment required.

Powerful Owl,

Ninox strenua

V,3 - 2 0 May

2015

Unlikely: Subject Property is not typical of roosting habitat and lacks suitable breeding

hollows and habitat favoured by prey species. It is largely cleared, modified and

maintained, and is situated within a fragmented landscape. Therefore, the Proposal is

unlikely to impact this species. No further assessment required.

Sooty Owl,

Tyto tenebricosa

V,3 - 2 0 Aug

2015

Unlikely: Subject Property does not contain rainforest or moist eucalypt forest, and lacks a

well-developed mid-storey, dense vegetation, caves and suitable breeding hollows. It is

largely cleared, modified and maintained, and is situated within a fragmented landscape.

Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to impact this species. No further assessment required.

Varied Sittella,

Daphoenositta

chrysoptera

V - 1 0 Aug

2015

Unlikely: As a relatively sedentary species, recent records in the Locality would be expected

if it was present. Subject Property is largely cleared, modified, maintained, and is situated

within a fragmented landscape. Potential foraging habitat is relatively sparse. May be

excluded from Subject Property by aggressive Noisy Miners and Bell Miners. Therefore, the

Proposal is unlikely to impact this species. No further assessment required.

White-throated

Needletail,

Hirundapus

caudacutus

- C,J,K 2 0 Jan

2008

Possible: May occasionally be observed foraging in the air above the Subject Property and

has the potential to roost therein. However, this species does not breed in Australia, and as

a primarily aerial migratory species, it is unlikely to rely on the resources of the Subject

Property. Therefore, the Proposal is unlikely to impact this species. No further assessment

required.

Mammals (9)

Eastern Bentwing-bat,

Miniopterus

schreibersii

oceanensis

V - 8 0 Feb

2015

Confirmed: Detected with a Probable reliability of identification during the current survey.

The Subject Property does not contain any known maternity roost caves, but man-made

structures within the Subject Property are potential roosting habitat. Likely to forage over



COMMON &

SCIENTIFIC NAME


CONSIDERATIONS TSC

ACT

EPBC

ACT

WITHIN

5 KM

WITHIN

1 KM

MOST

RECENT

the Subject Property on occasion, as part of a larger foraging range. An Assessment of

Significance is required (Appendix 4).

Eastern False

Pipistrelle,

Falsistrellus

tasmaniensis

V - 4 1 Feb

2015


Hollows and man-made structures within the Subject Property are potential roosting

habitat. Recently recorded in the Locality and likely to forage over the Subject Property on

occasion, as part of a larger foraging range. An Assessment of Significance is required

(Appendix 4).

Eastern Freetail-bat,

Mormopterus

norfolkensis

V - 6 0 Feb

2015

Confirmed: Detected with a Definite reliability of identification during the current survey.


habitat. Likely to forage over the Subject Property on occasion, as part of a larger foraging

range. An Assessment of Significance is required (Appendix 4).

Greater Broad-nosed

Bat,

Scoteanax rueppellii

V - 1 0 Nov

2013



habitat. Likely to forage over the Subject Property on occasion, as part of a larger foraging

range. An Assessment of Significance is required (Appendix 4).

Grey-headed Flying-

fox,

Pteropus

poliocephalus

V V 3 0 May

2012

Possible: The closest known camp is Yarramundi, located ~7 km from the Subject Property,

containing ~ 500-2,499 individuals in November 2015 (CSIRO & DOE 2016). Subject

Property is largely cleared, but contains some potential foraging trees in poor condition.

The removal of two (2) potential foraging trees will have little impact on this highly mobile


Koala,

Phascolarctos cinereus

V V 6 1 Oct

2016

Possible: SEPP 44 does not apply to the current proposal as the Subject Property is less

than 1 ha in size. Recently recorded in the Locality. The Subject Property contains potential

shelter trees and food trees (E. tereticornis and E. punctata), albeit in poor condition. It is

largely cleared, modified, maintained, subject to anthropogenic disturbance and isolated by

infrastructure (e.g. roads and fences). The Subject Property offers some connectivity for

individuals moving throughout the Region (but note dispersal barriers), but is relatively poor

quality habitat. The removal of two (2) potential food trees will have little impact on this




COMMON &

SCIENTIFIC NAME


CONSIDERATIONS TSC

ACT

EPBC

ACT

WITHIN

5 KM

WITHIN

1 KM

MOST

RECENT

Southern Myotis,

Myotis macropus

V - 1 0 Sep

2008



habitat. Note that this species is unlikely to forage within the Subject Property as no

waterbodies are present. An Assessment of Significance is required (Appendix 4).

Spotted-tailed Quoll,

Dasyurus maculatus

V E 1 0 May

2014

Unlikely: Subject Property lacks suitable hollows, logs, caves, crevices or burrows for

sheltering and breeding. It is largely cleared, modified, maintained, subject to

anthropogenic disturbance and somewhat isolated by infrastructure. Therefore, the


Yellow-bellied Glider,

Petaurus australis

V - 2 0 Aug

2015

Unlikely: Subject Property does not contain moist sclerophyll forest and lacks abundant

food trees and suitable hollows. It is largely cleared, modified, maintained, subject to

anthropogenic disturbance and somewhat isolated by infrastructure. Therefore, the




4 CONCLUSION, DECLARATION & SIGN-OFF

This Ecological Investigation has provided an assessment of the potential ecological impacts that may

arise from the works to be undertaken under the Proposal to subdivide Lot E3 in DP73372 at 452

Greggs Road Kurrajong for the continuation of residential living.

Impacts upon any listed Ecological Community may be described as Direct Impacts – activities

expected to directly affect the listed community e.g. clearing of vegetation, or Indirect Impacts –

activities which are expected to affect the listed community indirectly e.g. changes in local hydrology

and an increase in soil nutrient levels due to runoff from pastures, lawns and gardens.

Results

Plant Communities: Hawkesbury City Council maps the vegetation on the Subject Property as Shale

Sandstone Transition Woodland (a threatened plant community), while Tozer et al. (2010) mapping

for the former DECCW, maps the Property as ‘Cleared’, with a small area of bushland in the north-

eastern corner. The recent survey by UBM (December 2016) confirms the vegetation mapping by

Tozer et al. for the Subject Property. No intact bushland remains on the Property, which has been

developed over many years as a managed garden, although retaining some native canopy trees in the

gardens and small paddock.

Given the long-term use of the Property as a residential garden with a small paddock, which has

cleared all the native understorey vegetation, it is considered that the remaining vegetation (being

composed of scattered native canopy trees) does not conform to the definition of bushland provided

under State Environmental Planning Policy – 19 Urban Bushland, and as such, no Assessments of

Significance have been required.

Flora: About 100 flora species were recorded on the Subject Property. Of these only about 15 are

locally-occurring native species (see James, McDougall and Benson 1999). The remainder are either

non-local natives and exotic planted specimens, garden escapes, or weed species.


threatened species known to the Region. It is likely that the previous and long-term management

history of the vegetation on the Subject Property has removed all suitable growing conditions.

Fauna: The Subject Property is situated within a moderately fragmented peri-urban landscape.

Maintained Gardens within the Subject Property are considered to be of moderate fauna conservation

significance. The most important habitat features on the Property are hollow-bearing trees, none of

which will be removed by the Proposal.

A total of 33 fauna species were detected within the Subject Property or adjacent areas, including

seven (7) threatened microbats (recorded with varying levels of confidence in identification): Eastern

Freetail Bat; Eastern Bentwing-bat; Greater Broad-nosed Bat; Eastern False Pipistrelle; Southern

Myotis; Large-eared Pied Bat; and Eastern Cave Bat. An Assessment of Significance (seven-part test)

carried out for these seven (7) species concluded that the Proposal is not expected to significantly

impact any of these species or their habitats. No (0) other fauna species listed under the EPBC Act



and/or TSC Act were detected during the survey, or are considered likely to use the resources of the

Subject Propety.

Recommendations:

In considering the Proposal to subdivide land in the Subject Property at 452 Kurrajong to create two

(2) residential allotments, UBM comments and recommends as follows.

It will be necessary to remove two (2) trees and a number of introduced Palms from the

Subject Property to create a new driveway on the western boundary. Further tree loss on the

road verge (Council land) may be required to provide access to the new driveway from Greggs

Road.

A new effluent disposal system will be installed in the garden behind the existing residence

fronting Greggs Road. It is recommended that it is located in an area which minimises impact

on the vegetation.

Vegetation clearing should be confined to the smallest area required for the driveway and (if

required) the effluent disposal system.

Appropriate tree protection measures should be in place prior to any construction works

commencing for all trees in the development footprint identified for retention (e.g. wooden

tree guards, exclusion fencing).

Immediately prior to felling of any known habitat trees for construction purposes, a pre-

clearance survey should be undertaken by a qualified Ecologist or Wildlife Spotter Catcher to

identify and relocate fauna that may be disturbed, injured or killed during clearing (e.g.

nesting birds, roosting microbats).

If the removal of an identified habitat tree is necessary, a slow-drop method should be used,

and a qualified Ecologist or member of WIRES should be present on site to ensure that any

fauna encountered while clearing is removed to a carer or relocated to a nearby safe site.

If an unexpected threatened species is found during construction, all work must stop, and the

Council and both Council and OEH notified immediately. Work is not to resume until an

Assessment of Significance has been conducted for the threatened species and it is

determined that an impact is not likely to occur.

Noxious and keystone environmental weeds should be controlled as a matter of priority

(certainly before construction starts). See Table 2-1 for a list of target weeds.

Where native trees are unavoidably impacted (e.g. new driveway), supplementary indigenous

flowering and fruiting trees and shrubs should be planted post construction, thus retaining

local landscape character, but also maintaining habitat connectivity.

The installation of nest boxes9 or sculptured hollows10 (specifically targeting threatened

microbats) should be undertaken by a qualified Ecologist or Arborist in order to mitigate the

loss of any hollow-bearing canopy trees from the road verge.

9 Constructed species-specific nest boxes and tree mounting kits may be purchased [Nest Boxes Australia http://www.nestingboxes.com.au/epages/shsh6893.sf/en_AU/?ObjectPath=/Shops/shsh6893/Products/106] 10 Sydney Arbor Trees: http://www.sydneyarbor.com.au/habitat-creation.html

http://www.nestingboxes.com.au/epages/shsh6893.sf/en_AU/?ObjectPath=/Shops/shsh6893/Products/106

http://www.sydneyarbor.com.au/habitat-creation.html



Maintain a high standard of hygiene that requires the cleaning of vehicles and other plant

equipment. This will ensure the site is free of dirt and debris imported from other sites and

will help to minimise the potential spread of weeds as well as bacterial and fungal disease

(such as Phytophthora cinnamomi and Chytridiomycosis).

By adopting the recommendations identified in this Report, the impacts on native vegetation

communities and the native flora and fauna species known to utilise the resources of the Subject

Property and Locality generally, will be minimised.



5 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Benson D. H. (1992). The natural vegetation of the Penrith 1:100,000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2,

541–96

Benson, D.H., & Howell, J. (1990). Taken for granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs.

Kangaroo Press, Sydney.

Botanic Gardens Trust (2015). PlantNET - The Plant Information Network System of the Royal

Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust, Sydney, Australia (version 2.0.) Accessed December 2016.

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au

Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) (2016). Climate Statistics for Australian Locations: Richmond NSW

(#067105). Accessed December 2016: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

Churchill, S. (2008). Australian Bats, 2nd Edition. Jacana Books, Crows Nest, Sydney.

Cogger, H. C. (2014). Reptiles & Amphibians of Australia (Seventh Edition). CSIRO Publishing,

Collingwood, Victoria.

Cropper, S. (1993). Management of Endangered Plants. CSIRO. Melbourne.

CSIRO & DOE (2016). Interactive Flying-fox Web Viewer: National Flying-Fox Monitoring Programme.

CSIRO and the Department of the Environment. Available at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-fox-monitoring

Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2004). Threatened Species Survey and

Assessment: Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft). New South Wales

Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville, NSW.

Department of the Environment (DOE) (2013). Matters of National Environmental Significance.

Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999. Department of the Environment, Canberra.

Department of the Environment (DOE) (2016). Species Profile and Threats Database. Department

of the Environment, Canberra. Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (DECC) (2008). Recovery plan for the koala

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

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

guidelines – The assessment of significance. Accessed at:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/tsaguide07393.pdf

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010a). Survey guidelines

for Australia’s threatened birds. Available online:

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-birds-

guidelines-detecting-birds-listed-threatened

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/flying-fox-monitoring

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

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/tsaguide07393.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-birds-guidelines-detecting-birds-listed-threatened

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-birds-guidelines-detecting-birds-listed-threatened



Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2010b). Survey

guidelines for Australia’s threatened frogs. Commonwealth of Australia.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC)

(2011a). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened reptiles. Available online:

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-reptiles-

guidelines-detecting-reptiles-listed

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC)

(2011b). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Available online:

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-

mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water Populations and Communities (2011).

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Online Databases.

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/db/index.html *now Dept. Conservation & Energy

Fairley, A. (2004). Seldom Seen, Rare Plants of Greater Sydney. Reed New Holland Sydney.

Gleeson, J. & Gleeson, D. (2012). Reducing the impacts of development on wildlife. CSIRO

Publishing, Collingwood, VIC.

Hazelton, P.A., Bannerman, S.M. & Tille, P.J. (1989). Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet. Map. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

James, T., McDougall, L., & Benson, D. (1999). Rare Bushland Plants of Western Sydney. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.

Keith DA (2004). Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the

ACT. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney

Kemmerer, E.P., Shields, J.M., & Tidemann, C.R., (2008). High densities of bell miners Manorina

melanophrys associated with reduced diversity of other birds in wet eucalypt forest: Potential

for adaptive management. Forest Ecology and Management. 255(7), 2094-2102.

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

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

McKinlay Morgan and Associates (2016). Plan of Proposed subdivision of Lot E in DP373372 Greggs

Road Kurrajong.

Menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2011). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia: Third Edition. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Morcombe, M., & Stewart, D. (2014). The Michael Morcombe and David Stewart eGuide to the Birds of Australia. Mydigitalearth.com.

NSW Department of Primary Industries (2015). NSW WeedWise (Noxious Weed Declarations).

Accessed December 2016. http://weeds.dpi.nsw.gov.au/

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-reptiles-guidelines-detecting-reptiles-listed

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-reptiles-guidelines-detecting-reptiles-listed

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/survey-guidelines-australias-threatened-mammals-guidelines-detecting-mammals-listed

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

http://weeds.dpi.nsw.gov.au/



NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (1997). Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey

(Western Sydney). The Service, Hurstville.

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) (2012-2016). Threatened Species Profiles. Office of

Environment & Heritage, NSW Government. Available at:

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

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) (2013). Threatened Species Survey and Assessment

Guidelines. Accessed at:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/surveyassessmentgdlns.htm

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) (2015). Aggressive exclusion of birds from woodland

and forest habitat by abundant Noisy Miners Manorina melanocephala. Available at:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=20271

NSW Office of Environment & Heritage (OEH) (2016). Atlas of NSW Wildlife Database. Accessed

December 2016. http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/

Pennay, M., Law, B. & Reinhold, L. (2004). Bat calls of NSW: Region based guide to the echolocation

calls of Microchiropteran bats. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation,

Hurstville.

Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (2003) The Field Guide to the Birds of Australia 7th edition. Harper Collins,

Pymble, NSW.

Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. (2013). Pizzey & Knight Birds of Australia Digital Edition V1. Gibbon

Multimedia.

Reinhold, L., Law, B., Ford, G. and Pennay, M. (2001). Key to the bat calls of southeast Queensland

and north-east New South Wales. Forest Ecosystem Research and Assessment Technical

paper 2001-07, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Queensland.

Richardson F.J., Richardson R.G., Shepherd R.C.H. (2007). Weeds of the South-East, an

Identification Guide for Australia. R.G. and F.J. Richardson, Meredith

Robinson, L. (1991). A Field Guide to the Native Plants of Sydney. Kangaroo Press, Sydney.

Specht, R.L. (1981). Foliage projective cover and standing biomass, in D.J. Anderson and A.N. Gillison

(eds), Vegetation Classification in Australia. CSIRO and Australian National University Press,

Canberra, pp. 10–21.

Thompson, W. (2013) Sampling rare or elusive species. Concepts. Design and Technique for estimating

population parameters. Island Press. Brisbane.

Tozer, M.G (2003). The native vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney: systematic

classification and field identification of communities, in Cunninghamia (8) 1, 2003.

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

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/surveyassessmentgdlns.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedSpeciesApp/profile.aspx?id=20271

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



Tozer, M.G., Turner, K., Simpson, C., Keith, D.A., Beukers, P., MacKenzie, B., Tindall, D. & Pennay,

C. (2010). Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast

and eastern tablelands, in Cunninghamia 11 (3) 2010.

Triggs, B. (2004). Tracks, Scats and Other Traces: A Field Guide to Australian Mammals. Oxford

University Press, Melbourne.

UBM Ecological Consultants (2014). Flora and Fauna Study for a proposed residential subdivision at

1411 Kurmond Road, Kurmond. For a private client.

UBM Ecological Consultants (2014). Flora and Fauna Study for a residential subdivision, Bells Line of

Road & 631 Masons Lane, Kurrajong. For a private client

UBM Ecological Consultants (2014) Flora and Fauna Study & Ecological Assessment for 535 Bells Line

of Road, Kurmond. For a private client

Walker, J. & Hopkins, M.S. (1990). Vegetation. In: Australian Soil and Land Survey Field Handbook.

R.C. McDonald, R.F. Isbell, J.G. Speight, J. Walker and M.S. Hopkins. Inkata Press, Melbourne.



6 APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Shale Sandstone Transition Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion

GW p2: Cumberland Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (per Tozer et al. 2010)

Sample Sites: 82

Area Extant (ha): 9,600

Estimated % remaining: 20-40%

Area in conservation reserves (ha): 240

Estimated % of pre-clearing area: <2%

No. Taxa (total / unique): 406 / 2

No. Taxa per Plot (+sd): 45.6 (9.6)

Cumberland Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (GW p2) is equivalent to GW 2 described by Tindall et

al. (2004), and is a eucalypt forest or woodland with a mixed understorey of sclerophyll shrubs and

grasses. It occurs on clay soils derived from Wianamatta shale (Bannerman and Hazelton 1990)

predominantly on the margins of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney, where the underlying sandstone

strata are near the surface. Minor occurrences are found on isolated shale remnants in the lower Blue

Mountains and the Hornsby and Woronora plateaux and, more rarely, associated with shale lenses

within sandstone strata. Cumberland Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is found up to 350m ASL in

areas where mean annual rainfall ranges from 800 to 1100mm.

Cumberland Shale Sandstone Transition Forest is highly variable in floristic composition. Species

composition varies as a function of the degree of sandstone influence in the soil: remnants close to

outcropping sandstone may contain a large component of sclerophyll shrub species while those

remote from the sandstone boundary contain more grasses and herbs, and resemble Cumberland

Shale Plains Woodland (GW p29), (Tozer 2003). Remnants occurring in the higher rainfall range (>

1000mm) contain a proportion of mesic species and show similarities to Sydney Turpentine Ironbark

Forest (WSF p87). This transition varies depending on exposure to solar radiation. Cumberland Shale

Sandstone Transition Forest listed on Schedule 1 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act

(1995) as Sydney Shale Sandstone Transition Forest. It continues to be threatened by suburban

expansion, weed invasion and high frequency fires, though important stands exist along the southeast

margin of the Cumberland Plain from Appin to Thirlmere. It belongs to the Coastal Valley Grassy

Woodlands vegetation class (Keith 2004).

Floristic Summary:

Trees: Eucalyptus crebra, Eucalyptus fibrosa, Allocasuarina littoralis, Eucalyptus punctata. Shrubs:

Persoonia linearis, Bursaria spinosa, Ozothamnus diosmifolius, Hibbertia aspera. Climbers: Glycine

clandestina. Groundcover: Lepidosperma laterale, Cheilanthes sieberi, Aristida vagans, Pratia

purpurascens, Microlaena stipoides, Entolasia stricta, Lomandra multiflora, Themeda australis,

Panicum simile, Echinopogon caespitosus, Pomax umbellata, Dichondra spp., Billardiera scandens,

Opercularia diphylla.



Vegetation structure:

Stratum Frequency (n=69) Height (m) (+StDev) Cover (%) (+StDev)

Tree canopy 100 21.4 (4.5) 21.4 (10.4)

Small tree 78 10.9 (4.4) 17.9 (15.8)

Shrub 65 2.3 (0.6) 7.9 (9.2)

Ground cover 99 1 (0.1) 40.2 (22.5)

Diagnostic Species:

A 0.04 ha plot located in this Map Unit is expected to contain at least 25 positive diagnostic species

(95% confidence interval) provided the total number of native species in the plot is 37 or greater. A

95% confidence interval means that five percent of plots sampled (1 in 20 plots) in this Map Unit may

contain fewer than 25 positive diagnostic species.

C/A: Cover/abundance within Map Unit (50 percentile)

Freq: Frequency (%) within Map Unit

C/AO: Cover/abundance in other Map Units (50 percentile)

FreqO: Frequency (%) within other Map Units

Species C/A Freq C/AO FreqO

Acacia binervata 1 14 1 2

Acacia decurrens 1 27 1 2

Acacia elongata 1 6 1 1

Acacia falcata 1 18 1 1

Acacia floribunda 1 14 1 2

Acacia implexa 1 20 1 6

Acacia parramattensis 1 30 1 4

Allocasuarina littoralis 1 53 1 16

Allocasuarina torulosa 1 19 1 4

Angophora bakeri 1 16 1 2

Aristida vagans 1 80 1 8

Arthropodium milleflorum 1 19 1 5

Astroloma humifusum 1 20 1 4

Austrodanthonia fulva 1 20 1 2

Austrostipa pubescens 2 33 1 5

Austrodanthonia tenuior 1 10 1 2

Billardiera scandens 1 56 1 27

Boronia polygalifolia 1 6 1 1

Bossiaea prostrata 1 22 1 2


Brachyscome angustifolia 1 9 1 2

Breynia oblongifolia 1 27 1 12

Brunoniella australis 1 41 2 3

Brunoniella pumilio 1 24 1 4

Bursaria spinosa 1 65 1 14

Caesia parviflora 1 11 1 2

Calotis dentex 1 30 1 0

Cassytha glabella 1 18 1 8

Cheilanthes sieberi 1 82 1 13

Corymbia maculata 3 11 2 3

Cymbopogon refractus 1 28 1 4

Daviesia squarrosa 1 6 1 0

Daviesia ulicifolia 1 19 1 6

Desmodium rhytidophyllum 1 15 1 1

Dianella longifolia 1 13 1 4

Dianella revoluta var. revoluta 1 42 1 15

Dichelachne micrantha 1 33 1 9

Dichondra spp. 1 58 1 25

Dichelachne parva 1 8 1 1




Digitaria parviflora 1 27 1 2

Digitaria ramularis 1 30 1 1

Dodonaea triquetra 1 20 1 6

Echinopogon caespitosus var. caespitosus

1 62 1 6

Echinopogon ovatus 1 33 1 13

Entolasia marginata 1 41 1 11

Entolasia stricta 2 77 1 33

Eragrostis brownii 1 24 1 3

Eragrostis leptostachya 1 19 1 4

Eucalyptus crebra 2 63 2 2

Eucalyptus eugenioides 1 24 2 4

Eucalyptus fibrosa 2 52 2 2

Eucalyptus punctata 2 52 1 8

Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. resinifera

1 6 1 1

Euchiton sphaericus 1 20 1 3

Exocarpos cupressiformis 1 22 1 5

Gahnia aspera 1 24 1 4

Galium binifolium 1 11 1 3

Glycine clandestina 1 72 1 26

Glycine microphylla 1 18 1 5

Glycine tabacina 1 28 1 7

Goodenia hederacea subsp. hederacea

1 46 1 14

Hardenbergia violacea 1 47 1 17

Hibbertia aspera subsp. aspera

1 51 1 10

Hibbertia diffusa 1 29 1 3

Hypoxis hygrometrica 1 15 1 1

Jacksonia scoparia 1 25 1 1

Kunzea ambigua 1 49 1 3

Lagenifera gracilis 1 39 1 3

Laxmannia gracilis 1 25 1 3

Lepidosperma laterale 1 87 1 28

Leucopogon juniperinus 1 48 1 5


Lissanthe strigosa 1 39 1 8

Lomandra confertifolia subsp. rubiginosa

1 19 1 4

Lomandra filiformis subsp. coriacea

1 37 1 10

Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora

1 75 1 24

Microlaena stipoides 1 81 1 36

Notelaea longifolia forma longifolia

1 27 1 7

Olearia microphylla 1 16 1 1

Opercularia diphylla 1 54 1 6

Oxalis perennans 1 38 1 12

Ozothamnus diosmifolius 1 56 1 8

Panicum simile 1 68 1 5

Paspalidium distans 1 30 1 2

Passiflora herbertiana subsp. herbertiana

1 8 1 1

Persoonia linearis 1 77 1 28

Phyllanthus hirtellus 1 34 1 14

Pimelea linifolia subsp. linifolia

1 34 1 13

Poa labillardierei var. labillardierei

1 33 1 11

Polymeria calycina 1 11 1 1

Pomaderris lanigera 1 8 1 1

Pomax umbellata 1 62 1 13

Poranthera microphylla 1 37 1 15

Pratia purpurascens 1 82 1 17

Pterostylis concinna 1 8 1 0

Pultenaea villosa 1 10 1 1

Rapanea variabilis 1 15 1 4

Solanum prinophyllum 1 37 1 6

Solanum pungetium 1 19 1 5

Stypandra glauca 1 27 1 5

Themeda australis 2 75 1 17

Tricoryne elatior 1 14 1 3




Vernonia cinerea var. cinerea 1 34 1 4

Veronica plebeia 1 42 1 10

Westringia longifolia 1 6 1 0



Appendix 2: List of Flora Species Recorded on the Subject Property (UBM December 2016)

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME HABIT/FORM

Agavaceae

*Agave americana Century Plant LSh

*Cordyline sp. Palm Lily LSh

Aiziaceae

*Dolichandra unguis-cati Cat’s Claw Creeper V

Amaryllidaceae

*Agapanthus praecox Agapanthus H

*Clivia miniata Clivia H

Amygdalaceae

*Photinia glabra ‘Rubens’ Japanese Photinia LSh

*Spiraea cantoniensis May Bush Sh

Anacardiaceae

*Schinus areira/molle Pepper Tree ST

Apocynaceae

*Araujia sericifera Moth Vine V

Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod V

Arecaceae

*Livistona australis Cabbage Tree Palm ST

*Dypsis lutescens Golden Cane Palm ST

*Syagrus romanzoffiana Queen Palm ST

Asparagaceae

*Asparagus aethiopicus Asparagus Fern H

*Beaucarnea recurvata Pony Tail Plant Sh

*Chlorophytum comosum Spider Lily H

Aspleniaceae

*Asplenium australascium Birds Nest Fern Fe

Asteraceae

*Cirsium vulgare Thistle H

*Conyza bonariensis Fleabane H

Euchiton sphaericus Cudweed GC

*Hypochaeris radicata Cat’s Ear H

Ozothamnus diosmifolius White Dogwood Sh

*Osteospermum sp. Cape Daisy H

Bambusaceae




*Phyllostachys aurea Bamboo/Golden Cane LSh

Berberidadeae

* Nandina domestica Sacred Bamboo S

Bignoniaceae

*Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda T

Buxaceae

*Buxus microphylla Japanese Box Sh

Caprifoliaceae

*Abelia floribunda Abelia Sh

Caryophyllaceae

*Cerastium fontanum Mouse-ear Chickweed GC

Chenopodiaceae

Einadia hastata Saloop GC

Convolvulaceae

Dichondra repens Kidney Weed GC

Crassulaceae

*Crassula spp Australian Stonecrop H

*Crassula arborescens Jade Plant Sh

Cunoniaceae

*Ceratopetalum apetalum Coachwood ST

Cupressaceae

*Cupressus sp Prostrate Cypress Sh

*Callitris columellaris White Cyperus Pine ST

*Juniperus sp. Prostrate Juniper Sh

Ericaceae

*Rhododendron Azalea CV Azalea Sh

Euphorbiaceae

*Triadica sebifera= Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallowwood ST

Fabaceae (Faboideae)

Indigofera australis False Indigo Sh

*Wisteria sinense Wisteria Sh/V

Fabaceae (Mimosoideae)

Acacia binervata Two-veined Hickory ST

Acacia implexa Hickory ST

*Acacia longifolia var. longifolia Sydney Golden Wattle ST

*Gleditsia tricanthos Honey Loquat ST




*Robinia pseudoacacia Golden Loquat tree ST

Iridaceae

*Dietes iridoides Cape Iris/Dietes H

Lamiaceae

*Lavendula sp. Hybrid Lavender Sh

Logoniaceae

*Gelsemium sempervirens Caroline Jasmine Sh

Lomandraceae

Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush H

Lythraceae

*Lagerstroemia indica Crêpe Myrtle ST

Magnoliaceae

*Magnolia grandiflora Little Gem Hybrid ST

Malaceae

*Malus pumila Apple ST

Melastomataeae

*Tibouchina sp Hybrid Lasiandra ST

Meliaceae

Melia azedarach White Cedar ST

Moraceae

*Ficus? rubiginosa Port Jackson Fig T (seedling)

Musaceae

*Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Sh

Myrtaceae

*Acmena smithii Lilly Pilly ST

* Callistemon salignus Red Bottlebrush Sh

Eucalyptus punctata Grey Gum CT

Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum CT

Oleaceae

*Fraxinus excelsior Common Ash ST

*Ligustrum lucidum Large-leaf Privet ST

*Ligustrum sinense Small-leaf Privet Sh

Phyllanthaceae

Breynia oblongifolia Coffee Bush LSh

Pinaceae

*Pinus patula Mexican Pine T




*Pinus radiata Monterey Pine T

Pittosporaceae

Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum ST

*Pittosporum tenuifolium Cheesewood LSh

Plantaginaceae

*Plantago lanceolata Plantain H

Plumbaginaceae

*Plumbago auriculata Blue Plumbago Sh

Poaceae

Aristida vagans Three-awn Spear-grass G

*Bromus catharticus Bromegrass G

Cynodon dactylon Couch G

*Ehrharta erecta Panic Veldtgrass G

*Eragrostis curvula African Love Grass G

Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass G

Polypodiaceae

*Phymatosorus ? scolopendria Monarch Fern Fe

Proteaceae

*Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia ST

*Banksia marginata Silver Banksia ST

Eucalyptus spp (saplings) Eucalypts T

*Grevillea CV Grevillea cultivars LSh

*Grevillea robusta Silky Oak ST

*Hakea dactyloides Finger Hakea LSh

*Stenocarpus sinuatus Queensland Firewheel Tree ST

Rhamnaceae

Alphitonia excelsa Red Ash ST

Rosaceae

*Prunus avium Cherry ST

*Rosa CV Rose Sh

Rubiaceae

*Gardenia jasminoides/florida Gardenia Sh

Rutaceae

*Choisya ternata Mexica Orange Blossom Sh

*Citrus spp Citrus fruits ST

*Skimmia ?japonica Skimmia Sh




*Murraya paniculata Jessamine V

Sapindaceae

*Acer palmatum Japanese Maple ST

Saxifragaceae

*Hydrangea macrophylla Hydrangea Sh

Solanaceae

*Solanum mauritianum Wild Tobacco LSh

Sterculiaceae

*Brachychiton acerfolius Illawarra Flame Tree ST

Theaceae

*Camellia japonica Camellia ST

Verbenaceae

*Verbena bonariensis Purple Top H

Key:

CT – Canopy Tree

T – Medium Tree

ST – Small Tree

LSh– Large Shrub

Sh- Shrub

GC – Ground Cover

G - Grass

V – Vine/scrambler

Fe - Fern

Bold – Natives local to Western Sydney



Appendix 3: List of Fauna Species Recorded in the Subject Property (UBM December 2016)

Observation Type

A Stranding/Beaching H Hair, feathers or skin R Road kill

AR Acoustic Recording I Subfossil/Fossil remains S Shot

B Burnt K Dead T Trapped or netted

C Cat kill M Miscellaneous U Anabat

D Dog Kill N Not located V Fox kill

E Nest/Drey/Roost O Observed W Heard call

F Tracks or scratchings OW Observed & Heard Calls X In scat

FB Burrow P Scat Y Bone, teeth, shell

G Crushed cones Q Camera Z In raptor/owl pellet

* Introduced species # threatened species

Note: Echolocation call identifications have been assigned to three (3) categories with regard to certainty of identification

(see Table 3-3 for details). These are:

(D) Definite Identification: Small possibility of confusion of calls with those of other bat species.

(Pr) Probable Identification: Some possibility of confusion of calls with those of other bat species.

(Po) Possible Identification: Likely to be confused with calls with those of other bat species.

FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OBS.

TYPE SITE

ADJACENT

FLY-OVER

Reptiles (1)

Scincidae Lampropholis delicata Dark-flecked Garden Sunskink

O

Birds (17)

Artamidae Cracticus torquatus Grey Butcherbird OW

Gymnorhina tibicen Australian Magpie W

Cacatuidae Cacatua galerita Sulphur-crested Cockatoo W

Columbidae Geopelia humeralis Bar-shouldered Dove W

Phaps chalcoptera Common Bronzewing OW

Cuculidae Eudynamys orientalis Eastern Koel W

Halcyonidae Dacelo novaeguineae Laughing Kookaburra OW

Meliphagidae

Manorina melanocephala

Noisy Miner OW

Manorina melanophrys Bell Miner W

Monarchidae Grallina cyanoleuca Magpie-lark W

Pachycephalidae Colluricincla harmonica Grey Shrike-thrush W

Psittacidae

Alisterus scapularis King Parrot W

Platycercus elegans Crimson Rosella W

Platycercus eximius Eastern Rosella O



FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME OBS.

TYPE SITE

ADJACENT

FLY-OVER

Trichoglossus haematodus

Rainbow Lorikeet OW

Ptilonorhynchidae Ptilonorhynchus violaceus

Satin Bowerbird O

Sturnidae *Sturnus tristis Common Myna OW

Mammal (15)

Molossidae

Austronomus australis White-striped Freetail-bat U (D)

# Mormopterus norfolkensis

Eastern Freetail-bat U (D)

Mormopterus planiceps/

Mormopterus ridei

Little Mastiff-bat/

Eastern Free-tailed Bat U (Pr)

Mormopterus ridei Eastern Free-tailed Bat U (D)

Vespertilionidae

# Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat U (D)

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould's Wattled Bat U (D)

Chalinolobus morio Chocolate Wattled Bat U (Pr)

Vespadelus vulturnus/

Vespadelus pumilus/

# Vespadelus troughtoni

Little Forest Bat/

Eastern Forest Bat/

Eastern Cave Bat

U (Pr)

#Scoteanax rueppellii/ Scotorepens orion/

# Falsistrellus tasmaniensis

Greater Broad-nosed Bat/Eastern Broad-nosed Bat/ Eastern False Pipistrelle

U (Pr)

Scotorepens orion/

# Scoteanax rueppellii

Eastern Broad-nosed Bat/Greater Broad-nosed Bat

U (Pr)

Scotorepens orion Eastern Broad-nosed Bat U (D)

# Myotis macropus/ Nyctophilus sp.

Southern Myotis/

Nyctophilus species U (Pr)

# Miniopterus orianae (schreibersii) oceanensis /

Vespadelus regulus

Eastern Bentwing-bat/

Southern Forest Bat U (Pr)

Vespadelus vulturnus Little Forest Bat U (Pr)

Vespertilionidae/ Molossidae

Chalinolobus gouldii/ Mormopterus sp.

Gould's Wattled Bat/ Mormopterus species

U (Pr)



Appendix 4: Assessments of Significance for Threatened Microbats

As part of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995), an Assessment of Significance (Seven-

part Test) using the criteria provided under Section 5A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979 has been completed to assess the likely impacts of the Proposal at 452 Greggs Road,

Kurrajong. Due to their similar foraging ecology and associated impacts, a single Seven-part Test has

been undertaken for the following microbats, which are all listed as Vulnerable under the TSC Act:

Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis);

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis);

Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii);

Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis);

Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus);

Large-eared Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri); and

Eastern Cave Bat (Vespadelus troughtoni).

During the current field survey (December 2016), the Eastern Freetail-bat and Large-eared Pied Bat;

were recorded calling over the Subject Property with a ‘Definite’ reliability of identification. The

Eastern Bentwing-bat, Greater Broad-nosed, Eastern False Pipistrelle, Southern Myotis and Eastern

Cave Bat were recorded with a ‘Probable’ reliability of identification.

The Eastern Freetail-bat primarily roosts in tree hollows, but will also roost under bark, in buildings

and cracks in posts. This species forages for insects (mostly bugs, flies, beetles and some moths) in

spaces between trees and along edges of vegetation, usually foraging within a few kilometres from its

roost (Churchill 2008).

The Eastern Bentwing-bat hunts for moths and other flying insects (flies, cockroaches and beetles)

above the canopy in well-timbered areas (Churchill 2008). The Eastern Bentwing-bat requires karst

(limestone) caves with very specific temperature and humidity regimes for breeding. However, they

are known to roost in derelict mines, storm water tunnels, buildings and other man-made structures

(OEH 2014) in territorial ranges usually within 300 km of the maternity cave (Churchill 2008). On

occasion, they have been recorded utilising tree-hollows.

The Greater Broad-nosed Bat will roost in hollow-bearing trees, in cracks and fissures in trunks and

dead branches, under exfoliating bark, as well as in the roofs of old buildings (Churchill 2008). This

species forages along creek and river corridors, forest remnants or along forest crowns at an altitude

of 3-6 metres, feeding on beetles, moths, ants and large flies.

The Eastern False Pipistrelle prefers to roost in eucalypt hollows around 20 m off the ground, but is

also known to roost under loose bark on trees or in buildings (Churchill 2008; OEH 2014). This

relatively large species hibernates during winter.

The Southern Myotis generally roosts in small groups of 10-15 individuals close to water in caves, mine

shafts, tree hollows, stormwater drains, buildings, and underneath bridges and dense foliage (OEH

2014). The Southern Myotis forages exclusively over bodies of still or slowly moving water (e.g. pools,

streams, creeks, rivers) feeding on aquatic insects and small fish (Churchill 2008).

The Large-eared Pied Bat predominately occurs in areas with extensive cliffs and caves (OEH, 2014).

Occurs in well-timbered areas containing gullies, most commonly dry sclerophyll woodlands and



forests (Churchill, 2008; OEH, 2014). Roosts in caves and crevices in cliffs and mines near fertile

woodland valley regions (Churchill, 2008). Maternity and nursery roosts are found in sandstone caves

and overhangs (OEH, 2014). Connectivity between patches of remnant vegetation is thought to be

important.

The Eastern Cave Bat roosts in caves, and occasionally corrugated iron roof cavities (Law et al. 2005;

OEH 2016). It may found in dry open forest, woodland, wet eucalypt forest and rainforest near cliffs

and rocky overhangs (OEH 2016). They have been observed foraging above tree lined creeks

surrounded by cleared paddocks (Law et al. 2005).

(a) “…in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse

effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be

placed at risk of extinction…”

The Proposal will remove two (2) native trees and a small number of introduced Palms from the

western boundary of the Subject Property, none of which contain hollows. Some trees on the road

verge (Council land) may also be removed to provide access to the driveway from Greggs Road; four

(4) of these contain hollows. The existing man-made structures will remain in place and un-modified.

Therefore, the Proposal will impact a small area of potential foraging habitat (tree canopies), and

potentially a small amount of roosting habitat provided by hollow-bearing trees. No aquatic foraging

habitat, caves or man-made structures will be removed or modified.

Given that microbats are highly mobile and have a relatively large hunting range, the foraging

resources on site probably form only a small part of nightly foraging routes. The Proposal is therefore

considered unlikely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of threatened microbats such that a

viable local population of these 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…”,

Not applicable.

(c) “…in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological

community, whether the action proposed:

(i) “…is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that

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

(ii) “…is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological

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

Not applicable.

(d) “…in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

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

proposed…”, and



The Proposal will remove two (2) trees and a small number of introduced Palms from the western

boundary area of the Property, none of which contain hollows. Some trees on the road verge (Council

land) may also be removed; four (4) of these contain hollows. The existing man-made structures on

the Subject Property will remain in place and un-modified. Therefore, the Proposal will impact a small

area of terrestrial foraging habitat (tree canopies), and may remove up to four (4) roosting trees. No

aquatic foraging habitat, caves or man-made structures will be removed or modified.

(ii) “…whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other

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

The Subject Property is situated within a moderately fragmented peri-urban landscape. Remnant and

planted stands of vegetation remaining in paddocks and gardens in and around the Subject Property

provide some connectivity to larger stands of vegetation along Redbank Creek and its tributaries. Only

two (2) native trees and a small number of introduced Palms will be removed from the Subject

Property, although a few trees on the road verge may also be removed to provide access to the new

driveway from Greggs Road. Given that microbats are highly mobile species and can travel relatively

long distances, crossing barriers, such as roads, that may prevent the movement of less mobile species,

the Proposal is unlikely to fragment or isolate microbat habitat.

(iii) “…the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to

the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality…”

The habitat identified on site are considered to be of ‘moderate’ fauna conservation value because

the canopy trees are in poor condition (suffering Bell Miner/lerp associated dieback), and there is a

history of modification and anthropogenic disturbance on site. Given that the Proposal will only

remove a small number of trees (including no more than four [4] hollow-bearing trees), and the high

mobility of microbats, it is unlikely that the Proposal would significantly affect the species persistence

in the Locality over the long-term.

(e) “…whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either

directly or indirectly) …”

The Subject Property is not listed on the DPI or OEH Critical Habitat Registers.

(f) “…whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or

threat abatement plan…”

No Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans have been prepared for these species. The main threats

to microbats relevant to the Proposal are:

Disturbance to roosting and summer breeding sites;

Loss of foraging habitat;

Loss of hollow-bearing trees; and

Application of pesticides in or adjacent to foraging areas.

The Proposal will not remove cave roosts, or those in man-made structures, but may remove up to

four (4) hollow-bearing trees. Additionally, terrestrial foraging habitat will be marginally impacted

following the removal of a small number of canopy trees from the Subject Property and road verge

(Council land).



(g) “…whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to

result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process...”

The following listed KTPs are relevant to threatened microbats with regard to the Proposal:

Clearing of native vegetation: The Proposal will remove two (2) trees and some introduced

Palms close to the western boundary that may be used as foraging habitat by microbats on

occasion. The removal of a small number of trees on the road verge (Council land) may also

be required. The Proposal therefore results in the operation of this key threatening process

on a marginal scale.

Loss of hollow-bearing trees: Up to four (4) hollow-bearing trees on the road verge may

need to be removed.

Forest Eucalypt dieback associated with over-abundant psyllids and infestation by Bell

Miners: Bell Miner associated dieback is already widespread on the Subject Property.

The Proposal is likely to marginally reduce the size of terrestrial foraging habitat, and abundance of

hollow-roosts, for threatened microbats in the Locality. However, considering larger, less modified

patches of native vegetation exist within the Locality and Region, it is not expected that the Proposal

will adversely affect the survival and population viability of these species.

Expected Impact on Threatened Microbats

The Proposal is not likely to have a significant impact on threatened microbats such that a local viable

population would be placed at risk of extinction considering that:

The Proposal will not result in the erection of any barriers to the dispersal, foraging or

interbreeding needs of threatened microbats;

Microbats are highly mobile;

The Proposal will only remove two (2) native trees and a small number of introduced Palms

(none of which contain hollows) from the Subject Property, plus an as yet undetermined

number of trees on the road verge, four (4) of which contain hollows;

No aquatic foraging habitat, caves or man-made structures will be removed or modified;

The Subject Property is subject to Bell Miner/lerp associated dieback and anthropogenic

disturbance; and

Suitable foraging, roosting and breeding habitat is likely to be available elsewhere in the

Locality.

Therefore, giving consideration to Section 5(a) of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment

Act 1979, it is considered that the Proposal at 452 Greggs Road, Kurrajong, would NOT have a

significant impact on Eastern Freetail Bat; Eastern Bentwing-bat; Greater Broad-nosed Bat; Eastern

False Pipistrelle; Southern Myotis; Large-eared Pied Bat; or Eastern Cave Bat individuals, populations

and/or habitat in the Locality and therefore WOULD NOT require the preparation of a Species Impact

Statement that further considers the impacts of such a Proposal on these species.

flora & fauna survey subdivision at 452 greggs road ... · flora & fauna survey –...

Documents