To Download Appendix A

Callala Bay Residential Development EPBC Referral - Supporting Documentation

Sealark Pty Ltd

APRIL 2020

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Project Name Callala Bay EPBC Referral - Supporting Documentation

Project Number 19SYD_12581

Project Manager Nicole McVicar

Prepared by Mike Lawrie and Alex Gorey

Reviewed by Robert Humphries

Approved by Robert Humphries

Status Final

Version Number 4

Last saved on 24 April 2020

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2020. Callala Bay Residential Development EPBC Referral - Supporting Documentation. Prepared for Sealark.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Allen Price & Scarratts Pty Ltd and Sealark Pty Ltd

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Sealark. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Sealark, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 2.8.1

Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Project Industry Type ...... 1 1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities ...... 1 1.3 What is the extent and location of your proposed action? Use the polygon tool on the map below to mark the location of your proposed action ...... 2 1.4 Please upload images of the proposed action area (including disturbance footprint, avoidance footprint (if relevant) and MNES habitat area/s) and if available a compliant GIS file. The accepted file types are: zip .kml, .kmz, .shp, .pdf, .png, .gif, .jpg ...... 2 1.5 Provide a brief physical description of the property on which the proposed action will take place and the location of the proposed action (e.g. proximity to major towns, or for offshore actions, shortest distance to mainland) ...... 2 1.6 What is the size of the development footprint or work area? ...... 3 1.7 Is the proposed action a street address or lot? ...... 8 1.8 Primary Jurisdiction ...... 8 1.9 Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government funding to undertake this project? ...... 9 1.10 Is the proposed action subject to local government approval? ...... 9 1.11 Provide an estimated start and estimated end date for the proposed action ...... 9 1.12 Provide details of the context, planning framework and State and/or Local government requirements ...... 9 1.13 Describe any public consultation that has been, is being or will be undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders ...... 10 1.14 Describe any environmental impact assessments that have been or will be carried out under Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation including relevant impacts of the project...... 12 1.15 Is this action part of a staged development (or a component of a larger project) ...... 23 1.16 Is the proposed action related to other actions in the region? ...... 23

2. Matters of National Environmental Significance ...... 24 2.1 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the values of any World Heritage properties? ...... 24 2.2 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the values of any National Heritage places? ...... 24 2.3 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland? ...... 24 2.4 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the members of any listed threatened species (except a conservation dependant species) or any threatened ecological community, or their habitat? ...... 24 2.5 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the member of any listed migratory species, or their habitat? ...... 51

2.5.1 Do you consider this impact to be significant? ...... 51 2.6 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a marine environment (outside Commonwealth marine areas)? ...... 51 2.7 Is the proposed action likely to impact on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth land? ...... 51

2.8 Is the proposed action taking place in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? ...... 51 2.9 Will there be any impact on a water resource related to coal / gas / mining? ...... 51 2.10 Is the proposed action a nuclear action? ...... 51 2.11 Is the proposed action to be taken by the Commonwealth agency? ...... 51 2.12 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a Commonwealth Heritage Place Overseas? ...... 51 2.13 Is the proposed action likely to impact on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area? ...... 51

3. Description of the Project ...... 52 3.1 Describe the flora and fauna relevant to the project area...... 52 3.2 Describe the hydrology relevant to the project area (including water flows) ...... 52 3.3 Describe the soil and vegetation characteristics relevant to the project ...... 52 3.4 Describe any outstanding natural features and / or any other important or unique values relevant to the project area ...... 52 3.5 Describe the status of native vegetation relevant to the project ...... 52 3.6 Describe the gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) relevant to the project area ...... 55 3.7 Describe the current condition of the environment relevant to the project area ...... 55 3.8 Describe any Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values relevant to the project area ...... 55 3.9 Describe any indigenous heritage values relevant to the project area ...... 55 3.10 Describe the tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold) relevant to the project area ...... 55 3.11 Describe any existing or proposed uses relevant to the project area ...... 55

4. Section 4 – Measures to avoid or reduce impact from your proposed action ...... 57 4.1 Describe the measures you will undertake to avoid or reduce impact from your proposed action ... 57 4.2 For matters protected by the EPBC Act that may be affected by the proposed action, describe the proposed environmental outcomes ...... 59

5. 5. Section 5 – Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts ...... 62

5.1.1 World Heritage Places...... 62 5.1.2 National Heritage Places ...... 62 5.1.3 Wetlands on International Importance (declared Ramsar Wetlands) ...... 62 5.1.4 Listed threatened species or any threatened ecological community ...... 62 5.1.5 Listed migratory species ...... 62 5.1.6 Commonwealth marine environment ...... 62 5.1.7 Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land ...... 62 5.1.8 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ...... 62 5.1.9 A water resource, in relation to coal/gas/mining ...... 62 5.1.10 Protection of the environment from nuclear actions ...... 62 5.1.11 Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions ...... 62 5.1.12 Commonwealth Heritage places overseas ...... 62

6. Section 6 – Environmental record of the person proposing to take the action...... 63 6.1 Does the person taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management? Please explain in further detail ...... 63 6.2 Provide details of any proceeding under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources ...... 63 6.3 Will the action be taken in accordance with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework? ...... 63

6.3.1 If the person taking the action is a corporation, please provide details of the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework ...... 63 6.4 Has the person taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act? ...... 63

7. Section 7 – Information sources ...... 64 7.1 List references used in preparing the referral (please provide the reference source reliability and any uncertainties of source)...... 64

8. Proposed alternatives ...... 68 8.1 Provide a description of the feasible alternative ...... 68 8.2 Select the relevant alternatives related to your proposed action ...... 68 8.3 Do you have another alternative? ...... 68

9. Section 9 – Contacts, signatures and declarations ...... 69 9.1 Is the person proposing to take the action an Organisation or an individual? ...... 69 9.2 Organisation- ...... 69

9.2.1 Job Title ...... 69 9.2.2 First Name ...... 69 9.2.3 Last Name...... 69 9.2.4 E-mail ...... 69 9.2.5 Postal Address ...... 69 9.2.6 ABN/ACN ...... 69 9.2.7 Organisation Telephone ...... 69 9.2.8 I qualify for exemption from fees under section 520(4c)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am: ...... 69 9.3 Is the proposed designated proponent an organisation or individual? ...... 69 9.4 Individual ...... 69 9.5 Organisation- ...... 69

9.5.1 Job Title ...... 69 9.5.2 First Name ...... 70 9.5.3 Last Name...... 70

9.5.4 E-mail ...... 70 9.5.5 Postal Address ...... 70 9.5.6 ABN/ACN ...... 70 9.5.7 Organisation Telephone ...... 70 9.6 Is the referring party an organisation or individual? ...... 70 9.7 Individual ...... 70 9.8 Organisation ...... 70

9.8.1 Job title ...... 70 9.8.2 First name ...... 70 9.8.3 Last name ...... 70 9.8.4 Email ...... 70 9.8.5 Postal address ...... 70 9.8.6 ABN / CAN ...... 71 9.8.7 Organisation telephone ...... 71 9.8.8 Organisation E-mail ...... 71

Appendix A - Likelihood of occurrence ...... 72 Appendix B - Previous threatened flora and fauna records ...... 79 Appendix C - BES 2006 targeted flora and fauna survey effort...... 81 Appendix D - Callala Bay Biocertification Assessment Report ...... 83

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the referral area ...... 4 Figure 2: Referral area and the proposed Lake Wollumboola Biobank site ...... 5 Figure 3: Proposed development footprint within the referral area ...... 6 Figure 4: Proposed staging of the action ...... 7 Figure 5: Land zoning in the referral area (2014) ...... 11 Figure 6: Previous survey effort (Gunninah 2001) ...... 19 Figure 7: Previous survey effort (BES 2006) ...... 20 Figure 8: Targeted threatened fauna survey (ELA 2016 / 2017) ...... 21 Figure 9: Summary of all targeted orchid survey conducted throughout the referral area and Biobank site ...... 22 Figure 10: Distribution of Genoplesium baueri ...... 30 Figure 11: Genoplesium baueri to be removed and conserved in the referral area and Biobank site .... 31 Figure 12: Greater Glider records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area ..... 35 Figure 13: Regent Honeyeater records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area ...... 37 Figure 14: Swift Parrot records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area ...... 40 Figure 15: Spotted-tailed Quoll records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area ...... 44 Figure 16: Grey-headed Flying-fox camps and records within a 20 km radius of the referral area ...... 49

Figure 17: Preferred habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox within a 10 km radius of the referral area ...... 50 Figure 18: Validated vegetation communities and plots conducted in the referral area ...... 54 Figure 19: Hydrological values, easements and roads adjacent to the referral area ...... 56 Figure 20: Previously proposed development footprint ...... 58 Figure 21: Results for G. baueri surveys in the site ...... 61 Figure 22: Threatened fauna records within a 10 km radius of the referral area (OEH 2019) ...... 79 Figure 23: Threatened flora records previously recorded within a 10 km radius of the referral area (OEH 2019) ...... 80

List of Tables

Table 1: Flora survey effort over the BCAA and Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site (Callala) ...... 13 Table 2: Results of threatened flora habitat assessment ...... 17 Table 3: Habitat to be affected and retained within the referral area and locality ...... 25 Table 4: Areas of known and unconfirmed habitat within Callala Bay site (BioBank site) and adjacent Halloran Trust Planning Proposed action (the referral area) ...... 26 Table 5: Summary of impacts on Genoplesium baueri ...... 26 Table 6: Significant impact assessment on Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) ...... 27 Table 7: Significant impact assessment on Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) ...... 32 Table 8: Significant impact assessment on Spotted-tailed Quoll ...... 41 Table 9: Significant impact assessment on Grey-headed Flying-fox...... 46 Table 10: Vegetation community description for the referral area, as per Shoalhaven LGA mapping (2013) ...... 53 Table 11: Habitat to be conserved and available within the locality (10 km radius) ...... 59 Table 12: Biometric vegetation types in the Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) ...... 60 Table 13: Targeted flora and fauna survey effort throughout the referral area and Lake Wollumboolla BioBank Site ...... 81 Table 14: Targeted fauna survey effort throughout the referral area and Lake Wollumboolla BioBank Site ...... 81

1. Introduction

1.1 Project Industry Type Residential development

1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities Sealark are proposing a residential development with an indicative yield of approximately 382 lots to be delivered in a number of stages over approximately 12 years. Development of the site will deliver a broad range of lot sizes consistent with the adjacent residential area. Development of the site would to use the natural features of the site and interface with surrounding roads and environmental conservation areas (Figure 1, Figure 3, Figure 4).

The key concepts of the residential development are to: • incorporate the existing landscape and topographical characteristics of the site that slopes towards Jervis Bay • protect and enhance biodiversity in the adjoining Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site • retain existing native vegetation where possible along Callala Beach Road • protect visually prominent features such as ridgelines • protect water quality and in particular ensure no urban run-off north of the site • provide appropriate bushfire protection • provide visual links to open space • encourage passive surveillance and increase safety • facilitate suitable transport access • maximise solar access for future lots and sustainable design outcomes • provide a walkable neighbourhood • increase the supply of housing within the Shoalhaven LGA in accordance with the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy, Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy and the Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan.

To facilitate the residential development, extensions and upgrades of associated supporting infrastructure and services will be required. More specifically, the proposed action will involve:

• new housing in proximity to the existing township to support commercial services • water, sewer, electricity and communication infrastructure upgrades • stormwater quality improvements for the existing township • community facility improvements • increased bushfire protection for the existing township.

Details of the anticipated outcomes of the residential development area include (Figure 3): General residential: The Shoalhaven LGA will be able to accommodate future population growth of around 876 people in the proposed dwellings. This population supply will assist growing and enhancing surrounding residential services.

Recreation and active open space areas: The proposed action will provide an opportunity to improve both passive and active recreation opportunities to the township and provide additional public open space and walk / cycling opportunities.

Services: The proposed action will be serviced by the required infrastructure, including water, sewer and electricity. Subsequent rehabilitation works will be carried out in accordance with a site specific management plan.

Stormwater quality: The proposed action will be designed with detention basins/swales and treatment trains to improve runoff water for the surrounding urban area. The stormwater will be initially be captured by a network of kerb and guttering along all roads and will be appropriately treated to improve water quality.

Roads, access ways, and parking: The street network within the site is to be consistent with Shoalhaven Councils Engineering Design Specification and street network principles including the establishment of a permeable network which encourages walking and cycling.

Asset Protection Zones (APZs): The proposed action will be carried out in a way to ensure prevention of loss of life and property due to bushfires. The lot layout shows that perimeter roads are located along most bushland and landscaped interfaces. APZ’s have been calculated in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection (RFS 2006). Further, none of the required APZs extend into proposed conservation/offset areas.

Off-site Offset site: The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site has been established to offset the impacts of the proposed development on biodiversity values. The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site includes signage and perimeter fencing (along sections that don’t adjoin Jervis Bay National Park) that allow for the movement of fauna, while preventing the entry of people and unauthorised vehicles. The Callala Bay site will be actively managed for conservation in-perpetuity via a dedicated management fund and subject to plans of management in accordance with the BioBanking Agreement (BA364) registered in February 2019 between Sealark Pty Ltd and the Minister for the Environment.

1.3 What is the extent and location of your proposed action? Use the polygon tool on the map below to mark the location of your proposed action For ELA input.

1.4 Please upload images of the proposed action area (including disturbance footprint, avoidance footprint (if relevant) and MNES habitat area/s) and if available a compliant GIS file. The accepted file types are: zip .kml, .kmz, .shp, .pdf, .png, .gif, .jpg For ELA input.

1.5 Provide a brief physical description of the property on which the proposed action will take place and the location of the proposed action (e.g. proximity to major towns, or for offshore actions, shortest distance to mainland) The referral area is fully vegetated and located within the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA), within the coastal township of Callala Bay, approximately 20 km south-east of Nowra (Figure 1). The

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 2 EPBC Referral - Supporting Documentation | Sealark Pty Ltd referral area is currently zoned as a deferred matter under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (Figure 5). The referral area is bordered by Emmett Street to the south, residential development and Lake Wollumboola BioBank site. Callala Beach Road runs to the west of the referral area with no roads running to the north of the site.

1.6 What is the size of the development footprint or work area? 40.19 ha.

Figure 1: Location of the referral area

Figure 2: Referral area and the proposed Lake Wollumboola Biobank site

Figure 3: Proposed development footprint within the referral area

Figure 4: Proposed staging of the action

1.7 Is the proposed action a street address or lot? The proposed action will occur across 34 lots (Lot//DP):

• 10//253793 • 11//253793 • 17//253793 • 18//253793 • 2//775060 • 212//1177757 • 602//11388 • 603//11388 • 604//11388 • 605//11388 • 606//11388 • 607//11388 • 608//11388 • 609//11388 • 610//11388 • 611//11388 • 612//11388 • 613//11388 • 614//11388 • 615//11388 • 616//11388 • 617//11388 • 618//11388 • 619//11388 • 620//11388 • 621//11388 • 622//11388 • 623//11388 • 624//11388 • 625//11388 • 626//11388 • 627//11388 • 628//11388 • 9//253793

1.8 Primary Jurisdiction NSW

1.9 Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government funding to undertake this project? No.

1.10 Is the proposed action subject to local government approval? Yes. The proposed action is also subject to a Biodiversity Certification Assessment and planning proposal to rezone the land from the current zoning as a deferred matter. The planning proposal is yet to be placed on exhibition by Shoalhaven City Council (as of December 2019). When planning proposal determination occurs, it will define the exact rezoning changes which will inform preparation of subdivision plans for subsequent Development Applications (DA). It is not expected that the development footprint would change.

1.11 Provide an estimated start and estimated end date for the proposed action Subject to approval, the indicative timeline is the commencement of Stage 1 in 2021 with an estimated completion time of 2032.

1.12 Provide details of the context, planning framework and State and/or Local government requirements The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning legislation that relates to the proposed development. It provides a framework for the overall environmental planning and assessment of development proposed actions. Various legislative instruments, such as the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) and Rural Fires Act 2007 (RF Act) are integrated with the EP&A Act and have been reviewed separately.

Other legislation, policies and guidelines applicable to the proposed action includes:

• Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy October 2003 (Department of Planning and Natural Resources 2003) • Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy 2012 (Shoalhaven City Council 2012) • Shoalhaven City Council Local Environmental Plan 2014 • Rural Fires Act 1997 (RF Act) • Biosecurity Act 2016 (BS Act) • Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) • Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act) • National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) • Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) • Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act).

The site has an extensive planning history at the local level.

The Callala Bay site is part of an original larger Jervis Bay site, which incorporated lands from Sealark Pty Ltd planning proposal for Culburra Beach, Callala Bay and Kinghorn Point (Allen Price and Associates 2014).

The purpose of applying the BCAM to the broader Jervis Bay site, was to enable the strategic planning of large portions of Halloran Trust lands to determine their future land use, whilst aiming to achieve improve or maintain outcomes for biodiversity. The intent from the beginning of the planning process was to fully offset impacts from proposed development with the provision of lands for in perpetuity conservation purposes. Most notably, it was envisioned that over 1,000 ha of land adjacent to Jervis Bay National Park would be transferred and dedicated to the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). This would ultimately provide a significant extension to the existing Jervis Bay National Park and by doing so, areas of high biodiversity value would be guaranteed to be secured for conservation in-perpetuity.

1.13 Describe any public consultation that has been, is being or will be undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders The Biodiversity Certification Strategy has been lodged and will then progress to the public exhibition stage. Once the pubic exhibition stage has been completed a Submissions Report will be prepared, addressing comments received.

Figure 5: Land zoning in the referral area (2014)

1.14 Describe any environmental impact assessments that have been or will be carried out under Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation including relevant impacts of the project.

FIELD METHODOLOGY Numerous field surveys and impact assessments have been conducted for the site, the adjacent Lake Wollumboola Biobank site and broader area that is subject to the planning proposal:

• Gunninah Environmental Consultants 2001 Callala ecological report • BES 2006a Survey Effort and Results GIS Data • BES 2006b Targeted Survey Methods Presentation • Alan Stephenson (Shoalhaven orchid expert) orchid habitat assessment 2015 • Expert Report for Genoplesium baueri (Ecoplanning 2017) • Callala Bay Biodiversity Certification, prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd (ELA 2019).

Field survey was completed across the referral area and was aimed at identifying any threatened ecological values present. Surveys were conducted consistent with the EPBC Act survey guidelines (where relevant), the BioBanking methodology and the Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology. Surveys included:

• vegetation validation including type, condition and extent • threatened species habitat assessment • targeted survey for threatened flora • targeted survey for threatened fauna.

These surveys were conducted to inform previous planning proposals, the Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report and the referral.

Threatened flora

Targeted surveys were conducted across the referral area for the following threatened flora species that were likely to occur in the referral area (Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 9):

• Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue Orchid) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider Orchid) • Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat Orchid) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Melaleuca biconvexa (Biconvex Paperbark) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Prostanthera densa (Villous Mintbush) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Thesium australe (Austral Toadflax) – vulnerable under the BC Act • Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lily Pilly) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Additional habitat assessments were conducted for the following threatened flora species that had potential to occur throughout the referral area:

• Pterostylis gibbosa (Illawarra Greenhood) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Persicaria elatior (Tall Knotweed) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Cynanchum elegans (White-flowered Wax Plant) – endangered under the EPBC Act

• Triplarina nowraensis (Nowra Health-myrtle) – endangered under the EPBC Act.

The referral area was surveyed concurrently with the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site (Callala Bay section). The survey effort in Table 1 relates to the combined referral area and Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site surveys. ELA has utilised data collected from Gunninah 1998 – 2000, BES Environmental Consultancy from 2005-2006 and ELA’s more recent targeted surveys from 2016 (Appendix B).

The targeted survey effort for orchids is described separately, given their cryptic nature.

Orchid survey

Orchid surveys were conducted consistent with the Draft Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Orchids (DotEE 2013). An initial area search was conducted during the flowering seasons of Genoplesium baueri, Cryptostylis hunteriana and Caladenia tessellata (December to March, December to February and September to November respectively) (consistent with the ‘random meander’ method listed in the guidelines). The site walk over aimed at identifying any individuals in flower across the referral area and areas of potential habitat for these species (BES 2006; Gunninah Environmental Consultants 1998, 2000). Following the identification of flowering individuals, a targeted survey effort was completed, focusing on the areas where the species had been identified during the random meander (DotEE 2013).

Following the completion of the random meander, systematic targeted searches using parallel transects were completed for Genoplesium baueri over the southern portion of the site in May 2006 (BES). A total of 46 area searches were conducted within a 100 m radius of the known individuals using random meander throughout the referral area in May 2006 (BES 2006). Of the 46 random surveys, 7 were conducted within the referral area. Additional surveys were conducted by ELA from 16 to 18 February 2016, within potential habitat adjacent to existing tracks, over three survey days across the referral area and Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site using a combination of the random meander method and area searches.

The combined survey effort by BES, Gunninah and ELA across the referral area and Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site for threatened flora totalled 505.5 person hours.

Threatened flora targeted survey

Targeted survey for Melaleuca biconvexa (Biconvex Paperbark), Prostanthera densa and Syzygium paniculatum was undertaken by Gunninah Environmental Consultants across 1998, 1999 and 2006, with additional survey completed by BES in 2006. The random meander method and vegetation plots were used to survey for these species.

Table 1: Flora survey effort over the BCAA and Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site (Callala)

Consultant Species Method Dates Effort

24 Nov 1998 Gunninah Melaleuca biconvexa, Random meander and 21 July 1999 TOTAL 94 person Environmental Prostanthera densa and mapping of vegetation hours Consultants Syzygium paniculatum communities 18-30 March 2000

Consultant Species Method Dates Effort

Gunninah Targeted surveys in potential Environmental Cryptostylis hunteriana habitat which was located 21 Dec 2000 Unknown hours Consultants outside of the BCAA

8 person hours Melaleuca biconvexa, 23 Jan 2006 Random meander and 8 person hours BES Prostanthera densa and 2 Feb 2006 vegetation plots 8.5 person hours Syzygium paniculatum 16 Feb 2006 TOTAL 24.5 hrs

40 person hours 23 Dec 2005 35 person hours BES Cryptostylis hunteriana Targeted orchid survey 29 Dec 2005 35 person hours 30 Dec 2005 TOTAL 110 hrs

22 person hours 22 Feb 2006 26 person hours 23 Feb 2006 30 person hours 6 Mar 2006 34 person hours BES Genoplesium baueri Targeted orchid survey 9 Mar 2006 34 person hours 17 Mar 2006 32 person hours 21 Mar 2006 32 person hours TOTAL 210

ELA Genoplesium baueri Target orchid survey 16 - 18 Feb 2016 66 person hours

Habitat assessment for Eco Planning Genoplesium baueri 7 July 2017 Not specified Genoplesium baueri

GRAND TOTAL 505.5 person hrs

Threatened flora habitat assessment

The occurrence of threatened flora species listed as having potential to occur in the referral area was assessed through a habitat assessment. The habitat assessment focused on identifying the type of vegetation present and its condition, along with micro habitats required for some species such as Persicaria elatior which requires damp habitats or streams.

Threatened fauna

The survey method is generally derived from the Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines (DEC 2004) and the following EPBC Act guidelines:

• Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Mammals (DSEWPC 2011) • Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Bats (DEWHA 2010a) • Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Birds (DEWHA 2010b).

Surveys were conducted by Gunninah, BES Environmental Consultants and ELA over the following dates:

• January to March 2006 (BES) • 1 – 9 December 1998 (Gunninah)

• 21 – 22 July 1999 (Gunninah) • 2 – 22 March 2000 (Gunninah) • 13 – 22 January 2001 (Gunninah) • 7 December 2016 to 10 February 2017 (ELA).

It should be noted that when targeted fauna surveys were initially conducted, the surveys for both the referral area and the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site (Callala Bay) were conducted simultaneously. Since the completion of the targeted surveys, the development footprint has changed so that the referral area has reduced and the BioBank site has increased in area. Although this means a greater conservation area, the changes have affected the targeted survey effort within the referral area. The following survey includes the targeted fauna survey effort conducted throughout the referral area and the adjacent BioBank site. Details of the survey method, locations are shown in Table 1.

The following threatened fauna species were targeted during survey (Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8):

• Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Dasyornis brachypterus (Eastern Bristlebird) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spotted-tailed Quoll) - endangered under the EPBC Act (Biobank site targeted, no survey in referral area) • Isoodon obesulus obesulus (Southern Brown Bandicoot) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) - vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Potorous tridactylus tridactylus (Long-nosed Potoroo) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Pseudomys novaehollandiae (New Holland Mouse) - vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Additional habitat assessments were conducted for the following threatened flora species that had potential to occur throughout the referral area:

• Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) – critically endangered under the EPBC Act • Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) -critically endangered under the EPBC Act.

Pitfall traps

One 200 m transect of 15 traps each (5 clusters / groups of 3 traps, each cluster spaced 50 m apart) were set throughout the referral area and Lake Wollumboola BioBank site. Trapping was conducted over 3 sessions (11 nights total; a total of 165 pitfall trapping nights):

• 12 - 16 December 2016 (4 nights), • 10 -14 January 2017 (4 nights), • 6 - 10 February 2017 (4 nights)*.

During trapping, pitfalls contained a thin layer of leaf litter to provide shelter to trapped fauna. Pitfalls contained a small block of foam to ensure fauna could float in the event of rain. A small hole was drilled in the base of each pitfall trap to allow water to drain out in the event of rain. Each cluster of pitfalls included a drift fence approximately 30 – 40 cm high, dug into a trench, which passed over each pitfall trap. Drift-fences were maintained throughout the survey, as some were infrequently impacted by weather and cattle. Pitfall traps were closed between trapping sessions.

*Traps were closed on 7 February 2017 due to heavy rainfall. Elliot A traps

A combination of Elliot A traps and hair tubes (see next section below) were used in addition to pitfall trapping to target terrestrial mammals.

Two (2) sites of 15 Elliot A traps were set within potential habitat for the target species (a total of 30 traps). Each trap site was set in a grid formation (4x5), with traps approximately 10 m apart. Elliot A traps were deployed from 12 to 16 December 2016 (4 nights; total of 120 Elliot A trapping nights). Traps were set on flat ground adjacent to fallen logs, large tree trunks, or beneath dense vegetation. Traps were baited with a mixture of peanut butter, honey, oats, and sardines, and included insulation. Traps were covered with a plastic bag in the event of rain.

Hair tube

Two (2) sites of 15 hair tubes were set across the referral area and Lake Wollumboola BioBank site (a total of 30 hair tubes). Each hair tube was placed within 5 m of an Elliot A trap. Hair tubes were deployed from 9 December 2016 to 8 February 2017 (62 nights; total of 1860 hair tube trapping nights). The hair samples were analysed by Georgiana Storey (‘Scats About’, ANU).

Elliot B traps (arboreal)

Three (3) sites with 8 Elliot B traps were set within potential habitat for the Greater Glider in the referral area and Biobank site. Each trap site was set in a line, with traps spaced approximately 20 m apart. Elliot B traps were deployed from 12 to 16 December 2016 (4 nights; total of 96 Elliot B trapping nights). Traps were set approximately 2 - 3 m up a tree, attached to a wooden stage drilled to the tree trunk. Traps were baited with a mixture of peanut butter, honey, oats, and sardines, and included insulation (wood shavings and newspaper). Traps were covered with a plastic bag in the event of rain.

Remote camera traps (arboreal)

Infrared remote cameras were used in conjunction with bait stations to identify arboreal fauna species, namely the Spotted-tailed Quoll and the Koala. Remote camera traps were set in the referral area and Biobank site. Eighteen (18) cameras were placed approximately 1 - 2 m off the ground and secured to a tree. Bait stations (relevant for the Spotted-tailed Quoll) were secured to an opposing tree at an approximate height of 1.5 – 2 m. Bait consisted of honey, peanut butter, oats, and sardines. Cameras were dispersed throughout potential habitat for target species. Remote cameras were left in-situ from 9 December 2016 to 8 February 2017 (58 nights), equating to a total of 1,008 camera nights.

Remote camera traps (terrestrial)

Infrared remote cameras were used in conjunction with bait stations to identify terrestrial fauna species (namely the Spotted-tailed Quoll). Remote camera traps were set in the referral area and Biobank site. Five (5) cameras were secured approximately 1 m up a tree and angled towards the ground, where a bait station was deployed, secured by a tent peg. Bait consisted of honey, peanut butter, oats, and sardines. Cameras were dispersed throughout potential habitat for target species. Remote cameras

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 16 EPBC Referral - Supporting Documentation | Sealark Pty Ltd were left in-situ from 9 December 2016 to 8 February 2017 (56 nights), equating to a total of 280 camera nights.

Spotlight survey

Spotlighting survey was conducted within the referral area on 7 December 2016 and 10 January 2017 in the referral area. Spotlighting targeted the Greater Glider and Koala. Additional surveys were conducted within the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site on 10 January and 12 February 2017 for approximately 2 person hours. A total of approximately 8 person hours were spent spotlighting. Hand held spotlights and head torches were used during the survey.

Songmeters

A total of three (3) songmeters were deployed from 9 to 23 December 2016 within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. No songmeters were set in the referral area. Songmeters were set to record between dawn and dusk. Two songmeters were located within potential habitat for heath-specific bird species (i.e. Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird). Three (3) hours were selected at random and analysed to identify heath bird calls. One songmeter was located in the BioBank site boundary near a waterway and was used to record possible migratory wetland bird species. Two (2) hours were selected at random from the wetland/migratory species to identify bird calls. The songmeters were also deployed during the suitable season to aurally detect the Regent Honeyeater.

Opportunistic bird observations were also recorded when conducting fieldwork. Birds were identified based on either direct observation or knowledge of calls.

RESULTS Threatened flora

The following threatened flora species were identified in the referral area during survey:

• Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid).

No other threatened flora species were identified in the referral area during survey. The threatened flora species habitat assessment determined that none of the species were likely to occur and no further assessment is required (Table 2). Genoplesium baueri is the only flora species requiring detailed assessment as part of this referral.

Table 2: Results of threatened flora habitat assessment

Scientific name Common name Habitat requirements Presence / absence

occurs at ecotone between no ecotone between sclerophyll forest and subtropical subtropical rainforest and White-flowered Wax rainforest sclerophyll forest present Cynanchum elegans Plant occurs on steep slopes not associated with PCT in referral area no steep slopes present

occurs along coastal swampy no swamps, watercourses, Persicaria elatior Tall Knotweed areas, along watercourses, streams, lakes or swamp forest present

Scientific name Common name Habitat requirements Presence / absence streams and lakes or in swamp species is not associated forest with PCT present

in Nowra, typically known from referral area does not open woodlands dominated by contain open woodland Corymbia maculata, Eucalyptus referral area contains a paniculata and Exocarpos shrubby wet sclerophyll cupressiformis with abundant leaf forest litter soil profile of the referral Pterostylis gibbosa Illawarra Greenhood occur on soils derived from the area is not Permian Berry formation, a Permian sediments. Forms part of sediment composed of Greenwell point landscape undifferentiated siltstone, shale does not contain currently and sandstone known canopy species occurs on flat or gently sloping topography

found on moist soils or poorly is not a poorly draining site drained sites such as water does not contain correct courses and bedrock surfaces vegetation community with impeded drainage species not associated with occur in forest and woodland the PCT present communities that are dominated Triplarina nowraensis Nowra Health-myrtle does not contain any by Eucalyptus racemosa, E. watercourses punctata, Corymbia gummifera. Other tree species occasionally occurring include E. pilularis, C. maculata, E. piperita, E. globoidea and E. paniculata

Threatened fauna

The following threatened fauna species were identified during targeted survey:

• Petauroides volans (Greater Glider).

Although not identified in the referral area during survey, the following species are considered likely to occur and have been subject to a detailed assessment as part of this referral:

• Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) • Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spotted-tailed Quoll).

No other threatened fauna species were identified or predicted as likely to occur. Where habitat assessments were completed for threatened species, the results are discussed in section 2.4.

Figure 6: Previous survey effort (Gunninah 2001)

Figure 7: Previous survey effort (BES 2006)

Figure 8: Targeted threatened fauna survey (ELA 2016 / 2017)

Figure 9: Summary of all targeted orchid survey conducted throughout the referral area and Biobank site

1.15 Is this action part of a staged development (or a component of a larger project) No.

1.16 Is the proposed action related to other actions in the region? The proposed action is not related to other actions in the region.

2. Matters of National Environmental Significance

2.1 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the values of any World Heritage properties? No.

2.2 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the values of any National Heritage places? No.

2.3 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland? No.

2.4 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the members of any listed threatened species (except a conservation dependant species) or any threatened ecological community, or their habitat? Portal entry

The proposed action will impact 36 Genoplesium baueri individuals in the referral area. A total of 126 individuals will be conserved and protected immediately north of the referral area, in the Lake Wollumboola BioBank site. This impact is considered significant.

A detailed assessment of the impacts to Genoplesium baueri can be found in attachment 12581_Callala Bay EPBC Referral v_3 Part 2.pdf, Section 2.4, page 24 onwards.

The proposed action will impact 40.19 ha of potential habitat for Petauroides volans (Greater Glider). The proposed action will conserve and manage in-perpetuity 1,188 ha of potential habitat for the Greater Glider in the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank sites. This impact is unlikely to constitute a significant impact.

A detailed assessment of the impacts to the Greater Glider can be found in attachment 12581_Callala Bay EPBC Referral v_3 Part 2.pdf, Section 2.4, page 24 onwards.

The proposed action will impact 40.19 ha of potential habitat for Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spotted-tailed Quoll). The proposed action will conserve and manage in-perpetuity 1,288 ha of potential habitat for the Spotted-tailed Quoll. This impact is unlikely to constitute a significant impact.

A detailed assessment of the impacts to Spotted-tailed Quoll can be found in attachment 12581_Callala Bay EPBC Referral v_3 Part 2.pdf, Section 2.4, page 24 onwards.

The proposed action will impact 40.19 ha of potential habitat for Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox). The proposed action will conserve and manage in-perpetuity 1,188 ha of potential habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox in the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank sites. This impact is unlikely to constitute a significant impact.

A detailed assessment of the impacts to the Grey-headed Flying-fox can be found in attachment 12581_Callala Bay EPBC Referral v_3 Part 2.pdf, Section 2.4, page 24 onwards.

A detailed assessment of the impacts to Spotted-tailed Quoll, Greater Glider and Grey-headed Flying- fox can be found in attachment 12581_Callala Bay EPBC Referral v_3 Part 2.pdf, Section 2.4, page 24 onwards.

Full referral submission

Yes (Table 3).

This referral has been prepared to ensure that the proposed action is assessed accordingly and has reviewed previous survey and documentation prepared for the site to determine what Matters of NES are either known or likely to be present. The following section provides a brief overview of the methodology employed. A detailed description of survey effort can be found in Table 1.

The proposed action is likely to constitute a significant impact on following threatened species:

• Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid).

The proposed action will also impact on habitat for the following species, however these impacts are unlikely to constitute a significant impact:

• Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spotted-tailed Quoll) • Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) • Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox).

The following species were assessed and are unlikely to be affected by the proposed action due to the absence of potential habitat and absence of recent, nearby records:

• Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) • Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot).

Table 3: Habitat to be affected and retained within the referral area and locality

Conserved in Conserved in Total Lake other Lake Other habitat Common habitat Scientific name Impact Wollumboola Wollumboola available in 10 name available Biobank site Biobank sites km radius (ha) (Callala) (ha) (ha)

Dasyurus Spotted- maculatus 40.19 291.89 996.19 12,247.92 13,536.02 tailed Quoll maculatus

Genoplesium Yellow Gnat- 3.48 72.59 - - 72.59 baueri orchid

Petauroides Greater 40.19 287.35 901.21 11,029.90 12,218.46 volans Glider

Pteropus Grey-headed 40.19 287.35 901.21 11029.90 12,218.46 poliocephalus Flying-fox

SPECIES OR THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Genoplesium baueri

Do you consider this impact to be significant?

Yes.

Genoplesium baueri has been recorded between Ulladulla and Port Stephens. The species is currently known to occur in 13 sites with just over 200 known plants, however, is estimated to have between 20 and 30 populations. The species inhabits heathland to shrubby woodland or open forest, or shrubby/heathy forest on sands, sandy loams or gravelly soils. The species persists on a tuber-like perennial root. Flowering fluctuates year to year and plants may remain dormant throughout favourable flowering conditions.

Targeted surveys have been undertaken for this species in the referral area and adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank site in 2006 (BES) and 2016 (ELA). There are 36 known individuals within the referral area (as counted in 2016) and 126 known individuals in the Lake Wollumboola BioBank site. An expert report (EcoPlanning 2017) was prepared for the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank site in 2017 which assessed the known and potential habitat within the referral area and adjacent BioBank site (Figure 9, Table 4). A summary of impacts on individuals and habitat is shown in Table 5 and Figure 11.

The Significant Impact Criteria was applied to Genoplesium baueri and concluded that the proposed action would constitute a significant impact to this species (Table 4).

Table 4: Areas of known and unconfirmed habitat within Callala Bay site (BioBank site) and adjacent Halloran Trust Planning Proposed action (the referral area)

Habitat type (site and ha) Area(ha)

Halloran Trust Planning Callala Bay site (Biobank Proposed action (Referral Total Site) Area)

Known# 17.47 (22.82%) 3.48 (100%) 20.95 (26.18%)

Unconfirmed 59.08 (77.18%) 0.00 (0%) 59.08 (73.82%)

All habitat 76.54 3.48 80.03 Values in brackets are the percentage of each habitat type as a proportion of the total area of identified habitat within each area. # Habitat polygon assessed as areas within 50 m of a known record of Genoplesium baueri Table 5: Summary of impacts on Genoplesium baueri

Known Individuals Known habitat Potential habitat Total habitat (known and Site (2016) (ha) (ha) unconfirmed)

Referral Area 36 3.48 0 3.48

Lake Wollumboola 126 17.47 59.08 76.54 Biobank Site

Total 162 20.95 59.08 80.03

Percent Impact 22.22% 19.92% 0% 4.35%

Table 6: Significant impact assessment on Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid)

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility of the following:

1) will the action lead to a long-term decrease The known local population of Genoplesium baueri is 162 in the size of a population individuals. This includes 36 individuals to be removed within the referral area development footprint and 126 to be protected within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site, which is located directly to the north of the referral area. The estimated size of the local population is based on intensive surveys undertaken within the referral area and targeted surveys within the BioBank site where the species had been previously detected (BES 2006, Gunninah 2006). It must be noted that intensive surveys were not undertaken across the entire BioBank site, and therefore the population size is predicted to be larger than the known 126 individuals within the BioBank site. The known habitat within the referral area and BioBank site is 20.95 ha, however, the total area of known and predicted habitat is 80.03 ha. It is predicted that the species would be also present within the adjacent Jervis Bay National Park, which also contains potential habitat based on similar vegetation types and landform, however, targeted surveys and habitat mapping have not been undertaken within the National Park. Therefore, it is estimated that the population would be larger than 162 individuals within the locality and that the proposed action would result in a reduction of the population of less than 22%. Under a worst-case scenario whereby no additional individuals are present within predicted habitat, the proposed biocertification would lead to a long-term decrease in the population of 22%.

2) will the action reduce the area of occupancy The proposed action will reduce the area of occupancy of of the species Genoplesium baueri by 3.48 ha (16.6%). The known area of this species within the locality is 20.95 ha, which includes 17.47 ha within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. A further 59.08 ha of habitat is predicted within the BioBank site based on known habitat requirements for this species, therefore the total predicted habitat for this species within the referral area and BioBank site is 80.03 ha. As discussed in Part 1 of this assessment, large areas of potential areas of occupancy for this species is also available in Jervis Bay National Park which is adjacent to the BioBank site and contiguous with the referral area.

3) will the action fragment an existing All known individuals are located within the referral area and population into two or more populations to the north within the BioBank site. A residential development is located directly to the east of the referral area and there are no records to the south or west of the referral

Criterion Question Response area. The proposed biocertification would therefore not fragment the known population into two or more populations.

4) will the action adversely affect habitat The 3.48 of habitat to be removed contains 22% of the known critical to the survival of a species population of individuals for this species in the local area. The Habitat critical to the survival of a species habitat to be removed for this species within the referral area refers to areas that are necessary: is 3.48 ha. 78% of the known population and an estimated 76.55 ha of habitat will be retained within the adjacent for activities such as foraging, breeding, BioBank site. It is considered that the 3.48 ha to be removed roosting, or dispersal constitutes habitat critical to the survival of the species. for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators) to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

5) will the action disrupt the breeding cycle of The proposed biocertification will remove 22% of individuals a population of the local population, however, it is unlikely that the breeding cycle of the remaining individuals of the population will be affected by the development. The remaining known individuals of the local population will be protected within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site.

6) i will the action modify, destroy, remove, The proposed biocertification will remove 3.48 ha of the isolate or decrease the availability or known 20.95 ha and predicted 80.03 ha of habitat for quality of habitat to the extent that the Genoplesium baueri in the local population. This estimated species is likely to decline habitat area is confined to the referral area and adjacent BioBank site. This will result in the removal of 22% of individuals of the known population size. The remaining 78% of the local population is located within the BioBank site. The proposed action will not modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat for the remaining 78% of the population such that the extent would further decline.

6) ii will the action result in invasive species that 17.47 ha of known habitat and additional 59.08 ha of predicted are harmful to a critically endangered or habitat for Genoplesium baueri will be conserved within the endangered species becoming established adjacent BioBank site. The BioBank site will undergo in the endangered or critically endangered management actions which would prevent the establishment species’ habitat of invasive species within the remaining habitat for Genoplesium baueri.

7) will the action introduce disease that may The proposed action is unlikely to introduce a disease that cause the species to decline would cause the species to decline. The remaining individuals of the known population will be protected by management actions within the adjacent BioBank site.

8) will the action interfere with the recovery No recovery plans have been prepared for this species under of the species the EPBC Act. The proposed action will remove 3.48 ha of habitat for Genoplesium baueri. 17.47 ha of known habitat and 59.08 of predicted habitat will be protected within the

Criterion Question Response adjacent BioBank site. 22% of known individuals will be removed from this population as a result of the proposed action, which is considered to interfere with the recovery of the species.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a significant impact? The proposed development will result in the removal of 22% of the known local population of this species. Whilst large areas of similar habitat are available within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site and it is predicted that there would be several more individuals within the BioBank site and adjacent Jervis Bay National Park, the removal of 22% of the known population would result in a significant impact on Genoplesium baueri.

Figure 10: Distribution of Genoplesium baueri

Figure 11: Genoplesium baueri to be removed and conserved in the referral area and Biobank site

SPECIES OR THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)

Do you consider this impact to be significant?

The proposed action is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on this species. The Greater Glider occurs in eastern Australia from sea level to 1200 m above sea level. It typically inhabits tall, montane, moist eucalypt forests with abundant tree hollows. Home ranges are typically small at approximately 1- 4 ha. Greater Gliders are sensitive to forest clearing, fragmentation, intensive logging and wildfire. They typically do not disperse well across non-native vegetation and require native forest patches of at least 160 km 2 to maintain viable populations.

The Greater Glider was recorded during spotlighting surveys by BES in 2006. There are 21 BioNet records within 10 km of the referral area (Figure 12). The most recent record is from 2017 approximately 2km to the north of the referral area (Figure 12). The nearest record is located approximately 200m south of the referral area from 2015. The vegetation present is tall, Eucalypt dominated forest with abundant hollows which is suitable habitat for Greater Gliders to persist. The records on and nearby the site also show that the species is present within, or, on occasion utilises the site.

The proposed action would remove 40.19 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider. About 287.35 ha of habitat for this species would be conserved and managed in-perpetuity as part of a Biobank site. An additional 901.21 ha of habitat would be conserved and managed in-perpetuity in other Biobank sites in the locality, with a further 11,029.90 ha of habitat present in the locality. Large portions of this habitat form Jervis Bay National Park and are subject to conservation and management. The area of habitat to be removed constitutes 0.33% of the potential habitat available within the locality (Figure 12).

The Significant Impact Criteria was applied to Greater Glider and concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to constitute a significant impact to this species.

Table 7: Significant impact assessment on Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

1) lead to a long-term decrease in The population within the referral area is unlikely to form part of an the size of an important important population, given that the referral area is not at the edge of population of a species the species range, is unlikely to be a key source population for breeding or dispersal and is unlikely to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity. The size and range of the population in the referral area is not known. The species is widespread locally, with 22 records within a 10 km radius of the referral area. The most recent record is from 2017 approximately 2km to the north of the referral area and the nearest is located approximately 200 m south of the referral area from 2015. The entire referral area provides potential habitat and is likely to be utilised by the Greater Glider. The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential habitat for Greater Glider. The size of the local population is unknown, however, there is an estimated 12,218.46 ha of suitable connected habitat within 10 km of the referral area. The loss of 40.19 ha (0.19%) of potential habitat within the locality is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the local population.

Criterion Question Response

2) reduce the area of occupancy of The proposed development will marginally reduce the area of an important population occupancy by 40.19 ha of the local population of Greater Gliders, however, large areas of habitat for the local population are to be retained (12,718.27 ha) within 10 km of the referral area. This includes large areas of habitat to be retained in perpetuity within the adjacent Biobank site and Jervis Bay National Park.

3) fragment an existing important The proposed action will result in a minor reduction of connectivity of population into two or more habitat for Greater Glider south of the referral area, however, populations connectivity will still be maintained moving to the west. The proposal will increase the fragmentation of the habitat available for the Greater Glider. The habitat available to the west of the site is considered marginal given the dominance of Swamp Mahogany Forest. The action would have minor impacts the movement of the local population, and is unlikely to split the population into two or more.

4) adversely affect habitat critical to A recovery plan has not been prepared for the Greater Glider, hence the survival of a species there is not listed habitat critical to the survival of this species and Where no critical habitat has therefore the general definition must be used. been declared, habitat critical to Greater Glider has been recorded during targeted surveys, this species the survival of a species refers to was also recorded approximately 200m south of the referral in 2015 and areas that are necessary: 2 km to the north in 2017 (BioNet). It is likely that this species would - for activities such as foraging, utilise foraging habitat within the site and has the potential to breed breeding, roosting, or dispersal within the site given the abundance of hollows. Given the records to the north and south it is also considered likely that this species may utilise - for the long-term maintenance the referral area as dispersal habitat. It is therefore considered that the of the species or ecological referral area would constitute habitat critical the survival of the species. community (including the maintenance of species essential The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential to the survival of the species or foraging, breeding and dispersal habitat that is considered habitat ecological community, such as critical to the survival of the species (as per DotEE definition). However, pollinators) it is noted that large areas of similar habitat is abundant within the local area in the Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park to the north. An - to maintain genetic diversity and estimated 12,718.27 ha of potential habitat will be retained within 10 long-term evolutionary km of the referral area. development, or - for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

5) disrupt the breeding cycle of an The proposed development will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of important population potential habitat for Greater Gilder which contains hollow-bearing trees. These hollow bearing trees may be utilised for breeding by the Greater Glider. Therefore, the development has the potential to disrupt the breeding cycle of the Greater Glider. It is anticipated that given the negligible history of disturbance throughout the surrounding vegetation that hollow bearing trees are likely to be present. These may also be utilised as breeding habitat.

6) modify, destroy, remove or The proposed action will remove 40.19 ha of potential habitat for the isolate or decrease the availability Greater Glider. No additional habitat outside of the 40.19 ha removed or quality of habitat to the extent will be modified. Approximately 12,718.27 ha of connected suitable that the species is likely to decline habitat will be retained within 10 km of the referral area. Considering the extensive habitat available in the locality, the removal of 40.19 ha of habitat is unlikely to cause the species to decline.

Criterion Question Response

7) result in invasive species that are The proposed action is unlikely to result in the establishment of an harmful to a vulnerable species invasive species within Greater Glider habitat. becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

8) introduce disease that may cause The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease the species to decline, or that would cause the Greater Glider population to decline.

9) interfere substantially with the The proposed action will remove 40.19 ha of potential habitat for recovery of the species. Greater Glider. However, considering the large areas of suitable habitat will be retained adjacent to the BCAA within the Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park it is unlikely that the proposed action would interfere substantially with the recovery of the Greater Glider. Approximately 12,718.27 ha of suitable connected habitat will remain available within 10 km of the referral area.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a significant The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential impact? foraging, roosting and dispersal habitat for the greater glider. Substantial areas of suitable habitat will be retained in the directly adjacent Biobank site at Lake Wollumboola, Jervis Bay National Park and additional Biobank sites at Kinghorn Point and Culburra. It is considered that the retained areas within the locality are of sufficient size to maintain a viable population of Greater Gliders and the proposed biocertification would not lead to a significant impact in accordance with the EPBC Act.

Figure 12: Greater Glider records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area

SPECIES OR THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater)

Do you consider this impact to be significant?

No.

The Regent Honeyeater has a patchy distribution from north-east Victoria to south-east Queensland, having a decreased range as it was formerly found from Adelaide to the Central Coast of Queensland. There a currently four known regular breeding sites: Bundarra-Barraba, Capertee Valley and Hunter Valley districts in New South Wales, and the Chiltern area in north-east Victoria. Breeding has also been recorded in the Cement Mills-Durakai area west of Warwick, southern Queensland and in the Australian Capital Territory several times. Breeding occurs over spring and summer and nests are built in the canopy of mature rough-barked species such as ironbarks, Casuarina spp. and Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple) (DotEE 2019).

Movement of Regent Honeyeaters is highly variable, with individuals sometimes returning to the same breeding sites in successive years whilst others have been found to move between breeding sites. Seasonal movement of Regent Honeyeaters is often related to the flowering of key food species. In low lying coastal areas, forests dominated by Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) are an important foraging resource (DotEE 2019). Other flowering trees are also used opportunistically when required.

Habitat critical to the survival of the Regent Honeyeater includes:

• any breeding or foraging habitat in areas where the species is likely to occur; and • any newly discovered breeding or foraging locations.

The Regent Honeyeater was not identified in the referral area during survey. The referral area does not provide suitable habitat for this species, given the absence of preferred feed trees in the referral area. In the Southern Rivers region, this species prefers the following canopy species:

• Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) • Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) (Bird Life 2011).

The referral area is dominated by Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark), Eucalyptus longifolia (Woollybutt), Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum) and Eucalyptus sclerophylla (Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum) (based on plot data in the referral area). C. maculata and E. robusta were not recorded in the floristic plots undertaken in the referral area and if present would occur at low densities. Furthermore, this species has been recorded previously twice within a 10 km radius of the referral area suggesting that the locality is infrequently used by this species (OEH 2019).

Given that the referral area is highly unlikely to form preferred habitat for this species, the significant impact criteria was not applied.

Figure 13: Regent Honeyeater records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area

SPECIES OR THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot)

Do you consider this impact to be significant?

No.

The Swift Parrot breeds in Tasmania during the Australian summer and migrates north as a single population to mainland Australia (NSW, ACT and VIC) during winter. In NSW the Swift Parrot typically forages in forests and woodlands and tends to prefer mature trees. When on mainland Australia this species feeds on flowers and lerps in Eucalyptus spp. and will often forage widely. Habitat critical to the survival of this species includes areas of priority habitat where the species has shown site fidelity, areas likely to be important to the Swift Parrot, areas that are frequently used by large numbers of Swift Parrots or areas identified by the recovery team (DotEE 2011).

Priority habitats for the Swift Parrot are areas used for nesting, by large populations, repeatedly between seasons and for prolonged periods of time with some site fidelity shown to breeding and foraging sites. This species would utilise a wide range of habitats within the Sydney Basin. Records indicate that the species continues to utilise fragmented or smaller areas of native vegetation in urban areas (BioNet 2019).

Swift Parrots tend to feed on the largest, most mature trees available, when in flower. Their distribution fluctuates in response to food availability. The Swift Parrot Recovery Plan (Saunders and Tzaros 2011) defines habitat critical to the survival of the species as: those areas of priority habitat for which the Swift Parrot has a level of site fidelity or possess phenological characteristics likely to be of importance to the Swift Parrot, or are otherwise identified by the recovery team (DotEE (Bird Life Australia) 2011).

Priority habitat includes areas:

• used for nesting • used by large proportions of the Swift Parrot population, • used repeatedly between seasons (site fidelity), or • used for prolonged periods of time (site persistence).

There are two records for the Swift Parrot within a 10 km radius of the site (noting that the Swift Parrot is a sensitive species and these records have been denatured by approximately 1 km) (Figure 14). There are 125 records for this species within a 50 km radius of the site within the past 30 years. The closest record for the Swift Parrot is approximately 3 km to the north-west of the site, within Currambene State Forest recorded in 2002 (Figure 14). A more recent record (2014) is located on the Beecroft Peninsula approximately 11 km to the east. The location of the surrounding records suggests that the Swift Parrot does move through habitat within close proximity to the referral area at least infrequently, however, would not utilise the referral area nor rely on the referral area.

The Swift Parrot was not identified in the referral area during survey. The referral area does not provide suitable habitat for this species, given the absence of preferred feed trees. In the Southern Rivers region, this species prefers the following canopy species:

• Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) • Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) • Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum).

The referral area is dominated by Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark), Eucalyptus longifolia (Woollybutt), Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum) and Eucalyptus sclerophylla (Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum) (based on plot data in the referral area). C. maculata and E. robusta were not recorded in the floristic plots undertaken in the referral area and if present would occur at low densities. In addition, this species has been recorded previously twice within a 10 km radius of the referral area suggesting that the locality is infrequently used by this species (OEH 2019).

The Significant Impact Criteria has not been applied to the Swift Parrot.

Figure 14: Swift Parrot records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area

SPECIES OR THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spotted-tailed Quoll)

Do you consider this impact to be significant?

No.

The Spotted-tailed Quoll inhabits a variety of habitat types including rainforest, open forest woodland, coastal heath and inland riparian forest as well as beaches, grasslands and pastoral areas adjacent to forested habitat. Spotted-tailed Quolls have large home ranges from several hundred to several thousand ha in size. Spotted-tailed Quolls establish den sites in rock crevices, hollow logs, hollow- bearing trees, tree buttresses, windrows, clumps of vegetation, caves, boulder piles, under buildings and in burrows. They establish multiple den sites and move between them every 1-4 days.

Spotted-tailed Quoll was not recorded during fauna surveys which included camera trapping, cage trapping and spotlighting. There are an additional four records for this species within a 10 km radius of the referral area (Figure 15). Habitat for the Spotted-tailed Quoll is available across the entire referral area. While the species was not recorded during targeted survey, the referral area may be used for foraging as part of a larger home range. There is also potential for hollow-bearing trees within the referral area to be used as den sites. The Significant Impact Criteria has been applied to the Spotted- tailed Quoll on a precautionary basis and concluded that the proposed action would be unlikely to constitute a significant impact on this species (Table 8).

Table 8: Significant impact assessment on Spotted-tailed Quoll

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

1) lead to a long-term decrease in Spotted-tailed Quolls have a large home range (up to several hundred ha the size of an important for females and several thousand ha for males). The proposed action population of a species would result in the loss of 40.19 ha of potential habitat for this species. While no Spotted-tailed Quolls were recorded during the survey, there are recent BioNet records within 10 km of the referral area (including a 2018 record approximately 9 km from the referral area), and considering the suitable foraging resources available within the referral area, the referral area may form part of a larger home range. Large areas of suitable habitat area available within the adjacent Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park that are considered large enough to sustain the local population of Spotted-tailed Quolls. There is an estimated 13,536.02 ha of potential habitat within 10 km of the referral area. The removal of 40.19 ha is therefore considered unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population.

2) reduce the area of occupancy of The proposed action would remove 40.19 ha of potential habitat for the an important population Spotted-tailed Quoll. This species was not recorded during targeted surveys (spotlighting, hair tubes and remote cameras), however, they have large home ranges of several hundred to several thousand km in size. Spotted-tailed Quoll has been recorded approximately 10 km from the site in the last 2 years and it is assumed that this species may use the referral area as part of a larger home range. Therefore, the proposed action would reduce the potential area of occupancy of the local population by 40.19 ha. However, relative to the large areas of continuous potential habitat within the adjacent Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park, the loss of

Criterion Question Response 40.19 ha of potential habitat is not considered to be a significant loss of habitat.

3) fragment an existing important The proposed action would not result in fragmentation of habitat that population into two or more would result in the fragmentation of the local population into two or more populations populations.

4) adversely affect habitat critical No habitat critical to the survival of the Spotted-tailed Quoll has been to the survival of a species mapped, however, is described in the National Recovery Plan for the Where no critical habitat has Spotted-tailed Quoll (DotE, 2016) as “large patches of forest with been declared, habitat critical adequate denning resources and relatively high densities of medium-sized to the survival of a species mammalian prey”. The referral area is continuous with extensive areas of refers to areas that are intact vegetation within the adjacent Biobank sites (Callala Bay) and Jervis necessary: Bay National Park that contains denning resources and assumed high densities of suitable mammalian prey. Therefore, the referral area would - for activities such as foraging, be considered habitat critical to the survival of the species, however, there breeding, roosting, or dispersal is an estimated 13,536.02 ha of potential habitat within 10 km of the - for the long-term referral area. The loss of maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators) - to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or - for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

5) disrupt the breeding cycle of an This species was not recorded during targeted survey, and therefore, the important population species is not known to be breeding within the referral area. However, the Spotted-tailed Quoll is known to use hollow-bearing trees as maternity dens and considering the numerous large tree hollows within the referral area, there is potential for this species to breed within the referral area. The removal of 40.19 ha of habitat containing potential breeding habitat may result in disturbance to the breeding cycle of the local population. The disturbance to the breeding cycle, if any, would be limited to a single individual, as female quoll home-ranges do not overlap. The proposed action is unlikely to significantly disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population that would lead to a long-term decline of the local population.

6) modify, destroy, remove or The referral area would likely form part of a large home range of a local isolate or decrease the population of the Spotted-tailed Quoll. The removal of 40.19 ha of availability or quality of habitat potential habitat would result in the loss of a proportion of foraging and to the extent that the species is potential breeding habitat. Individuals have large home ranges and there likely to decline is abundant habitat resources in adjacent vegetation within the Biobank site and Jervis Bay National Park.

7) result in invasive species that The proposed action is unlikely to result in the establishment of an are harmful to a vulnerable invasive species in the habitat to be retained outside of the referral area. species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

Criterion Question Response

8) introduce disease that may The proposed action is unlikely to introduce a disease that would cause cause the species to decline, or the species to decline.

9) interfere substantially with the The recovery objectives relative to the proposed action are: recovery of the species. 3. Reduce the rate of habitat loss and fragmentation on private land – the proposed action will conflict with this recovery objective as it will result in the loss of 40.19 ha of potential habitat. Relative to the abundant areas of high quality habitat retained within the Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park, the increase rate of habitat loss resulting from the proposed action is considered unlikely to substantially interfere with the recovery of the Spotted-tailed Quoll. 8. Reduce the frequency of Spotted-tailed Quoll road mortality – the proposed action would result in more vehicles present adjacent to Spotted-tailed Quoll habitat which has the potential to result in road mortality. The risk of potential impacts associated with vehicle mortality are not likely to be substantial.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a significant The proposed action would result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential impact? habitat for Spotted-tailed Quolls which would form part of a larger home range. Substantial areas of suitable habitat will be retained adjacent to the referral area and within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank site (Callala Bay). The proposed action is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on this species.

Figure 15: Spotted-tailed Quoll records and preferred habitat within a 10 km radius of the referral area

SPECIES OR THREATENED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITY Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox)

Do you consider this impact to be significant?

No.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox was not been detected during targeted survey utilising the site. The Grey- headed Flying-fox is typically medium to dark grey with many light-tipped hairs with fur extending to the feet. Its defining feature is an orange or russet-coloured collar which encircles the neck. This species occupies the coastal lowlands and slopes of south-eastern Australia from Bundaberg to Geelong and inland NSW to the tablelands and western slopes. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a highly mobile, partially migratory species with a distribution that is highly varied between seasons and years. The Grey- headed Flying-fox forms part of one single, interbreeding population. The species breeds once a year between October and December (DotEE 2017).

Grey-headed Flying-foxes typically roost in camps which are used as a daytime refuge. Camps are generally stable sites, however numbers and occupation can vary over time, depending on the availability of foraging resources within the locality (DotEE 2017). There are 22 records for this species within a 10 km radius of the referral area (Figure 16).

This species primarily feeds on blossom and fruit in the canopy and will occasionally supplement this with leaves. This species tends to favour Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora, Melaleuca, Banksia and Ficus species and will migrate in response to flowering events and the availability of food. This species will forage between 20 km and 40 km in a feeding foray from a camp site, with most distances <20 km. Up to 20 km is considered the average foraging distance and has been used in this assessment.

Threats to the Grey-headed Flying-fox include loss of foraging and roosting habitat, competition with Black Flying-foxes, negative public attitude and conflict with humans, electrocution, entanglement in netting and on barbed-wire, climate change and disease (DotEE 2017). The draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox defines habitat critical to the survival of the species as natural habitat that is (DotEE 2017):

• productive foraging habitats linked by migration corridors or stopover habitats and camps within a nightly commuting distance of the foraging resources. • during winter and spring when food bottlenecks have been identified.

The plan also notes that foraging resources which provide resources in times of food shortage may also be critical to the survival of the species (DotEE 2017). No camps are present in the referral area. There are three camps within 20 km of the referral area (DotEE 2019):

• Bomaderry Creek – approximately 19 km north west of the referral area containing 2,500 – 9,999 individuals (last recorded 2016) • Nowra – approximately 18 km north-west of the referral area containing 500 – 2,499 individuals (last counted August 2019) • Wandandian– approximately 18 km south-west of the referral area last estimated to contain 500-2,499 individuals (May 2018) (Figure 16).

A fourth camp has been identified within the referral area, however there are no individuals having been previously recorded in the camp.

The proposed action will directly impact 40.19 ha of potential foraging habitat, which is unlikely to form critical habitat for this species. This foraging habitat is most likely utilised by the individuals in the Nowra and Wandandian camps on an occasional basis only, given the distance of the referral area from the camp and large quantity of potential foraging habitat in the locality. The Significant Impact Criteria has been applied to the Grey-headed Flying-fox and concluded that the proposed action would be unlikely to constitute a significant impact on this species (Table 9).

Table 9: Significant impact assessment on Grey-headed Flying-fox

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

1) lead to a long-term The proposed action would remove of 40.19 ha of foraging habitat for Grey- decrease in the size of an headed Flying-fox. The amount of habitat to be affected is relatively small important population of compared to the amount of vegetation available in the average foraging range a species for this species. No individuals or camps of Grey-headed Flying-fox were recorded in the referral area however there are records adjacent to the referral area. The referral area would be used on occasion as foraging habitat and would form part of a mosaic of foraging resources within this species foraging range. The proposed works will not impact on any part of a known camp. The proposed action would conserve 901.21 ha of suitable foraging habitat in the Lake Wollumboola BioBank site which is immediately adjacent to the referral area. Within 10k of the referral area there is an estimated 12,218.46 ha of potential habitat. Given that foraging habitat exists in the surrounding landscape and that this species is wide-ranging (traveling an average of 20km per night), the proposed action is unlikely to affect any populations of this species that would lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of this species.

2) reduce the area of Individuals of this species are known to move approximately 20 km from a camp occupancy of an to forage. This species is highly mobile and populations at each camp may important population change during seasonal fluctuations. The removal of 40.19 foraging habitat is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy of this species given their large foraging range and availability of several larger patches of foraging habitat within a 20 km radius of the site. A majority of this habitat is conserved through formal conservation management including National Parks and established BioBank sites. Within 10 km of the referral area there is an estimated 12,088.27 ha of potential habitat which would be retained. In addition, this species is known to utilise a range of foraging resources within a region. This species would not rely solely on the vegetation within the site for foraging purposes.

3) fragment an existing The Grey-headed Flying-fox population across camps is highly dynamic and important population individuals move between permanent camps to utilise foraging resources. They into two or more will return to permanent camps to rear offspring. Individuals are highly mobile, populations and populations are not static. It is unlikely that any known camp or an important population would be fragmented under the proposed action. The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential foraging habitat. Large amounts of similar habitat are available adjacent to the study area and in the wider locality within the BioBank sites and Jervis Bay National Park. Therefore, the proposed action

Criterion Question Response is unlikely to fragment the existing important population into two or more populations.

4) adversely affect habitat The draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DotEE 2017) critical to the survival of a defines habitat critical to the survival of the species as natural habitat that is: species arbitrary • productive foraging habitats linked by migration corridors or stopover habitats and camps within a nightly commuting distance of the foraging resources. • during winter and spring when food bottlenecks have been identified. The study area is approximately 18 km north east of a camp at Wandandian, which had recorded numbers of Grey-headed Flying-foxes of 16,000 to 49,999 in November 2011, however, has since had lower numbers recorded. Considering that numbers of individuals fluctuate within camps, a population of >30,000 individuals may occur within 20km of the referral area. The referral area is surrounded by large areas of foraging resources that would from part of the foraging habitat for this camp. However, 40.19 ha is not considered substantial relative to the surrounding resources and is therefore not considered critical to the survival of this species. A majority of this habitat is conserved through formal conservation management including National Parks and established BioBank sites.

5) disrupt the breeding As no breeding habitat would be removed or disturbed, it is unlikely the cycle of an important proposed biocertification would disrupt the breeding cycle of the important population population of this species.

6) modify, destroy, remove No known camps would be removed or disturbed, and extensive areas of or isolate or decrease the foraging habitat will remain immediately adjacent to the referral area within the availability or quality of three BioBank sites and Jervis Bay National Park. The proposed action would habitat to the extent that therefore be unlikely to modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the the species is likely to availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline. decline

7) result in invasive species The proposed action is unlikely result in invasive species such as weeds or that are harmful to a predatory species that would be harmful to Grey-headed Flying Fox. vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

8) introduce disease that Grey-headed Flying-foxes are reservoirs for the Australian bat lyssavirus (ABL) may cause the species to and can cause clinical disease and mortality in GHFF (DECCW 2009). The decline, or proposed action is unlikely to present a significant ecological stress on any camps or on individuals that may utilise the referral area and therefore the works are unlikely to introduce or exacerbate this virus or any other disease that may cause this species to decline.

9) interfere substantially A Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox was developed in with the recovery of the 2017. As no maternity camps would be removed, the proposed action would species. remove 40.19 ha of potential foraging habitat. Large amounts of habitat are available adjacent to the referral area and in the wider locality and form part of BioBank Agreement sites and Jervis Bay National Park. It is therefore unlikely the proposed action would interfere with the recovery of this species.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a The action would not affect breeding habitat and would impact 0.33% of significant impact? potential foraging habitat available within the locality (10 km radius of the referral area) for this species. No important populations would be isolated or

Criterion Question Response fragmented and the life cycle of this species is unlikely to be affected. Therefore, the action is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.

Figure 16: Grey-headed Flying-fox camps and records within a 20 km radius of the referral area

Figure 17: Preferred habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox within a 10 km radius of the referral area

2.5 Is the proposed action likely to impact on the member of any listed migratory species, or their habitat? No.

2.5.1 Do you consider this impact to be significant? No.

2.6 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a marine environment (outside Commonwealth marine areas)? No.

2.7 Is the proposed action likely to impact on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth land? No.

2.8 Is the proposed action taking place in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? No.

2.9 Will there be any impact on a water resource related to coal / gas / mining? No.

2.10 Is the proposed action a nuclear action? No.

2.11 Is the proposed action to be taken by the Commonwealth agency? No.

2.12 Is the proposed action to be undertaken in a Commonwealth Heritage Place Overseas? No.

2.13 Is the proposed action likely to impact on any part of the environment in the Commonwealth marine area? No.

3. Description of the Project

3.1 Describe the flora and fauna relevant to the project area. The referral area is bound by residential development to the east, Lake Wollumboola Biobank site to the north, and predominantly vegetated rural residential land to the south and west. The referral area is well connected to adjacent remnant vegetation to the north, which adjoins Jervis Bay National Park to the north of the BioBank site and is separated by roads to other remnant vegetation on private land to the west and south.

One vegetation community was identified in the referral area: SR592 Red Bloodwood –Blackbutt – Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion (PCT 1079). This is not a listed threatened ecological community under the EPBC Act. Two Biometric plots were undertaken in the referral area for this vegetation community. The canopy in the referral was typically comprised of Eucalyptus botryoides (Bangalay), Corymbia gummifera (Red Bloodwood), Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple), Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark), Eucalyptus sclerophylla (Hard-leaved Stringybark) and Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark).

A total of 93 flora species were recorded across the two biometric plots, one of which was exotic. One threatened flora species was identified during targeted survey; Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) and one threatened fauna species; Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) was also identified in the referral area.

3.2 Describe the hydrology relevant to the project area (including water flows) No mapped drainage lines or watercourses are located within the referral area.

3.3 Describe the soil and vegetation characteristics relevant to the project The site is predominantly located on the Greenwell Point transferral soil landscape. This landscape is characterised by gently undulating topography on siltstone. Small areas in the south and east of the site are located on the Seven Mile estuarine soil landscape. This landscape is characterised by dune ridges, swamps and lagoons on Quaternary marine sands and peat.

3.4 Describe any outstanding natural features and / or any other important or unique values relevant to the project area The referral area does not contain any outstanding natural features or values unique to the project area. These landforms are widespread throughout the locality.

3.5 Describe the status of native vegetation relevant to the project Field survey confirmed one vegetation type in the referral area; Red Bloodwood – Blackbutt – Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, Southern Sydney Basin Bioregion. This community does not form part of a threatened ecological community (Table 10).

Table 10: Vegetation community description for the referral area, as per Shoalhaven LGA mapping (2013)

Information unit Description

Community (Biometric Red Bloodwood – Blackbutt – Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, Southern Vegetation Type) Sydney Basin Bioregion.

Hectares 40.19

% cleared (VIS) 45% in Southern Rivers CMA

SCIVI equivalent Currambene-Batemans Lowlands Forest

Description (SCIVI) Currambene-Batemans Lowlands Forest dominates the assessment area, and the Jervis Bay hinterland generally. The community is characterised by a very diverse suite of canopy species, and also a diverse but generally dry sclerophyll aligned shrub layer. The Currambene-Batemans Lowlands Forest within the assessment area is characteristically variable floristically. In places, the canopy is dominated, sometimes completely, by a single eucalypt species, generally Eucalyptus pilularis or Eucalyptus sclerophylla, although it is often a mix of up to six or eight eucalypt species. Given the low relief within the site, there is often a broad ecotone between the community and adjoining communities, particularly Coastal Sand Forest, Coastal Sand Swamp Forest, and Shoalhaven Sandstone Forest. Within the site the community has been cleared and or logged historically in most areas, however old growth and hollow-bearing trees are scattered throughout. At Copper Cup Point the community has been converted into grazing pastures.

Equivalent threatened This community is not associated with a threatened ecological community. ecological community

Figure 18: Validated vegetation communities and plots conducted in the referral area

3.6 Describe the gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) relevant to the project area The site is on gently sloping terrain.

3.7 Describe the current condition of the environment relevant to the project area The site is currently fully vegetated with Red Bloodwood – Blackbutt – Spotted Gum shrubby open forest. The site is surrounded by native vegetation to the north, north west and south with cleared areas used for farmland to the west and residential development to the east.

3.8 Describe any Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values relevant to the project area The site does not contain any Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage significance.

3.9 Describe any indigenous heritage values relevant to the project area A Stage 1 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment has been undertaken on the site as part of the rezoning process, in consultation with registered aboriginal parties. The Stage 1 report did not find any archaeological sites on the site. Despite this, a Stage 2 Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Assessment is currently being undertaken, again in consultation and with assistance of registered aboriginal parties, including test excavations over the site. This study is expected to be concluded by March 2020.

3.10 Describe the tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold) relevant to the project area Freehold.

3.11 Describe any existing or proposed uses relevant to the project area The entire site is vegetated and is zoned as a deferred matter under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2014. The site has remained a fully vegetated area without any previous ongoing use.

Figure 19: Hydrological values, easements and roads adjacent to the referral area

4. Section 4 – Measures to avoid or reduce impact from your proposed action

4.1 Describe the measures you will undertake to avoid or reduce impact from your proposed action The Biocertification Assessment Report completed by ELA (2019) has been used to inform avoidance and minimisation of direct and indirect impacts to biodiversity values in the final referral area.

The land within the referral area has been identified for the future expansion of the Callala Bay township, in the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy (October 2003), Illawarra Strategic Regional Plan and the Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy (December 2012). Additionally, the referral area has also been identified in the Jervis Bay Regional Plan as suitable for urban expansion (Allen Price and Associates 2014). A Planning Proposal was submitted to Shoalhaven City Council in August 2014. Council’s Development Committee resolved to support the advancement of the Planning Proposed action and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure made a Gateway Determination in November 2015.

The purpose of the biocertification assessment is to facilitate appropriate biodiversity values considerations in the land zoning process for the future expansion of Callala Bay township as identified in the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy (October 2003), Illawarra Strategic Regional Plan and the Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy (December 2012). These strategic documents identified the potential township expansion into approximately 35 hectares of land to the west of the existing urban area.

While no vegetation has been avoided within the referral area, the site selection for the development footprint was chosen through strategic planning alongside the establishment of Biobank sites to offset impacts of the proposed action. The development footprint has gone through several iterations, following the results of targeted flora and fauna survey to minimise impacts to Genoplesium baueri across the site (Figure 20, Figure 21).

Sealark Pty Limited (or any future developer/developers who becomes subject to the Biodiversity Certification Agreement) will prepare and implement a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) to guide the development of the certified land and ensure that all direct and indirect impacts (e.g. APZs, utilities, access, stormwater run-off) are contained within the development footprint and appropriate mitigation measures are put in place to minimise indirect impacts to the adjoining Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site.

Any trees and hollows removed under the supervision of a fauna ecologist from trees, including hollow- bearing trees, that cannot be retained will be relocated to within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site.

Figure 20: Previously proposed development footprint

4.2 For matters protected by the EPBC Act that may be affected by the proposed action, describe the proposed environmental outcomes A BioBanking Agreement is a ‘Permanently Managed and Funded’ or 100% Conservation Measure as outlined in s126L(i) of the TSC Act and section 8.1.1 of the BCAM. The BioBanking Agreement that has been entered into by Sealark Pty Ltd (the current land owners) and the Minister and is proposed to be transferred by Sealark Pty Ltd to NPWS within a timeframe of approximately five to seven years. The remaining trust fund deposit will also be transferred to NPWS to ensure that the site remains funded in- perpetuity.

A BioBank Agreement is registered on title and enforceable against the owner of the land (i.e. Sealark Pty Ltd). The BioBank plans for the BioBank site include the standard mandatory suite of BioBanking actions to improve biodiversity values by the implementation of the following management actions:

• erection and maintenance of boundary fencing to prevent inappropriate access • active management and reduction of weeds • application of fire, where appropriate • replanting or supplementary planting where natural regeneration is insufficient to bring back to benchmark condition within a reasonable timeframe • control of rabbits and foxes (as required) • the retention of regrowth/native vegetation, dead timber, and rocks.

The BioBank site is subject to the terms of the BioBank Agreement which includes annual conservation management in-perpetuity, submission of an annual report to OEH regarding these management obligations and audit by OEH. The in-perpetuity costs of these management actions have been estimated using the BioBanking in-perpetuity cost spreadsheet and in-principle agreement that has been reached with NPWS regarding the transfer of these lands, once initial management has been undertaken by the current landowners to reach maintenance management. Sealark Pty Ltd is responsible for the BioBank Site consistent with the Agreement.

Matters of NES requiring offsets include:

• Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat Orchid).

Impacts to Genoplesium baueri will be offset via the purchase and retirement of biodiversity credits from Biobank sites (Wollumboola BioBank Site BA364) that is registered immediately adjacent to the referral area. A total of 126 Genoplesium baueri individuals over an area of 17.47 ha will be conserved in the Wollumboola BioBank site. The Biobank site will also conserve 59.08 ha of potential habitat for this species.

Table 11: Habitat to be conserved and available within the locality (10 km radius)

Total habitat available Scientific name Common name Impact (ha)

Genoplesium baueri Yellow Gnat-orchid 3.48 72.59 * The habitat in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) is the only Biobank site that will be used to offset impacts associated with the proposed action. The remaining biobank sites are used to demonstrate other habitat that is available that is under a conservation agreement.

Table 12: Biometric vegetation types in the Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay)

Biometric ID Biometric vegetation type Area (ha)

SR516 Blackbutt - Turpentine - Bangalay moist open forest on sheltered slopes and 194.58 gullies, southern Sydney Basin

SR557 Hairpin Banksia - Slender Tea-tree heath on coastal sandstone plateaux, Sydney 0.48 Basin

SR589 Old-man Banksia - she-oak - Red Bloodwood heathland on coastal sands, 0.60 southern Sydney Basin

SR592 Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal 9.11 foothills, southern Sydney Basin

SR594 Red Bloodwood - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Silvertop Ash heathy open forest on 55.37 sandstone plateaux of the lower Shoalhaven Valley, Sydney Basin

SR614 Saltmarsh in estuaries of the Sydney Basin and South East Corner 4.06

SR649 Swamp Oak - Prickly Tea-tree - Swamp Paperbark swamp forest on coastal 3.37 floodplains, Sydney Basin and South East Corner

SR651 Swamp Paperbark - Swamp Oak tall shrubland on estuarine flats, Sydney Basin 19.31 and South East Corner

SR669 Woollybutt - White Stringybark - Forest Red Gum grassy woodland on coastal 24.32 lowlands, southern Sydney Basin and South East Corner

Total 311.20

Figure 21: Results for G. baueri surveys in the site

5. 5. Section 5 – Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts

5.1.1 World Heritage Places No.

5.1.2 National Heritage Places No.

5.1.3 Wetlands on International Importance (declared Ramsar Wetlands) No.

5.1.4 Listed threatened species or any threatened ecological community Yes. Significant impacts are expected for Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid).

5.1.5 Listed migratory species No.

5.1.6 Commonwealth marine environment No.

5.1.7 Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land No.

5.1.8 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park No.

5.1.9 A water resource, in relation to coal/gas/mining No.

5.1.10 Protection of the environment from nuclear actions No.

5.1.11 Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions No.

5.1.12 Commonwealth Heritage places overseas No.

5.2 If no significant matters are identified, provide the key reasons why you think the proposed action is not likely to have a significant impact on a matter protected under the EPBC Act and therefore not a controlled action The proposed action is considered a controlled action with respect to Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat- orchid). No other significant impacts on MNES would be significantly affected for the reasons listed in Section 4.

6. Section 6 – Environmental record of the person proposing to take the action

Provide details of any proceedings under Commonwealth, State or Territory law against the person proposing to take the action that pertain to the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

6.1 Does the person taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management? Please explain in further detail Sealark has an exemplary record of environmental management and sustainability at a state level. Sealark has worked closely with community as well as local and state authorities to ensure site- responsive outcomes on its projects. In recent years, Sealark has BioBanked over 2,000 ha of its land for long term preservation and management of biodiversity values.

6.2 Provide details of any proceeding under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources Not applicable.

6.3 Will the action be taken in accordance with the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework? Not applicable.

6.3.1 If the person taking the action is a corporation, please provide details of the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework Not applicable.

6.4 Has the person taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act? No.

7. Section 7 – Information sources

You are required to provide the references used in preparing the referral including the reliability of the source.

7.1 List references used in preparing the referral (please provide the reference source reliability and any uncertainties of source). All of the references used in preparing this referral are considered to be of a high reliability and from a reliable source as most have been prepared by either the Australian or NSW Government comprising listing information, impact assessment guidelines and/or recovery plans for MNES. The remaining references have been prepared by consultants engaged by the proponent to prepare the information necessary to complete the referral.

Allen, Price & Associates, 2014. Planning Proposed action – Sealark Pty Ltd - Culburra, Callala Bay, Kinghorne Point.

Reliability high. The field study and desktop assessment was completed by qualified and competent personnel in accordance with relevant federal, state and local legislation and current industry best practice. Accordingly, we have a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the report

BES 2006a Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Emmett St, Callala Bay, Presentation for Coolangatta. Powerpoint Presentation.

Reliability high. Completed by professional ecological consultants with expertise in the threatened species and ecological communities in the South Coast region.

BES 2006b GIS targeted flora species survey effort and results.

Reliability high. Completed by professional ecological consultants with expertise in the threatened species and ecological communities in the South Coast region.

DEC 2004. Threatened species survey and assessment; guidelines for developments and activities (working draft) New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville, NSW.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) 2008. Vegetation Types Database. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of Environment and Energy 2007. Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendments to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/352963-listing-advice.pdf

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of Environment and Energy 2013. Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Orchids: Guidelines for Detecting Orchids listed as ‘Threatened’ under the Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/e160f3e7-7142-4485-9211- 2d1eb5e1cf31/files/draft-guidelines-threatened-orchids.pdf

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW) 2011. Biodiversity Certification Assessment Methodology. NSW Department of Environment Climate Change and Water, Sydney.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. 2016. National Recovery Plan for the Spotted- tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. Australian Government, Canberra.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of Planning, Infrastructure and Environment 2019. Koala habitat and feed trees. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/topics/animals-and-plants/native-animals/native-animal- facts/koala/koala-habitat

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of the Environment and Energy (DoEE) 2019. Protected Matters Search Tool EPBC Act. [Online] http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst.jsf (Accessed November 2019).

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Department of the Environment, 2016. National Recovery Plan for the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia). Commonwealth of Australia 2016.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Ecoplanning 2017. Expert Report for Genoplesium baueri, Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. Prepared for Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd.’ Eco Logical Australia (ELA) 2019. BioBanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report – Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. Report prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd, February 2019.

Environment Australia 2000. Comprehensive and Regional Assessments for North-East NSW. Report to National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Gunninah Environmental Consultants 2001. Callala Environmental report

Reliability high. Completed by professional ecological consultants with expertise in the threatened species and ecological communities in the South Coast region.

Jones, D.L. A complete guide to Native orchids of Australia including the Island Territories. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Reliability high. Published by a known orchid expert and was peer reviewed.

OEH 2012. National Recovery Plan for Eastern Bristlebird Dasyornis brachypterus. Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet (NSW), Sydney. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=533

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2015a. Biodiversity Certification Operational Manual. NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for the NSW Government, Sydney

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2019c. Vegetation Information System, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. Available https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NSWVCA20PRapp/LoginPR.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fNSWVCA20 PRapp%2fsearch%2fpctsearch.aspx

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 2019a. NSW BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife – search tool [online]. (accessed March 2019).

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 2019b. Threatened species profiles. Online.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 2019d. Koala habitat and feed trees. Online.

Reliability high. Prepared by Government Agency.

Saunders, D.L. and Tzaros, C.L. 2011. National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor, Birds Australia, Melbourne.

Reliability high. Published by a Government Agency.

Shoalhaven City Council (SCC), 2016. Email correspondence dated 21st September 2016.

Reliability high. Reproduction of direct phone call.

Stephenson, A. W., 2015. Orchid Letter dated 20 November 2015.

Reliability high. Produced by a known orchid expert for the South Coast region.

Tozer, K. Turner, D.A. Keith, D. Tindall, C. Pennay, C.Simpson, B. MacKenzie, P. Beukers and S. Cox, 2010. Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands.

Reliability high. Prepared and reviewed by highly experience botanists.

8. Proposed alternatives

8.1 Provide a description of the feasible alternative No alternative has been considered for the proposed action.

8.2 Select the relevant alternatives related to your proposed action N/A

8.3 Do you have another alternative? N/A

9. Section 9 – Contacts, signatures and declarations

Proponent information/signatures required

9.1 Is the person proposing to take the action an Organisation or an individual? Organisation

9.2 Organisation- Sealark Pty Ltd

9.2.1 Job Title Company Secretary

9.2.2 First Name Lee

9.2.3 Last Name Kenny

9.2.4 E-mail [email protected]

9.2.5 Postal Address GPO Box 2678, Sydney NSW 2000

9.2.6 ABN/ACN 81 075 795 587

9.2.7 Organisation Telephone 9283 3399

9.2.8 I qualify for exemption from fees under section 520(4c)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am: NOT EXEMPT

9.3 Is the proposed designated proponent an organisation or individual? Organisation.

9.4 Individual Not applicable.

9.5 Organisation- Sealark Pty Ltd

9.5.1 Job Title Company Secretary

9.5.2 First Name Lee

9.5.3 Last Name Kenny

9.5.4 E-mail [email protected]

9.5.5 Postal Address GPO Box 2678, Sydney NSW 2000

9.5.6 ABN/ACN 81 075 795 587

9.5.7 Organisation Telephone 9283 3399

9.6 Is the referring party an organisation or individual? Organisation

9.7 Individual Not applicable.

9.8 Organisation Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

9.8.1 Job title Ecologist

9.8.2 First name Alex

9.8.3 Last name Gorey

9.8.4 Email [email protected]

9.8.5 Postal address Level 3, 101 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000.

PO Box Q108. Sydney NSW 1230

9.8.6 ABN / CAN 87 096 512 088

9.8.7 Organisation telephone 9259 3800

9.8.8 Organisation E-mail [email protected]

Appendix A - Likelihood of occurrence

The table below lists the threatened species known or considered likely to occur within the referral area based on previous surveys, Atlas, EPBC Act Protected Matters Search, Biodiversity certification credit calculator tool and/or expert opinion. Threatened species which are not listed under the EPBC have been excluded from the table. Species listed as ‘Marine’ only under the EPBC Act have also been excluded as the proposed action will not impact on Commonwealth marine land. A BioNet Atlas search was undertaken by ELA on 19 November 2019 to identify any additional species to be added to the table.

Five categories for likelihood of occurrence of species are used in this report and are defined below. Assessment of likelihood was based on species’ locality records, presence or absence of suitable habitat features within the BCAA, results of previous studies, on site field surveys and professional judgement.

• known/yes - the species is known to occur within suitable habitat within the BCAA. • likely - a medium to high probability that a species occupies or uses habitat within the BCAA. • potential - suitable habitat for a species occurs within the BCAA, but there is insufficient information to categorise the species as likely to occur, or unlikely to occur. • unlikely - a very low to low probability that a species occupies or uses habitat within the BCAA. • no - habitat within the BCAA and in the immediate vicinity is unsuitable for the species, or, in the case of plants, the species was not located during searches of the BCAA. BC/EPBC Act Status:

• CE = Critically Endangered species, population or ecological community. • E = Endangered species, population (E2) or ecological community (E3). • V = Vulnerable species, population or ecological community.

Threatened ecological communities

Significance Name BC EPBC Act Data source Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence Targeted survey undertaken Recorded on site Assessment Act and justification Required The ecological community occurs in sub-tropical, sub-humid and temperate climatic zones from Curtis Island, north of Gladstone, in Queensland to Bermagui in southern New South Wales. The ecological community occurs in coastal catchments, mostly at elevations of less than 20 m above sea-level (ASL) that are typically found within 30 km of the coast. Coastal Swamp Oak Forest typically occurs on unconsolidated sediments, including alluvium deposits, and where soils formed during the Quaternary Coastal Swamp Oak (Casuarina glauca) Forest period as a result of sea-level rise during the Holocene period. The ecological No. not previously mapped Vegetation validation and of NSW and South east Queensland ecological E PMST No No community is typically found where groundwater is saline or brackish, but can occur in the referral area. BBAM plots community in areas where groundwater is relatively fresh. It is typically found on coastal flats, floodplains, drainage lines, lake margins, wetlands and estuarine fringes where soils are at least occasionally saturated, water-logged or inundated. These are typically associated with low-lying coastal alluvial floodplains and alluvial flats (Keith and Scott, 2005). Minor occurrences can be found on coastal dune swales or flats, particularly deflated dunes and dune soaks

Illawarra coastal plain and escarpment foothills. Recorded from the LGAs of Illawarra and South Coast Lowland Forest and Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama, and Shoalhaven. Occurs in near coastal areas No. not previously mapped Vegetation validation and CE PSMT No No Woodland below about 200 metres on gently undulating terrain. Occurs on Berry Siltstone, in the referral area. BBAM plots Budgong Sandstone and Quaternary Alluvium."

Within a relatively narrow margin of the Australian coastline, within the subtropical and temperate climatic zones south of the South-east Queensland IBRA bioregion. No. not previously mapped Vegetation validation and Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh V PMST Typically restricted to the upper intertidal environment; mainly associated with the No No in the referral area. BBAM plots soft substrate shores of estuaries and embayments (sandy and/or muddy) and on some open, low wave energy coasts). Threatened flora

Significance Scientific Common BC EPBC Data Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence Targeted survey undertaken Recorded on site Assessment name name Act Act source and justification Required Associated with open woodlands and heath, typically occurring in treeless areas or very open areas, which are often rocky Potential. Associated with Caladenia Thick-lipped and where there are only skeletal soils. It does not occur in forested habitats. Plants may lay dormant for 10-20 years, Targeted survey by BES 2006 and E V PMST PCTs previously mapped in No No tessellata Spider orchid only flowering for one to two years following a mid-late summer fire. Outside this period it is highly unlikely that any Gunninah the referral area plants will flower and thus that there will be any above ground biomass of the species.

Cryptostylis hunteriana is known from a range of vegetation communities including swamp-heath and woodland. The larger populations typically occur in woodland dominated by Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus sclerophylla), Silvertop Ash (E. Targeted survey by BES 2006. Site Leafless sieberi), Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) and Black Sheoak (Allocasuarina littoralis); where it appears to prefer Potential. Associated with assessment and correspondence Cryptostylis BioNet, Tongue V V open areas in the understorey of this community and is often found in association with the Large Tongue Orchid (C. PCTs previously mapped in from Alan Stephenson did not No No hunteriana PMST Orchid subulata) and the Tartan Tongue Orchid (C. erecta). Coastal Plains Scribbly Gum Woodland and Coastal Plains Smoothed- the referral area identify habitat in the referral barked Apple Woodland is potential habitat on the Central Coast. Flowers between November and February, although area. may not flower regularly (OEH 2015).

Cynanchum elegans is a climber or twiner with a variable form, and flowers between August and May, peaking in White- November (DECC 2007). It occurs in dry rainforest gullies, scrub and scree slopes, and prefers the ecotone between dry Potential. PCT can contain Habitat Assessment. Vegetation Cynanchum No. No habitat flowered E E PMST subtropical rainforest and sclerophyll woodland/forest (NPWS 1997). The species has also been found in littoral canopy species associated present not suitable for this No elegans present Wax Plant rainforest; Leptospermum laevigatum – Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia coastal scrub; Eucalyptus tereticornis with species. species. open forest/ woodland; Corymbia maculata open forest/woodland; and Melaleuca armillaris scrub to open scrub

Significance Scientific Common BC EPBC Data Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence Targeted survey undertaken Recorded on site Assessment name name Act Act source and justification Required Known from coastal areas from northern Sydney south to the Nowra district. Previous records from the Hunter Valley Genoplesium Yellow Gnat- BioNet, E E and Nelson Bay are now thought to be erroneous. Grows in shrubby woodland in open forest on shallow sandy soils Yes Targeted surveys 2006 - 2016 Yes Yes baueri orchid PMST (OEH 2015).

Unlikely. Not associated with vegetation community present and distribution Genoplesium East Lynne This species is known from a narrow distribution in dry sclerophyll forest and woodlands from south of Batemans Bay to does not overlap with V V PMST No. No No vernale Midge-orchid north of Ulladulla. Grows in shrubby forests on well drained clay-loam between 30-100m altitude (Jones 2006). referral area. No BioNet records for this species within a 5km radius of the referral area.

Habitat assessment and targeted Melaleuca Biconvex BCAM, Melaleuca biconvexa occurs in coastal districts and adjacent tablelands from Jervis Bay north to the Port Macquarie survey in 2006 and 2016. No V V Potential No No biconvexa Paperbark PMST district. It grows in damp places often near streams potential habitat present and not recorded

Unlikely. This species has been recorded 1.7 km east of the referral area. Prasophyllum Jervis Bay BioNet, This species is known from three sites – Kinghorn Point, Wowly Gully near Callala Bay and near Vincentia township. However, the vegetation E E No No No affine Leek Orchid PMST Grows on poorly drained clay soils that support low heathland and sedgeland communities. within the referral area does not support suitable habitat (heathy/swampy) for this species.

BCAM, Potential. Associated with Habitat assessment and targeted Prostanthera Villous Mint- Generally grows in sclerophyll forest and shrubland on coastal headlands and near coastal ranges, chiefly on sandstone, V V BioNet, PCT previously mapped in survey in 2006 and 2016. Not No No densa bush and rocky slopes near the sea. PMST the referral area. recorded

Habitat assessment. Vegetation Potential. Associated with Pterostylis Illawarra BCAM, Near Nowra, open forest of Spotted Gum, Forest Red Gum and Grey Ironbark i.e. a transition forest between grassy present is not suitable for this E E PCT previously mapped in No No gibbosa Greenhood PMST woodlands and lowland sclerophyll woodlands. species. Unlikely to occur due to the referral area. habitat restrictions.

Unlikely. This species is highly cryptic and difficult to detect. Survey for this species may actually damage any living individuals and are therefore, not Eastern The habitat requirements of this species are poorly understood. It may occur in variable habitats forests and recommended. Generally, Rhizanthella Australian BCAM, V E woodlands. This species completes its entire life cycle underground. It is known from ten locations in NSW, closest is a habitat is available, No No No slateri Underground PMST population recorded near Nowra. however, the referral area is Orchid located outside of the Nowra population. Additionally there are no BioNet records for this species within a 5km radius of the referral area. It is considered unlikely that this

Targeted survey in 2006 and 2016. This species is highly conspicuous and has not been recorded within BCAM, Potential. Can be associated Syzygium Magenta Lilly Magenta Lilly Pilly occurs on grey soils over sandstone, restricted mainly to remnant stands of littoral (coastal) the referral area despite previous E V BioNet, with the PCT originally No No paniculatum Pilly rainforest. targeted flora surveys. The PMST mapped in the referral area vegetation description for this species does not fit the vegetation associated with the referral area.

Targeted survey in 2006 and 2016. This species is highly conspicuous and has not been recorded within the referral area despite previous Potential. Can be associated targeted flora surveys. The Thesium Austral Occurs in grassland or grassy woodland. Often found in damp sites in association with Themeda australis (Kangaroo V V PMST with the PCT originally vegetation description for this No No australe Toadflax Grass). mapped in the referral area species does not fit the vegetation associated with the referral area. There are no BioNet records for this species recorded within a 5km radius of the referral area.

Habitat assessment. No habitat Potential. Can be associated present for this species. The Triplarina Nowra E Poorly drained, gently sloping sandstone shelves or along creek lines underlain by Nowra Sandstone. The sites are often E PMST with the PCT originally vegetation description for this No No nowraensis Heath-myrtle either treeless or have a very open tree canopy due to the impeded drainage. mapped in the referral area species does not fit the vegetation associated with the referral area. E = ENDANGERED V = VULNERABLE. CE = CRITICALLY ENDANGERED Threatened Fauna

Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act Data source Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence and Targeted survey Recorded on site Significance justification undertaken Assessment Required Amphibians Unlikely. The referral area Amongst emergent aquatic or riparian vegetation and amongst does not contain Green and Golden Bell vegetation, fallen timber adjacent to and within 500m of Litoria aurea E V BioNet waterbodies or is adjacent to No No No Frog breeding habitat, including grassland, cropland and modified suitable habitat for this pastures. species.

Unlikely. The referral area Forages in woodlands, wet heath, dry and wet sclerophyll does not contain forest. Associated with semi-permanent to ephemeral sand or Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog V V PMST waterbodies or is adjacent to No No No rock based streams, where the soil is soft and sandy so that suitable habitat for this burrows can be constructed. species.

Littlejohn's Tree Frog occurs along permanent rocky streams No. The referral area does with thick fringing vegetation associated with eucalypt not contain waterbodies or is Litoria littlejohnii Littlejohn’s Tree Frog V V PMST woodlands and heaths among sandstone outcrops. It appears to No No No adjacent to suitable habitat be restricted to sandstone woodland and heath communities at for this species. mid to high altitude (OEH 2019b).

Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act Data source Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence and Targeted survey Recorded on site Significance justification undertaken Assessment Required Diurnal Birds Habitat assessment. Associated with temperate eucalypt woodland and open forest Primary habitat not including forest edges, wooded farmland and urban areas with present within the mature eucalypts, and riparian forests of River Oak (Casuarina referral area due to cunninghamiana). Areas containing Swamp Mahogany Potential. previously mapped lack of associated feed (Eucalyptus robusta) in coastal areas have been observed to be Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater E E & M BCAM, PMST PCT contains preferred feed trees or breeding No. No. utilised. The Regent Honeyeater primarily feeds on nectar from tree species habitat. Species may box and ironbark eucalypts and occasionally from banksias and utilise secondary mistletoes. As such it is reliant on locally abundant nectar foraging habitat within sources with different flowering times to provide reliable supply the referral area on an of nectar (OEH 2019b. occasional basis.

No,. The referral area does Terrestrial wetlands with tall dense vegetation, occasionally not contain suitable habitat Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern V E PMST estuarine habitats. Reedbeds, swamps, streams, estuaries (OEH No No No for this species due to the 2019b). absence of waterbodies.

Red Knots are widespread around the Australian coast, less in the south and with few inland records. Small numbers visit Tasmania and off-shore islands. It is widespread but scattered in No. Marine habitat not Calidris canutus Red Knot - E; M PMST No No No New Zealand. They breed in North America, Russia, Greenland present. and Spitsbergen. Red Knots are a non-breeding visitor to most continents.

Intertidal mudflats of estuaries, lagoons, mangrove channels; No. Habitat not present due Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper E CE; M PMST around lakes, dams, floodwaters, flooded saltbush surrounds of to the absence of No No No inland lakes (Morcombe, 2004). waterbodies.

Habitat is characterised by dense, low vegetation and includes sedgeland, heathland, swampland, shrubland, sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest, as well as open woodland with a heathy understorey. In northern NSW occurs in open forest No suitable habitat with tussocky grass understorey. All of these vegetation types recorded within the are fire prone, aside from the rainforest habitat as utilised by referral area. Species the northern population as fire refuge. Age of habitat since fires Unlikely. Not associated with not recorded during Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird E E PMST, BioNet (fire-age) is of paramount importance to this species; Illawarra PCTs previously mapped in targeted surveys No No and southern populations reach maximum densities in habitat referral area. conducted by ELA that has not been burnt for at least 15 years; however, in the within the adjacent northern NSW population a lack of fire in grassy forest may be Lake Wollumboola detrimental as grassy tussock nesting habitat becomes BioBank site unsuitable after long periods without fire; northern NSW birds are usually found in habitats burnt five to 10 years previously (OEH 2019b).

Breeds in Tasmania between September and January. Migrates to mainland in autumn, where it forages on profuse flowering Eucalypts. Hence, in this region, autumn and winter flowering Habitat assessment. Potential. PCT previously BCAM, eucalypts are important for this species. Favoured feed trees Preferred foraging Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot E CE mapped in referral area may No No BioNet, PMST include winter flowering species such as Swamp Mahogany habitat limited in contain preferred feed trees (Eucalyptus robusta), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Red referral area. Bloodwood (C. gummifera), Mugga Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), and White Box (E. albens) (OEH 2019b).

Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act Data source Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence and Targeted survey Recorded on site Significance justification undertaken Assessment Required Estuaries, bays, harbours, inlets and coastal lagoons, intertidal mudflats or sandflats, ocean beaches, coral reefs, rock Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew - CE; M BioNet No. No habitat present. No No No platforms, saltmarsh, mangroves, freshwater/brackish lakes, saltworks and sewage farms.

The breeding sites of Gould’s Petrel are restricted to two islands at the entrance to Port Stephens on the mid-North Coast of No. Marine habitat not Pterodroma leucoptera Gould's Petrel V E BioNet No No No New South Wales. Non-breeding habitat includes sub-Antarctic present. waters between Macquarie Island and Tasmania. Mammals The Spotted-tailed Quoll inhabits a range of forest communities including wet and dry sclerophyll forests, coastal heathlands and rainforests, more frequently recorded near the ecotones of Potential. Recent records Targeted surveys 1998 Spotted-tailed Quoll Yes – precautionary Dasyurus maculatus closed and open forest. Individual animals use hollow-bearing within 10 km of the referral – 2006. Cage traps, Spotted-tailed Quoll (SE V E BCAM, PMST No approach due to cryptic maculatus trees, fallen logs, small caves, rock crevices, boulder fields and area. Suitable habitat hair tubes and remote mainland population) nature of species rocky-cliff faces as den sites. Maternal den sites are logs with available. cameras cryptic entrances; rock outcrops; windrows; burrows (OEH 2019b).

This species is associated with heath, coastal scrub, heathy Targeted surveys 1998 No. thought to be forests, shrubland and woodland on well drained soils. This Southern Brown Potential. Records within 10 – 2006. Cage traps, extinct from local area, Isoodon obesulus E E PMST species is thought to display a preference for newly No Bandicoot km of referral area. hair tubes and remote records were not from a regenerating heathland and other areas prone to fire (OEH cameras reliable source. 2019b).

Species previously recorded within the This species is restricted to eucalypt forests and woodlands referral area (BES Petauroides volans Greater Glider - V BioNet, PMST where it forages on eucalyptus leaves and flowers. It prefers Yes Yes. Yes 2006) and adjacent to areas of un-logged vegetation. the referral area (Bionet).

Habitat assessment. Suitable rocky Rocky areas in a variety of habitats, typically north facing sites habitat/escarpment Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby E V PMST Unlikely. No. No with numerous ledges, caves and crevices (OEH 2019b). not present within or adjacent to referral area.

Associated with both wet and dry Eucalypt forest and woodland Targeted surveys were that contains a canopy cover of approximately 10 to 70%, with Potential foraging/dispersal conducted by BES in BCAM, Phascolarctos cinereus Koala V V acceptable Eucalypt food trees. Some preferred Eucalyptus habitat, one record within 10 2006 and ELA in 2016 No No BioNet, PMST species are: Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. punctata, E. km radius of the referral area and did not record this cypellocarpa, E. viminalis (OEH 2019b) species.

This species can be found in wet eucalypt forests to coastal Targeted survey heaths and scrubs. The main factors would appear to be access Unlikely. Preferred habitat conducted from 1998 – Potorous tridactylus Long-nosed Potoroo V V BCAM, PMST No No to some form of dense vegetation for shelter and the presence not present. 2016. Not recorded in of an abundant supply of fungi for food. the referral area.

A small burrowing native rodent with a fragmented distribution Targeted survey across Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Unlikely. Suitable habitat not conducted from 1998 – Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse - V PMST Inhabits open heathlands, open woodlands with a heathland No No present. 2016. Not recorded in understorey and vegetated sand dunes. A social animal, living the referral area. predominantly in burrows shared with other individuals. The

Scientific name Common name BC Act EPBC Act Data source Habitat association Likelihood of occurrence and Targeted survey Recorded on site Significance justification undertaken Assessment Required home range of the New Holland Mouse ranges from 0.44 ha to 1.4 ha and the species peaks in abundance during early to mid- stages of vegetation succession typically induced by fire (OEH 2019b). Mammal (flying) The Large-eared Pied Bat has been recorded in a variety of Unlikely. There are no habitats, including dry sclerophyll forests, woodland, sub-alpine habitat breeding features woodland, edges of rainforests and wet sclerophyll forests. This recorded within or nearby Targeted echolocation Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat V V PMST species roosts in caves, rock overhangs and disused mine shafts No No the referral area due to the surveys conducted and as such is usually associated with rock outcrops and cliff absence of nearby cave and faces. Found in well-timbered areas containing gullies (OEH cliff features. 2019b). Inhabits a wide range of habitats including rainforest, mangroves, paperbark forests, wet and dry sclerophyll forests Likely. Suitable foraging Targeted survey Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-Fox V V BCAM, and cultivated areas. Camps are often located in gullies, habitat present. No conducted from 1998 No Yes BioNet, PMST typically close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy breeding camps present. – 2016. (OEH 2019b).

Appendix B - Previous threatened flora and fauna records

Figure 22: Threatened fauna records within a 10 km radius of the referral area (OEH 2019)

Figure 23: Threatened flora records previously recorded within a 10 km radius of the referral area (OEH 2019)

Appendix C - BES 2006 targeted flora and fauna survey effort

Table 13: Targeted flora and fauna survey effort throughout the referral area and Lake Wollumboolla BioBank Site

Date Method Effort Target species

23 Dec 2005 Targeted Orchid Survey 40 person-hours Cryptostylis hunteriana

29 Dec 2005 Targeted Orchid Survey 35 person-hours Cryptostylis hunteriana

30 Dec 2005 Targeted Orchid Survey 35 person-hours Cryptostylis hunteriana

23 Jan 2006 Random meander and vegetation plots 8 person-hours All flora species

2 Feb 2006 Random meander and vegetation plots 8 person-hours All flora species

16 Feb 2006 Random meander and vegetation plots 8.5 person-hours All flora species

22 Feb 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 22 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

23 Feb 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 26 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

6 Mar 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 30 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

8 Mar 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 34 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

9 Mar 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 34 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

17 Mar 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 32 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

21 Mar 2006 Targeted Orchid Survey 32 person-hours Genoplesium baueri

Genoplesium baueri habitat 7 July 2017 Not specified Genoplesium baueri assessment

Total flora survey effort 344.5 person-hours

Table 14: Targeted fauna survey effort throughout the referral area and Lake Wollumboolla BioBank Site

Date Method Effort Target species

23 Jan 2006 Hollow-bearing tree mapping 8 person-hours All species

23 Jan 2006 Nocturnal ANABAT 4.5 person-hour Microchiropteran bats

23 Jan 2006 Nocturnal spotlighting 6.0 person-hours Mammals, birds and amphibians

Masked Owl, Squirrel Glider, Powerful Owl, 23 Jan 2006 Nocturnal call playback 1.5 person-hours Yellow-bellied Glider, Koala

24 Jan 2006 Hollow-bearing tree mapping 34 person-hours -

27 Jan 2006 Hollow-bearing tree mapping 21 person-hours -

31 Jan 2006 Hollow-bearing tree marking 30 person-hours -

2 Feb 2006 Hollow-bearing tree marking 27 person-hours -

2 Feb 2006 Diurnal fauna 8 person-hours All species

13 Feb 2006 Hollow-bearing tree marking 32.5 person-hours

16 Feb 2006 ANABAT 1.5 person-hours Microchiropteran bats

16 Feb 2006 Nocturnal spotlighting 4.5 person-hour Mammals, birds and amphibians

Masked Owl, Squirrel Glider, Powerful Owl, 16 Feb 2006 Nocturnal call playback 0.5 person-hour Yellow-bellied Glider

Date Method Effort Target species

21 Feb 2006 Hollow-bearing tree marking 28 person-hours -

22 Feb 2006 Hollow-bearing tree marking 6 person-hours -

2 May 2006 Diurnal Fauna 5 person-hours Mammals, birds and amphibians

Small mammal trapping and hair Pygmy Possum, White-footed Dunnart, 3 May 2006 4 person-hours funnels South Brown Bandicoot

Small mammal trapping and hair Pygmy Possum, White-footed Dunnart, 4 May 2006 4 person-hours funnels South Brown Bandicoot

Small mammal trapping and hair Pygmy Possum, White-footed Dunnart, 5 May 2006 3.5 person-hours funnels South Brown Bandicoot

Small mammal trapping and hair Pygmy Possum, White-footed Dunnart, 6 May 2006 16 person-hours funnels South Brown Bandicoot

TOTAL FAUNA SURVEY EFFORT 245.5 PERSON HOURS, 440 TRAP NIGHTS

Appendix D - Callala Bay Biocertification Assessment Report