Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct

Biodiversity Assessment

Prepared for NSW Department of Planning and the Environment

September 2018

Lowes Creek Maryland Preci nct Biodiversity Assessment

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Item Detail

Project Name Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment Project Number 3779

David Bonjer Project Manager 02 8536 8668

Prepared by Byron Heffernan, Alex Gorey, Ian Dixon, Katherine Lang Reviewed by Meredith Henderson Approved by David Bonjer Status FINAL Version Number 3 Last saved on 24 September 2018

Top left: View east from south west corner of the site. Middle left: River Flat Eucalypt Forest. Cover photo Bottom left: Cumberland Plain Woodland (photos taken Alex Gorey April 2016) Right: Lowes Creek (photo taken Ian Dixon April 2016)

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2018. Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment. Prepared for NSW Department of Planning and Environment.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Macarthur Developments.

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 NSW Department of Planning and Environment. The scope of services was defined in consultation with NSW Department of Planning and Environment, 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 29/9/2015

Lowes Creek Maryland Preci nct Biodiversity Assessment

Contents

Executive summary ...... vii

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Description of the project ...... 1 1.2 Study area ...... 1 1.3 Methodology overview ...... 1

2 Statutory Framework ...... 5 2.1 International ...... 5 2.2 Commonwealth ...... 5 2.3 State ...... 5 2.4 Local ...... 5

3 Terrestrial biodiversity assessment ...... 6 3.1 Biodiversity certification ...... 6 3.2 Growth Centres Development Code 2006 ...... 7 3.3 Methods ...... 10 3.3.1 Literature review ...... 10 3.3.2 Field survey ...... 10 3.4 Results ...... 10 3.4.1 Shale Plains Woodlands ...... 11 3.4.2 Shale Hills Woodland ...... 11 3.4.3 Alluvial Woodland ...... 12 3.4.4 Exotic Grassland ...... 13 3.4.5 Vegetation community and condition assessment area calculations ...... 19 3.4.6 Validated ENV area calculations and identification of any further AHCVV ...... 20 3.5 Flora ...... 22 3.5.1 Noxious weeds ...... 22 3.6 Fauna ...... 22 3.6.1 Threatened fauna and migratory species ...... 22 3.7 Recovery potential ...... 22 3.8 Ecological constraints assessment ...... 25 3.9 Other major terrestrial ecological factors ...... 27

4 Aquatic assessment ...... 29 4.1 Context ...... 29 4.2 Methods ...... 29 4.3 Results ...... 29

Lowes Creek Maryland Preci nct Biodiversity Assessment

4.3.1 Threatened species ...... 29 4.3.2 Groundwater dependant ecosystems ...... 29 4.3.3 Aquatic habitat condition assessment ...... 31

5 Recommendations ...... 35 5.1 Indicative layout Plan ...... 36 5.2 Precinct Plan under the Growth Centres SEPP ...... 36 5.2.1 Zoning ...... 36 5.2.2 Development controls ...... 37 5.3 Ownership and fragmentation ...... 37

6 ILP Review ...... 39

References ...... 41

Appendix A Detailed statutory framework ...... 42

Appendix B Methodology ...... 47

Appendix C Flora and fauna lists ...... 60

Appendix D Likelihood of occurrence tables ...... 64

Appendix E Koala habitat assessment ...... 75

List of figures

Figure 1: Study area ...... 3

Figure 2 Biodiversity Certification (under TSC Act 1995) ...... 4

Figure 3: South West Growth Area Protected Lands from Draft Growth Centres Conservation Plan (Growth Centres Commission 2007)...... 8

Figure 4: ENV as per Figure 5 of the Growth Centres Conservation Plan within the Study Area ...... 9

Figure 5: Vegetation Communities and Condition (as assessed during field survey) ...... 14

Figure 6: Good quality CPW (EPBC Act condition) within the study area ...... 15

Figure 7: Poor quality CPW (BC Act condition) within the study area ...... 15

Figure 8: Underscrubbed CPW (BC Act Condition) within the study area ...... 16

Figure 9: Poor quality RFEF dominated by Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata along Lowes Creek ...... 16

Figure 10: Poor quality CPW (BC Act Condition) dominated by Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata in the study area ...... 17

Lowes Creek Maryland Preci nct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 11: Cleared land and exotic grasses within the study area ...... 18

Figure 12: Conservation Plan ENV and field validated ENV and AHCVV ...... 21

Figure 13: Recovery Potential ...... 24

Figure 14: Ecological Constraints Analysis ...... 26

Figure 15: Regional Habitat Connectivity...... 28

Figure 16 Aquatic Survey Reaches, Condition and GDEs (Alluvial Woodland) ...... 32

Figure 17: Conservation priorities...... 38

Figure 18 ILP Exhibition Version ...... 40

List of tables

Table 1: Summary of area occupied by BC Act vegetation communities and their condition...... 19

Table 2 Summary of area occupied by EPBC Act vegetation communities and their conditions ...... 19

Table 3: Amount of ENV and AHCVV in study area ...... 20

Table 4: Status of noxious weeds located within the study area ...... 22

Table 5: Constraints summary within the study area ...... 25

Table 6: GDE categories ...... 30

Table 7: Condition of reaches of Lowes Creek and Tributaries ...... 33

Table 8: Potential Environmental Zones ...... 36

Table 9: Flora species identified in the study area during field survey ...... 60

Table 10: Fauna species identified within the study area during field survey...... 62

Lowes Creek Maryland Preci nct Biodiversity Assessment

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

Additional High Conservation Value Vegetation – vegetation meeting the requirements for AHCVV ENV that was not mapped in the Growth Centres Conservation Plan

AW Alluvial Woodland

BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

CEEC Critically Endangered Ecological Community

CPW Cumberland Plain Woodland

DECCW (Former) NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

DCP Development Control Plan

DotEC Department of the Environment and Conservation

NRAR Natural Resource Access Regulator

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

ENV Existing Native Vegetation, as defined in the Growth Centres Conservation Plan

EPA Act NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

FM Act NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (formerly DECCW)

RC Riparian Corridor

RFEF River-flat Eucalypt Forest

SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy

Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and SEWPaC Communities (now Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy)

TSC Act NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

VRZ Vegetated Riparian Zone

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

Lowes Creek Maryland Preci nct Biodiversity Assessment

Executive summary

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) was engaged by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) to undertake a Biodiversity Assessment for Precinct Planning of the Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment. The aim of this report is to identify key ecological constraints, assess the impact of the proposal and provide input to the assessment of the Indicative Layout Plan (ILP).

The site has a number of ecological values that are protected under state and commonwealth legislation. Biodiversity Certification of the Growth Centres Conservation Plan identifies a regional offsets package, effectively facilitating the strategic loss of ecological values on ‘certified lands’ without triggering further assessment under the former Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act). This strategic loss is offset through the retention and management of areas of higher ecological value across the Growth Centres and through a levy that will be used to protect and manage areas of high ecological value outside of the Growth Centres. A Strategic Assessment under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) was approved by the Commonwealth (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC), therefore provided that development proceeds in accordance with the Growth Centres Biodiversity Certification Order , the need for assessment and approval of threatened species and endangered ecological communities under Commonwealth legislation is not required.

The site was found to contain a number of significant environmental features, including both Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) and EPBC Act critically endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland, a large number of hollow bearing trees and a central riparian corridor of Lowes Creek along which the BC Act listed endangered ecological community River-flat Eucalypt Forest currently exists in a mosaic of good and poor condition patches. There are currently three large farm dams which will be removed as part of the proposed development which would currently provide potential foraging habitat for threatened species, however the removal will likely see the aquatic habitat of the site improved through removal of fish passage impediments.

The site is located wholly within certified land, therefore there is no requirement under the Growth Centres Biodiversity Certification Order to retain Existing Native Vegetation (ENV).

The conservation of ecological values on this site should be focused on retaining and enhancing riparian areas which over the long term aim to provide for improved connectivity and ecosystem functionality across the precinct. This enhancement includes retention of existing vegetation combined with revegetation, improvements to instream habitat through the removal of movement barriers and the reintroduction of aquatic habitat elements including large woody debris.

Other patches of vegetation could be protected through the location of open space zones. As parts of these areas will be available for public recreation it is recommended that tree retention and landscaping using local provenance native understorey species in these areas is implemented to enhance the future ecological values of the Precinct.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 Description of the p roject Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA) was engaged by NSW Department of Planning and Environment to undertake an ecological assessment of the Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct study area within the South- West Growth Centre. The Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct study area was nominated by Macarthur Developments to be released for development ahead of the Department of Planning and Environment’s timeline, through the Precinct Acceleration Protocol. The aim of this assessment is to identify key ecological and riparian features and constraints of the site to inform the rezoning process, as well as to provide recommendations with respect to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem management.

Specific objectives of this project are to:

 Undertake a biodiversity assessment to inform the precinct planning process and development of the Indicative Layout Plan (ILP). This will involve identifying and assessing the existing ecological constraints within the Precinct. This will involve analysis of ecological values particularly in regards to identifying areas of high, moderate and low ecological value.  Ensure the statutory requirements for the protection, restoration and enhancement of threatened species, populations, ecological communities and their habitats will be met.  Provide recommendations for achieving innovative and cost effective management frameworks for ecological and riparian issues, which enable long term conservation and management while facilitating development outcomes for the Precinct identified in the South West Structure Plan.  Ensure protection of biodiversity values within the non-certified areas identified by the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) and Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). If areas of Existing Native Vegetation (ENV) on non-certified areas are proposed to be cleared, the precinct planning process needs to ensure appropriate offsets are provided in accordance with the Biodiversity Certification.  Ensure the precinct planning is consistent with the terms of the Biodiversity Certification granted under the Growth Centres SEPP, which includes the Relevant Biodiversity Measures outlined in the Biodiversity Certification Order.  Ensure that precinct planning is consistent with the endorsed Sydney Growth Centres Strategic Assessment Program under the EPBC Act, including the Commitments for matters of national environmental significance protected under the EPBC Act.

1.2 Study area Figure 1 illustrates the broad location of the study area.

1.3 Methodology overview An overview of the methodology is provided below. For full details see Appendix B:

 Database search for threatened species, populations and ecological communities under the former TSC Act and remain applicable under the BC Act and Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) under the EPBC Act;  Assessment of State and Federal statutory requirements;

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

 Field validation of Existing Native Vegetation (ENV), threatened species and aquatic/riverine habitat condition mapping. Assessments include the identification of additional high conservation value vegetation (AHCVV);  Assessment of biodiversity values and mapping including analysis and identification of ecological constraints;  Recommendations for the development of the ILP.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 1: Study area

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 2 Biodiversity Certification (under TSC Act 1995)

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

2 Statutory Framework

A substantial array of legislation, policies and guidelines apply to the assessment, planning and management of ecological issues within the study area. This information was reviewed and used to identify priority issues and approaches for the study area (refer to Appendix A for detailed review). Legislation and policies reviewed include:

2.1 International  Japan – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA)  China – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA)  Republic of Korea – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

2.2 Commonwealth  Environment Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

2.3 State  Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)  Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act)  National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974  Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)  Native Vegetation Act 2003  Biosecurity Act 2015  State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006  Growth Centres Development Code 2006  (Draft) Growth Centres Conservation Plan 2007  Sydney Regional Environment Plan No 20 – Hawkesbury Nepean River (No 2 1997).

2.4 Local  Camden Council Local Environmental Plan 2010 (Camden LEP)  Camden Development Control Plan (DCP) 2011

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3 Terrestrial biodiversity assessment

3.1 Biodiversity certification Key to the assessment and protection of biodiversity values in the Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct is the Biodiversity Certification (under the BC Act) of the Sydney Region Growth Centres State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) (referred to as the ‘Growth Centres SEPP’). This process establishes outcomes for biodiversity that must be achieved.

The mechanism for achieving this is outlined in the (Draft) Growth Centres Conservation Plan and the conditions for biodiversity-certification are documented in the Ministers order for consent1.

Land that was certified under the TSC Act has the same meaning under the BC Act. Section 8.4 of the BC Act 2016 describes the effect of Biodiversity Certification. For development and environmental assessment under Parts 4 and 5 of the EP&A Act 1979, an assessment of impacts to biodiversity values is not required for development on Biodiversity Certified land.

Biodiversity certification negates the requirement for impact assessment on threatened species under s7.3 BC Act, thus turning off the requirements for tests of significance (i.e. five part tests) or triggering the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme on all certified land within the North West and South West Growth Area.

The entire study area is biodiversity certified as shown in Figure 2.

The (Draft) Growth Centres Conservation Plan (2007) assessed native vegetation across the entire Growth Centres area (Figure 3) and identified areas of Existing Native Vegetation (ENV), defined as areas of indigenous trees (including mature and saplings) that:

a) had 10 % or greater over-storey canopy cover present, b) were equal to or greater than 0.5 ha in area, and c) were identified as “vegetation” on maps 4 and 5 of the (Draft) Growth Centres Conservation Plan, at the time the biodiversity certification order took effect, subject to condition 13.

The ENV mapped within the precinct is shown in Figure 4.

Clause 13 of the biodiversity-certification details the ground-truthing requirements for ENV; namely, if new information becomes available after the biodiversity certification order took effect that demonstrates that the vegetation within an areas does not otherwise meet the definition of existing native vegetation, then for the purposes of conditions 7-8 and 11-12 only the area of validated existing native vegetation shall be considered.

On 28 February 2012, the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment announced the program of development related activities within the Growth Centres that had been approved under the Growth Centres Strategic Assessment. (This was the second stage of the approval of the Strategic Assessment of the Growth Centres under the Commonwealth EPBC Act). Specifically,

“All actions associated with the development of the Western Sydney Growth Centres as described in the Sydney Region Growth Centres Strategic Assessment Program Report (Nov 2010) have been

1 http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/biocertordwsgcentres.pdf

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

assessed at the strategic level and approved in regards to their impact on the following matters of national environmental significance (MNES):

o World Heritage Properties o National Heritage Places, o Wetlands of International Importance, o Listed threatened species, populations and communities, and o Listed migratory species.”

This approval essentially means that the Commonwealth is satisfied that the conservation and development outcomes that will be achieved through development of the Growth Centres Precincts will satisfy their requirements for environmental protection under the EPBC Act. Therefore provided development activity proceeds in accordance with the Growth Centres requirements (such as the Biodiversity Certification Order, the Growth Centres SEPP and Development Control Plans (DCPs), Growth Centres Development Code etc), then there is no requirement to assess the impact of development activities on MNES and hence no requirement for referral of activities to the Commonwealth. The requirement for assessment and approval of threatened species and endangered ecological communities and the other MNES issues listed above under the EPBC Act has now been “turned off” by the approval of the Strategic Assessment.

3.2 Growth Centres Development Code 2006 The Growth Centres Development Code was produced by the Growth Centres Commission in 2006. The Development Code was produced to guide the planning and urban design in the North West and South West Growth A.

The Development Code includes objectives and provisions that support the retention of as much native vegetation, habitat and riparian areas within the precinct through incorporation into land use planning outcomes such as lower density development in these areas, subdivision patterns, road design, local parks, and other areas required to be set aside for community uses without adversely affecting the development yield of areas.

As a requirement under the Development Code, Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct will need to demonstrate how the biodiversity and other values of areas identified by the SEPP will be protected, maintained and enhanced. Therefore despite the site being certified land, investigations into the terrestrial biodiversity have been carried out and recommendations for design of the ILP have been put forward.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 3: South West Growth Area Protected Lands from Draft Growth Centres Conservation Plan (Growth Centres Commission 2007).

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 4: ENV as per Figure 5 of the Growth Centres Conservation Plan within the Study Area

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.3 Methods

3.3.1 Literature review A desktop literature review was undertaken by ELA to determine the location and extent of previous surveys, identify the constraints within the study area and evaluate the presence of any threatened species, populations and ecological communities listed under the former TSC Act and the Commonwealth EPBC Act that could potentially occur within the study area. The following documentation and mapping was reviewed:

 topographic maps and aerial photography of the study area  NSW Atlas of Wildlife Database (10 km radius)  EPBC Act online Protected Matters Search Tool (5 km radius using coordinates -33.96005 150.71875)  Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain Western Sydney – Technical Report (DECC, 2000a),  Native Vegetation Maps of the Cumberland Plain – Interpretation Guidelines (DECC, 2000b)  Draft Growth Centres Conservation Plan’ prepared by Eco Logical Australia (2007) for NSW Growth Centres Commission  Western Sydney Vegetation Mapping (NPWS 2002a)  Western Sydney Condition and Conservation Significance Mapping (NPWS 2002b).

The results from the NSW Atlas of Wildlife and the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool were combined to produce a list of threatened species, populations and communities known or considered likely to occur within the study area. Knowledge of the species’ ecology, habitat availability and records in the area were used to determine the likelihood of occurrence. Five terms for the likelihood of occurrence of species is used and can be found in Appendix C.

3.3.2 Field survey A basic floristic survey of the precinct was undertaken to confirm the vegetation communities present. This survey included classification of native vegetation communities in accordance with the OEH profiles.

Hollow bearing trees were identified across the site, with any signs of threatened species e.g. scats, scratches etc were noted during random meander vegetation community transects to identify any key habitat areas for potential retention priority.

A detailed methodology can be found in Appendix B.

3.4 Results Three vegetation communities were identified within the study area and varied in condition and structure. The site has been managed as a grazing property, which has reduced the structural and species diversity of native vegetation remaining. A majority of the site is comprised of cleared land and exotic grasses and several dams. Figure 5 illustrates the extent of each vegetation community within the study area as well as vegetation that has been cleared. The characteristics of each vegetation community, their conservation significance and ecological condition are summarised below.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.4.1 Shale Plains Woodlands Shale Plains Woodland (SPW) is a component of Cumberland Plain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, a critically endangered ecological community under the BC Act and part of the CEEC listed under the EPBC Act.

SPW is an open eucalypt woodland with an open shrub layer and grassy ground cover and is commonly found on clay-loam soils derived from the Wianamatta shale. This community is restricted to the Cumberland Plain in the Sydney region and typically contains Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box), E. tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), with E. crebra (Narrow-leaved Ironbark), E. eugenioides (Thin-leaved Stringybark) and Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) occurring less frequently. The midstorey is comprised of Bursaria spinosa (Blackthorn). Typical groundcover species include Dichondra repens (Kidney Weed), Aristida vagans (Threeawn Speargrass), Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides (Weeping Grass), Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass), Brunoniella australis (Blue Trumpet), Desmodium varians (Slender Tick-trefoil), Opercularia diphylla, Wahlenbergia gracilis (Sprawling Bluebell) and Dichelachne micrantha (Shorthair Plumegrass).

While the remnants within the study area are in a species depauperate state, it can be seen from the habitat maps Figure 5, that they retain a high density of hollow bearing trees. Hollow bearing trees are an important resource for native fauna (such as threatened microchiropteran bats and hollow nesting woodland birds) in the highly fragmented landscape of the Cumberland Plain.

3.4.2 Shale Hills Woodland Shale Hills Woodland (SHW) is a component of Cumberland Plain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, a critically endangered ecological community listed under the BC Act and EPBC Act.

SHW is an open eucalypt woodland with an open shrub layer and grassy ground cover. This community is commonly found on clay-loam soils derived from the Wianamatta shale. It is closely related to Shale Plains Woodland but is found on steeper topography. The canopy is typically comprised of Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box), Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Acacia implexa (Hickory Wattle). The midstorey contains Bursaria spinosa (Blackthorn) and Rubus parviflora (Native Raspberry). Common groundcover species include Dichondra repens (Kidney Weed), Brunoniella australis (Blue Trumpet), Desmodium gunnii (Slender Tick trefoil), Aristida ramosa (Purple Wiregrass), Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides (Weeping Grass) Carex inversa, Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass), Cyperus gracilis (Slender Flat-sedge), Dichelachne micrantha (Shorthair Plumegrass), Asperula conferta (Common Woodruff), Oxalis perennans, Cheilanthes sieberi, Desmodium brachypodum (Large Tick Trefoil), Sporobolus creber (Western Rat-tail Grass) and Wahlenbergia gracilis (Sprawling Bluebell).

Shale Plains Woodland and Shale Hills Woodland correspond to Cumberland Plain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, a critically endangered ecological community under the BC Act and EPBC Act. For the purpose of this report SPW and SHW will be described and assessed collectively.

Field survey confirmed the presence of SPW and SHW in two condition states: meeting BC Act definition and meeting EPBC Act condition criteria. Patches meeting the EPBC Act condition criteria are shown in Figure 5.

EPBC Act condition patches

Where patches met EPBC Act condition criteria the minimum patch size was >0.5 ha and 50% of the perennial understorey vegetation cover contained native species. Other patches met the criteria if they were >0.5 ha, contained >30% cover of native perennial species and contained at least one mature tree (>80 cm DBH) per hectare or at least one tree bearing hollows per hectare.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Patches meeting this criteria contained Eucalyptus tereticornis, Eucalyptus moluccana and Angophora subvelutina with Bursaria spinosa present in the midstorey. Groundcover species included Aristida vagans, Dichondra repens, Microlaena stipoides, Austrostipa pubescens, Chloris ventricosa and Bothriochloa macra (Figure 6).

Patches of SHW were differentiated from patches of SPW by the aspect and slope of the land on which the community was occurring.

BC Act patches

The patches of SPW and SHW existed as patches with more disturbed midstorey and groundcover layers than the patches that met the EPBC Act condition. For example, some of these patches had >50% exotic flora species cover in the understorey. These patches had a canopy of Eucalyptus tereticornis and Eucalyptus moluccana with Angophora subvelutina and Eucalyptus globoidea occurring less frequently. The midstorey contained Bursaria spinosa but was frequently dominated by Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata (European Olive) and Lycium ferocissimum (African Boxthorn). The quality of the groundcover varied depending on the presence of Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata in the midstorey. Native groundcover species included Aristida vagans, Dichondra repens, Microlaena stipoides, Austrostipa pubescens, Chloris ventricosa and Bothriochloa macra. Paspalum dilatatum, Setaria gracilis, Eragrostis curvula, Sida rhombifolia, Senecio madagascariensis and Bidens pilosa were common exotic species (Figure 7 & Figure 8).

Where the midstorey was heavily dominated by Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata the ground cover was largely absent with >80% exotic cover. These patches also showed signs of contemporary grazing by cattle, and, recent underscrubbing of the midstorey and groundcover layers (Figure 10).

3.4.3 Alluvial Woodland Alluvial Woodland is a component of River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin Bioregions and South East Corner Bioregions, an endangered ecological community under the BC Act. The canopy is typically comprised of Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum), E. amplifolia (Cabbage Gum) and Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple). The midstorey contains Acacia parramattensis subsp. parramattensis (Parramatta Wattle), Casuarina glauca (Swamp Oak) and Melaleuca linariifolia (Flax-leaved Paperbark). Common groundcover species include Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Grass), Oplismenus aemulus (Basket Grass), Dichondra spp., Entolasia marginata (Bordered Panic), Solanum prinophyllum (Forest Nightshade), Pratia purpurascens (Whiteroot), Echinopogon ovatus (Forest Hedgehog Grass), Desmodium gunnii (Slender Tick Trefoil), Commelina cyanea, Veronica plebeia (Creeping Speedwell).

For the purpose of this report, Alluvial Woodland will be referred to as River-flat Eucalypt Forest (RFEF).

Field survey confirmed the presence of RFEF along the watercourses within the study area. The canopy contained Eucalyptus tereticornis, Eucalyptus moluccana and Casuarina glauca. Midstorey species included Melaleuca decora, Melaleuca styphelioides and Bursaria spinosa. Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata was common within the midstorey of this community. The groundcover contained a mix of native and exotic species which varied depending on the condition of the midstorey. Typical native groundcover species included Oplismenus imbecillis, Cymbopogon refractus and Themeda triandra. Exotic species included Chloris gayana (Rhodes Grass), Trifolium repens (Clover), Sporobolus africanus, Paspalum dilatatum and Senecio madagascariensis (Fireweed) (Figure 9).

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.4.4 Exotic Grassland Large patches of the study area consisted of exotic pasture grasses and other exotic groundcovers including Chloris gayana, Setaria gracilis, Bidens pilosa, Sida rhombifolia, Eragrostis curvula, Trifolium repens, Sporobolus africanus, Paspalum dilatatum and Senecio madagascariensis (Figure 11).

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 5: Vegetation Communities and Condition (as assessed during field survey)

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 6: Good quality CPW (EPBC Act condition) within the study area

Figure 7: Poor quality CPW (BC Act condition) within the study area

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 8: Underscrubbed CPW (BC Act Condition) within the study area

Figure 9: Poor quality RFEF dominated by Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata along Lowes Creek

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 10: Poor quality CPW (BC Act Condition) dominated by Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata in the study area

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 11: Cleared land and exotic grasses within the study area

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.4.5 Vegetation community and condition assessment area calculations Area calculations of each vegetation community within the study area are provided in Table 1 and Table 2. The study area is dominated by exotic grassland with small areas of Shale Plains and Shale Hills Woodland along the western and southern boundary and Alluvial Woodland along the watercourses.

The stands of SPW and SHW within the study area constitute approximately 30.99 ha of Cumberland Plain Woodland under the BC Act. Some of these remnants do not meet the definition of the federally listed Cumberland Plain Shale Woodland and Shale Gravel Transition Forest. The remnants that do meet the EPBC Act definition total an area of 17.15 ha within the precinct.

Alluvial Woodland was recorded along the riparian areas within the study area along Lowes Creek and its major tributaries with 31.49 ha occurring across the site.

Table 1: Summary of area occupied by BC Act vegetation communities and their condition.

Vegetation Community Condition

BC Act listed vegetation communities ABC (Good) Tx (Poor) Total

Cumberland Plain Woodland 19.81 11.18 30.99

Alluvial Woodland 24.43 7.06 31.49

Total (Certified land) 44.24 18.24 62.48

Table 2 Summary of area occupied by EPBC Act vegetation communities and their conditions

Vegetation Community

Area (ha) EPBC Act listed Cumberland Plain Woodland

Condition A 8.23

Condition B 0.00

Condition C 0.99 7.93 Condition D 17.15 Total (Certified land)

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.4.6 Validated ENV area calculations and identification of any further AHCVV A key element to the Biodiversity Certification of the Growth Centres is the protection of 2,000 ha of ‘Existing Native Vegetation’ (see the Statutory Framework section in this report). The 2,000 ha was based on the ‘Existing Native Vegetation’ located on non-certified lands.

Desktop aerial photo analysis and field survey was undertaken to validate the extent of the mapped ‘Existing Native Vegetation’ to confirm whether it still existed. This process resulted in the following classifications:

 Validated Existing Native Vegetation.  Additional High Conservation Value Vegetation: Vegetation which meets criteria a) and b) of the definition of ENV (i.e. a 10% of greater canopy cover and a patch size of greater than 0.5 ha), but was not mapped in the original conservation plan. This is a combination of mapping inaccuracies in the original mapping or changes to the condition and size of the vegetation on site since the Conservation Plan map production. The ENV mapped in the Conservation Plan occurs on certified land. There is no requirement to retain any ENV within the site in order to maintain parity with the target of the Biocertification Order.

The original area of ENV (32.72 ha) within the study area consists of three vegetation communities- Shale Plains Woodland, Shale Hills Woodland and Alluvial Woodland, as mapped by NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) Cumberland Plain Vegetation mapping Project (2002).

Figure 12 shows the combined areas of ENV as mapped in the conservation plan combined with the validated vegetation community boundaries which fit the definition of ENV.

The total area of validated ENV present within the precinct is 24.60 ha which is 8.12 ha less than the original ENV mapping. Field validation also found that 20.26 ha of existing vegetation fit the definition of AHCVV. This was either through initial mapping accuracy errors, on ground changes since the original mapping e.g. clearing or simply patches of vegetation which were missed. All validated ENV and AHCVV is within certified land. Table 3 below shows the amount of ENV and AHCVV within the Precinct.

Table 3: Amount of ENV and AHCVV in study area

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Total (ha)

Mapped ENV in Draft Conservation Plan 32.72

Validated ENV in Draft Conservation Plan 24.60

Additional Native Vegetation (AHCVV) 20.26

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 12: Conservation Plan ENV and field validated ENV and AHCVV

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.5 Flora Targeted survey for threatened flora species considered likely to occur within the study area was not performed during field survey. Instead, a list of above ground vascular flora species was collected. A total of 72 flora species were identified within the study area, comprised of 51 native and 21 exotic species (Appendix C). No threatened flora species were identified within the study area during field survey.

Of the threatened flora species which have previously been recorded within a 5 km radius of the study area none were considered likely to be found on site.

3.5.1 Noxious weeds Four exotic plant species recorded within the study area are listed as Weeds of National Significance on the National Weeds Strategy and the Biosecurity Act 2015. The status of each weed is shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Status of noxious weeds located within the study area

Scientific name Common name WoNS

Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper Yes

Lantana camara Lantana Yes

Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn Yes

Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed Yes

WoNS: Weed of National Significance listed under the National Weeds Strategy.

3.6 Fauna Opportunistic sightings of fauna during field survey identified 31 fauna species including 28 birds, two mammals and one reptile, two exotic species and one migratory species listed under the EPBC Act (Appendix C).

3.6.1 Threatened fauna and migratory species A number of threatened and migratory species listed under the EPBC Act have been previously recorded within a 5 km radius of the study area. Those which are considered likely to occur are outlined in Appendix C.

3.7 Recovery potential Recovery potential relates to the ability of the land to be managed for an improvement in the condition of the remnant vegetation and to increase linkages (wildlife corridor) between extant stands of vegetation. Identifying areas of recovery potential is consistent with the aims of the BC Act; to protect and encourage the recovery of threatened species, populations and communities listed under the Act.

With appropriate management actions, areas identified as having a moderate recovery potential would improve the condition of threatened species habitat and ecosystem connectivity within the precinct. Management actions would need to be on-going and facilitate the natural regeneration of the overstorey and/or regeneration of native species (grasses, herbs and forbs) in the seed bank.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Three classes of recovery potential have been identified within the precinct which has been informed by the assessments (desktop and field) conducted in this report. The four classes are shown in Figure 13 and are described below:

 High Recovery Potential – native vegetation mapped as areas that meet the definition of ENV or AHCVV which generally have native canopy cover of greater than 10%.  Moderate Recovery Potential – other areas of native vegetation with sparse overstorey and higher levels of disturbance.  Low Recovery Potential –areas which show some potential for natural regeneration.  Very Low Recovery Potential – all other areas including cleared and heavily cultivated and/or pasture improved

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 13: Recovery Potential

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.8 Ecological constraints assessment An ecological constraint ranking was derived applying an amended methodology that has been used elsewhere in Western Sydney (see Appendix B of this report). This method combines size, condition, connectivity and recovery potential into a single ecological constraint value. The results of this analysis are in Table 5 and Figure 14. The majority of vegetation is ranked as having high biodiversity value by virtue of it being Endangered or Critically Endangered Ecological Community. These constraints are based on ecological values and do not take account of the Biodiversity Certification Order which shows that the entire site is biodiversity certified under the BC Act 2016.

Broadly the rankings are as follows:

 High constraint = high ecological value, relatively large areas of good quality, well connected vegetation;  Moderate constraint = moderate ecological value, smaller areas of good quality vegetation or large areas of poorer quality vegetation;  Low constraint = low ecological value, all other native vegetated areas, generally isolated and small in size, with a low recovery potential.

Table 5: Constraints summary within the study area

Ecological constraints Area (ha) % of site native vegetation

High 55.42 89%

Moderate 7.06 11%

Low Remainder of site Remainder of site

TOTAL 62.48 100%

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 14: Ecological Constraints Analysis

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

3.9 Other major terrestrial ecological factors The Precinct contains tributaries and riparian corridors of Lowes Creek that runs west to east through the study area and connects large patches of native vegetation to the west and north of the site. Figure 15 illustrates the regional vegetation connectivity surrounding the site.

The link to vegetation beyond the study area can be maintained and enhanced through the riparian corridor network which is further discussed in the Riparian Assessment Report (ELA 2016).

A total of 13 hollow bearing trees (HBTs) were identified within the study area during field survey. These are potential roosting habitat for a number of threatened microbat species considered likely to occur. These species also have records in close proximity to the study area.

Eucalyptus tereticornis is a feed tree for Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) and also potential habitat for Meridolum corneovirens (Cumberland Plain Land Snail (CPLS)). No targeted survey for the Koala or CPLS were performed during field survey, however two Eucalyptus tereticornis within the study area bore scratch marks on the trunk. Both trees were located within good patches of CPW in the north western corner of the study area, adjoining an extensive patch of native vegetation outside the study area. Koala scratch marks typically consist of two parallel angled lines above pock-like marks (DotEC 2004). The scratch marks identified within the study area shared these features (Appendix E). However, scratch marks cannot be solely relied upon to positively identify the presence of Koalas and no scats or Koala individuals were identified during survey (Phillips & Callaghan 2011).

There are a number of recent records for the Koala within proximity to the study area with the closest approximately 30 km to the south east bordering the western extent of Heathcote National Park. Resident populations of Koala require large, contiguous and structurally diverse patches of native vegetation containing appropriate feed tree species (DotEC 2004).

Given the habitat requirements of the Koala and the distance of recent records to the study area, the study area is not considered to provide habitat for a resident population of the Koala. However, given the location of the scratch trees adjacent to larger areas of native vegetation the study area may form a habitat corridor and may be utilised occasionally by this species.

There are multiple records for CPLS on the border of the study area and nearby, suggesting Eucalyptus tereticornis within the study area may be used as habitat by this species (Figure 5). Due to the varying quality of native vegetation within the study area, only patches of good quality are considered potential habitat for CPLS.

There are two large dams in the study area considered potential foraging habitat for water fowl including migratory species. Ardea ibis (Cattle Egret) which is listed as a marine species under the EPBC Act, were observed during field survey.

Lowes Creek Maryland Precinct Biodiversity Assessment

Figure 15: Regional Habitat Connectivity.