Dotee Additional Information Requests

Bingara Gorge – EPBC Assessment Report

Appendix A: DotEE additional information requests

Bingara Gorge – EPBC Assessment Report

Table 23: Summary of additional information provided

RELEVANT INFORMATION REQUESTED BY DotEE – April 2015 SECTION

1. Description of the action; The DotEE considered that actions within the Environmental Protection and Recreation (EP&R) lands may impact on MNES and/or their suitable habitat that occur within and/or adjacent to these areas. Please provide further information relating to works to be undertaken and elements of the action that may impact MNES. These include:

a. Further information clarifying the location of the Golf Course, cart bridges, Section 2 and outdoor classroom and pathways within the proposed EP&R lands, including a map Figure 3. clearly indicating the location of all components of the action, preferable with a satellite image indicating the location of all components of the action, preferably with a satellite image overlay. These components of the action will result in the Section 8.8 and fragmentation of areas of SSTF from the broader patch, however the extent of this is Figure 20 unclear based on the maps provided. b. Page 8 of your management plan refers to a buffer zone with component including: stormwater controls, asset protection zones, recreational paths, fences and gates. Based on your description of the buffer zones, any MNES within these areas are considered likely to be impacted by the action. As such, the DotEE requires the location of the buffer zone components, including associated footprints (ha), and the locations of the relevant MNES. Please provide further information regarding the location and size of proposed residential buffer zones, with details described and mapped. 2. A description of the existing environment and relevant matters of national environmental significance Please provide further descriptions of the existing environment and relevant matters of national environmental significance, including:

a. Further information to determine whether SSTF windrow and under-scrubbed vegetation meet the condition thresholds for this community, as defined in the EPBC Act listing advice, and confirmation of the area of SSTF to be impacted by the action. While both windrows and under-scrubbed vegetation are characterised by canopy trees common to SSTF, the condition of the mid and understorey is not comprehensively known. Please provide further information regarding whether this vegetation meets the STFF condition criteria, in particular the percentage of the perennial understorey vegetation cover that is made up of native species and the number of trees with hollows or large locally indigenous trees (>80cm dbh). Please note, according to the condition thresholds, perennial understorey vegetation cover includes vascular plant species of both the ground layer and mid/shrub layer (where present) with a lifestyle of more than two growing seasons. Measurements of perennial understorey vegetation cover exclude annuals, cryptograms, leaf litter or exposed soil. b. Confirmation that the SSTF vegetation on site is/is not contiguous with a larger patch of the SSTF community to the north-east. According to 2002 NPWS vegetation mapping presented in the referral, vegetation to the north-east of the development site is SSTF and therefore onsite Section 4, section 0, SSTF is likely to contribute substantially to landscape connectivity and function. section 6 and c. Further information specifying the extent and condition of Forest Red Gum throughout the subject site. Based on the Commonwealth listing advice, Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red section 7. Gum) is a key foraging species for the Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying-fox. Please provide further information so that we are able to adequately assess the impacts the proposed project with have on the Forest Red Gum and subsequently the Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying-fox. d. Further clarification regarding the likelihood of occurrence of the Koala both within the subject site and in the immediately surrounding woodlands. A total of 55 Koala records exist within a 10 km radius of the subject site. Additionally, the habitat on site is assessed as being critical to the survival of the Koala according to the EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (2014). Although Koala surveys were performed around the site in 2006, as part of the Koala Plan of Management for the Wilton Area, insufficient information is given to determine if these were performed in accordance with requirements of the EPBC Act Koala referral guidelines. Additional surveys were also performed by ELA on the subject site, but, according to the EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable koala, results from these appear unlikely to indicate true absences as they lay spatial and temporal replication. Therefore, the Department notes that further information would be required to infer that Koalas are truly absent from this area. Alternatively, the Koala will be assumed present within this area of vegetation, and appropriate avoidance, mitigation, and offset measures will be required. e. Further surveys to be undertaken for the Giant Burrowing Frog, in accordance with the Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs. EPBC Act survey guidelines 6.3, including any results of these surveys regarding the likely presence or absence of this species, and potential impact as a result of the proposed action. As no targeted fauna surveys were undertaken for

Bingara Gorge – EPBC Assessment Report

RELEVANT INFORMATION REQUESTED BY DotEE – April 2015 SECTION

the Giant Burrowing Frog, despite suitable habitat being present, the species may occur onsite and may be impacted by the proposed action. If further surveys are not undertaken, the species must be assumed to be present on site, and impacts assessed accordingly. f. Further information regarding the potential occurrence of the Hairy Persoonia (Persoonia hirsuta), Sydney Plains Greenhood (Pterostylis saxicola) and Yellow Gnat-orchid (Genoplesium baueri) both within the subject site and surrounding woodlands. These species have not been identified on the proposed development site, but have been recorded nearby. The Department considers that these may be present in the EP&R lands and could be impacted by the proposed action: I. This information should include results from targeted surveys determining the presence/absence of the Yellow Gnat-orchid as per the threatened orchid survey guidelines available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/draft-survey- guidelines-australias-threatened-orchids. The Yellow Gnat-orchid was listed as Endangered in January 2014, after surveys had been undertaken. II. While targeted surveys were undertaken for Hairy Persoonia and Sydney Plains Greenhood, both species are difficult to detect. Further targeted surveys are required to determine the extent and distribution of these species. Further information regarding the regional context of the Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora), Deane’s Melaleuca (Melaleuca deanei) and Bargo Geebung (Parsoonia bargoensis). All three plant species have been recorded within the EP&R lands as well as multiple times within a 10 km radius. Please undertake surveys in vegetation neighbouring the subject site within a 1 km radius to confirm if these individuals form part of larger populations and to therefore assist in determining the significance of any impacts to these species.

3. As assessment of the relevant impacts of the action The Department considers that the MNES present in the Environmental Protection and Recreation (EP&R) lands may be impacted as a result of the action. Please provide more information concerning the relevant impacts of the action including:

a. An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed action to the Giant Burrowing Frog, Koala, Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying-fox. b. Further information regarding the location and extent of indirect impacts to the ecological community proposed to be retained in the EP&R and golf course lands. These impacts are likely to result from: fragmentation, the maintenance of asset protection zones, the construction Section 0, section 6, and maintenance of proposed facilities such as walking tracks/paths and pedestrian bridges within the SSTF, run-off from residential areas resulting in the spread of weeds and section 7. degradation of the SSTF, littering, the construction of an outdoor classroom, seating and lighting across bridges within the SSTF. c. Further information regarding indirect impacts on the Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora), Deane’s Melaleuca (Melaleuca deanei) Bargo Geebung (Persoonia bargoensis). The Department is concerned with the likelihood of indirect impacts affecting these species. Such impacts include: fragmentation, the construction and maintenance of proposed facilities such as walking tracks/paths and pedestrian bridges, signage, outdoor classroom, seating and lighting across bridges, littering and weeds from the residential area and the construction of an asset protection zone. d. Further information regarding indirect impacts to Hairy Persoonia (Persoonia hirsuta), Sydney Plains Greenhood (Pterostylis saxicoloa) and Yellow Gnat-orchid (Genoplesium baueri), if the presence of these species cannot be ruled out from further surveys described above. 4. Proposed safeguards and mitigation measures Please provide a greater description of changes to the action to avoid impacts and feasible mitigation measures that are intended to minimise relevant impacts, including:

a. Further demonstration of how impacts to areas of SSTF are being avoided as part of the proposed action. b. The listing advice for the SSTF recommends that a vegetation buffer zone of a minimum width Section 8. of 30 meters (measured from the outer edge of a patch of the ecological community) be retained to protect the integrity of the ecological community. Please demonstrate how a vegetated buffer zone adjacent to the SSTF will be implemented as part of mitigating impacts to this community from development actions, including spatial information identifying its extent. c. Further information regarding the proposed avoidance and mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimise impacts likely to affect the Giant Burrowing Frog, Koala, Swift Parrot and Grey-headed Flying Fox. d. Further information regarding the proposed avoidance and mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimise impacts likely to affect the Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea

Bingara Gorge – EPBC Assessment Report

RELEVANT INFORMATION REQUESTED BY DotEE – April 2015 SECTION

parviflora subsp. parviflora), Deane’s Melaleuca (Melaleuca deanei) and Bargo Geebung (Persoonia bargoensis), including the quality of the habitat of these species. e. Further information regarding the proposed avoidance and mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimise impacts likely to affect the quality of the habitat of the Hairy Persoonia (Persoonia hirsuta), Sydney Plains Greenhood (Pterostylis saxicola), Yellow Gnat- orchid (Genoplesium baueri) and Giant Burrowing Frog, if the presence of these species cannot be ruled out from further surveys described above. 5. Offsets In the event that there are significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated, a description of any offsets to compensate for any predicted or potential residual impacts on threatened species and ecological communities must be provided for each protected matter. Where a project demonstrates compliance with an endorse state or territory policy and like for like requirements under the EPBC Act, the EPBC Act Offsets Policy and Guide will not need to be separately considered by the Minister or his delegate. Endorsed Policies are outlined in the draft “Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – Assessment Bilateral Agreement Conditions Policy”, February 2015. The EPBC Act Offsets Policy will continue to apply where the project does not fully comply with the endorsed state or territory policy and Section 9. like for like requirements. Please provide information to demonstrate compliance with an endorsed state policy or provide the information as described in Addendum A to meet the EPBC Act Offsets Policy. The Department considers that an offset package is required to compensate for the residual impacts to SSTF, Swift Parrot, the Grey-headed Flying-fox and the Large-eared Pied Bat as a result of the proposed action. Please provide an offset package for these protected matters. Should the Koala, Giant Burrowing Frog, Small-flower Grevillea, Deane’s Melaleuca, Bargo Geebung, Hairy Persoonia, Sydney Plains Greenhood or Yellow Gnat-orchid be found during additional surveys or assumed present, or impacts to these species determined to be significant, offsets must also be provided for these species.

RELEVANT INFORMATION REQUESTED BY DotEE – December 2015 SECTION

1. Please provide further details of the physical location of the various components of the lot layout, roads, fire proposed action. This should include: a lot layout, roads, fire trails, walking tracks, asset trails, walking tracks protection zones, Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) buffer zones, any fencing to are mapped protect vegetation communities and/or the habitat of threatened plants, relevant stormwater throughout. infrastructure (including water treatment ponds and discharge points), designated community APZ section 8.9 and recreation areas and any other components relevant to assessing the impacts on MNES. mapped figures 27 – 30. In particular, it should be clear what activities will occur at the interface between the SSTF buffer zones developed part of the site and the native vegetation that comprises the proposed offset, N/A. particularly in the vicinity of SSTF and threatened flora. Smaller-scaled maps than those Fencing and already provided would assist in assessing the impacts. interface section 8.10. 2. More information is required on the condition of SSTF and Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest (CPW) proposed to be impacted and offset. This should include the following: a) dominant species in each strata b) species richness (native and exotic – including full species list) 5.8 c) native and exotic percent cover in understorey/groundcover d) vegetation structure e) vegetation age f) prevalence of maturity characteristics such as tree hollows and logs.

3. In relation to its value as habitat for EPBC listed fauna, please provide a description of the vegetation community Burragorang-Nepean Hinterland Woodland on the site. As a minimum, please describe: a) dominant and sub-dominant species in each strata b) structure Section 5.4 c) vegetation age d) prevalence of weeds e) any habitat features relevant to the threatened fauna likely to be impacted by the proposal.

4. In relation to its value as habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox and Swift Parrot, please provide a description of the extent and condition of Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) on the site. It is noted that some information relating to this species was provided in the PD, Section 7.1 however, more information is needed to better understand this species distribution and abundance on the site and the general condition and size/age of the trees.

5. Figure 16 needs to show the full extent of potential habitat for the Giant Burrowing Frog Figure 16 (Heleioporus australiacus). As the report acknowledges, this species inhabits dry forest

Bingara Gorge – EPBC Assessment Report

RELEVANT INFORMATION REQUESTED BY DotEE – December 2015 SECTION

habitats well away (hundreds of metres) from breeding habitat, outside of the breeding season. Therefore, most or all of the forest on the slopes and a large portion of the eastern plateau is expected to be potential habitat for this species, depending on the type and condition of the vegetation.

6. In Sections 6 and 9, reference is made to the number of “individuals” detected for Deane’s Melaleuca (Melaleuca deanei), Bynoe’s Wattle (Acacia bynoeana) and Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora parviflora). It seems that some of these numbers may refer to suckers, stems or ramets, rather than individual plants. If this is the case, please distinguish between Section 6 and 9 the number of individuals detected versus the number of suckers, stems or ramets. It is acknowledged that some of these numbers will be estimates.

7. To assist in assessing the impact on the Large-eared Pied Bat (LEPB), please provide the times LEPB calls were recorded at each bat detector site over the two nights. Section 7.3

8. As per paragraph 1, above, please provide specific details of measures proposed to mitigate impacts on SSTF and threatened flora, particularly at the interface between the proposed Section 8 development and offset areas.

9. In our request for further information dated 21 April 2015, you were asked (in paragraph 4b) to describe changes to the action which avoid or mitigate impacts on SSTF with respect to the listing advice for SSTF, which recommends that a vegetated buffer at least 30 metres (m) wide (measured from the outer edge of a patch) be retained to protect the integrity of remnants of the ecological community. The buffers proposed in the PD are not consistent with the listing advice, in that they do not extend from the outer edge of the SSTF remnants, but encroach by 15 m into the remnant, thereby increasing the impact on the community. This No longer applicable is contrary to the intention of the use of buffers around SSTF remnants, as described in the listing advice, and is not consistent with the Department’s policy to avoid first, then mitigate and finally offset residual impacts on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). To ensure consistency with the Department’s policy and the listing advice, and to minimise impacts on SSTF, buffers should be measured from the existing outer edge of SSTF remnants.

10. Please address the following in relation to the proposed CPW offset at the Hardwicke Biobank site:

a) Please clarify whether information provided in section 9.2.2 of the EPBC Assessment Report relates exclusively to the 7.5 hectare(ha) area proposed as the offset, or to the entire Hardwicke Biobank site. b) In relation to the 7.5 ha area of the Hardwicke Biobank site proposed to offset No longer applicable impacts of the proposal on CPW, please provide all of the information listed in paragraph 2 points a-f, above, that has not already been provided in the PD. c) Please provide more detail justifying the predicted future quality scores used in the offset calculations. For example, describe how changes in specific attributes of CPW quality contribute to the change. Reference to any relevant benchmark values, as mentioned in Table 21, would be useful.

11. To resolve the current uncertainty around potential impacts to the Yellow Gnat-orchid (Genoplesium baueri) and Giant Burrowing Frog, without unduly delaying the assessment process, the Department requests that you: a) Explain your commitment to points b and c (below) in the relevant parts of the revised PD, which will be the version exhibited for public comment. Completed b) Undertake further surveys for these species in accordance with the relevant survey Section 6.7 guidelines. Section 7.5 c) Describe the results of these surveys along with an assessment of any impacts and proposed mitigation measures and offsets in the final version of the PD, submitted for an approval decision.

12. It would assist in assessing the impacts of the proposal if you were to provide some photographs showing, for example, the vegetation/habitat types on the site; threatened flora in situ, perhaps in intact versus degraded habitat (where applicable); occurrences of Forest Section 5 Red Gum on the site and; any other site features that may assist in understanding and Section 6 assessing the impacts on MNES.

13. Some indication of the extent of Swamp Mahogany (E. robusta) in the proposed offset would assist in assessing the value of this area as habitat for the Swift Parrot, Grey-headed Flying- Not recorded on site fox and Koala.