SUBMISSION FROM WOLLONDILLY SHIRE COUNCIL This submission provides comments on the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry into ’s Faunal extinction Crisis (the Inquiry). The comments are based on the experiences of Council Staff in the application of the Commonwealth biodiversity framework and consistent with applicable resolutions of Council. The submission welcomes the undertaking of the Inquiry by the Senate Committee, (the Committee), to investigate the adequacy of current Commonwealth process and Legislation as a means of identifying mechanisms to address declines in threatened fauna species However, the submission raises particular concern that the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry(ToR) do not specify or address factors causing this decline including clearance of habitat for development, which is a particular concern within the Wollondilly LGA. Part A: Background Information The following provides background information to subsequent comments on the individual Terms of Reference for the Inquiry in regard to related Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES), the experience of Council Staff with the Commonwealth legislative framework as well as applicable resolutions of Council. 1) Biodiversity within the Wollondilly Local Government Area of relevance to the Inquiry The emphasis of the Terms of Reference items for the Inquiry is recognised as being the reduction in fauna species classified as MNES under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). However, it is considered appropriate and warranted that the Committee investigate in detail causes of this decline including the impact of clearance of native vegetation on the habitat of threatened species and their movement. This is a particularly significant issue within the Wollondilly LGA as a consequence of current and projected high level of growth, particularly in regard to its koala population. The following provides an overview of the biodiversity values of the Wollondilly LGA, threats to these values, associated Council position and related requested issues for investigation by the Committee. (i) Ecological communities The Wollondilly Local Government Area contains three Threatened Ecological Communities listed under the EPBC Act that includes Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) and Woodland (CPW), which are listed as Critically Endangered. The broad features of these two ecological communities are summarised as follows:

 There are significant areas of SSTF and CPW within the LGA that are largely located on privately owned rural land.  The prevalence of grassland on areas that have been cleared but may satisfy definition as Derived Vegetation under Commonwealth or NSW Legislation.  Remaining areas of SSTF and CPW are largely in the form of habitat corridors as a result of their location on land being suitable for development and agricultural activities in comparison to non-threatened ecological communities. Council provided a submission on the draft consultation advice for the listing of the SSTF in the Basin Bioregion at the Commonwealth level in June 2014. This submission strongly welcomed the uplisting of this vegetation community) and clarification of its

1

occurrence based on scientific definitions. The submission requested the inclusion of derived grasslands however the addressing of this issue by the final Determination was noted with a level of disappointment. A copy of this submission can be provided to the Committee upon request. (ii) Threatened species (flora and fauna) There are 27 threatened flora and 26 threatened fauna species listed in the EPBC Act which have been recorded within the Wollondilly LGA based on available information to Council Staff. The following provides an overview of the key threatened species of particular interest and concern to Council and the local community it represents. (a) Threatened fauna species The Wollondilly LGA contains a range of different listed fauna types that includes 8 bird species covered by International Migratory Treaties. The list of threatened fauna species also includes the Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey Headed Flying Fox) which established a camp in close proximity to Council’s Office in Picton during 2016. Council has prepared a Plan of Management for this Camp which is currently awaiting approval from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). A copy of this Plan may be able to be provided to the Committee subject to approval from OEH. The protection of the koala species and their habitat within a local and broad landscape context is of major current concern to the local community. Council is currently participating in a project with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage that involves the mapping of koala habitat and tracking of their movement. The project has broadly identified that koalas are utilising a range of existing bushland corridors for movement and are expanding into areas not generally recognised as being koala habitat. The incorporation of this finalised into the OEH’s Biodiversity Sensitive Land Map under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 is viewed as an important objective in achieving adequate protection of fauna habitat on a localised scale. It has been assumed that the Committee would be aware of the purpose of the NSW State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 Koala Habitat Protection. Council supported in principle the announced review of the current SEPP in October 2016 by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment as well as the intention to replace the requirement for Plans of Management with Standard Assessment Requirements. Council’s submission on this review (presented in Attachment 1) is requested to be considered by the Committee as part of its investigation.

(b) Threatened flora species Council does not have specific records over the occurrence of threatened flora species apart from those that have been notified to the NSW Bionet Data Base. The listed species occurring in the Wollondilly LGA most under threat from development pressure are Persoonia bargoensis, Grevillea parviflora and Pomaderris brunnea. Council Environmental Staff attempt to obtain modifications to development proposals where applicable to protect threatened species identified as being potentially impacted. However, these are efforts are constrained under the NSW Government biobanking framework which permits full clearance of a development site and absence of statutory powers for Council to achieve such modifications. 2) Threats to biodiversity within the Wollondilly LGA There is concern that the Terms of Reference does not specifically address in a holistic sense threats to fauna habitat whilst recognising the potential for this matter to be investigated as

2

part of Item l “Any related matters”. Council views the Wollondilly LGA as a peri-urban area and is an active member of the Sydney Peri Urban Network. Within this context, the biodiversity within the Wollondilly LGA is under pressure from a range of competing land use activities. The following provides an overview of the key pressures and Council position for consideration by the Committee as part of its investigation. (i) Threats to biodiversity from development pressure The distribution of areas of Critically Endangered Ecological Communities listed in the EPBC Act in comparison to planning proposals within the Wollondilly LGA is shown in Map 1 (Attachment 2). This Map indicates that a high proportion of planning proposals contain occurrences of these communities identified from broad-scale mapping. The Wollondilly LGA includes the Appin and Wilton New Town Priority Growth Areas identified by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DPE). The Committee is requested to note that Council has expressed and made a number of resolutions regarding adverse implications of the Wilton Priority Growth Area to biodiversity (including decline in fauna species). These implications include:

 Inadequate mapping of the boundaries of the vegetation communities, (including native grasses), based on associated scientific definitions at the State and Commonwealth level.  Absence of framework for the biodiversity assessment of the overall Priority Growth Area and individual Precincts within the Growth Area.  Inadequate identification of koala habitat corridors and measures to protect and retain these corridors Council has recently made a series of resolutions largely in regard to the impact of the Wilton Priority Growth Area proposal on koala populations and their associated habitat corridors, which are presented in Attachment 3. These resolutions are requested to be viewed as Council’s formal position regarding this matter. There are currently three underground coal mining projects as well as the Camden Gas Project operating within the Wollondilly LGA (see Map 2: Attachment 4), which are assessed and approved by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment as classified State Significant Developments. Clearance for surface infrastructure associated with underground mining operations are commonly not adequately assessed or regulated by Determinations as a result of their classification as First Stage Workings (not involving extraction activities). Council has opposed this approach and requested that such clearance be assessed at the application stage based on the similar level that would occur for applications where it is the Determining authority. It is requested that the Committee consider the impacts of development pressure and the associated position of Council outlined above as part of its investigation during the Inquiry. (ii) Threats from approved and illegal vegetation clearance Illegal vegetation clearance can have a significant contributing factor to the decline of fauna species as a result of habitat removal. Council Staff are currently involved with a multi-faceted program with NSW Local Land Services (LLS)), (responsible for clearance on rural land), to reduce such impacts. This participation followed an approach by these Agencies in response to the identification that Wollondilly LGA had close to the highest levels of illegal vegetation clearance in NSW

3

(iii) Other threats to biodiversity The following are threats to biodiversity (flora and fauna) within the Wollondilly LGA which while less significant than threats outlined above, present impact to threatened fauna species and their associated habitat:

 Impacts associated with feral animals and certain domestic pets.  Fatalities on roads through major habitat corridors that includes Picton Road where 8 koalas have been killed in the last five years.  Noise and odour impacts from the increasing number of poultry establishments within the Wollondilly LGA.

3) Council position regarding the interaction between the NSW and Commonwealth legislative framework (i) Overview of Council position regarding the revised NSW Biodiversity and Land Management framework Council welcomed the need and intent of the review of the NSW biodiversity and land management framework initially announced in October 2014 and also supported the overall intent of the reform package. However, Council’s submission on the draft Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (protection and management of biodiversity) and Local Land Services Act 2016 (regulation of vegetation clearance) raised a number of shortcomings and requested a range of amendments. The Executive Summary of this submission, (Attachment 5), is requested to be viewed as Council’s position or consideration by the Committee as part of the Inquiry Council raised strong concern over aspects of the Development component of the legislation package that included a significant weakening in the intended biodiversity “Improve or Maintain Biodiversity Outcome’ within the former Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 to “No Net Loss of Biodiversity” in NSW within the new Act. A summary of the major shortcomings is provided in the attached Executive Summary of this submission Local government is commonly left to regulate the ‘lower end’ scale of developments, with the State Government arguing for the need for the larger development to be classified as State Significant Development (SSD). Council’s submission on the NSW revised framework expressed opposition to a range of less stringent requirements relating to this type of Development in comparison to proposals where local government is the Determining Authority.

In relation to this matter, it is contented that the NSW SSD framework has a focus towards property development and upselling of land and residential housing. Council, as a peri urban council, has been targeted and identified as an area for high growth. However, strong deficiencies in the planning of infrastructure and assessment of potential impact of such development on critically endangered ecological communities and threatened species has been observed. There is therefore considered to be improved transparency and a strong need for better national and state coordination of environmentally significant areas.

In addition, Council Staff share in broad terms views expressed by the local community that the revised legislation has been stylised/designed to obtain economic gain over sustainable conservation outcomes despite having a stated intent of removing ‘red tape’. This prioritisation of economic gain is viewed as being particularly dominant in Growth Areas. Council has a strong commitment to sustainable conservation outcomes however their achievement is hindered by aspects of the introduced offsetting scheme such as the introduction of direct payments to the Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund.

4

Council has been generally supportive of the programs initiated by the NSW OEH in regard to the protection and management of threatened species. Council Staff however have concerns over the weakening of provisions to obtain licences as well as the relance of investment funding on the biodiversity framework within the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (as discussed above). (ii) Commonwealth Legislation and its interaction with NSW Legislation The extra rigour that the Commonwealth Legislation provides has been welcomed in principle particularly given the shortcomings in NSW legislation referred to above. The Commonwealth legislation is therefore viewed as providing a mechanism to address these shortcomings and deliver positive biodiversity outcomes on a local and national scale for listed Matters of National Environmental Significance. Council Staff have however observed deficiencies in the translation of technical advice received at the Commonwealth into Determinations issued under NSW Legislation to achieve positive outcomes in protecting fauna habitat. It is consequently recommended that the Committee identify appropriate measures, including amendments to the EPBC Act that would enable such positive outcomes to be achieved and by extension, address shortcomings in NSW Legislation referred to above. The necessity to increase the effectiveness of Commonwealth biodiversity related legislation and avoid and address duplicity with similar NSW legislation in regard to both Development Assessment and implementation of documents, ( such as Recovery Plans), is strongly recognised. The preparation of the Bi Lateral Agreement between NSW and Commonwealth has therefore been supported in principle. However, Council Staff have concerns over aspects of where proposals with potentially significant impact to MNES are assessed and approved under NSW legislation given the strong concerns over this legislation detailed above. It is consequently requested that the adequacy of this Agreement in delivering a national scale be investigated by the Committee. Summary of requested issues for consideration by the Committee from Part A of this

 Undertake a wide and detailed investigation into the causes of decline in fauna species particularly in regard to impacts associated with (both legal and illegal) vegetation clearance.  Consider Council’s position regarding threats to biodiversity and the revised NSW biodiversity and land management framework as part of the Inquiry and preparing the final Report.  Investigate a more effective interaction between NSW and Commonwealth legislature including the Bi Lateral Agreement that provides greater translation of technical advice from DEE Staff and results in enhanced protection of threatened species and their associated habitat (both in a localised and broader context).

PART B: COMMENTS REGARDING THE TERMS OF REFERENCE This part of the submission provides comments on Terms of Reference items of pertinence to the responsibilities and concerns of Council are based on issues raised in relevant feedback and feedback received by the community during the preparation of strategic Council documents such as the Community Strategic Plan. (a) The ongoing decline in the population and conservation status of Australia's nearly 500 threatened fauna species.

5

Council is not in possession of any records which would provide a specific trend over the decline of fauna species population numbers and their conservation status in the Wollondilly LGA in both the short and long-term. It is viewed as important that the Committee investigate the causes of the decline of the population and associated conservation status of the nationally threatened fauna species as well as documenting this decline. It is therefore recommended that the Committee investigate and provide recommendations that would address the identified causes of the decline preferably for this Item but if not possible, Item k) any related matters. The following comments and suggested measures regarding this matter are provided for consideration by the Committee:

 The development and investigation of statutory measures where projects impacting of habitat or habitat corridors based on certain criteria requires automatic referral to the Commonwealth is need to address experienced shortcomings in the current voluntary referral process.  Realistic sustainable frameworks for long term biodiversity management needs to be created to enable Australia as a nation to be realistic about its protection and conservation of threatened flora and fauna. Such a framework could be obtained by identifying areas for conservation, areas for sustainable tourism which liberate international tourism dollars that are then re invested into maintaining associated industries linked to eco-tourism.  Additional funds into research and management techniques need to be also funded, the Great Barrier Reef is a prime example where uncontrolled tourism has clearly effected sections of the reef, not just “bleaching”, crown of thorns starfish and climate change.  Exploration into philanthropic private and public sponsored partnerships and stewardship needs to continue to ensure that opportunities for funding to address key threatening processes such as invasive weeds and feral fauna and identification of potential regional corridors that require establishment to ensure that species can migrate through the impacts of climate change.

It is suggested that the Committee investigate suggested measures outlined above to address the causes of the identified decline in the population and conservation status of nationally listed threatened fauna species as part of the Inquiry and document procedures for their implementation in its final report. b) The wider ecological impact of faunal extinction.

This ToR item is viewed as having relevance to direct impacts of faunal extinction (through the ecological food chain) as well as more widespread indirect socio-economic considerations as outlined below. It is suggested in this regard that the examination of wider impacts would be more effective than being restricted to the ‘ecological’ impact of faunal extinction. (i) Direct impacts of faunal extinction The investigation of this item is welcomed given the direct related ecological impacts that can occur as a consequence of the extinction of individual species such as absence of prey required by the particular species as a result of vegetation clearance. It is therefore requested that this investigation by the Panel examine the following (amongst other matters):

 All ecological direct impacts in a vertical context, (through the ecological food chain), by all potentially affected fauna types as a consequence of the extinction of any threatened fauna species listed in the EPBC Act.

6

 All direct ecological impacts in a lateral context which would include, (amongst other matters), implications to applicable plant species as a result of the extinction of herbivore threatened fauna species.

(ii) Wider indirect socio-economic impacts of faunal extinction

It can be surmised opportunities have been lost by society in not obtaining a full understanding of the eco system impacts that are occurring through the loss of fauna and flora referred to above. Many lesser considered microbial flora such as fungi contain medicinal benefits, not that everything has to have an instrumental benefit to humanity, and there are also many benefits to intrinsic values (for example ecotourism).

However, there are considered many instrumental benefits (alternative food source & export commodities) that humanity is not obtaining with the exception of land to development, mining or farming practices. The homogenisation and reliance on certain species for food and agriculture is considered likely to become an issue as a result of climate change or disease that may result in extinction of faunal species unable to adapt. By potentially exploring other traditional and indigenous food markets there may be far greater long term sustainable options within our current climate. It is therefore recommended that the Committee investigate these socio-economic implications of fauna extinction including implications of climate change on species as part of its response to this ToR item. c): The international and domestic obligations of the Commonwealth Government in conserving threatened fauna.

The overview of biodiversity issues within the Wollondilly LGA in the preceding section of this submission highlighted the strong pressure being placed on koalas and their habitat from current and projected urban growth. The importance that the local community places on the protection of koala was highlighted by the recent presentation of a petition with over 13,000 signatures. It is contended that the Commonwealth has at a minimum, a moral obligation to ensure it conserves fauna species consistent with treaties and agreements where it is a signatory and consistent with broad ecological sustainable development principles.

The provision of comments on the legal obligations of the Commonwealth in conserving threatened fauna is outside the scope of this submission. The Committee would however be expected International and Commonwealth Obligations within Appendix 3 of the National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2020. In addition, The NSW Local Government Act 1993 states ecologically sustainable development requires the effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making processes. In relation to this matter, the Committee is also requested to review International and Commonwealth Ecological Sustainable Development Obligations such documents produced at the Rio 1992 Summit including Agenda 21.

It is requested that the Committee carry out the following activities as part of its investigation into this ToR item:

 The undertaking of a full review of all biodiversity related international and Commonwealth obligations that includes obligations in relation to the causes of faunal extinction.  The consistency of Commonwealth Government Activities with obligations under International and National Treaties and Agreements where it is a signatory.  The moral and potentially legal obligations of the Commonwealth Government in protecting recognised national ‘iconic species’ such as the koala.

7

 Recommendations to address any identified inconsistencies/non-compliances with the identified international and domestic biodiversity related obligations of the Commonwealth Government. d): The adequacy of Commonwealth environment laws, including but not limited to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in providing sufficient protections for threatened fauna and against key threatening processes.

The experience of Council Staff in regard to Commonwealth Legislation has been largely restricted to the Environmental Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The comments in relation to this ToR item by this submission therefore have a heavy emphasis on this Act and the experiences in its application by Council Staff.

The Commonwealth National Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 however also has relevance to the Bargo- Gorge in the Wollondilly LGA which has important landscape and biodiversity values that includes an identified important corridor for the movement of koalas. The listing under this Act has been observed to be in effective in achieving a long-term framework to protect this Gorge from adjacent development proposals received by Council. It is consequently recommended that the Committee also investigate the adequacy of this Act in protecting threatened species and provide recommendations to address any identified inconsistencies.

The requirement by this ToR to specifically investigate the adequacy of Commonwealth Environmental Laws against listed Key Threatening Processes is recognised as being appropriate. However, it is requested that threats to biodiversity within the Wollondilly outlined in Part A of this submission also be considered by this investigation. The listed Key Threatening Processes under this Act of major relevance to Wollondilly LGA are:

 Competition and land degradation by rabbits.  Land Clearance  Predation by the European Red Fox.  Predation by Feral Cats.

(i) The referral process

The self-regulating component of the EPBC Act where proponents assess the significance of impact of a proposal on MNES’s is viewed as weak given the absence of specific statutory guidelines that would specify where referral is compulsory. An example of this considered shortcoming for the information of the Committee is a number of sub-division applications from multiple landowners which have the potential to impact on an important habitat corridor adjacent to creekline that are currently being assessed by Council. The absence of any requirements for the Referral of all these proposals is consequently viewed as having adverse ecological and landscape implications for the long-term protection and enhancement of this connectivity.

It is suggested that a system that enables local government or a third party to make a submission or raise a concern on a development proposal or application may improve this process. It is acknowledged that such a system would require funding support as well as the establishment of a section of government that is tasked with reviewing submissions received from local government or third party as well as investigating any submissions. It is however requested that the Committee investigate the feasibility of such a system and mechanisms to allow it to be incorporated into an amended EPBC Act.

(ii) Criteria for the referral of applications to the Commonwealth

8

The thresholds and criteria experiences of Council in regard to threatened species and ecological communities have been observed to have been subjective and difficult to monitor. The following provides an overview of issues experienced by Council Staff and recommended matters for investigation by the Committee.

(a) Threatened ecological communities

The EPBC Act is acknowledged to contain detailed criteria for identifying whether projects have a significant impact on threatened ecological communities that includes the Cumberland Plain Woodland and Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest which commonly occur in the Wollondilly LGA. However, the following shortcomings/concerns over the adequacy of these criteria in protecting fauna habitat have been identified based on the experience of Council Staff:  The assessment process does not specifically require the assessment of vegetation clearance associated with a proposal on habitat, habitat corridors and the movement of fauna through these corridors.  The Criteria does not require the proponent to consider the impact of a proposal on mapped communities and habitat corridors identified and/or mapped by local government authorities.  The criteria has inconsistency with the mapping approach utilised by the NSW OEH including within the Biodiversity Assessment Methodology associated with the offsetting scheme under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.  The approach in requiring a defined condition threshold in identifying whether a proposal has a potential significant impact is considered inconsistent with the best- practices approaches known to Council Staff involving the identification of diagnostic plots in survey plots.  There is potential for the assessment not to consider the full significance of the proposal on the full extent of remnant community or habitat corridor as a result of the self-referral process.

It is recommended that the Committee investigate the above considered shortcomings in the current threshold criteria and provide recommendations that will improve the referral process to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the impact of a proposal on threatened ecological communities and related habitat for threatened fauna species.

(b) Threatened species (with particular reference to the koala)

The criteria for threatened species utilised by the DEE in identifying whether a referral is required is viewed as being broadly sufficiently scientific based. However, it is recommended that the Committee examine the adequacy of the current criteria in identifying the potential impact of a proposal on the movement of applicable threatened fauna species and provide recommendations to address any identified inadequacies in this regard.

The development and introduction of criteria for koalas at the Commonwealth level as part of the referral process is welcomed and is a noted absence within the current NSW Legislative framework. As a general comment however, the criteria related to habitat connectivity is not considered to sufficiently apply to the movement of koalas in narrow corridors (less than 100 metres wide) but up to distances of approximately 10 Kilometres that have been identified to occur within the Wollondilly LGA from recent monitoring carried out using tracking collars.

The DEE is currently considering a referral for the Bingara Gorge Application (2014/7400) that directly adjoins the Wilton Priority Growth Area, with Final Documentation for this referral on

9

public exhibition at the time of lodgement of this submission. The DEE is noted, as part of this process, to have requested a wide range of amendments to a Plan of Management for Koala which a number of people with expertise in this species has expressed as being inadequate of its intended purpose. The location of both the Bingara Gorge and Wilton Priority Growth Area, as well as koala habitat corridors, (based on available information), and sightings of koalas, is presented in Map 3: (Attachment 6).

The protection of corridors within this Growth Area in a broad scale is of high concern to Council and is the key subject of a Stakeholder Forum it has organised for 11th September 2018. In relation to this matter, the Committee is requested to note that Council resolved at its meeting on 30th April 2018 “That Council writes to the Federal Minister for the Environment and Energy requesting that Sydney’s last disease free koala population be protected under the Federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”.

The Committee is requested to investigate the following in relation to the criteria for the referral of a proposal impacting upon koalas and fauna in general:  The amending of the current referral criteria to reflect the above shortcomings based on the experience of staff regarding the koala population in the Wollondilly LGA.  Mechanisms by which the referral criteria can be adapted to ensure that all larger developments overseen at the State level with potential significant impact to the habitat of koalas and other threatened fauna are reviewed and assessed at the Commonwealth level.

(iii) The adequacy of Referral applications

The subjectivity and discovery of threatened flora and fauna is viewed as being dependent on the consultant that has undertaken the work. Council has challenged many applicants over the years for poorly developed reports and assessments that are non-compliant with NSW Legislation. A number of such reports reviewed by Council Environmental Staff have also been observed to have a questionable level of consistency with Commonwealth Legislation. It is consequently recommended that the Committee, (through the DEE), evaluate the adequacy of Referral Applications and identify appropriate mechanisms to improve their overall quality and consistency with the legislation and policy framework.

(iv) The assessment and approval process under the EPBC Act

The increased level of assessment provided by the Commonwealth approval process is welcomed as a means of overcoming shortcomings in the NSW Legislation framework. The level of expertise by the DEE Officers that carry out the assessment and approval of referred Applications is not being questioned by this Application. There are however concerns over the adequacy of the scientific base of the criteria in identifying whether the assessment of a proposal is restricted to Preliminary Documentation or a greater detailed process such as an Environmental Impact Statement. It is recommended in this regard that the Committee investigate the adequacy of the current scaled level of the application and approval process in achieving the necessary biodiversity outcomes including protection of threatened fauna species and associated habitat.

Feedback was sought from Council’s Development Section Staff who have responsibility for incorporating advice and conditions received from the DEE into Development Determinations. This Section provided in-principle support to the process within the context of reviewing and approving relevant received applications. A comment was made however that the timeframe commonly taken for the completion of the Referral process has created adverse implications for proponents of such applications.

10

The direct translation of conditions within issued Commonwealth approvals into Council Determinations rather than a broad condition requiring compliance with such approval is considered more effective in delivering positive outcomes for threatened fauna species. Such direct translation is recognised as potentially requiring consultation between DEE and local government (possibly through Local Government NSW) to ensure the appropriate wording of Commonwealth approvals. There is however uncertainty from a legal perspective over whether such integration can occur between approvals issued at the State and Commonwealth level.

In a related matter, a range of considered shortcomings in the assessment and approval processes regarding NSW SDD and larger proposals coordinated by the NSW DPE have been previously outlined by this submission. In this regard, Council is in receipt of legal advice that it cannot challenge the approval of the rezoning of a precinct in the Wilton Priority Growth Area as a consequence of it being included in a gazetted State Environmental Planning Policy. The holding of the Inquiry is considered to provide a suitable opportunity for the examination of this matter.

It is therefore recommended that the Panel investigate the following matters in relation to the assessment and approval process:

 Whether conditions issued under Commonwealth legislation can be directly translated to Determinations issued under NSW Legislation.  The investigation of mechanisms (including resourcing) to improve the timeframe for the completion of the overall Referral process.  The investigation of mechanisms and procedures to incorporate conditions and advice from the DEE into approvals for NSW State Significant Development as well as approvals issued under NSW State Environmental Planning Policies such as the Wilton Priority Growth Area in the Wollondilly LGA is therefore being sought as part of the Inquiry.

e) The adequacy and effectiveness of protections for critical habitat for threatened fauna under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The Wollondilly LGA does not contain any items that are currently listed as Critical Habitat for threatened fauna under the EPBC Act. The criteria for such habitat is considered to have a high level of synergy to the concept of Areas of Outstanding Biodiversity Value and related criteria in the introduced revised framework under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. Council’s submission on the draft Act recommended that the Criteria for this concept be amended to include areas of local significance and not be restricted to State and Bio Regional scales.

It is considered that the synthesising of the two concepts would have positive benefits in achieving enhancing the protection of habitat identified as having high significance and criteria for the referral of development proposals as well as the direction of Commonwealth biodiversity investment. It is consequently recommended that the Committee investigate the expansion of the criteria for Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act to correlate with the Areas of Outstanding Biodiversity Value as well as applicable local government biodiversity mapping.

f) The adequacy of the management and extent of the National Reserve System, stewardship arrangements, covenants and connectivity through wildlife corridors in conserving threatened fauna.

11

(i) The adequacy of the management and extent of the National Reserve System in conserving threatened fauna

It is beyond the scope of this submission to provide specific comment on the adequacy of the National Reserve System and related documents, (including the Strategy for the Reserve System 2009-2030), in addressing the issue of faunal extinction. However, as a general comment, the investigation as part of the Inquiry in relation to the following potential integration of this and other related Commonwealth Strategies would be appreciated:

 The integration of the Commonwealth Strategy for the Reserve System with relevant Strategies prepared by NSW Government Agencies which could potentially further integrate with local government through the Regional Biodiversity Support Officer positions recently established by the NSW OEH.  The potential integration of land within the National Reserve System with National Parks at the State Government level as well as areas of significance identified at a more localised level

As a further general comment, there is considered scope for significant improvement in the collaboration between the Commonwealth and local government in the protection and management of biodiversity in terms of both development assessment and implementation of programs. It is recommended in this regard that the Committee investigate mechanisms how this increased collaboration can be achieved as part of the Inquiry. Council Staff would appreciate the opportunity of further discussion over this matter with the Committee support staff as well as DEE Staff.

(ii) The adequacy of the management and extent of stewardship arrangements and covenants in conserving threatened fauna

The stewardship arrangements detailed in the EPBC Act have similarities to provisions regarding biobanking sites in the former NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 and biodiversity stewardship sites in the new Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016. These measures have been broadly supported by staff as a means of ensuring management by in perpetuity funding mechanisms. However, shortcomings have been observed regarding their adequacy in protecting important fauna habitat corridors given their voluntary nature and absence of overall strategic framework at the State level for their selection. It is consequently recommended that the adequacy of the Commonwealth arrangements in protecting such corridors be investigated by the Committee.

(iii) The adequacy of the management and extent of connectivity through wildlife corridors in conserving threatened fauna

Council is currently participating in a project with the NSW OEH principally to identify habitat corridors for koalas, (but by extension), also habitat for a range of other fauna species. Council is also in the process of updating its Biodiversity Strategy that is intended to contain a range of actions to protect and enhance these corridors that includes requiring offsetting on the development site where achievable. However, the retention of these habitat corridors is significantly constrained by the following shortcomings, (viewed by Council), in the offsetting framework associated with the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016:

12

 The biodiversity offsetting scheme introduced by the NSW Government which is considered to facilitate the fragmentation of habitat corridors as a consequence of its offsetting mechanisms.  The weakening of the intended biodiversity outcome of the Act to “No Net Loss of Biodiversity in NSW” which does not encourage positive biodiversity outcomes on a local or more regional scale.

There are also considered strong deficiencies in the planning and assessment process developed by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment in particular within declared Priority Growth Areas. The implications of these deficiencies is considered illustrated by the on-going efforts of Council to seek the deferral and amendment of aspects of the Masterplan for the Wilton Priority Growth Area to enable the incorporation of important koala corridors and appropriate buffers into the design of individual Precincts. The use of the EPBC Act is consequently considered to be beneficial and warranted in order to achieve an adequate retention and management of important habitat corridors for listed threatened fauna species as part of these proposals. Council would appreciate discussions with members of the Committee Support Staff over the difficulties experienced by Staff in this matter as well as any legally viable involvement of the Department of Environment and Energy in this matter.

A further constraint of the NSW framework is the weaker provisions for assessment and offsetting requirements in the NSW legislation for State Significant Developments and Infrastructure in comparison to those applications where Council is the Determining Authority. Determinations issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment have been noted to be not sufficiently rigorous in protecting threatened species as well as biodiversity in general. It is recommended that the Committee investigate mechanisms for inclusions in the EPBC Act similar to the ‘Water Trigger’ that would require compulsory referral of all SSD/SSI projects with the potential to impact on threatened species and ecological communities based on appropriately frame criteria.

g) The use of traditional knowledge and management for threatened species recovery and other outcomes as well as opportunities to expand the use of traditional knowledge and management for conservation.

This Term of Reference item is outside the scope of Council’s responsibilities and this submission. However, the Wollondilly LGA has extensive landscapes which are understood to have high significance for the local Aboriginal community. Council has established a collaborative relationship with members of this local community to ensure the adequate consideration of these landscapes in either projects or development proposals. The investigation over traditional knowledge and management in regard to the recovery of threatened species is consequently welcomed. The provision of contact details for local Aboriginal Groups can be provided to the Committee upon request.

h) The adequacy of existing funding streams for implementing threatened species recovery plans and preventing threatened fauna loss in general.

The allocation of existing funding streams and identification of new funding streams is recognised as being a matter for Commonwealth budgetary processes. The view is expressed however that there is a need for a significant allocation of funding to implement Recovery Plans and prevent threatened fauna loss in general given the identified high level of faunal extinctions within Australia.

Council has not been involved in any Commonwealth funding stream and Staff are unaware of any specific funding programs issued by the DEE. It is suggested in relation to this matter that such funding programs be designed in a suitable format that allows for applications from

13

for local government to facilitate the delivery of programs to assist in preventing threatened fauna loss in general at a localised scale. Please note in relation to this matter, it is considered that the involvement of local government would be enhanced by the funding streams not requiring matching financial contributions.

i) The adequacy of existing monitoring practices in relation to the threatened fauna assessment and adaptive management responses It is outside the scope of this submission to provide comments specifically in regard to the adequacy of existing DEE monitoring practices. The adequacy of the assessment process for identifying the threatened species conservation status is however viewed as being dependent on the expertise of the person(s) undertaking the surveys as well as the subsequent listing assessment. In addition, seasonal variations to certain species may not be present when surveys are undertaken or less likely to be found with resulting serious limitations on the adequacy of the assessment process. It is consequently considered appropriate and recommended that the Committee investigate and provide recommendations that would enable the timeframe for surveys as part of the monitoring process to reflect best practice timeframes for surveys of individual threatened fauna species.

In relation to this matter, there is potential for observations of threatened species either by consultants as part of proposals or other forms to not be readily available to the DEE. Within the Wollondilly LGA for example, over 60 sightings of koalas have been reported to Council’s Hotline since its establishment in 2016. It is therefore recommended that the updated monitoring assessment process also include requirements for consultation with applicable local governments to obtain localised data regarding the presence and distribution of threatened fauna species. j) The adequacy of existing assessment processes for identifying threatened fauna conservation status

It is outside the scope of this submission to provide comments specifically in regard to the adequacy of existing DEE assessment practices. However, it is considered important that the assessment process have the following key components:

 The assessment has a strong scientific basis and is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure consistency with applicable scientific research.  The assessments are on-going to ensure prompt detection in identifying whether a change of the conservation status of certain threatened species is warranted.  The assessment process is sufficiently resourced (both expertise and staff numbers) as well as sufficiently funded.

It is recommended that the Committee investigate the resourcing required to ensure the adequacy of the assessment process in accurately identifying the threatened fauna conservation status as well as on-going assessment of any changes in this status.

l) Any related matters.

This submission has referred to a number of additional items requested to be investigated by the Inquiry which have a level of inconsistency with the specific wording of certain specific Terms of Reference items that are summarised below.

14

 The detailed investigation into the causes of the decline in threatened fauna species and identification of appropriate measures to address these causes.  Requirements for applicants preparing Referrals to the Commonwealth to consider any relevant biodiversity mapping or data held by local governments.  The involvement of local government in Commonwealth programs to address faunal extinction.

It is requested the above issues be investigated as part of this ToR item in the event of the Committee determining that they cannot be investigated in regard to other ToR items specified by this submission.

CONCLUDING STATEMENT

The Wollondilly Local Government Area contains significant areas of ecological communities listed at the Commonwealth level as well as threatened fauna species including a significant koala population. These communities and threatened species are currently under threat from a range of competing land use activities, particularly from development. They are also viewed as being under threat as a result of shortcomings in the revised biodiversity management framework in the process of being implemented by the NSW Government under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016.

This submission has welcomed the establishment of the Inquiry as a means of identifying the adequacy of current Commonwealth Programs and legislation in addressing the level of threatened faunal species extinction. However, the submission has expressed strong concern over the absence of specific reference in the Terms of Reference for the Inquiry to the causes of faunal species decline particularly the removal of their habitat. The submission contains comments in regard to individual Terms of Reference and recommended issues for investigation by the Committee based on the position of Council and concerns of the local community it represents.

15

Submission on the Review of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection

This submission provides comments on the Explanation of Intended Effects (EIE document) for the review of State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection (SEPP 44). The submission is based on the experience of Council Officers in the implementation of the current SEPP 44 during the assessment and approval of planning and development proposals. The submission is also based on the experiences of Council’s Environmental Staff in relation to the mapping of koala habitat and the collection of baseline data

1) Background Information

(i) Relevance of SEPP 44 to the Wollondilly Local Government Area

The Wollondilly Local Government Area (LGA) is a peri-urban type LGA on the perimeter of the Greater Metropolitan Sydney Area. There are significant increasing pressures on local biodiversity including known potential koala habitat areas, particularly as a result of urban development. In this regard, Map 1 (presented as Attachment 1) shows the location of koala recordings in relation to planning proposals currently being assessed by Council and gazetted. Council participated in a Baseline Survey Pilot Study with the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage during April and May 2016 which involved koala surveys at 58 strategic locations. The Report on this Baseline Study prepared by Dr Nicholas J. Colman MSc, B.Env.Sc (Hons) broadly concluded that::

A greater study effort into the koala population, their habitat-use (i.e. possible home ranges) as well as the flora (food/shelter trees) of Wollondilly is warranted. A major priority is the identification/protection and enhancement of koala habitat and vegetated corridors that koalas utilise for movement across the landscape or for home ranges. In addition, this study detected other threatened fauna that would also benefit from increased koala protection strategies.

The Study enhanced previous expressed propositions that the Wollondilly LGA provides a potential meeting point between the Chlamydia positive Southern Highlands koalas and the Chlamydia free Campbelltown population. It also highlighted significant deficiencies in the current knowledge of movements of koalas and the priority for additional and detailed surveys and mapping. The DP&E is requested to note in this regard that land use planning is to ensure the long-term survival of koalas in the LGA is considered to be operating without strategic direction as a consequence of these significant shortcomings in baseline data and research.. The adequate protection of the koala population within the Wollondilly LGA has been noted to be of very high concern to the broad section of the community. This concern is illustrated by the reporting of thirty sightings of koalas to Council’s Koala Hotline since its establishment in mid-2015 as well as a number of articles in local newspapers. (ii) Overview of Council experience with SEPP 44

The SEPP 44 has been viewed by Council Staff as an important statutory document in the review of development both at the planning stage and sub-division stage. However, the following shortcomings have been experienced in the current SEPP 44 document based on the experience of these Officers:

1  The list of koala tree species does not reflect up-to-date knowledge regarding the habitat and movement of koalas.

 The current definition of ‘Core Habitat’ for Koalas does not adequately capture the significance of a site proposed for development in terms of a site specific and landscape context.

 Reports accompanying development applications have almost unanimously observed to state that SEPP 44 does not have any implications to the proposed development largely based on the absence of koala recordings on a site proposed for development..

 The preparation of specific Koala Plans of Management has occurred on an extremely rare basis due to a combination of factors that include the definition of Core Habitat, the resources required for such a Plan and the unwieldy nature of the provisions.

2) General comments on the review of SEPP 44 and adopted process

(i) Council support to the review and adopted process

Council is supportive of SEPP 44 and recognises its value and importance in providing a statutory framework at the State Government level for the protection and management of koalas and their associated habitat at a localised level. Council consequently welcomes the retention of the SEPP and views its review as a means of addressing the experiences of Officers and shortcomings in the current document outlined above.

The consultation being undertaken in relation to the intended effects of proposed amendments to SEPP 44 is welcomed. However, the review process within the exhibited Frequent Question document is considered to infer an intention of the DP&E not to subject the following items to a subsequent public exhibition process.

 The definition of ‘koala habitat’ to replace the definitions of ‘core koala habitat’ and ‘potential koala habitat’ contained in the current SEPP 44.

 Updated Guidelines setting out criteria for applicants to follow and consent authorities to put into effect when applying the SEPP to standardise the development assessment process.

 Updated Guidelines to support the preparation of Comprehensive Koala Plan of Managements

The above items are viewed as integral components of the SEPP and their absence from the exhibited material is viewed with concern. The DP&E is requested to note in this regard that in endorsing this submission, Council resolved at its meeting on 20th February 2017 to send correspondence to the NSW Minister for Planning requesting their public exhibition. The DP&E is further requested to note that the provision of any form of Council support to the updated SEPP is withheld pending the review of this information

(ii) Relationship of the revised SEPP 44 to the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

2 The Explanation of Intended Effect is noted to state on page 12 “… updated requirements for development applications and considerations for consent authorities will reflect contemporary koala management practices and include, for example, avoiding habitat fragmentation”. The apparent intention for the updated SEPP to include requirements for consent authorities to consider the impacts of development on koala habitat fragmentation is welcomed

However, there are concerns that the effectiveness of the revised SEPP in protecting koala habitat will be constrained by the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 following its formal introduction in the later part of 2017. These concerns are based on considered inconsistencies between the proposed broad approach of the revised SEPP 44 (protecting habitat on a development site) and the provisions of this Act, (which Council Staff view as allowing for removal for such fragmentation subject to offsetting measures)

The urgent provision of a response by both the DP&E and OEH to these concerns prior to the finalisation of the revised SEPP 44 is being sought.

(iii) Consistency of the revised SEPP with the State and Commonwealth Policy framework

The EIE is noted to state the proposed species list is consistent with the NSW Recovery Plan for Koalas. However, there is an absence of any discussion on proposed procedures to ensure the consistency of the definition of ‘koala habitat’ and Guidelines for Development’ within the revised SEPP to this Recovery Plan. In addition, the development of a whole-of- government NSW Koala Strategy which is intended to stabilise and then increase koala numbers in NSW was noted to be announced in a Press Release dated 4 December 2016.

It is considered important that the revised SEPP 44 be consistent with and complements the policy framework. to ensure the implementation of measures to protect koala habitat from development within a strategic context occurs at the local, State and International level. The viewpoint of the DP&E and inclusion of measures in the updated SEPP demonstrating consistency with the applicable policy framework is requested prior to the finalisation of the document.

3) Comments on specific aspects of the Explanation of Intended Effect

The following provides comments on individual aspects of the EIE document including aspects of the revised SEPP to be prepared subsequent to the public exhibition of this document

(i) Proposed aims of the updated SEPP

The statement in the EIE that the “aim of the SEPP is appropriate and will continue to be to protect koala habitat to ensure a permanent free-living population over the present range and reverse the current trend of koala population” is supported and welcomed. It is however requested that the Objectives of the current SEPP 44 be retained with reference to ‘core koala habitat’ amended to ‘koala habitat’.

3 (ii) Definition of koala habitat by the revised SEPP

The definitions of Core and Support Core habitat in the current version of SEPP 44 have been observed to be largely ineffective in protecting the impacts of development on koalas and their habitat. The EIE is noted to state in relation to this matter “the updated definitions will be replaced with definitions that identify the characteristics of plant communities which make up koala habitat and if there is evidence that koala are present”. This proposed approach is recognised as having potential benefit in terms of improving the definitions in the current SEPP 44 and by extension, informing the adequacy of the revised SEPP in protecting and managing koala habitat.

The following provides comments and recommendations for the definition of ‘ koala habitat’ within a revised SEPP based on the experiences of Officers with the current SEPP and outcomes of the recent Pilot Project with OEH.

(a) Consideration of habitat within a landscape context

It is considered important that the finalised definition of koala habitat allow for the inclusion of areas utilised or have the potential to be utilised as habitat and/or as a habitat corridor within a broader landscape context. In relation to this matter, the Report prepared for Council on the Baseline Study with OEH identified that koalas were utilising sandstone based vegetation communities in riparian areas (particularly in the vicinity of disturbed areas) for movement between larger habitat areas. The Study also identified that they utilised nearby recognised koala habitat trees such as Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum) during this movement.

The EIE is noted to state in relation to this matter “the guideline will also clearly articulate how the definitions in the proposed amended SEPP differ from the definitions used in environmental management at the landscape scale- such as preferred koala habitat, primary habitat or secondary habitat”. This statement Is considered to infer that the application of the revised SEPP 44 will be restricted to the site scale and the protection at a landscape scale will occur as part of a separate process. Council Officers would have strong concerns over this approach as the protection of koala habitat at a landscape is viewed as being imperative based on received specialist advice including the Report on the Pilot Study undertaken with the NSW OEH. The provision of urgent clarification over the application of the revised SEPP in relation to this matter from both the DP&E and OEH is requested.

(b) Consideration of koala habitat species

The EIE is noted to state that the definition of koala habitat, will be “supported by an updated list of tree species that reflects current scientific knowledge” (presented in the Appendix of the EIE). This species list is broadly supported in terms of providing broad guidance to development proponents and consent authorities. However, Officers consider that the updated definition of koala habitat should not be dependent or partially dependent to the presence of certain species on a particular development site (as discussed below).

Requested components of definition of ‘koala habitat’ within a revised SEPP

The adequate definition of koala by the updated SEPP is viewed as being highly important given its role in informing the development control component. The above comments in this

4 submission highlight the viewpoint of Council Officers (and recent research) that the definition within an updated SEPP needs to capture the usage of a particular site by koalas in both a local and broader landscape context. It is therefore requested that the revised SEPP require the following activities by proposal of applicable developments in identifying whether a site contains ‘koala habitat’:

 The analysis of historical records to determine the previous presence of koalas and behavioural patterns of koalas on the site

 The undertaking of comprehensive surveys to identify the presence of koalas consistent with best practice across all vegetation communities present on a site proposed for development

 An analysis of the observed and identified potential behavioural usage of the site by koalas across all vegetation types within the site based on a detailed assessment, (which is not restricted to habitat species listed in the revised SEPP 44).

 The role of the site in a landscape context in allowing for the movement of koalas based on a detailed assessment and analysis of existing records.

The DP&E is requested to incorporate the above matters into a definition of ‘koala habitat’ within a revised SEPP which is subject to a subsequent public exhibition process that includes consultation with Council Officers.

(iii) Development control provisions in a revised SEPP 44 (Plans of Management)

Council’s experiences with development control provisions with the current SEPP 44 have been restricted to site-specific individual Plans of Management due to the absence of a Comprehensive Koala Plan of Management (CKPoM). In relation to this matter, the preparation of a CKPoM for the Wollondilly LGA has been identified as a high priority by the OEH given the significant shortcomings of baseline data and wide distribution of koala sightings. The DP&E is requested to note that Council requires sufficient support and funding at the State Government level to prepare such a Plan.

The proposed replacement of the requirements for individual Plans of Management within the revised SEPP 44 with standardised requirements outlined in updated Guidelines is not opposed. However, any support from Council to this approach is subject to the following in accordance with comments contained in preceding sections of this submission:

 The Guidelines require a level of surveys and assessment of potential impacts on koalas that has been required for individual Plans of Management under the current SEPP 44 and address all issues which have been raised in this submission.

 The Guidelines be publicly exhibited as part of a finalised draft revised SEPP 44 and be subject to a stakeholder, (including the community) consultation process.

The DP&E is requested to preferably exhibit the Guidelines with the completed draft SEPP 44. If such a subsequent public exhibition process does not eventuate, the provision of the completed draft Guidelines to Council prior to the finalisation of the SEPP by the DP&E is requested.

5 4) Concluding statement

The review of the State Environmental Planning Policy No 44 – Koala Habitat Protection is supported by Council Officers The proposed broad amendments to the current document are recognised as having potential benefit in addressing experienced shortcomings of the current document in adequately protecting koala habitat within the Wollondilly Local Government Area. However, this submission strongly requests the public exhibition of the completed revised SEPP given that key components in regard to definitions of koala habitat and Guidelines for Comprehensive and Individual Plans of Management are yet to be prepared.

6 Legend

Vegetation

- Cumberland plain

- Other LIVERPOOL Land zones

- Other

- Environmental

- Residential

Rural

Lots

Lot boundaries

N CAMDEN

Projecli:>n: GDA94/ MGA56 Date C=ted: 20/06/2017 c ,,e,....,_,:181: PW

CAMPBELLTOWN

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 km

Wo~ ShteCotnd . LPI Dep.-,tment of fh.nce,'lld S«vtes,PdllOlilma llJtt'JlUl!, IM:hur!it, 279S. www,bfmwJ)O'lat. \'tha.!-eo,eiy c.11el.t."ken 1D 8l!Ulelhe·,-,;:cu-<'Kr oflhlsl)lodtKt, Wo~ ShleColftCl ....00 lhe l oc,,l St..ite Fe:19",i CoYt.fnrllielll Existing land zonings in relation to vegetation dei>a1tments.ndfm-Go remment Ot9Jl&-n:,nsYA,oto ~ d.,~. ,.I m,,i;eno l£1)1est'ntatl:ln sot Willldnt~dbod l:s atCU'dtf ,1el°4)-=r, (l)tl~)l {t.O~Ol .).U I~.. ) .., fCI ..,, .,.,..u, u l"l j)llll(P:it'"d d!o)( l.i11'),'.I communities within the Wollondilly LGA , x1n~l)o ,1,d {fU,ay (h(h .ill(J \"olhOllt tnL(bn, li 4lR)' h "«l\l(U(t) fol ,11+!(P,.1l~, b :l{l('S,1l,'11 ..~ (ll(hdhJ l'Nlt+.'(l01 Wollondilly (01'1$(.'(f.1(1ntUilAIMJt),1lll(Cl::lb 1-,hk.h 104.I mtJ., t~•• M.n 1(")ul of the Shire Council p,otlu( tli,;-lli(J h ,'l(O•,( ~OI h (Onv\'(rhfflf wO. lt Mlb ,!'1111 J(\."f:,OI I,

Council Resolutions regarding the protection of koala habitat

Wollondilly Shire Council is extremely committed to the protection of our unique koala populations and their habitat which is reflected in the resolution at the Extraordinary Meeting of Council held on 30 April 2018.

The NSW Government defer any further release of land within the Greater Macarthur Growth Area and Wilton Priority Growth Area until the NSW Government prepares and finalises a Koala Conservation Strategy that protects koalas and their habitat corridors throughout the region. The Conservation Strategy should:

I. Be underpinned by an approved and integrated Comprehensive Koala Plans of Management for Wollondilly, Campbelltown, Liverpool, Wingecarribee and Wollongong Local Government Areas in accordance with Schedule 1 and Part 3 of the State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) 44 - Koala Habitat Protection. II. Include Koala habitat and corridors with reference to the updated Koala food tree species list that has been provided by OEH for the current review of SEPP 44 and we request that the review of SEPP 44 be finalised.

And further council requests:

The rezoning of that portion of the Wilton South East Precinct that forms part of the Allen’s Creek Primary Koala habitat corridor be repealed by the Minister of Planning.

That the draft petition to the Speaker and Members of the NSW Legislative Assembly seeking that Parliament debate the repeal of the rezoning of the South East Precinct as tabled at the Extra Ordinary Meeting, be endorsed by Council for circulation immediately following the meeting. That upon 10,000 signatures being received, Council formally requests that Jai Rowell MP, Member for Wollondilly, presents the petition to the NSW Legislative Assembly.

Further that this petition be incorporated into a Koala habitat preservation campaign as part of the “A GREAT New Town or NO town at all’ campaign. This petition should also be sent to LGA’s and community groups that neighbour the last disease free Sydney Koala habitat requesting support for the petition.

Legend

D Cadastre C::: Wollondilly LGA Boundary • Dharawal National Park Mine Subsidence District COAL SEAM GAS • Existing Coal Seam Gas Wells 1ZJ Approved Project Area COAL MINING Glencore Tahmoor Coal D Approved • Deferred Indefinitely Bulli Seam Project D Approved Russell Vale Project Expansion Deferred Indefinitely

D0UGl!AS PARK:

irAHM00R

,I

WIL:TON

CJ

, ..., Mining Operations and Mine Subsidence Areas @ 1/1/ollondilly Shire Council. ,9 LPI Department of Finance and Services, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst, 2795. www.lpi.nsw.gov.au. Wh il e every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this product, 1/1/ollondilly Shire Council and the Local / State/ Federal Governmen t departments and Non-Government organisations whom supply datasets, make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, comp leteness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibi lity and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) for all Wollondilly expenses, losses, damages ( in cluding indirect or consequential damage) and costs which you might incur as a result of the product being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. Petroleum Licence Data ,9 Department of Trade & Investment 2014 Shire Council Bulli Seam Proiect Data <> BHP 20 14

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This submission provides comments on aspects of the exhibited Regulations and other associated products (Regulation package), associated with the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Local Land Services Act 2016 which are both relevant to the Wollondilly Local Government Area. The comments are based on the experiences of Council and the local community it represents in regard to both these Acts. They are also consistent with the position of Council expressed in its submission on the Terms of Reference for the Review of Biodiversity Legislation as well as the draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill.

This submission is comprised of the following broad components

• Part A: Response of the Regulation Package to previous Council submissions comprised of: o Overview of issues raised in previous submissions from Council and response o Update on position of Council and the local community from the lodgement of these submissions. o Summary of adequacy response • Part B: Overview of supported items and areas of concern on the Bill package in regard to the protection and management of biodiversity within the Wollondilly LGA and update to these concerns. • Part C: Exhibited components of the Bill Package based on the broad categories adopted by the Webinar series. • Part D: Summary of recommendations of this submission.

Broad in-principle support is provided to the following aspects of

However, succinct dot points on the major areas of concern are