Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre

FAIRFIELD SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE CENTRE

Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

c/o DFP Planning Pty Ltd PO Box 230 Pennant Hills NSW 1715

SLR Ref: 630.12023-R01 Version No: -v2.2 August 2020 Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

PREPARED BY

SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd ABN 29 001 584 612 10 Kings Road New Lambton NSW 2305 Australia (PO Box 447 New Lambton NSW 2305) T: +61 2 4037 3200 E: [email protected] www.slrconsulting.com

BASIS OF REPORT

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd (SLR) with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with Fairfield City Council (the Client). Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected, which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of the Client. No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR.

SLR disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Reference Date Prepared Checked Authorised 630.12023-R01-v2.2 12 August 2020 Andrew Carty and Fiona Iolini Jeremy Pepper Jeremy Pepper

Page 2

Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fairfield City Council is seeking project approval for expansion of the existing Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre. The Project is a State Significant Development and requires consent under Part 4, Division 4.1 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979. As the project is State Significant, the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment applies, and a Biodiversity Assessment Report is required to support the project application. This Biodiversity Assessment Report has been prepared as a technical document to support the Environmental Impact Statement and according to the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment and the Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements.

The Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre is a former landfill site and as such, much of the site has been historically cleared and is highly modified. Most of the site is absent of native vegetation and habitat for flora and fauna. However, a band of riparian forest lines the banks and adjoining floodplain of Prospect Creek along the northern margins of the Study Area. Two native plant communities: Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain (PCT 835) and Coastal freshwater lagoons (PCT 781) have been recorded within the Development Site. The areas of native vegetation predominately occur on riparian land along the northern boundary of the site, outside of the operational area of the resource centre. However, there are a few smaller patches of vegetation along the boundaries of the operational area, a small portion of which will require removal to facilitate construction of the proposal.

The areas of native vegetation to be cleared have been carefully considered and the potential impacts of the project are limited to areas that do not contain high biodiversity value. The impact footprint of vegetation clearing for the project is 0.22 hectares and is restricted to the regrowth riparian forest within the Canal Road gully. The vegetation in the gully is dominated by exotic species and do not represent areas of high conservation value.

This Biodiversity Assessment Report identifies several mitigation measures that are proposed to be implemented prior to, during and after development with the aim of preventing, minimising and managing impacts on the local environment. The existing site specific Operational Environmental Management Plan is to be updated to ensure the commitments within this report, statutory obligations and conditions of development consent are upheld.

The assessment has determined that a biodiversity offset is not required in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment and the Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects. The disturbed nature of the native vegetation in the Development Footprint and a lack of roosting/breeding habitat for threatened species resulted in low site value scores (less than 17). Accordingly, removal of the vegetation within the Development Footprint does not generate an ecosystem credit requirement or require offsetting. Similarly, no species credits are generated for the proposed development.

Page 3

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Proposed development ...... 1 1.3 Scope and aims of this report ...... 8 1.3.1 Project SEARs ...... 8 1.3.2 Requirements of Biodiversity Assessment Reports ...... 8 1.4 Information sources ...... 8 1.5 Methods summary ...... 9 1.6 Definitions ...... 10 2 LANDSCAPE FEATURES ...... 11 2.1 Overview ...... 11 2.2 IBRA bioregions and subregions ...... 11 2.3 Mitchell landscapes ...... 12 2.4 Soils ...... 12 2.5 Native vegetation extent ...... 12 2.6 Topography ...... 13 2.7 Rivers and streams ...... 13 2.8 Wetlands and estuarine areas ...... 13 2.9 Biodiversity corridors and links ...... 13 2.10 Landscape value ...... 13 2.10.1 Native woody vegetation cover ...... 14 2.10.2 Connectivity ...... 14 2.10.3 Patch size ...... 14 2.10.4 Landscape value score ...... 14 3 STUDY AREA ...... 15 4 NATIVE VEGETATION ...... 17 4.1 Native plant species ...... 17 4.2 Regional vegetation mapping ...... 17 4.3 Previous SLR mapping ...... 17 4.4 Vegetation classes ...... 19 4.4.1 Coastal Floodplain Wetlands ...... 19 4.4.2 Coastal Freshwater Lagoons ...... 19 4.5 Site vegetation mapping ...... 19

Page iv

4.5.1 Overview ...... 19 4.5.2 Plant community type descriptions ...... 21 4.5.3 Differences of site vegetation mapping to regional mapping ...... 22 4.6 Vegetation zones ...... 23 4.7 Threatened ecological communities ...... 25 5 THREATENED SPECIES ...... 28 5.1 Overview ...... 28 5.2 Fauna survey results ...... 28 5.3 Ecosystem credit species ...... 29 5.3.1 Generated by credit calculator ...... 29 5.3.2 BioNet atlas ...... 30 5.3.3 Predicted ecosystem credit species ...... 31 5.4 Species credit species ...... 31 5.4.1 Candidate species generated by credit calculator ...... 31 5.4.2 Candidate species BioNet Atlas ...... 33 5.4.3 Candidate species credit species present on site ...... 33 6 IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMISATION...... 36 6.1 Impact avoidance measures ...... 36 6.1.1 Site Selection ...... 36 6.1.2 Optimising the proposed layout ...... 36 6.2 Final development footprint ...... 36 6.3 Direct impact...... 37 6.3.1 Overview ...... 37 6.3.2 Impacts on vegetation zones ...... 37 6.4 Indirect impacts ...... 38 6.4.1 General ...... 38 6.4.2 Western Sydney Parklands ...... 38 6.5 Onsite mitigation measures ...... 39 7 IMPACTS SUMMARY ...... 41 7.1 Areas not requiring further assessment ...... 41 7.2 Entities not requiring offsets ...... 41 7.3 Impacts requiring offsetting ...... 41 7.3.1 Plant community types requiring offset ...... 41 7.3.2 Species polygons requiring offset ...... 42 7.4 Impacts requiring further consideration ...... 42 7.5 Biodiversity credit requirements ...... 42

Page v

7.5.1 Ecosystem credits ...... 42 7.5.2 Landscape value score ...... 42 7.5.3 Species credits ...... 42 7.6 Biodiversity credit report ...... 42 7.7 Biodiversity offset strategy ...... 43 8 EPBC ACT MATTERS ...... 44 8.1 Relevant matters of national environmental significance ...... 44 8.1.1 Listed threatened species ...... 44 8.1.2 Listed threatened communities ...... 46 8.1.3 Wetlands of national significance...... 47 8.1.4 Migratory species ...... 47 8.2 Impacts on relevant matters of national environmental significance ...... 47 8.2.1 Listed threatened species ...... 47 8.2.2 Threatened ecological communities ...... 48 8.2.3 Migratory species ...... 48 9 REFERENCES ...... 49

DOCUMENT REFERENCES

TABLES Table 1 Re-issued SEARs relating to biodiversity ...... 8 Table 2 Common definitions used in the BAR ...... 10 Table 3 Mitchell landscapes mapped within the site ...... 12 Table 4 Native vegetation extent (by formation) within outer (1,000 ha) circle ...... 12 Table 5 Plant community types recorded and mapped within the Development Site ...... 21 Table 6 Plant community type 835 ...... 21 Table 7 Plant community type 781 ...... 22 Table 8 Vegetation zones mapped within the Study Area...... 23 Table 9 Threatened ecological communities recorded within 10 km ...... 25 Table 10 Ecosystem credit species ...... 29 Table 11 Additional ecosystem credit species generated by BioNet atlas ...... 30 Table 12 Species credit species ...... 31 Table 13 Development Footprint areas ...... 36 Table 14 Biodiversity impacts ...... 37 Table 15 Mitigation measures to be implemented before, during and after construction ...... 39 Table 16 Vegetation zones requiring offsets and credits required...... 42 Table 17 PMST results listed threatened species ...... 44

Page vi

FIGURES Figure 1 Site Map ...... 2 Figure 2 Location map ...... 4 Figure 3 Development Footprint ...... 7 Figure 4 Regional vegetation mapping ...... 18 Figure 5 Plant community types mapped within the Development Site ...... 20 Figure 6 Vegetation Zones within the Development Site ...... 24 Figure 7 Threatened ecological communities ...... 27

PHOTOS Photo 1 View of Canal Road Gully ...... 15 Photo 2 Riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek ...... 16 Photo 3 Roosting Grey-headed Flying-fox ...... 29

APPENDICES Appendix A SEARs (biodiversity) Appendix B Reporting requirements for the FBA Appendix C Methods statement Appendix D Flora and fauna species lists Appendix E Plot and transect data field sheets Appendix F Likelihood of occurrence table (for threatened biota) Appendix G BioBanking credit reports Appendix H EPBC Act PMST results Appendix I Bat analysis results Appendix J Site photographs

Page vii

ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Description AHD Australian Height Datum BAR Biodiversity Assessment Report BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (NSW) BC Regulation Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (NSW) DAWE Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Commonwealth) DPIE Department of Planning, Industry and Environment (NSW) EEC Endangered Ecological Community EIS Environmental Impact Statement EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) EP&A Regulation Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 2000 (NSW) EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) FBA Framework for Biodiversity Assessment GIS Geographical Information System ha Hectares IBRA Interim Biogeographical Regionalisation for Australia km Kilometres LGA Local Government Area LLS Act Local Land Services Act 2013 (NSW) m Metre Microbat(s) Microchiropteran Bats MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance NSW New South Wales OEH Office of Environment and Heritage (NSW) PCT(s) Plant Community Type SEARs Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements SLR SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd SRC The Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre SSD State Significant Development TEC(s) Threatened Ecological Communities

Page viii

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

SLR Consulting Australia (SLR) has been engaged by Fairfield City Council to prepare a Biodiversity Assessment Report (BAR) to accompany an application for the proposed expansion of the Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre (SRC). The SRC is located on the corner of Widemere Road and Hassall Street in the suburb of Wetherill Park, NSW (Figure 1). The Development Site covers a total area of 29.7 hectares (ha) and comprises the following eight lots: Lot 1 DP 515773, Lot 34 DP 657040, Lot 35 DP 657040, Lot 37 DP 657040, Lot 100 DP 1220637, Lot 1 DP 620755, Lot 2 DP 620755 and Lot 1 DP 368374.

The Project is defined as a State Significant Development (SSD) pursuant to State Environmental Planning Policy (State and Regional Development) 2011, and requires consent under Part 4, Division 4.1 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act). Project State Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs) were issued in 2017 and then re-issued (unchanged) on 06 May 2019. The SEARs require the preparation of a biodiversity assessment in accordance with the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (FBA) (OEH 2014).

The general location and features of the Development Site are displayed in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The main active existing operations of the recycling plant are located within the large cleared area that occupies the south western portion of the site (i.e. the southern parts of Lot 1 DP 515773, Lot 34 DP 657040 and Lot 35 DP 3082). This area contains the site entrance, the weigh bridge, site office, pugmill and crusher. There are also some storage areas for materials on adjoining lots to the east and extending into the northern cleared parts of the western lots. Prospect Creek and associated riparian vegetation occur along the edges of the site’s northern boundary.

The site is within the Fairfield Local Government Area (LGA) and is zoned ‘IN1 General Industrial’, pursuant to Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013, with a small portion of ‘RE1 Public Recreation’ and a narrow band of ‘E2 Environmental Conservation’, along Prospect Creek at the northern boundary.

The recycling plant has been established above a former capped landfill. The facility has been operating since 1997 and processes in excess of 180,000 tonnes of material per annum. The SRC accepts waste tiles, bricks and asphalt which it uses to produce recycled materials such as road base, drainage aggregate and topsoil.

1.2 Proposed development

The proposed development is for an expansion of the SRC to increase its processing capacity to up to 550,000 tonnes of recyclable construction material per year. The Development Footprint includes three areas where works are proposed and covers a total of 2.93 hectares.

The proposed works will involve infilling a gully running north-south through the centre of the site, known locally as ‘Canal Road’ and infilling a small area of land to the south east of the gully, fronting Hassall Street. Filling of the gully will increase the operational efficiency of the site by creating a flat surface. Smoothing the surface of the site will also allow the SRC to expand its industrial activities on the site and provide an area that can conform easily to future developments. The project will also include expanding a paved carpark area, construction of a flood compensation area to the northeast of the gully and creation of two new sedimentation basins in the north and east of the facility.

Page 1

IBRA Subregion: Sydney Basin

307000 307500 1

6 7 6 84 7 0 4 8 8 6 4 4 6 0 0 8 7 9 1 4 4 8 8 0 1 0 8 0 4 1 7 7 2 1 8 4 4 6 76 8 6 1 4 0 0 0 2 6 1 2 1 0 1 2 12 1 64 7 Y 6 4 W 6 H T 8 2 C 8 1 E 0 9 1 1 6 P 0 0 2 1 5 S 0 2 O 8 2 1 5 R 0 0 8 8 8 P 8 4 76 6 6 4 7 5 0 8 8 9 9 0 8 0 2 0 98 7 4 50 2 8 96 0 7 0 6 5 88 6 4 0 4 4 4 7 72 6 42 4 0 7 8 0 8 6 0 8 3 5

3 4

0 62 5 Proje5ct Location 8 2 0 5 6 50 6 60

4 T

4 S

54 O R

40 N IBRA Subregion: U M 5 40 0 4 Sydney Basin 0 6 40 4 4 2 5 38 0 5

0 4 0

36 0 40 4

8 0 36 3 4 32 34 32 30

L P T Way

30 0

2 0 0

3 4 4

3 5 2 DAVIS RD 3 0 6 3 0 7 3 1 7 3 5 3 0 1 0 5 32 P D 32 4 0 0 3 3 2 6 3 0 38 3 40 0 0 4 3 4 0 2 3 7 7 8 5 3 0 3 6 3 2 W P 2 7 P I 5 3 D D 0 3 8 0 6 D E 4 0 0 M 3 1 0 E P 2 P R 2 R

E D 1 6 O S R P 3 3 P D 0 D E 5 28 C 0 5 T 4 1 7 34 0 1 C 2 R 6 DP3 E P 36 683 E d 74 K x D 2

m 3 . D 6 4 P6 0 H 2 _ ASSA 07 y LL S 5 t T i 5 2 l 6 a c o L _ a 1 0 0 e 0 r 5 u 3 g i 5 F 2 _

T 6 3

S 2

E 2

N 1

0 O

3 T 6 S R K L C S

\ D A

S L R

B S G

c FR P r ANK S T P

A I \

G s

e LENNO r X PL u g i 58 0 F \ 0 3 g 5 4 n

i 6 t f a r D

1 38 0

\ 0

a 5 t 8 a 4 D 2 6 4 R 4 L 4 S T 4 6 S 0

\ L L R E A RED R B 4 FERN ST R 5 E C V R S

l i c n

u LEGEND 6

o 2 T C

l D e

i T R f 0 r EY S L R O i E Site Boundary 3 S T F a P R S F

E R O

3 T A R L

2 I

0 A R

2 Development Footprint F W 1

. K 0 C 3

A 6

\ L L Cadastre (Lot Boundary) B T R 0 N C -

0 6 N 0

3 2 3 O 6

\ 100ha Inner Assessment Circle 0 5 D L 3 2 T W 2 6 N 4 O v 3 N r 0 S S Native Vegetation Extent* - 0

3 2

6 3 \ 5 5

R 5 0

L Rivers and Streams 6 4 2 6 5 S 6 C - 0 HIFLEY 3 s 8 ST t 2 0 c 8 4

e 5 j Contour 10m 5 o

r 6 8

P 0 \ : 62 H VICTORIA ST I 0 100 200 300 400 Scale: 1:7,500 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

*Source: Sydney Metro, OEH (2013)

Sheet Size : A4 Site Map

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 1a 307000 307500

Y W H 0

T 0

C 5 E P 4 S 5 O 2 Project LocatioR n 6 P T S

O R N U M

PROS PECT

1 HWY

E P L P T

S Way

R P

GIP 0 PS 0 0

RD 4 5 2

DAVIS RD 6 3 7 1 7 5 1 5 P D

I D

0 4 4 0 2 3 7 7 8 5 3 0 6 7 3 T P 5 2 3 P PROSPEC CREEK D 3 8 0 6 D 0 0 0 3 1 2 P 2 D 1 P

T D

S 5 L 5 L 7 A 1 S HASSALL ST 0 1 S 2 A 6 DP H P 3683 d 74 x D 2 m . D 4 P6 0 2 _ 07 y H 5 t AS i SA 5 l LL T ST

a T S

c S

o R L E N _ T R

b L E 1 A F 0 0 D

e W 0 r E 5 u R 3 g H i A 5

F S 2

_ S

A 6 3 L S 2 L

0 S E 2 T N 1

0 O

3 T 6 S R K L C D S

\ A R

S L I S B

G P

c FR P r AN K ST I A G \ G s

e LENNO IP r X PL

u P

g S i T T

F R

\ S S

g D

N E n i t R N f

E a O

r F T

D D

E 1 K

0 R

\ C

a A t

L a

B D

R T L S S T

L 6 S V ER L 0 RELL \ L ST L A R E S A RED R S B FER N A ST R E H C V

R T S S

i D c R n O u R F o EDFER N ST S C

O d

l R e

i T f r S L i E YRE a P EY R RE F ST E H R AS ST 3 T RED SA A FER L L 2 I N ST L ST

0 LEGA END R 2 F W 1

. K 0 C 3

A 6

\ L

L Mitchell Landscapes Strahler Stream Order Site Boundary B T R 0 N C -

0 0 N 0

3 T 3 O

6 Cumberland Plain 1 S

\ Development Footprint

5 D L

L 2 T W L 6 N

A O v S N r

S Georges River Alluvial Plain 2 S S Cadastre (Lot Boundary) - A 0

H 3 6 \

R Sydney Basin Diatremes 3 L 100ha Inner Assessment Circle

T S C - HIF LEY S s ST t

L c

L e j Rivers and Streams 4 A o C r H S IFLEY S P T S \ : A H VICTORIA ST H I 0 100 200 300 400 Scale: 1:7,500 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

Sheet Size : A4 Site Map

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 1b 306000 307000 308000 309000 N B I A D J A R

S O M U A E T I U N O T R G B D A W G N A O D S A Y A R C U W D R THUR

S C K D A ST L B ST

R S I R S R C B B I S O U U O T L T L R R L N BAR S B O C R A I C N I S E D A T S C T I T S R N C Prospect I R O C T P F S PA A E STO R W L R G I C Nature A B A

CT L M LLINA ST RECONCI D R U A LIATION R G T B U

U IN R R

Reserve N O D C BO

WR D Y A

D E Y A N A U T R O N S L C A R L W

G R AN E O T OR S C F T LANE I M A E U R L E A G D R K N A A T T 0 I T S ARI S 0 R W ST R N T IA EW 0 R Y D PO R N OLD

A 6 U G A B W W T P N N DORIS ROSPECT RD 5 UN AI R D I I B L L 2 Y L D A A T 6 IA S A N N M E GR V W E IF A B LLAI AVE FIN S T U N U S L L D T

G S S

A Y VINA T L A P N T C AR S E Prospect Reservoir B S U IS D I E OR A H S R AG M A A T R C M HEL T D UABIL IN S ST LI G E RA E S A T EBO H V N ST AOI AV E H D PL N A O ST N A T ALL N R JOA W BIS S HOP A A ST ST VE Y L R Y E P R

D A N

D A W PU A G U R G J N A H D G H AVE A R N E O R N DW OWENA AR Z A D DR H O ST B G IA W N A T S A T T T EN K T S STAN CH IN AVIS S M D BU PD

N E R

Y E I V A

VE LMA S T T L A E LAWSON A H ENID S A VE T S

A O G L U P R R M VIA R Y A BI K O L O D NNET ST IL RL SY BERT W A BY EY AVE WH ST H A AL VE ANS RD T T BAOMA E C A VE M

E M D I P R BUNDELUK E T N R S OR LDFIELD S S O H T G A VE SILVERT O R BRAD P MAN S T R E MCC T ABE ST R

R 0 E RYL T M ANDS A WE PL RD S O 0 C R 0 5

BILPIN IR 5 B R 2 ST IWA ST W

W W T

L S

A L

Y IL R A A L E B H B R B P E U R M R R A I A R P N A A P B PL W L L A P L BO LARO AVE T S R A C O LE MACQUARIE R R IL L D N V P L

E P U A

R A C E M I I G C N H N I IBISC A USS O T M C L

A R A

P E I S V S JA K N AZAL L EA ST A P B IBRA Subregion: G A ALP T R HA RD DAHLIA S D L E T P N S

I A

A R Sydney Basin L E P O T I D S V

E A

L TAR

P L

I N

P T HYLA G

R N

O D

T I

O N U RD WOO R N D P 0

M ARK A P R

D D 0 L

R 0 4

E 5

DAVIS RD M

2 U

6 H L U L K T P G E S I R N P H D A P T B S E

N B W R

E D A I Z D W I R E L D E M SAMMU

E T ST

R E C L CKAY L P M DEN OC Y SALL A HAS ST I CL

L E

E T

K S

T R T E S S P FRANK K ST O

C O A L C T B PL S ENN OX L N I

L HAR B GR U AVES PL

D L T O

N T L S L

d G S RED E x FER N S R C R T S

m E E NT R . R RO T E T S L E FORD S T P L 4 L P V

A 0 R D _ W A I O p RHON

R N DD a S F

E A 0

N E

M G

K Y E

S 0 O A C L e R

L E T 0

i A S W T D

L 3 A S D N

B V U T 5

_ O T E 2

a K N S VIC N CR S 6 2 TO C RIA E T

0 S T T O V E

e R K

r CHI NY A F M

LEY N R

u E S K A L M A

g T I EGA VE H N i K A

M F S

_ GALT 3 ON ST 2

0 HINSTANES R

2 W D C 1

A 0 NKLER V A W E I S N LL T 3 E H N P CR E V A L T L M A T 6 A S L

E H H H N L AY T R E G W

Y N U O E C OD R

L A C R R L O A M E

S D I V \ DAN L L H IEL Y O L D S ST RTHCR N L

I O T I E R W P S L T S L L O S G IN A T E T F

c S W L S A H S A

r P G L D M T A K N O S A I N R N

\ A ST I EY T Y M L s L S O R K S TT D T AY PL A S R e R E

S G H

r O B R S H B P

u E VE O E

TH I C L THOMPSO g R N

S M

i D T E

F T

\ T S S I g T B L E RON C n T SD

i O C K E N ST A t C VEL T BINYON E N f O YN CL CA Y L

T CL S S MPION ST A a S R R Y S S I A

r LA BSEN PL O N E U O P A I L D C SAN V

A R M D A K A

L G VENS NEVILL C A M P O E 1 TE N Y S

A IS S ST A EA T S T T IN O S S

0 DOYLE M G ST T CAR R \ T O S H E W T R G O LA CR LEY ST

a O G O L

t M L L L CL EW EN O PL N CL SFIE L a M MAN LD W T SH LODGE H E AK E S D B S E T ES T O N B S PE S JAN R L O A T E S VIDAL N E R P M T N

P W L E I R COOT E L E R H P L T S U L S O O

L T T

L I C L N J A O I N T A C S

B E M

L ' T

I I C A N S D

S C U C IN A S Y

P B

W A O

J 0

C R D C O VE

L S E L RN B 6 L EC R

L T L EN R R A R N 0 L EFO C C S 0 D E PL H RA T A \ N T Y 0 E E O

S O A L IT PL V N C G 2 R B C O L W M E

L D A S C 5

A R T I W TS T

M D I EA C O C S D K L E L H

H S E A R O D 2 B D B R R

W B AE C E I S A R L A ID VEL L AU E T A 6

N E M V D W L E

O B H ONTS O C L M L

A U O O P T L O F B G

G R G L R N O E U C D I O R P S A E B N C CL P ER S Y N L L L T H C AI L N

C S AT DR

l A G A D O O L i LD P

L C NO N ST N N F L

c P I R N E E A L L CHAUCER K LLO BR n ST S W O

ST C G IC D WN S u T D T

LEGEND LANGLAN D R T S L R N F TH o OST A

I L CKER A C AY N C T A T CL C HOU K S USTE Y CHA F SMA E M N CL B L M E RL S R DR L ES S D A d W O C A L T IELD R B

l Y F

U B N E E T R D L L TH O

e R O P P I

P E L H IE S K R i C R C Y L E R RE M

f ST S

S A U

r L N O P

S NPative Vegetation ExteL nt (Formation)*A

T R L Site Boundary L B ICE O L

a S

T T E B T L M C Y S A C A

F M I U T S R T W L K E E S T P L B E A T E D T L A TEN N 3 E L N S E L D YS ON G LO E T C N R N X A Y S O G R A E S P S SE S AV T ND 2 PO T E ER N U E T LD L Y GUM E ST P Y A N E L ING I 0 S L V A R R T ST L C W P A L W C I 2 P Dry Sclerophyll Forests M K E Development Footprint H T L CKEO R N N 1 O L M N G T O A

. O L E T I U S R REVI N C M 0 P NG K R E M ST E ONE D AIG S C I S E S E N T L P N

3 H C U I

O T E S R G G

K O O A S

6 O E T R R T

I S K D R A S \ S W A W R N N CIUSKO R R W S ST JE S E R N

L I D I E R NIF V Forested Wetlands ER D

100ha Inner Assessment CiE rcle O I A E R

A R T P B U L J T E E R V E L F R T M

S R R A E S F S L C A D R E ML O P E

R L

N J P L E B R O - V S E P Y Y C F S O L H R I N S N R H Y S 0 S T E W ON X T R L E E R TA E P Y G I A V 3 R R T Y O I L BE B S TT W R B A ST E A 6 E S R S L \ FreshwaterP Wetlands R 1000ha Outer Assessment Circle L A SEAR TS T B T S B T L R S E G A T L UTHEG P RES S P W T T D A TWE L D T LL RD L L T R T N P S D P D S S N AW O R O E N H T TW MUS Y v S B N GRA D R E VE C E L O r BRA D P R T L O D L S

R S S O A N

S NAPIE Grassy Woodlands UNDERW ST O - R E F M

PL A A N L B L D ACH P T

0 E

E A DAL N N E R INSL O LA R IE B S 3 O L A S BY L LAYT N P T R 6 O C KNO W T N E S S \ WLES R S N T T Y T R A O S M T C E R O P IER T T P M P M Y K V L L Landscape Features M DA R T S L A S N C J RE D S E BA E S L O ED A F D A E I B R S E G C P L K R D S A L A M A - V C R S U B T C O G C T E L AR D S P P R A s H R L E R A A V B S t S M X A O E R S A P 0 M O T L B K N E

c I F T L M

E S S L A M N R K

V R 0 M I E R R I A H R e O

U U T T C A IL E j L

I L A N U 0 E P H L L R

S A C

H Other Vegetation F o

D E O L T S L M 1 Q

r S A P D E L R I Y B T I L LL N D L L E G E E 5

T S N P E M P R LE T E

C FA T P O IC YR E RRELL H C

\ T HA T R L A T O R 2 : O C L V DT BRYA N T A N A HERTON S R S N P T D A V T 6 H PL E A L I 0 200 400 600 800 Scale: 1:22,500 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

*Source: Sydney Metro, OEH (2013)

Sheet Size : A4 Location Map

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 2a 306000 307000 308000 309000

A D A

S T B R E M S I A

D O O D BAT

R H N D U S RS B R T

U N O R U A R I

S R U C

C B B L S P O A R K ST U C A I R W A S C L I C N R I B L S I R I T T S

E D T

C R T T L C Prospect S C S N C E O L L T I F ST Nature A BALLINA BU C M A RD T R ILIATION W U O R A O CONC R R RE G N G U T N D C B Reserve D S O R R W O A A R D A Y T I P O L N R A Y AN U

G R S L A E R T E S T E A V W O N E T

A M E F C A I T R G R G S N D 0 U A W A A I 0 R I RI NE Y ST WP OR N 0 R R T A A A OLD D 6 D R BU D T W NN S

T 5 U AI A T RD G DO PROSPEC B R RIS ST W 2 N

D 6 I N D Y GR UL IFF L A I S AI AV NS AV T E N E T E S LVIN A B PAR Y O IS D R H S ST AGA ST I S R RAC T H TU C A EL A U S BILL MMI D DEBORA I N E H NA GS AV ST ST OI AVE E N ST JOA WA B A N PL LLAN ISHOP T THORA ST AVE S ST Y N

L E A P P U D J R GH AV R D E R RA G DUNGA ED O W Z ARD D R O T

G W S B ATK IA D NA S S IN T MAVIS S T T E T N Prospect Reservoir WA AN P NC THE I I L L ANA S BUR DE H MA T L Y A EN A A V S ID S BO WS E T ST B O BINA ON A R VE MO AV RL E SYLVIA BINN EY PL ROB Y ET ST AV ERTA K E WH T ST W IL ALAN B S R S H B Y D AO A MA VE T T AV E E C BUN D M E ELU O P K A DR LD VE NE FIEL M R D S I S ERTHO T LV R O SI BR G A R DMAN P ST R M E CCABE T ST ME T RR 0 YL R RO AND S WE S PL 0 RD A 0 C 5

1 BILPIN BIR 5 ST RIWA ST 2 6

P L

L P L

I WA A PL RRA P B A H B A E T A R N M R P E I L S U L B A Y R

L 1 B

R T A W S A BOL O W ARO 2 W A R VE N VILLEA U GRE M 2 2 M ACQU CR L ARIE L R P D P

IBRA Subregion: IA 2 C E ST N IBISCUS A L H I C P

A M A S Sydney Basin X I I

S A

R J 2 K AZALEA ST A T N

1 S M A

2 A B T

T RD L T S A HLIA S P KU H DA RRAJONG LP R A R D A 1 E

O 2 G I S

V A A RD EN D IA ND R TA P L R 2 YLA LI DE P 1 H N 1 G L TO T N P

T L P PL O R T I Wa W N y O

U O 2 H D R PAR 0 U M

A K 1 R 0 M D

G 0

I E 1 P 4 P DAVIS RD S R 5 2 R D L 6

D U

L W 2 K T P

I E S D

N E R

H A M D T B

E E 1 N

R 2 B E

A E

W 1 Z S I R AM L D M E U 2 T ST T S

CL L MCKAY R

D P EN HA E OCI SSA C LL P L Y ST O 1 A 2 O W CT C C A E REE 1 L P K L S

E O K PR 2 F RANK ST 1 2 T 2 NOX S LEN

N PL I L

B HA 1 RGRAVES U PL T D 2 1 S L

d L RED L O x F ERN N CE ST L E T m NT R D S G R P R . E FO PL OS T R R

4 S S R E T 0 V R A

_ I H R

p O E E R EYR N K a F E V T S T E D L 0 K A C M V D 2 T A O 0 C S

e A L A t 0

i A R W A S N RA Y DN 3 L OR T S PL N O G U M NDLE ST N

B T 5 _ E A T T N 2 b SN 2 I O N S W H VI E T R

D 6 2 C TOR ON S I C O A R K B 0 ST C S T H D L I E e F LEY I r ST K K u M EG R g AN 2 i AV E A F M _ GALT 3 ON ST 2

0 WHI 2 NSTA NES E 1 RD L 2 V L T H

0 I T N C V K C L E A A R T LL S S 3 E C T

A N S A P L D S 6

L L N N Y E O

R E L L T L N L I I T O

L O R E L O R R S H T A

S Y T P V W E \ D OR L S D W N Y H A S H N T S IEL IN A A I S T M A O A T D H S T G R U H S

G C A W E M S R N

c R O

r W R E A C E SH Y AR F L A L E T L AND M \ S O S L L P M IR E L S S T A T s R T P E G O E L H P e B AY H T GR M N r E B E O D I H V C S u I T T H O K R T Y MPS g D S O H i N KE K ST C T F O \ L R B g T R L ONSD O ON T n S ST i C B EV IN t E L Y I YN S O W

f N Y C CAM Y L T PION S a A ST L R S IB CAN T r AU CL SE ARA STE D N C P IN C O N P A L L A E S A I L N D M A E L R N S N D ST K STE YE EVIL A A V O A 1 GIS EN AT LE V T S S DOYLE SING P SON M S ST T E 0 S M ST T RO S \ A W O W O C S R G ARTEL LEY S a A T O L R G T H O C t CL T L L PL R O L O S a B H W L T A O E L K M D E A S D ES NS E GE N C M L L P FIEL JAN O VIDA EA D ST HO E ST J P N L T L R M N R E S E P E T L A I L R O E E O S M P I T L O L T R U C ILT N T L C O ON C I

S H S A ' L C B W L S LIN S B W DS A C R IN AY E 0 A U P L B V O C E O C 6 T L OR L L N J C R W C E A 0

0 C B DEFOE PL R C

\ H L O E T BR V 0 T Y C ENA K T N E

S N S S 2 R E O T L A A R I N D TS W B T T L 5 A W E E

M T O R A S

P U 2 S T B S S C B

S T M R S I L W A E L E L

S RD E O I MARVELL O DE 6 D T F N AV D R E D O I P T L Y C D G S I O L A T A G P B C R B D W L H O U I L CH R R A G N M N S B S ER A Y G R L

A A N O P IN

l A CH LA D A A AU T R C i N C O C RNO ER E S PL O W LD S L c L T L L H C N C n L BR A O S C NGL ST E OW T A N

u N D I L T ST C N P H L AC o N KE I G L L RAY C S C L B T E C H C K T H O T P A USM AU L B Y RL AN E ST CL ES S S M E B S S S d T N CL L D R T l R

L U A O A R E W I E e C N Y Y i R L C T K R Y O L f L D L R E R A L T r E U

i R E C C W P C P O A A T S L PR L N E a B I E CE S S E O L T T M E T M S

F A R T R I K S R T T U N Y P M O E A B A S E M L A 3 L N E N D L E E X P T A E R L U L O B PO I OS N ND L Y E G G T E 2 U DIN L ST AV R S W E S D L G E T S G N A T T M 0 LEGEND K D O A O C W F T E P N R S T 2 M L R E R N D E S A H S L P 1 K E L S U E . I I E L C F O L C P W V T P D I E R 0 C H RA T E A L O E M GSTONE IG I REVIN ST I I K S

3 T G M E R S R D C C S S 6 I W U R T E Y I \ O R B D R S A R S V L ST S A R U S

L R Mitchell LR andscapes StraNhler Stream Order A Site Boundary R R L E E S N A I E NA T I P T N S O L

T S P A J S L O H M V KOSC H S E O IU A B C C E F S E L R R N K O E I ST V R T S E O - R R R X PL T R E D H CA E S Y R 0 RL R F Y Y L O P D LE F PL O E I A 3 P T R O E Y T N E E J V L B G N T B S E 6 W S E S Cumberland Plain 1 Y R

\ E T S Development Footprint W A T N L D E ST S AR A Y T W L E S R B L RES T S R T P A W E T EL R L S L RD L PL R ST T B N B C D D N AGH OO M N T W US R O v AVE NT GRA K E VE r R E C B Q R S E N A Estuary/Water Added 2 L C T S L H N 100ha Inner Assessment Circle UNDER U AM - A P WOOD RD A P F W I S IE O NS R I L IE

0 P L E O R A N T S B T N 3 C E O L R O R R D AY S S AL

6 Y T T M LA N O D S

\ K B R R NOWLE N IE Y O ST S C ST R MP A E E A E R E R T P D A R L M E J Georges River Alluvial Plain 3 E L F S D L B 1000ha Outer Assessment Circle E O L V C P V D M L B L R E C C S K G A R

S P L C A R E R S U A A P L Y - M C B M H G R T A T R E A A A V D C K s R E S R O C A E T U S V t S D O X R L P H I P 0 O A L O S L B K CR c T S K O R E L F E O I T M N T L N M HI E A L 0 N L N R L e I M S F L T A L O E S L E I j L A D D A ST O I E R N E 0 Sydney Basin Diatremes 4 U I RiveGrs and Streams S S L R A o T H L V G E Y N H T SC B 1 r H U H T R O N O T D O T E A T E O N TY A O M R 5 P L C A E C G M L B E L L V L C B \ C C L I R E N R H L A P N E 2 : R E L R L L ST ATH M D P E P A L ERT E E R EIC ON ST K R L H K A HA A 6 H R F RD S O 1 PL L TAMAR PL T AVE T I 0 200 400 600 800 Scale: 1:22,500 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

Sheet Size : A4 Location Map

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 2b Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

Due to the history of clearing and land use within the site the Development Footprint is largely cleared of native vegetation and ecological features, however, a small area of native vegetation within the lower parts of the gully will require clearing to facilitate the expansion

Specifically, the proposed development will involve the following: • Increased processing capacity of up to 550,000 tonnes of recycled construction materials per year. • Importation of approximately 35, 280 m3 metres of virgin excavated natural material for site fill. • Site earthworks and grading to establish a level site, including construction of batters. • Decommission of one stormwater sediment basin and construction of two additional stormwater sediment basins. • Receiving, processing, recycling and storage of the following waste material, consistent with existing operations and EPA Licensing:

• virgin excavated natural material;

• building and demolition waste including roof tiles, clay bricks, concrete;

• asphalt waste (including asphalt resulting from road construction and waterproofing); and

• soil. • Modifications to the main site entry and exit and car parking area to provide additional car parking spaces. • Change site operating hours to the following:

• receiving and loading of trucks – 24hrs/7 days;

• crushing operations 5.00 am – 6.00 pm (Monday to Friday); and

• pug mill operations 3.00 am – 4.00 pm (Monday to Friday); • Oil, fuel and chemical storage facilities. • Flood compensation area, located to minimise impacts to existing native vegetation. • Vegetation and tree removal to facilitate the proposed works and replacement tree planting; and • Associated infrastructure and services works.

The operational Development Footprint will be increased slightly from the existing footprint to include the proposed addition of a filled and levelled area across the Canal Road gully, as indicated in Figure 3.

Page 6

307000 307200 307400 307600 307800

S 0 0

O 0

R 4

P 5 2 6

5 1

D d x m . 4 0 _ p o l e v e D l a i r e A _ 3 0 e r u g i F

_ W 3

I 2 D y

0 l E l 0 2

M 0

1 u 8 0 E G 3 3 R 5 2 6 E d 6 R R L 0 a

D S 4

\ o 4 0 S 3 I 7 R 2

G 5 l 7 8 c 6 a 3 r 0 P

A n 3 \ D P s a

e D

r C u g i 2 F PR

\ 5 O 8 7 SPEC g 3 0 3 T C

n 0 R i 3 6 E

t 0 E f P 1 0 K

a 2

r D 2

D 1 P 1 D 0 \ a t a D

R L S

6 0 \ R

A 5

B 5 1 7 C 0 R 2 1 S H ASSA 6 l LL i P c DP36 n ST D 8374 u o C

d l 0 e i 0 f r 6

i 2 3

a D P 5 F 6 2 2

0 6 3 75

2 5 0 2 1 . HASSA 0 LL ST 3 6 \ L T N -

0 LEGEND 3 6 \ L

T Site Boundary N v r S -

0 Cadastre (Lot Boundary) T 3

6 S

\ H ASSALL E S R T

L Development Footprint N

S O -

T s t S c

K e

j Rivers and Streams C o

r A

L P \

: B

H I 0 50 100 150 200 Scale: 1:3,500 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

Development Footprint Sheet Size : A4

www.slrconsulting.com PH: 02 4037 3200 FIGURE 3 Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

1.3 Scope and aims of this report

1.3.1 Project SEARs

The SEARs relating to Fairfield SRC (SSD 8184) were re-issued in May 2019. The biodiversity issues are summarised in Table 1, including the location where each item is addressed in the BAR. A copy of the revised SEARS is provided in Appendix A.

Table 1 Re-issued SEARs relating to biodiversity

SEARs Location in BAR Key Issues – Flora and Fauna Flora and Fauna – including: Chapter 5, • An assessment of the proposal under the Framework for Biodiversity Assessment (FBA) including Chapter 6 an assessment of any potential impacts on aquatic and riparian vegetation and groundwater dependent ecosystems. • An assessment of impacts to the Western Sydney Parklands in accordance with relevant Office of Environment and Heritage guidelines and proposed mitigation measures. OEH Requirement (SEARs letter attachment B) Biodiversity impacts related to the proposed development are to be assessed and documented in Chapter 5, accordance with Framework for Biodiversity Assessment, unless otherwise agreed by OEH, by a Chapter 6 person accredited in accordance with s142B(1) (c) of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 Attachment B – Project Specific Environmental Assessment Requirements Chapter 5, As the site is within 500 metres of the Western Sydney Parklands, the assessment of impacts must Chapter 6 address the matters to be considered outlined in the Guidelines for developing adjoining land and water managed by DECCW (DECCW 2010) and include: • The nature of impacts, including direct and indirect impacts • The extent of the direct and indirect impacts • The duration of the direct and indirect impacts • The objectives of the reservation land • Measures proposed to prevent, control, abate, minimise and manage the direct and indirect impacts including and evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of proposed measures • Residual impacts

1.3.2 Requirements of Biodiversity Assessment Reports

Tables 20 and 21 of the FBA set out the requirements for Stage 1 and Stage 2 of a biodiversity assessment report, respectively. These tables have been reproduced in Appendix B, with a reference column added to demonstrate where each item has been addressed in this BAR. Appendix B demonstrates that this BAR addresses the requirements (where relevant) of the FBA.

1.4 Information sources

The key information sources utilised in the assessment include: • The OEH BioNet Atlas for previous records of threatened species from the locality.

Page 8

• Protected Matters Search Tool located on the Department of the Environment website (DE 2014b) for matters of national environment significance (as listed under the EPBC Act) predicted to occur within the locality. • The OEH Threatened Species Profile Database, for detailed information on threatened species of relevance to the site and the locality. • GIS data on Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) regions and Mitchell Landscapes. • Biobanking Credit Calculator, for lists of predicted ecosystem credit species and species credit species and for the Project credit requirements. • Existing Environment Report Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre (SLR Consulting 2012). • OEH 2013a. The Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Area. Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. • OEH 2013b. Remnant Vegetation of the western Cumberland subregion. Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. • Fairfield City Council 2013. Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013. • Data collected during field surveys.

1.5 Methods summary

This BAR was prepared according to the steps and processes detailed in the FBA, with the key steps being: • Desktop review – database searches to identify listed threatened biota (species, populations and communities) of potential relevance to the Study Area, initial GIS mapping and survey design. • Field survey of the Study Area (see Appendix C for details). • GIS mapping and data compilation. • Using GIS and field survey results to complete the ‘landscape assessment’. • Identification of vegetation zones and use of FBA plot/transect data and GIS mapping to assess ‘site value’. • Applying the proposed Development Footprint in GIS to calculate vegetation removal. • Application of the Credit Calculator, including identification of candidate threatened species and impact credit calculations. • Preparation of the BAR and BOS.

Appendix C provides details of the field surveys, including methods, survey effort and weather conditions. The field surveys conducted as part of this BAR are as follows:

The purpose of the field surveys was to inspect the areas proposed for development and to collect the necessary floristic and habitat details for completion of the FBA assessment (including plot and transect data for site value score and targeted threatened species surveys). The survey design, including the location, number and set out of plot/transects, was completed according to Section 5 of the FBA.

Application of the BioBanking Credit Calculator was completed by Andrew Carty, Associate Ecologist, accredited under s.142B (1) (c) of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) (assessor #087).

Page 9

1.6 Definitions

Definitions used in this report are listed in Table 2.

Table 2 Common definitions used in the BAR

Term Definition Development Footprint The area of land that will be directly affected by construction and operation of the proposal, as shown in Figure 3. Development Site The proposed SRC expansion area and associated infrastructure and ancillary works, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Locality All land within 10 kilometres (km) of the Development Site. Study Area Area of land containing the Development Site and surrounding land that was subject to field surveys and desktop review. Threatened Biota Any threatened species, population or ecological community listed under the schedules of the BC Act. Also threatened species and ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act.

Page 10

2 LANDSCAPE FEATURES

This chapter describes the landscape features of the Study Area and surrounds, in accordance with Section 4 of the FBA.

2.1 Overview

Relevant landscape features pertaining to the Study Area have been identified according to Chapter 4 of the FBA, including: • IBRA regions and subregions; • Mitchell landscapes; • Native vegetation extent and any ‘cleared areas’ (noting any differences between mapped vegetation and aerial imagery); • Rivers and streams; and • Wetlands.

Relevant landscape features within the inner and outer assessment circles are displayed in the Site Map (Figure 1) and Location Map (Figure 2), as per Section 4 of the FBA.

2.2 IBRA bioregions and subregions

The Study Area lies in the Sydney Basin bioregion. The Sydney Basin bioregion is adjacent to NSW North Coast in the north, South East Corner bioregion in the south and the South Eastern Highlands bioregion in the west (OEH 2017a). The Sydney Basin bioregion lies on the east coast of NSW and covers an area approximately 4.5 % of the total area of NSW. The Sydney Basin Bioregion extends from just north of Batemans Bay in the south to Nelson Bay in the north and as far west as Mudgee. Within its boundaries lie the towns of Wollongong, Nowra, Newcastle, Cessnock, Muswellbrook and Blue Mountains towns such as Katoomba and Mt Victoria, as well as the city of Sydney (OEH 2017a).

The Study Area lies within Cumberland IBRA subregion, which OEH describes as “being characterised by low rolling hills and wide valleys in a rain shadow area below the Blue Mountains”. The geology of the subregion is described by OEH as “Triassic Wianamatta groups shales and sandstones. A downwarped block on the coastal side of the Lapstone monocline. Intruded by a small number of volcanic vents and partly covered by Tertiary river gravels and sands. Quaternary alluvium along the mains streams” (OEH, 2017b).

OEH (2017b) describes soils in the subregion as being “mainly red and yellow texture becoming harsher and sometimes affected by salt in tributary valley floors Pedal uniform red to brown clays on volcanics. Poor uniform stony soils, often with texture contrast profiles on older gravels, high quality loams on modern floodplain alluvium” (OEH, 2017b).

The Cumberland subregion vegetation comprises “Grey box, forest red gum, narrow-leaved ironbark woodland with some spotted gum on the shale hills. Hard-leaved scribbly gum, rough-barked apple and old man banksia on alluvial sands and gravels. Broad-leaved apple, cabbage gum and forest red gum with abundant swamp oak on river flats. Tall spike rush, and juncus with Parramatta red gum in lagoons and swamps” (OEH, 2017b).

Page 11

2.3 Mitchell landscapes

There are two Mitchell landscapes mapped within the Study Area comprising the Georges River Alluvial Plain including lower elevated floodplain areas around Prospect Creek with alluvial soils and the Cumberland Plain landscape which includes higher elevated area on shale-derived soils (see Figure 1). The Mitchell landscapes in the Study Area are summarised below in Table 3.

Table 3 Mitchell landscapes mapped within the site

Mitchell Landscape % Cleared Value Area within Site (ha) Cumberland Plain 89 24.2 Georges River Alluvial Plain 93 5.7

2.4 Soils

NSW Soil and Land Information Systems Soil Profile Report describes the soils at the site as strong, light to dark brown clays with little to no recorded mottles. The consistency of the soil is slightly sticky and moderately weak as the soil crumbled under pressure. The soils recorded a pH between 6.0 and 7.0 (NSWSLIS, 2017). The Study Area has been mapped by Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) as Australian Soil Classification (ASC) type Kurosol, Kurosol (natric) and Hydrosol. Kurosols are soils that have a strong texture contrast between the topsoil and subsoil horizons, contain strongly acidic subsoil and have moderate to moderately low inherent fertility.

2.5 Native vegetation extent

The extent of native vegetation within the outer assessment circle was calculated using the Sydney Metro vegetation mapping (OEH 2013a), Cumberland Plain mapping (OEH 2013b) and aerial photograph interpretation. Native vegetation extent within the outer assessment circle is mapped in terms of formations (after Keith 2004) using OEH (2013a) data in Figure 2, with mapped area listed in Table 4.

Table 4 Native vegetation extent (by formation) within outer (1,000 ha) circle

Native Vegetation Extent Native Vegetation Extent (ha) (Formation#) Castlereagh Shale-Gravel 5 Transition Forest Coastal Freshwater 1 Wetland Cumberland River-flat 18 Forest Cumberland Shale Plains 19 Woodland Cumberland Swamp Oak 37 Riparian Forest Total Native Vegetation 80 # Vegetation formations are as per definitions of Keith (2004) and as mapped by OEH (2013a).

Page 12

2.6 Topography

The topography of the SRC is generally flat, with notable exceptions being the gully of Canal Road and a steep embankment that runs parallel to parts of Prospect Creek within the site. There are some gentle slopes with south facing aspects towards the southern boundary which have (apparently) been modified due to previous industrial activities. The highest point of the site, which is located within the SRC area of industrial works, is approximately 49 m. The elevation of the Development Site varies between approximately 35 m and 40 m.

2.7 Rivers and streams

There are no significant waterbodies on the Development Site. Prospect Creek, a second order stream, is the only significant waterbody within the Study Area. Prospect Creek and associated riparian vegetation extends from the south eastern corner of Prospect Reservoir and traverses the northern boundary of the study area providing a link between the Study Area and the vegetation around Prospect Reservoir. Prospect Reservoir is a major waterbody that is located approximately two km to the northwest of the Development Site. The reservoir is responsible for supplying the Sydney region with clean drinking water.

2.8 Wetlands and estuarine areas

There are several small wetlands within the Study Area outside of the proposal footprint. These wetland areas are associated with the floodplain of Prospect Creek. Larger wetlands in the locality include Prospect Reservoir to the west upstream of the Study Area and Lake Moore to the south east of the Study Area. Downstream of the site Prospect Creek drains to the estuarine wetland habitats associated with the Georges River.

2.9 Biodiversity corridors and links

The site is predominantly cleared and disturbed due to a history of agriculture and other development, and therefore habitat connectivity is limited to riparian habitats along Prospect Creek, with only small, isolated pockets of remnant native vegetation or areas of planted vegetation in other sections of the Study Area.

Riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek has been identified as a regional corridor (OEH 2015). Vegetation in this area is generally dominated by Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca including occasional scattered eucalypt species which is generally without native understorey or ground layer vegetation as a result of previous disturbance. This corridor is likely to assist movements of highly mobile species such as birds, flying mammals and macropods, as well as other smaller fauna species particularly aquatic species associated with Prospect Creek. Scattered remnant and planted trees throughout the site could also assist fauna movement for birds and bats.

There are no State or regional biodiversity corridors or links mapped within or adjacent to the Study Area.

2.10 Landscape value

In relation to a site based development, landscape attributes to be assessed are native vegetation cover, vegetation connectivity and patch size. These attributes are discussed below.

Page 13

2.10.1 Native woody vegetation cover

The percentage of native vegetation cover within the outer assessment circle is in 6-10 % class and within the inner assessment circle it is within the 11-15 % class. Considering the proposal will not require substantial clearing of habitat, there will be no change to the percentage of native cover classes within the outer and inner assessment circles before and after the proposed development. Consequently, percentage native vegetation cover score in the Credit Calculator is 0.

2.10.2 Connectivity

Connectivity score was calculated according to the FBA. Impacts to connectivity will be largely avoided by the proposal, with potential impacts limited to areas of riparian forest in a highly disturbed condition. The proposed construction will avoid impacts to native vegetation in the riparian buffer within 20 metres of Prospect Creek, which is a second order stream. Therefore, there are no impacts to a State or regional biodiversity corridor or link and a site-based assessment of connectivity is required as outlined below.

The broadest connecting link from the site is to the east comprising riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek connecting to habitats downstream of the Study Area. This connecting link is approximately 50 metres wide, which falls within the greater than 30-100 metres category in the BioBanking Credit Calculator. This connecting link or any other connecting links will not be impacted by the proposal and so the same category has been assigned before and after the development. Therefore, a connectivity value of 0 is assigned in the Credit Calculator.

2.10.3 Patch size

Patch size is an area of native vegetation that occurs on the development site that is in moderate to good condition and extends to include adjacent areas of moderate to good condition native vegetation that are separated by gaps of less than 100 m (or ≤30 m for non-woody ecosystems). Patch size may extend onto adjoining land that is not part of the development site.

For the Fairfield SRC, patch size was calculated using GIS as 60 ha, which generates a patch size score of 9.

2.10.4 Landscape value score

In accordance with Section 4.2 of the FBA, the proposed development has a landscape score of 9 in the BioBanking Credit Calculator. This has been calculated based on the native vegetation cover before and after the development, connectivity value and patch size.

Page 14

3 STUDY AREA

This chapter provides an overview of the key environmental features of the Study Area and Development Site.

Most of the Study Area has been historically cleared and used for landfill and more recently resource recovery. Consequently, much of the site supports modified largely bare soils and areas dominated by environmental weeds. The main part of the Development Footprint involves the filling and levelling of the existing Canal Road gully. The gully, which is (evidently) artificially formed by filling and earthworks on the surrounding land, forms a small intermittent tributary of Prospect Creek. The gully supports riparian vegetation that is dense and highly weed infested, with a small stand of emergent Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca (see Photo 1).

Photo 1 View of Canal Road Gully

Patches of remnant native vegetation, including forest and wetland areas, are limited to the floodplain adjoining Prospect Creek (Photo 2) and a minor drainage line on the southern boundary of the site. There are also extensive areas of rehabilitated habitat on the Prospect Creek floodplain. Native understorey and groundcovers are largely absent throughout much of these areas of native vegetation. Environmental weed species are widespread across the Study Area, with dense infestations in some places. There are also planted areas surrounding the site boundary and in the centre of the site comprising planted trees and shrubs, including a mix of non-local and local native species.

Page 15

Photo 2 Riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek

The area proposed for the northern sediment basin (referred to as basin No.5) is located on a flat area of disturbed ground in the northern parts of the Development Site. The area contains a ground layer of exotic grasses (mainly Kikuyu and Buffalo Grass) with bare soils and disturbed ground.

No fauna habitats or resources of importance are present in this area. The vegetation present does not constitute a patch of native vegetation and so has not been included as a vegetation zone. Additionally, the area does not represent potential habitat for any threatened species. Accordingly, the area proposed for the stormwater basin does not require further assessment, in accordance with Section 9.5 of the FBA.

A selection of site photos is provided in Appendix J.

Page 16

4 NATIVE VEGETATION

This chapter describes the vegetation of the Study Area, in terms of class, PCT and vegetation zones, as well as threatened ecological communities, in accordance with the FBA.

4.1 Native plant species

A total of 120 plant species have been recorded within the Development Site, including 38 native species, nine non-indigenous native species and 73 species are exotic species (see flora species list at Appendix D). Six of the exotic flora species recorded are also listed as Weeds of National Significance under the Biosecurity Act 2015.

4.2 Regional vegetation mapping

Regional vegetation mapping data sets that cover the site include mapping of the Cumberland Plain by NPWS (2002) and mapping of the Sydney Metropolitan catchment area by OEH (2013a). The more recent mapping by OEH (2013a) was used as a starting point for compiling a site vegetation map for the current assessment.

The OEH (2013a) vegetation mapping identifies ‘Cumberland Swamp Oak Riparian Forest’, ‘Cumberland River- flat Forest’ and ‘Coastal Freshwater Wetland’ along Prospect Creek (Figure 4). These areas have been identified as being consistent with the endangered ecological community (EEC) known as River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (River- flat Forest EEC), which is listed under Schedule 2 (Part 2) of the BC Act. The OEH (2013a) vegetation mapping also includes Urban Native and Exotic Cover in several locations.

There are two main forms of River-flat Forest EEC mapped in the Cumberland Plains area, being ‘Riparian Forest’ and ‘Alluvial Woodland’ (NPWS 2002). The vegetation on the Development Site has been identified as Alluvial Woodland and is described as occurring along watercourses adjacent to riparian forest. This community includes species such as Forest Red Gum Eucalyptus tereticornis, Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca, Cabbage Gum E. amplifolia and Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda (NPWS 2002).

The (OEH 2013a) vegetation mapping shows that the Cumberland Swamp Oak Riparian Forest and Cumberland River-flat Forest occur along Prospect Creek at the northern boundary of the Development Site. These native vegetation communities are not mapped as occurring within the Development Footprint. Vegetated areas within the Development Footprint are mapped as “Urban Native and Exotic Cover” as shown in Figure 4.

4.3 Previous SLR mapping

Due to inaccuracies between maps in the Fairfield Draft Local Environmental Plan 2011 and aerial photography, the SLR (2012) study provided detailed mapping of the ecological and riparian features on the site. The SLR (2012) vegetation mapping was used as a reference map for the current investigation, in combination with more recent regional mapping of the Sydney Metro catchment by OEH (2013a), noting that the subject site for the previous SLR assessment did not cover the full extent of the current Development Site and Study Area.

Page 17

307000 307500 308000

TARL INGTO N PL

G IP P S R D 0 0 0 4 5 2 d 6 x DA m VIS RD . 4 0 _ C p a M g e V g e R _ 4 0 e r u g i F _ 3

2 W 0 I D 2

E 1

M 0

E 3 R 6 E

R R L D S \ S I G c r A \ s e r u g i F \ g n i t f a r D

1 0 \ a t a D

R L S

6 0 \ R A B

C R S

i T

S c

n R

u E

T o L

A C HASS ALL S W T d l e i f T r i S

N F

E 3 F 2 D

0 E

2 R 0 1 0 . 5 0 3 3 5

6 LEGEND 2 \ 6 L T N

T -

S 0 Site Boundary Vegetation Type* Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland E 3

N 6 \ O

L T

S T Development Footprint Artificial Wetlands Cumberland Swamp Oak Riparian Forest K N C v A r

S B -

0 100ha Inner Assessment Circle Castlereagh Shale-Gravel Transition Forest Plantations 3 6 \ R

L Coastal Freshwater Wetland Urban Native and Exotic Cover ( not labelled on map ) S - s t c e j Cumberland Riverflat Forest Weeds and Exotics LENNOX PL o r P \ :

H I 0 50 100 150 200 Scale: 1:5,000 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

*Source: Sydney Metro, OEH (2013) Regional vegetation mapping Sheet Size : A4 of the Development Site

www.slrconsulting.com PH: 02 4037 3200 FIGURE 4 Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

4.4 Vegetation classes

The native vegetation PCTs mapped across the site comprise ‘Coastal Floodplain Wetlands’ and ‘Coastal Freshwater Lagoons’ as described in the following sections.

4.4.1 Coastal Floodplain Wetlands

One PCT mapped across the site is identified as a coastal floodplain wetland comprising PCT 835 ‘Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion’.

This vegetation class occurs on coastal floodplains with fertile alluvial soil that are periodically inundated. Levees and elevated river flats (up to 250 m above sea level) support predominantly eucalypt forests, but these give way to casuarina forests on more frequently inundated low-lying flats, particularly where soils are sub-saline. Coastal Floodplain Wetlands include a mosaic of open forests 20-40 m tall with an open graminoid understorey and closed sedge land.

On levees and elevated terraces, the canopy includes Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda, Broad-leaved Apple A. subvelutina, Cabbage Gum Eucalyptus amplifolia and Forest Red Gum E. tereticornis. Lower elevated flats are commonly dominated by Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca. Small trees and shrubs include Flax-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca linariifolia, Prickly-leaved Tea Tree M. styphelioides and Cheese Tree Glochidion ferdinandi. Understorey species include climbers such as Common Silkpod Parsonsia straminea, and grasses and sedges such as Tall Sedge Carex appressa, Couch Cynodon dactylon, Juncus usitatus and Common Reed Phragmites australis.

4.4.2 Coastal Freshwater Lagoons

One PCT mapped across the site is identified as a coastal freshwater lagoon comprising PCT 781 ‘Coastal freshwater lagoons of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion’. This vegetation class occurs in depressions in coastal sand sheets and floodplains with free-standing water, consisting of a mosaic of sedge land, aquatic herb-fields and open water. Dominant species vary depending on the depth, frequency and duration of inundation. Common species in floodplain areas include Eleocharis sphacelata, Jointed twig-rush Baumea articulata (syn Machaerina articulata), Swamp Millet Isachne globosa, Liparophyllum exaltatum, Water Primrose Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis and Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica.

4.5 Site vegetation mapping

4.5.1 Overview

Native vegetation, where present, recorded on the site includes is generally in low condition, with bare soil and/or exotic (non-native and/or weed) flora species. The following PCTs have been identified within the Development Site based on the results of the field survey: • Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion (PCT 835); and • Coastal freshwater lagoons of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion (PCT 781). The distribution of these plant community types within the Development Site is shown in Figure 5 and their mapped area, class and formation are listed in Table 5.

Page 19

307000 307500 308000

T A 1 R L IN G 2 T O N PL

W L H P G T 1 W I T ay P

C P

E S

P R S 2 D

P 0 0

GIP 0 PS R 4 D 5 d 2 x 6 m . RD 5 DAVIS 0 _ p a M m o 1 C g e V _ 2 5 0 e r u g i F W _

3 I D 2

0 E

2 M 1 E 0 R 3 2

6 E

R R L D S \ S I G c r A \ 1 s e r u g i F \ g

n PRO i S t PE f CT a C r 2 R D E EK 1 0 \ a t a D 2 R L S

T S 6 L 0

\ L A R S HAS A S S A ALL ST B

H C R S

l i c n u o C

d H l ASSALL e ST i f T r T i

a S F R

N E 3

R T 2

L E 0 A F 2

D 1 W . E 0 0

R 3 LEGEND 0 5 6 \ 3 L 5 2 T 6 N H - Site Boundary Plant Community Types (PCTs)* Strahler Stream Order A 0 SS T 3 A

6 L S \ L L Coastal freshwater lagoons of the Sydney Basin Bioregion E S 2 T Development Footprint 1 N T N O v T r and South East Corner Bioregion (781)

S S

- 2 Cadastre (Lot Boundary) K 0

C 3

A 6 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland D \

L R R 3 B L on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion (835) S

S P

- P

s T I t S c N 4 G e j ER Planted Eucalypts o F r D LENNOX P P L

\ E : D R GIPPS R 1 H I 0 50 100 150 200 Scale: 1:5,000 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

*As mapped by SLR (based on field verification) Plant community types mapped Sheet Size : A4 within the Development Site

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 5 Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

Table 5 Plant community types recorded and mapped within the Development Site

PCT Code 55 PCT name Formation Class Area (ha) 59 (N/A) Planted Eucalypts Non-Native Non-Native 1.7 835 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple Forested Wetlands Coastal Floodplain 6.2 grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Wetlands Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion 781 Coastal freshwater lagoons of the Sydney Freshwater Wetlands Coastal Freshwater 0.5 Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Lagoons Bioregion Total 8.4

4.5.2 Plant community type descriptions

Detailed descriptions for both PCT 835 and PCT 781 are provided in Table 6 and Table 7.

Table 6 Plant community type 835

Feature Description Name Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion Location This vegetation type occurs on lower elevated floodplain areas surrounding Prospect Creek along the northern boundary of the Development Site, including a degraded (low condition) patch within the Development Site (Canal Road Gully) and a small drainage line on the southern boundary of the site. Formation Forested Wetlands Class Coastal Floodplain Wetlands Area 6.2 hectares in Development Site Structure • Coastal Floodplain Wetlands/Forested Wetlands • A mosaic of open forest, woodland and small areas of wetland along drainage lines and deeper depressions. • Higher-elevated portions of the understorey are generally dominated by exotic grasses and forbs; however, a low diversity and cover of native species may be present in some areas. • Lower elevated understorey areas supporting wetland vegetation are generally dominated by native reeds, grasses and sedges. • Includes a mix of areas with mature eucalypts, plantings and regenerating Swamp Oak. • The suite of species varies according to factors including the extent and duration of flooding, disturbance history and rehabilitation efforts. • Trees: from 10 to 25 m. FPC 0 to 50%. • Groundcover: 0.1 to 1 m. FPC up to 0-100%.

Page 21

Feature Description Floristics • Trees: Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca, Cabbage Gum Eucalyptus amplifolia, Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda and Forest Red Gum E. tereticornis. • Shrubs and small Trees: Flax-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca linariifolia, Prickly-leaved Tea Tree M. styphelioides, Parramatta Wattle Acacia parramattensis and Black Wattle A. decurrens. • Vines and Groundcovers: Tall Sedge Carex appressa, Spiny-headed Mat Rush Lomandra longifolia and Couch Cynodon dactylon. Threatened River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and status South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered, BC Act).

Table 7 Plant community type 781

Feature Description Name Coastal freshwater lagoons of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion Location This vegetation type occurs as discreet patches on lower elevated floodplain areas surrounding Prospect Creek along the northern boundary of the study area. Area 0.2 within Development Site Formation Freshwater Wetlands Class Coastal Freshwater Lagoons Structure • Occurs in depressions and drainage lines with free-standing water as a mosaic of sedge land, aquatic herb fields and open water. • Higher elevated areas of this community support a low cover of canopy and shrub species particularly on the edges. • A high abundance of exotic grasses and herbs generally adjoin patches of this community. • The suite of species varies according to factors including the disturbance history and elevation. • Trees: to 10 m. FPC 0 to 5-10% • Groundcover: 0.1 to 2 m. FPC up to 0-100%. Floristics • Trees: Swamp Oak Casuarina glauca and Flax-leaved Paperbark Melaleuca linariifolia. • Vines and Groundcovers: Common Reed Phragmites australis, Broadleaf Cumbungi Typha orientalis, Water Plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica, Slender Knotweed Persicaria decipiens, Tall Sedge Carex appressa, Couch Cynodon dactylon and Juncus usitatus. Threatened Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and status South East Corner Bioregions (Endangered, BC Act).

4.5.3 Differences of site vegetation mapping to regional mapping

The main differences between the site-specific vegetation mapping and the regional mapping layer include the following: • Some areas of freshwater wetland have not been delineated from the areas of riparian forest which form a mosaic along Prospect Creek. OEH (2013b) identifies patches of freshwater wetland along Prospect Creek within the site and surrounding areas.

Page 22

• Two small patches of vegetation mapped on the southern boundary of the site as Urban Native and Exotic Cover in Figure 4 support locally indigenous tree species such as Rough-barked Apple Angophora floribunda and Parramatta Wattle Acacia parramattensis on a small floodplain area associated with a drainage line. Accordingly, these patches are mapped as Forest Red Gum-Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland (PCT 835) in Figure 5. • A small patch in the northwest corner of the site mapped by OEH (2013a) as Weeds and Exotics (see Figure 4) has been reclassified as Coastal freshwater lagoons (PCT 781) (see Figure 5). • Patches of vegetation identified as Urban Native and Exotic Cover by OEH (2013a) within in the Development Site (see Figure 4), have been classified as Planted Eucalypts, owing to the presence of a stand of Swamp Oak and some wetland species in the understorey it has been classified as riparian forest. • Areas of planted vegetation surrounding the Study Area have been mapped as Urban Native and Exotic Cover by OEH (2013a), which has been expanded to include the entire area and classified as Planted Eucalypts (Figure 5).

4.6 Vegetation zones

According to the FBA (OEH 2014a), vegetation zones are areas of vegetation of the same type (i.e. same PCT) and same condition class. Vegetation zones are categorised into either ‘low’ or ‘moderate to good’ condition. To qualify as low condition the native vegetation (being woody vegetation) within a vegetation zone must have: • a value for ‘over-storey’ (i.e. canopy) foliage projective cover of less than 25% of the lower benchmark value for that PCT; and • a groundcover which either comprises less than 50% indigenous (or native) species or is over 90% cleared.

The two plant community types mapped within the study area are in a similar ecological condition across their extent in the study area and therefore two vegetation zones based on these PCTs have been identified as follows: • Vegetation Zone 1 - River-flat Eucalypt Forest (moderate to good condition) - two FBA plot/transects were completed in this zone: one in the Canal Road Gully and another on the southern boundary (see Figure 6). • Vegetation Zone 2 - Freshwater Wetland (moderate to good condition) – this vegetation zone is outside of the proposed development footprint and no clearing of this vegetation zone is required; accordingly, no FBA plots were completed in this community.

The distribution of vegetation zones and FBA plot locations is shown in Figure 6 . The vegetation zones and their mapped extent within the Study Area are listed in Table 8.

Table 8 Vegetation zones mapped within the Study Area

PCT Code Zone Vegetation Zone Condition Impact Area (ha) 835 1 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple Moderate/good-poor 0.22 grassy woodland (River-flat Forest EEC) 781 2 Coastal freshwater lagoons (Freshwater Moderate/good 0 Wetlands EEC)

Page 23

PROSPECT CREEK

P ROSP ECT C REEK

0 4 4 0 3 7 5 6 2 P 7 8 D 3 0 3 P d

x D m . 3 0 _ t o l P e

n 2 o 5 8 Z 3 0 g

e 3 7

V P 3

_ D 0 6 6 0 0

0 1 2 e

r 2

u 1 g

i P ) F " D

_ 3 2 1i 0 2 1 0 3 6 R L S \ S I G c r A \ s e r u g i F \ g n i t f 5 a

r 5

D 1 7 0 1

0 2 \ 6 a t P a D D

R L S

6 0 \ R A B

C R S

l i c

n 2

u D o P62 C 0 75

d 5 l i 2 e i

f ") r i a F

3 2 0 2 1 . HASS 0 LEGEND ALL ST 3 6 \ L T

N Site Boundary Vegetation Zones (Impact) - 0 3 6 \

L Development Footprint Zone 1 - Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple (Mod/good-poor) (Impact) T N v r

S Cadastre (Lot Boundary) Zone 2 - Coastal freshwater lagoons (Mod/good) (No impact) - 0 3 6 \ Impact Areas R

L i S - FBA plot / transect s t

c )" e j o r P \ :

H I 0 15 30 45 60 Scale: 1:2,000 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

Vegetation Zones Sheet Size : A4 within the Development Footprint

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 6 Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

Plots were established in each of these vegetation zones in accordance with the FBA. Based on their size and condition, one plot/transect was established in each zone (see Figure 6). Details of the methods applied to the plot/transects survey are provided in Appendix C. The plot/transect data recorded in each zone is summarised in Appendix E, and a flora species list, with cover/abundance scores for each plant species, is provided in Appendix D. A copy of the vegetation zones report from the Credit Calculator, showing the minimum number of plots required in each zone, is provided in Appendix G.

It is noted the vegetation zone for Coastal freshwater lagoons (PCT 781, or ‘Freshwater Wetland’, moderate to good condition) is outside of the Development Site (Figure 6), but has been included in the assessment due to potential indirect impacts and potential requirement for biodiversity offsets. Hence, all figures in the BAR show this zone.

4.7 Threatened ecological communities

According to the OEH BioNet Atlas database (10 km radius search), several threatened ecological communities (TECs), as listed under the BC Act (and/or EPBC Act) have previously been recorded in the locality (see Table 9).

Table 9 Threatened ecological communities recorded within 10 km

Community Name BC Act Status EPBC Act Status Agnes Banks Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Endangered Blue Gum High Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Blue Mountains Shale Cap Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered Critically Endangered Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Vulnerable Endangered Castlereagh Swamp Woodland Community Endangered Not listed Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered Critically Endangered Cumberland Plain Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Not listed Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales Endangered Not listed North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Moist Shale Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered Critically Endangered River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Endangered Not listed Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Shale Gravel Transition Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered Critically Endangered Shale Sandstone Transition Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Southern Sydney sheltered forest on transitional sandstone soils in the Endangered Not listed Sydney Basin Bioregion Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast, Endangered Not listed Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Endangered Not listed Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Sydney Turpentine-Ironbark Forest Endangered Critically Endangered Western Sydney Dry Rainforest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered Critically Endangered

Page 25

Two of these threatened ecological communities have been recorded and mapped within the Development Site: • River-Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (‘River-flat Forest EEC’). The patches of Forest Red Gum – Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland (PCT 835) mapped within the site are representative of River-flat Forest EEC; and • Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions (‘Freshwater Wetlands EEC’). The patches of Coastal freshwater lagoons (PCT 781) mapped within the site are representative of Freshwater Wetlands EEC.

The extent, condition and composition of these threatened ecological communities within the site are described in Section 4.5 and their distribution within the site displayed on Figure 7.

Page 26

307000 307200 307400 307600 307800

Y W H T C E P S 0

O 0

R 0 4

P 5 2 6

5 1

P d

x D m . 3 0 _ m m o C o c E d e n e t a e r h T W _

7 I D 0

e E r M u

g E i R F

E _ 3 R 2

D 0 0 2 0 1 8 0 3 3 5 2 6 6 R

L 0

S 4 \ 4 0 S 3 I 7 2

G 5 7 8

c 6 3

r 0 P

A 3 \ D P s

e D r u g i 2 F \ 5 8 7 g 3 0 3 PROS n 0 P i 3 6 EC t 0 T f P 1 0 CR a 2 E r D 2 EK D

1 P 0

\ D a t a D

R L S

6 0 \ R

A 5

B 5 1 7 C 0 R 2 1 S T

S 6

l LL i HASSA P c DP36 n D 8374 u o C

d l 0 e i 0 f r 6

i 2 3

a D P 5 F 6 2 2

0 6 3 75

2 5 0 2 1 . HAS 0 SALL S

3 T 6 \ L T N - 0 3 6 \ L

T LEGEND N v r S -

0 Site Boundary Freshwater Wetland EEC 3 H 6 AS \ SA LL R T S L Development Footprint River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC S T

S E - N

s O t T c S e j Cadastre (Lot Boundary) K o C r A P

\ L : B H I 0 20 40 60 80 Scale: 1:3,500 11-Aug-2020 m GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56 630.12023

Threatened Ecological Sheet Size : A4 Communities

www.slrconsultingaustralia.com.au PH: 61 2 4037 3200 FIGURE 7 Fairfield City Council SLR Ref No: 630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR-20200812.docx Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre August 2020 Widemere Road, Wetherill Park SSD-8184 Proposed Expansion Project Biodiversity Assessment Report

5 THREATENED SPECIES

This chapter describes the threatened species predicted to occur within the study area, based on the field survey results, the outputs of desktop assessment and the outputs of the Biobanking Credit Calculator, in accordance with Section 6 of the FBA.

5.1 Overview

Several sources of information have been employed to create a list of candidate threatened species and populations relevant to the study area. The Credit Calculator outputs of ecosystem credit species and species credit species are used as the main basis of this BAR.

The SEARs for this project do not identify any specific threatened species requiring further consideration; instead it is instructed that the relevant legislation for biodiversity conservation in NSW is incorporated into the assessment. In order to comply with this, the NSW Wildlife Atlas 10 km search tool has been used to address additional biodiversity factors in accordance with the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) (in addition to the outputs of the BioBanking Credit Calculator).

Overall, an assemblage of 30 threatened species or populations are deemed as potential relevance to the study area. This assemblage consists of nine plants, 10 birds, nine mammals, one amphibian and one invertebrate species. Additionally, 18 TECs have been identified as potentially occurring (see Section 4.7).

The habitat requirements and ecology of the potential threatened species and relevant habitat attributes within the study area are described in the likelihood of occurrence table presented in Appendix F of this report. The likelihood of occurrence rating is based on the results of field surveys, and particularly on the extent, nature and condition of habitat types and habitat features within the study area.

Of the 30 threatened biota relevant to the site at Fairfield, none were recorded within the Study Area or Development Footprint during the current field surveys; however previous surveys (SLR 2012, 2017) identified the Grey-headed Flying-fox and a microbat species in habitats on Prospect Creek (see Photo 3).

The following sections describe ecosystem credit species and species credit species separately, in accordance with Chapter 6 of the FBA.

5.2 Fauna survey results

A total of 28 fauna species were opportunistically recorded during the diurnal surveys of the site (see Appendix C). Of the 28 fauna species recorded, four are introduced species. The remaining 24 native species include 20 birds, two mammals, one frog and one reptile.

Page 28

Photo 3 Roosting Grey-headed Flying-fox

5.3 Ecosystem credit species

5.3.1 Generated by credit calculator

A total of five ecosystem credit species have been predicted to occur within the study area according to the Credit Calculator (Table 10). The Credit Calculator report listing ecosystem credit threatened species that are predicted to occur within the vegetation zones mapped within the site is provided in Appendix G.

Table 10 Ecosystem credit species

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Australian Painted Snipe Endangered Low No No habitat within the construction footprint. Rostratula australis Potential habitat on site within wetland areas surrounding Prospect Creek. Black-tailed Godwit Vulnerable None No No habitat within the construction footprint. Limosa limosa Marginal habitat on site within wetland areas surrounding Prospect Creek.

Page 29

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Freckled Duck Vulnerable Low No No habitat within the construction footprint. Stictonetta naevosa Marginal habitat on site within wetland areas surrounding Prospect Creek. Little Lorikeet Vulnerable Moderate No Possible foraging habitat in vegetation patches on Glossopsitta pusilla site, flowering eucalypts available on site. Large home ranges. Records within 10km of site Swift Parrot Endangered Low No Possible foraging habitat in woodland patches on Lathamus discolour site, flowering eucalypts available on site. Breeds in Tasmania.

5.3.2 BioNet atlas

A range of other ecosystem credit threatened species has been identified in the 10 km search results from the NSW Wildlife Atlas. Although not identified as ‘predicted threatened species’ in the Credit Calculator, these species were targeted during surveys conducted in August 2017.

The relevance of each species to the proposal is based on their individual habitat requirements, which are provided in the Likelihood of Occurrence table in Appendix F of this report. The process of assessing habitat for such species was undertaken in accordance with the steps of identification in Section 6.3 of the FBA. Species considered to have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence on site have been identified in Table 11 and the full list of the 10 km search results from the NSW Wildlife Atlas is provided in Appendix F.

Table 11 Additional ecosystem credit species generated by BioNet atlas

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Dusky Woodswallow Vulnerable Moderate No The species is an aerial forager and prefers Artamus cyanopterus woodland habitats. Associated with riparian cyanopterus forests in the study area and previously recorded locally surrounding the site. Eastern False Pipistrelle Vulnerable Moderate No Occurs in tall, mature, wet forests with hollow- Falsistrellus tasmaniensis bearing trees. Hibernates in winter. Associated with riparian forests in the study area and previously recorded within 10 km of the site. Eastern Bentwing-bat Vulnerable Moderate No Tall open forests, favours areas with caves or other Miniopterus schreibersii shelters. Caves are the primary roosting habitat. oceanensis Associated with riparian forest recorded within 10 km of the site. Eastern Freetail-bat Vulnerable Moderate No Occur in dry sclerophyll forest, woodland, swamp Mormopterus norfolkensis forests and mangrove forests. Roost mainly in tree hollows but will also roost under bark or in man- made structures. Associated with riparian forest recorded within 10 km of the site. Southern Myotis Vulnerable Moderate No Open forests with mature hollow-bearing trees, Myotis macropus usually close to water courses. Associated with riparian forest recorded within 10 km of the site.

Page 30

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Grey-headed Flying-fox Vulnerable High Yes Rainforests, open forests, closed and open Pteropus poliocephalus woodlands, melaleuca swamps and banksia woodlands. Feed on the nectar and pollen of native trees. Associated with riparian forest and a roost camp was observed in riparian vegetation along Prospect Creek. Greater Broad-nosed Bat Vulnerable Moderate No Rainforest, dry and wet sclerophyll forest and Scoteanax rueppellii eucalypt woodland. Forages after sunset. Associated with riparian forest recorded within 10 km of the site.

5.3.3 Predicted ecosystem credit species

The relevant steps of Section 6.2 and 6.3 of the FBA have been used to identify the ecosystem credit species present on the site, or which have a high likelihood of occurrence on the site. The likelihood of occurrence has been identified for all the potential ecosystem credit species by conducting habitat and vegetation type assessments across the site. The results for this are provided in the comprehensive likelihood of occurrence table in Appendix F. Furthermore, detailed ecological surveys for species with moderate or high likelihood of occurrence were undertaken on the site in August 2017.

A total of eight threatened species, including two birds and six mammals (of which five are microchiropteran bats), which attract ecosystem credits, have been predicted to occur within the site in the Credit Calculator. Of these, none were recorded during diurnal field surveys, however micro-bat species and a flying-fox roost camp have been observed in the study area in habitats on Prospect Creek.

5.4 Species credit species

5.4.1 Candidate species generated by credit calculator

A total of 18 candidate ‘species credit species’ have been determined relevant to the study area according to the Credit Calculator (Table 12). This prediction is based, inter alia, on previous records (as contained in the Wildlife Atlas database) and the ‘Geographic/Habitat Features’ identified in the Credit Calculator.

Table 12 Species credit species

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Austral Pilwort Endangered Low No Grows in shallow swamps and waterways, often Pilularia novae-hollandiae among grasses and sedges. Associated with the vegetation on site. One record within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Australasian Bittern Endangered Low No No habitat in the impact area. Better habitat in Botaurus poiciloptilus the wetlands along Prospect Creek. Black Bittern Vulnerable Low No No habitat in the impact area. Better habitat in Ixobrychus flavicollis the wetlands along Prospect Creek.

Page 31

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Brown Pomaderris Endangered Low No The highly disturbed areas within the Pomaderris brunnea construction footprint are unlikely to be suitable for this species. Marginally better-quality habitats are present in riparian forest surrounding Prospect Creek. Not recorded within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Camden White Gum Vulnerable Low No The highly disturbed areas within the Eucalyptus benthamii construction footprint are unlikely to be suitable for this species. Marginally better-quality habitats are present in riparian forest surrounding Prospect Creek. Not recorded within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Comb-crested Jacana Vulnerable Low No No habitat in the impact area. Better habitat in Irediparra gallinacea the wetlands along Prospect Creek. Not recorded within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Cumberland Plain Land Endangered Low No Open woodlands and grasslands with logs and Snail wood debris. Not associated with vegetation on Meridolum corneovirens site. Recorded nearby. Eastern Pygmy Possum Vulnerable Low No Very low potential habitat availability in Cercartetus nanus woodland areas. Food resources are highly scarce. Understorey virtually absent and shelter is scarce. No records within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Green and Golden Bell Endangered Moderate No Inhabits marshes, dams and stream-sides. Frog Habitat includes waterbodies that are unshaded, Litoria aurea free of predatory fish such as Plague Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki), have a grassy area nearby and diurnal sheltering sites available. Associated with vegetation on site. Recorded on site in 1963. Hibbertia sp. Bankstown Critically Low No Prostrate shrub with spreading, hairless, wiry Endangered branches up to 40 cm in length. Currently known to occur in only one population at Bankstown Airport in Sydney’s southern suburbs Flowers spring and early summer. Not associated with vegetation on site. No nearby records. Hypsela sessiliflora Not listed Low No The highly disturbed areas within the construction footprint are unlikely to be suitable for this species. Marginally better-quality habitats are present in riparian forest surrounding Prospect Creek. Koala Vulnerable Low No No scats or tree trunk scratches observed on Phascolarctos cinereus site. SEPP 44 feed trees (Eucalyptus tereticornis) present in isolated woodland patches. Records within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas).

Page 32

Species BC Act Likelihood On site Explanation (for presence/absence) Marsdenia viridiflora R. Endangered High N A climber to 4 m high with twining stems, tubular Br. subsp. viridiflora Population flowers and large pear-shaped fruit. Grows in population in the vine thickets and open shale woodland. The Bankstown, Blacktown, species is associated with Cumberland Plain Camden, Campbelltown, Woodland but can grow in disturbed areas. Fairfield, Holroyd, Associated with vegetation on site. Recorded Liverpool and Penrith LGAs nearby. Regent Honeyeater Critically Moderate No Mostly occurs on western slopes of the Great Anthochaera phrygia Endangered Dividing Range. Breeds between July and January in Box-Ironbark and other temperate woodlands and riparian gallery forest dominated by River Sheoak. Associated with riparian forests in the Study Area and previously recorded within 10 km of the site. Squirrel Glider Vulnerable Low No Possible habitat availability in woodland areas. Petaurus norfolcensis No records within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Tall Knotweed Vulnerable Low No The highly disturbed areas within the Persicaria elatior construction footprint are unlikely to be suitable for this species. Marginally better-quality habitats are present in riparian forest surrounding Prospect Creek. Not recorded within 10km of site (BioNet Atlas). Wahlenbergia multicaulis Endangered Low No A perennial, tufted herb, typically few-stemmed, Tadgell's Bluebell in the Population 10 – 75 cm high. Hairless or sometimes with few local government areas of hairs. Leaves are mostly long and thin, smooth Auburn, Bankstown, edged or with small serrations. Not associated Baulkham Hills, with vegetation on site. No nearby records. Canterbury, Hornsby, Parramatta and Strathfield White-flowered Wax Plant Endangered Low No A woody vine with white tubular flowers Cynanchum elegans between August and May. Occurs in dry rainforest vegetation, forest, woodland and open scrub. Not associated with vegetation on site. No nearby records.

5.4.2 Candidate species BioNet Atlas

No additional candidate threatened species of potential relevance to the site have been identified through obtaining previous records within 10 km of the site in the BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife. Targeted surveys for these species were included as part of the August 2017 diurnal survey and nocturnal surveys in March 2018 and their potential relevance to the site has been documented in the ‘likelihood of occurrence’ assessments for the site in Appendix F.

5.4.3 Candidate species credit species present on site

According to Section 6.5 (Step 3) of the FBA, an assessor must establish whether a candidate threatened species is present on a development site or is likely to use the habitat available on the site.

Page 33

Previous Surveys and Records

No threatened species were recorded during the diurnal survey completed in August 2017.

Two threatened fauna species that generate species credits were recorded previously within the study area by SLR in 2012, including the Grey-headed Flying-fox, which was recorded roosting in trees along one part of Prospect Creek and the Green and Golden Bell Frog was historically recorded within the and surrounding areas in the 1960’s with no recent nearby records. Green and Golden Bell Frog inhabits marshes, dams and stream- sides free of predatory fish such as Plague Minnow Gambusia holbrooki, although habitats in the study area are potentially suitable, the presence of Plague Minnow in habitats in the study area and the lack of recent records suggests the species is unlikely to be present in the study area, and highly unlikely to utilise habitats within the area of impact.

Current Threatened Species Surveys

The results of the targeted nocturnal surveys for threatened fauna species conducted in March 2018 are summarised below. Fauna species recorded as part of the current investigation are listed in Appendix D and the likelihood of occurrence of all candidate threatened fauna species is identified in Appendix F. One threatened bat species was recorded on the site during the March nocturnal surveys. No threatened fauna species were detected on the site.

The results of the nocturnal surveys undertaken on the nights of the 06 and 07 March are summarised below: • No large forest owls were observed or heard calling following call playback. • Several common native and exotic fauna species were recorded during spotlighting surveys including Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus, Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus, Eastern Water Dragon Intellagama lesueurii, Black Rat Rattus rattus and the European Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus. • During the spotlight survey, the Grey-headed Flying-fox was observed flying from a camp on Prospect Creek in the northeast of the Study Area (see Appendix C). Flying-foxes were not observed foraging within the site boundary. • Common native amphibian species, including Striped Marsh-frog Limnodynastes peronii, Eastern Dwarf Tree Frog Litoria fallax and Peron’s Tree Frog Litoria peronii were recorded during targeted amphibian surveys. No individuals of the Green and Golden Bell Frog, or any other threatened amphibian species, were recorded during the survey and assessment of the habitat determined that the site is not suitable for the Green and Golden Bell Frog. • Analysis of ultrasonic call data collected from the two AnaBat devices determined that one threatened bat species, the Eastern Freetail-bat Mormopterus norfolkensis could potentially utilise the site for foraging or roosting. The results are detailed in Appendix I.

Terrestrial bird surveys resulted in the opportunistic observation of common bird species including the Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata, Superb Fairy-wren Malurus cyaneus and the Australian Reed warbler Acrocephalus australis. No threatened bird species were recorded during terrestrial bird surveys.

Page 34

Surveys for potential fauna habitat resulted in no hollow-bearing trees, stags or nests recorded. No ground logs, burrows, woody debris or areas of substantial leaf litter were observed. A Grey-headed Flying-fox camp was identified on the bank of Prospect Creek approximately one kilometre north-west of the development footprint (Figure 3). Species credits for Grey-headed Flying Fox are linked to the presence of breeding habitat comprising “land within 40 m of rainforest, coastal scrub, riparian or estuarine communities”. However, the flying-fox camp was observed greater than 40 metres from the Development Site.

Using the survey results and habitat assessment conducted as part of the field survey, and by following the steps for identifying species credit species in Section 6.5 of the FBA, all candidate species were excluded from the species credit entries in the Credit Calculator for this project (based upon the absence of breeding habitat in the area of impact).

Page 35

6 IMPACT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMISATION

This chapter describes the impacts of the proposed development, in accordance with Section 8 of the FBA.

6.1 Impact avoidance measures

6.1.1 Site Selection

The site selection for the proposed development avoids the key biodiversity constraints. The residual impacts are limited to highly disturbed regrowth of riparian forest at ‘Canal Road’ and disturbed remnant riparian forest surrounding a drainage line on the southern boundary of the site.

6.1.2 Optimising the proposed layout

The site selection was based on the layout of the existing footprint and operational requirements, as well as biodiversity constraints. In designing the layout of the proposed upgrades, the avoidance of trees and minimising impacts on native vegetation has been an important factor in the decision-making process. The key elements in determining the layout of the development footprint included: • Avoiding the riparian zone of Prospect Creek and minimising adverse effects on the water quality and aquatic habitats of Prospects Creek. • Avoiding stands of native vegetation (where present) and native trees within the study area (whether pre- existing or planted). • Utilising existing flat, built up or hardstand areas, to minimise cut and fill and associated construction costs. • Internal access and daily vehicle movement requirements and need for internal traffic flow and logistics.

The key components of the development footprint are listed below in Section 6.2 in light of the above considerations, the proposed development footprint utilises the cleared and disturbed parts of the site (with the exception of the low quality vegetation in Canal Road Gully), avoids the areas of higher biodiversity value and thereby avoids significant adverse effects on biodiversity values.

6.2 Final development footprint

The development footprint is defined as “the area of land that is directly impacted on by a proposed Major Project that is under the EP&A Act, including access roads, and areas used to store construction materials”. The development footprint includes minor vegetation clearing to accommodate the proposed fill area. The final development footprint is shown in Figure 3. Total impact areas for the various features of the proposed development are included in Table 13.

Table 13 Development Footprint areas

Development component Area (ha) Native vegetation removal (ha) Total SRC Area 29.7 0.22 Canal Road Expansion Area 2.51 0.22 Car parking/road upgrade area (off Widemere Road) 0.32 0 Flood storage basin 0.41 0

Page 36

Development component Area (ha) Native vegetation removal (ha) Access road to flood storage basin 0.24 0 Northern stormwater basin (basin No.5) 0.08 0 Total Development Footprint 3.56 0.22

6.3 Direct impact

6.3.1 Overview

According to the FBA, direct impacts on biodiversity values are described as “an impact on biodiversity values that is a direct result of vegetation clearance from a development. It is predictable, usually occurs at or near to the development site and can be readily identified during the planning, design, construction, and operational phases of a development.”

The potential ecological impact from the proposed development will be relatively small, with a disturbance footprint of approximately 3.56 ha (see Table 13) and these areas are devoid of high conservation habitats. Commercial activity associated with the development will be largely confined to this area.

The final development footprint will involve some minor impacts to threatened ecological communities and habitat for threatened fauna species comprising the following direct impacts: • Removal and disturbance of regrowth riparian forest within Canal Road gully, which is dominated by exotic weed species with a low cover and diversity of native species (this area is classed as low condition and does not need to be offset). • Removal of a small portion of potential fauna foraging habitat, associated with tree removal in Canal Road gully, in particular for threatened microchiropteran bats species and Grey-headed Flying-fox.

The areas of native vegetation to be cleared have been carefully considered and all habitats of high conservation value have been avoided where possible. The proposal impacts will be limited to removal of highly disturbed regrowth vegetation that cannot be avoided.

6.3.2 Impacts on vegetation zones

The residual impacts are limited to highly disturbed regrowth of riparian forest within the Canal Road gully. These areas of native vegetation would be replaced with permanent infrastructure for the proposed facility and therefore impacts on native vegetation (and associated habitats) would be permanent (and unavoidable). Total impact areas of the proposed development on native vegetation are included in Table 14.

Table 14 Biodiversity impacts

PCT Code Zone Vegetation Zone Condition Impact Area (ha) 835 1 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy Moderate/good-poor 0.22 woodland (River-flat Forest EEC) 781 2 Coastal freshwater lagoons (Freshwater Wetlands Moderate/good 0 EEC)

Page 37

6.4 Indirect impacts

6.4.1 General

According to the FBA indirect impacts on biodiversity values are described as:

“an impact on biodiversity values that occurs when development related activities affect threatened species, threatened species habitat, populations or ecological communities in a manner other than direct impact. Compared to direct impacts, indirect impacts often:

• occur over a wider area than just the site of the development;

• have a lower intensity of impact in the extent to which they occur compared to direct impacts;

• occur off site;

• have a lower predictability of when the impact occurs;

• have unclear boundaries of responsibility.”

There is some potential for indirect impacts to habitats along Prospect Creek from the filling of Canal Road gully. Potential indirect impacts in relation to the proposed development include: • sedimentation and run-off during construction of the fill embankment. These are to be managed using appropriate sediment and erosion control measures and in accordance with an engineered stormwater management system. • increased weed presence, including the introduction of new weed species (through vehicle movements into and out of the site), and/or the spread of weeds into new areas that are currently weed free. Several priority weeds have been identified in the development footprint. Weed management is to be integrated into the construction and operational management measures.

Considering the high degree of existing disturbance to habitats along Prospect Creek downstream of the development footprint including sedimentation, poor water quality, weed infestations and limited native vegetation cover in the understorey, potential minor indirect impacts from the proposal are unlikely to substantially decrease the baseline ecological condition of these habitats.

6.4.2 Western Sydney Parklands

As detailed in the SEARs the site is within 500 metres of the Western Sydney Parklands, the assessment of impacts must address the matters to be considered outlined in the Guidelines for developing adjoining land and water managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH 2013c) and include: • The nature of impacts, including direct and indirect impacts. • The extent of the direct and indirect impacts. • The duration of the direct and indirect impacts. • The objectives of the reservation land. • Measures proposed to prevent, control, abate, minimise and manage the direct and indirect impacts including and evaluation of the effectiveness and reliability of proposed measures. • Residual impacts.

Page 38

Prospect Nature Reserve to the northwest of the site is part of the Western Sydney Parklands. The potential for the identified indirect impacts impacting any Western Sydney Parklands is unlikely considering Prospect Nature Reserve is upstream of the Development Site and is therefore unlikely to be indirectly impacted by sedimentation and water pollution. Weed propagules are unlikely to be spread from the development footprint to any Western Sydney Parklands.

The main potential for indirect impacts is to habitats on Prospect Creek directly downstream of the development footprint, however potential minor indirect impacts from the proposal are unlikely to substantially decrease the baseline ecological condition of these habitats.

6.5 Onsite mitigation measures

Numerous best management practices and mitigation measures will be implemented as part of the proposal to prevent, minimise and/or manage the potential for adverse impacts upon the local environment.

The existing site-specific Operational Environmental Management Plan (EMP) will be updated for the proposed development to ensure implementation and compliance with the commitments made within this EIS, along with relevant statutory obligations and the conditions of development consent (including Environment Protection Licence (EPL) requirements).

On-site mitigation measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts include before, during and after construction measures as outlined in Table 15.

Table 15 Mitigation measures to be implemented before, during and after construction

Action Outcome Timing Responsibility Before Construction Protection of native Delineate construction zone (to ensure no native Prior to and for the Construction vegetation vegetation outside construction zone is cleared) duration of any works contractor Revegetation – Commence seed collection and propagation of Subject to seed Council preparation of plant local native plant species for planting along availability and nursery stock Prospect Creek growing times Erosion and sediment Install and maintain erosion and sediment Prior to and for the Construction control measures control measures in accordance with the duration of any works contractor requirements of the ‘Blue Book’ During Construction Fauna management Supervision of tree felling to rescue and recover During clearing Construction any fauna (as necessary) team/Fairfield City Council Weed Management Vehicle wash-down Ongoing Construction Site maintenance program team Rubbish management Rubbish (such as food scraps and building waste) Ongoing Construction are to be properly managed during construction team and must not be stockpiled on areas of native vegetation

Page 39

Action Outcome Timing Responsibility Revegetation Seeding and planting of propagated (or Following receipt of Council otherwise) tubestock of local native plant species propagated plant stock as per Landscape Plan (see Site Image drawings and seed from local SS19-4294 102B, 103B and 501B); place mulch supplier and erosion controls as required Exposed soil surface Revegetation – using re-use of topsoil layers and Immediately following Construction management seeding of with local native species soil disturbances team After Construction Weed management Limit spread of weeds along with landscape Ongoing, half-yearly Site operator maintenance program minimum Waste management Appropriate systems will be implemented to Ongoing Site operator ensure that each waste stream generated by the development is effectively managed and/or disposed of off-site (see detail in EIS). There will not be any on-site stockpiling or disposal of waste materials. Plant maintenance Watering, weeding, replacement of dead plants, Ongoing (quarterly) Council within Prospect Creek revegetation areas, as per Landscape Plan. Surface water and run- Surface water and stormwater to be managed Ongoing Site operator off according to Soil and Water Management Plan (WSP 2020)

Page 40

7 IMPACTS SUMMARY

This chapter describes the impact of the proposed development in terms of biodiversity credits, in accordance with Section 9 of the FBA.

7.1 Areas not requiring further assessment

Areas that do not require further assessment are those that do not contain native vegetation, as per Section 9.5 of the FBA (unless otherwise required by the SEARs). The development site supports highly disturbed native vegetation dominated by exotic flora with a site value score of less than 17. Therefore, according to the FBA, these areas are classified as low condition and/or cleared land and do not require further assessment. These areas do not contain tree hollows or other important habitats or resources for native fauna, such as hollow logs, rocks or caves. These areas have been assessed for the potential occurrence of threatened species (i.e. those that generate species credits), as outlined in Chapter 4 (see FBA, Section 9.5).

7.2 Entities not requiring offsets

Impacts for which the assessor is not required to determine an offset (FBA, Section 9.4) comprise: • clearing within a vegetation zone that has a site value score of less than 17 and the PCT is not a TEC; • impacts on PCTs that are not threatened species habitat and are not TECs; • threatened species habitat within a vegetation zone that has a site value score of <17; and • species or populations that are not threatened and do not form part of a TEC.

As listed in Table 16 all of the vegetation zones mapped in the development footprint have a current site value score of less than 17 and all zones are degraded to the extent that they would not provide habitat of any ecological importance for threatened species. Hence, the proposal does not require offsets for the impacted areas of disturbed native vegetation.

7.3 Impacts requiring offsetting

According to Section 9.3 of the FBA, impacts on native vegetation that require an offset include: • impacts on EECs and CEECs, unless specifically nominated in the SEARs as an impact requiring further consideration; and • impacts on PCTs associated with threatened species habitat and in a vegetation zone that has a site value score of >= 17.

7.3.1 Plant community types requiring offset

All vegetation zones mapped with the site have current site value scores of less than 17 and do not represent habitat for threatened species. Considering the highly disturbed nature of the PCTs in the development footprint and the lack of important roosting/breeding habitats, clearing of these vegetation zones does not require an offset in accordance with the FBA.

Page 41

7.3.2 Species polygons requiring offset

As discussed in Chapter 4 of this report, no local populations of threatened species that generate species credits are likely to occupy the vegetation within the study area, on other than a transient basis when opportunistically foraging. Hence, the creation of species polygons for such species is not considered appropriate for this assessment and there are no species credit polygons that require offset as part of the proposed development.

7.4 Impacts requiring further consideration

There are no impacts that require further consideration by the consent authority for the proposed development.

7.5 Biodiversity credit requirements

The Biobanking Credit Calculator has been used to calculate the impacts of the proposed development and potential offset requirements, in accordance with Section 8 of the FBA. This section of the report provides a summary of the results of the credit calculations. A copy of the credit profile for the impacts of the proposal is provided in Appendix G.

7.5.1 Ecosystem credits

The ecosystem credits required to offset the proposed development are listed by vegetation zone in Table 16. A total of zero ecosystem credits would be required to offset the clearing of native vegetation as part of the construction and operation of the proposed development.

Table 16 Vegetation zones requiring offsets and credits required

Code Vegetation Zone Name Management Area (ha) Current Site Future Site Ecosystem Value Score Value Score Credits 835 River-flat Eucalypt Forest 0.22 14.06 0 0 (moderate to good condition) Total 0.22 0

7.5.2 Landscape value score

The loss in landscape value score is 9, as per the attached credit report (Appendix F).

7.5.3 Species credits

As shown in the attached credit reports (see Appendix F), no species credits are required to offset the impacts of the proposed development.

7.6 Biodiversity credit report

In accordance with the FBA, copies of the BioBanking credit reports are provided in Appendix G. The results of the Credit Reports are detailed in the preceding section, but can be summarised as follows: • No ecosystem credits are required to offset the proposed development impacts. • No species credits are required to offset the proposed development impacts.

Page 42

7.7 Biodiversity offset strategy

As detailed in the preceding sections of Section 7, the impacts of the proposed development do not require biodiversity offsets. In this regard, the vegetation to be removed from the development footprint is in low condition, is dominated by exotic plant species (including priority weeds) and has low native plant diversity. The site value scores for the vegetation zones identified within the site are less than 17.

According to the thresholds for biodiversity offsets in Table 4 (and Section 9.4) of the FBA, impacts “for which the assessor is not required to determine an offset” are impacts on PCTs that have a site value of score of <17 and are not associated with threatened species habitat. Accordingly, the removal of vegetation within the Development Site to allow construction and operation of the proposed development (as described in this Chapter) does not require an offset in accordance with the FBA.

Accordingly, there is no requirement for a biodiversity offset strategy.

Page 43

8 EPBC ACT MATTERS

A search of the on-line Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) was conducted on 27 September 2017. A search area was created by buffering the centre point of the site by a radius of 10 km. The PMST database provides an indicative list of matters of national environmental significance (matters of NES) listed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A copy of the PMST results is provided in Appendix H. The PMST results indicate the following matters (or their habitats) are predicted to occur within the locality: • 45 threatened species • 17 listed migratory species • six listed threatened ecological communities

No wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Wetlands), or World Heritage properties are identified within the locality in the PMST. No other matters of NES listed under the EPBC Act are of relevance to the site at Wetherill Park. Of the above matters of NES that are predicted to occur within the locality of the site, those of potential relevance to the site and the proposed development are discussed in the following sections.

8.1 Relevant matters of national environmental significance

8.1.1 Listed threatened species

The 45 threatened species (and/or their habitats) listed under the EPBC Act that are predicted to occur within the locality comprise 11 bird species, two fish species, seven mammal species, three amphibians, one snail, 20 plant species and one reptile. These species and their legal status within NSW (BC Act) and on the EPBC Act are listed in Table 17.

Table 17 PMST results listed threatened species

Species Name Common Name EPBC Act Listing BC Act Listing BIRDS Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater Critically Endangered Critically Endangered Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern Endangered Endangered Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Critically Endangered Endangered Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird Endangered Endangered Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater Vulnerable Vulnerable Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot Critically Endangered Endangered Limosa lapponica baueri Bar-tailed Godwit Vulnerable Not listed Limosa lapponica menzbieri Northern Siberian Bar-tailed Critically Endangered Not listed Godwit Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew Critically Endangered Not listed Pachyptila turtur subantarctica Fairy Prion Vulnerable Not listed Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe Endangered Endangered FISH

Page 44

Species Name Common Name EPBC Act Listing BC Act Listing Macquaria australasica Macquarie Perch Endangered Not listed Prototroctes maraena Australian Grayling Vulnerable Not listed FROGS Heleioporus australiacus Giant Burrowing Frog Vulnerable Vulnerable Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog Endangered Vulnerable Litoria raniformis Southern Bell Frog Vulnerable Endangered MAMMALS Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied Bat Vulnerable Vulnerable Dasyurus maculatus maculatus Spot-tailed Quoll Endangered Vulnerable Petauroides volans Greater Glider Vulnerable Not listed Petrogale penicillata Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Vulnerable Endangered Phascolarctos cinereus Koala Vulnerable Vulnerable Pseudomys novaehollandiae New Holland Mouse Vulnerable Not listed Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox Vulnerable Vulnerable OTHER Pommerhelix duralensis Dural Land Snail Endangered Endangered PLANTS Acacia bynoeana Bynoe's Wattle Vulnerable Endangered Acacia pubescens Downy Wattle Vulnerable Vulnerable Allocasuarina glareicola - Endangered Endangered Asterolasia elegans - Endangered Endangered Cryptostylis hunteriana Leafless Tongue-orchid Vulnerable Vulnerable Cynanchum elegans White-flowered Wax Plant Endangered Endangered Genoplesium baueri Yellow Gnat-orchid Endangered Endangered Grevillea parviflora Small-flower Grevillea Vulnerable Vulnerable subsp. parviflora Haloragis exalata Square Raspwort Vulnerable Vulnerable subsp. exalata Leucopogon exolasius Woronora Beard-heath Vulnerable Vulnerable Pelargonium sp. Striatellum Omeo Storksbill Endangered Endangered (G.W. Carr 10345) Persoonia nutans Nodding Geebung Endangered Endangered Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora Vulnerable Vulnerable Pimelea spicata Spiked Rice-flower Endangered Endangered Pomaderris brunnea Rufous Pomaderris Vulnerable Endangered Pterostylis gibbosa Illawarra Greenhood Endangered Endangered Pterostylis saxicola Sydney Plains Greenhood Endangered Endangered

Page 45

Species Name Common Name EPBC Act Listing BC Act Listing Pultenaea parviflora - Vulnerable Endangered Syzygium paniculatum Magenta Lilly Pilly Vulnerable Vulnerable Thesium australe Austral Toadflax Vulnerable Vulnerable REPTILES Hoplocephalus bungaroides Broad-headed Snake Vulnerable Vulnerable

Most of the species listed in Table 16 are also listed under the BC Act and therefore are considered in Section 5 of this report, as well as in the likelihood of occurrence table in Appendix F. In relation to the EPBC Act listed species that are not listed on the BC Act, SEARs or Credit Calculator, including the Greater Glider Petauroides volans, New Holland Mouse Pseudomys novaehollandiae, fish species and seabirds, there is no suitable habitat for these species within the Development Site.

Prospect Creek provides potential habitat for threatened fish species that have been historically recorded in the locality, namely the Macquarie Perch Macquaria australasica and Australian Grayling Prototroctes maraena. Potential habitat for fish species is absent from the Development Site; however, there is potential for indirect impacts to Prospect Creek which will be managed during construction and operation of the proposal.

The study area contains limited potential foraging habitat for the migratory Swift Parrot Lathamus discolour and Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia, as these species are associated with the PCT’s recorded within the study area. Both species are known to disperse to NSW coastal forests during winter to feed on winter flowering Eucalyptus and so called ‘gum’ trees, such as Spotted Gum Corymbia maculata, and ironbarks (e.g. Eucalyptus fibrosa), both of which occur in western Sydney but only occur in limited numbers and low densities on the site. Nether species breed within the Sydney metropolitan region. Consequently, the occurrence of adult birds of these species is possible on a transient or temporary basis during dispersal movements or foraging activities during flowering of feed tree on the site), however this would be unlikely.

There is some habitat present for Spotted-tail Quoll Dasyurus maculatus maculatus within the Study Area. However, these habitats are relatively marginal considering the poor connectivity, lack of denning/breeding habitat and understorey cover.

Individuals of the Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri, which is a cave dwelling micro-bat, may utilise the study area for foraging if suitable roosting or breeding habitats are present in the locality.

Habitat for threatened flora species in the study area is limited to species that occur in disturbed habitats, such as Downy Wattle Acacia pubescens, which has been previously recorded in the locality, including a record in the study area from 2010. However, no individuals of Acacia pubescens or any other threatened flora species were recorded in the development footprint and surrounding areas within the study area, despite targeted searches.

8.1.2 Listed threatened communities

Threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act that have been recorded or are predicted to occur within the locality (based on PMST search results – see Appendix H) comprise: • Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion • Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Page 46

• Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest • Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion • Turpentine-Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion • Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist Woodland on Shale

None of these listed threatened communities is present within the Study Area.

8.1.3 Wetlands of national significance

No wetlands of international importance (Ramsar Wetlands) are listed in the PMST.

8.1.4 Migratory species

A total of 17 migratory species (and/or their habitats) are predicted to occur within the locality (refer to Appendix H). Of these 17 migratory species: • Nine are migratory wetland species (Common Sandpiper, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Curlew Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper, Latham's Snipe, Bar-tailed Godwit, Eastern Curlew, Osprey and Common Greenshank) which have limited suitable habitat in the study area. • Seven are terrestrial migratory species (Oriental Cuckoo, White-throated Needletail, Black-faced Monarch, Spectacled Monarch, Yellow Wagtail and Satin Flycatcher) which have some potential to occur in the forested and wetland habitats of the study area. • One migratory marine species (Fork-tailed Swift) which is likely to intermittently fly over the study area.

The Study Area does contain some marginal habitat for the listed wetland species, including wetland areas, Prospect Creek, and in times of heavy rainfall there would be flooded paddocks and floodplain areas. However, many of the suitable habitat attributes for these species are absent such as estuarine habitats, mudflats, larger areas of wetland vegetation or open water and sandy beaches. Although the wetlands in the study area provide some potential habitat for these wetland migratory species, regardless of this, due to their large ranges, such species would not be dependent on the study area (if they use it at all) for foraging, breeding or other life cycle processes.

The terrestrial species all occupy a large variety of habitats and similarly have very large ranges. The vegetation within the study area does not constitute ‘important habitat’ for such species, as defined by DoE (2013), most of which utilise more intact and structurally complex woodlands.

8.2 Impacts on relevant matters of national environmental significance

8.2.1 Listed threatened species

The threatened species identified in Section 5 have been considered in accordance with the ‘significant impact criteria’ for ‘vulnerable’ and ‘endangered’ species in the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DoE 2013).

Taking into consideration all stages and components of the proposal, and all related activities and infrastructure, there is the potential for impacts, including indirect impacts, on matters of national environmental significance, being mainly loss of a small area of degraded habitat for mobile threatened fauna species. However, it is highly unlikely that any of such species will be adversely impacted by the proposal, because:

Page 47

• Suitable habitat for most of the species is absent within the study area. For those species that have either been recorded or could utilise the habitats within the study area, there are not likely to be local populations present wholly within the study area or reliant on the study area for their survival in isolation. Any such populations present within the locality will not be rendered locally extinct by the proposed development. This is based on the large ranges of these species, the poor quality and condition of the habitats present within the study area. • The study area is not assessed as likely to contain habitat critical to the survival of a species. • The study area is not likely to support an ‘important population’ (as defined by DoE 2015) of any threatened species. • The proposed mitigation measures, which are described in Section 6, will avoid or reduce impacts on threatened species.

With reference to the criteria for vulnerable and endangered species, the proposal is not likely to: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species; • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population; • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations; • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population; • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that a species is likely to decline; • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat; • introduce disease that may cause a species to decline; or • interfere substantially with the recovery of any of these species.

8.2.2 Threatened ecological communities

No federally listed threatened ecological communities have been identified in the Study Area.

8.2.3 Migratory species

The Study Area contains marginal foraging habitat for marine, terrestrial and wetland migratory species which are generally limited to habitats along Prospect Creek including riparian forest, freshwater wetlands and paddock areas; however habitat in the development footprint for these species is highly disturbed and limited to several small forest remnants. It is theoretically possible that these species could utilise the study area temporarily during foraging or dispersal. Habitats within the study area generally lack important habitat attributes for these species and would constitute only a relatively small proportion of the large ranges of such species.

With reference to the criteria for migratory species in the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, the study area does not contain an area of ‘important habitat’ for any migratory species. Furthermore, the proposal is highly unlikely to disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

Page 48

9 REFERENCES

DEC 2004, “Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities”, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Sydney, NSW.

DECC 2009, “Threatened species survey and assessment guidelines: field survey methods for fauna. Amphibians”, NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney, NSW.

DECCW 2002, “Descriptions for NSW (Mitchell) Landscapes Version 2 (2002)”, NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney.

DEWHA 2010a, “Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Frogs: Guidelines for detecting frogs listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”, Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWHA 2010b, “Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Birds: Guidelines for detecting birds listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”, Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWHA 2010c, “Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Bats: Guidelines for detecting bats listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999” Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWSC 2011, “Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Mammals: Guidelines for detecting mammals listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999”, Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Water, Sustainability and Communities, Canberra.

Fairfield City Council 2013, “Fairfield Local Environmental Plan 2013 (FLEP 2013)”, mapping accessed at http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/EPI/2013/213/maps. Fairfield City Council, Fairfield.

Keith, D 2004, “Ocean shores to desert dunes: the native vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT”, NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville.

NSW Soil and Land Information System 2017, “Soil Profile Report: site profile 249”.

OEH 2013a, “The Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Area”, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

OEH 2013b, “Remnant Vegetation of the western Cumberland subregion”, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

OEH 2013c, “Guidelines for developments adjoining land managed by the Office of Environment and Heritage”, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

OEH 2014a, “Framework for Biodiversity Assessment. NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects”, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

OEH 2014b, “NSW Biodiversity Offsets Policy for Major Projects”, NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

Page 49

OEH 2015, “Cumberland Subregion BIO Map Biodiversity Corridors of Regional Significance”, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney.

OEH 2017a, “Sydney Basin Bioregion”, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/SydneyBasinBioregion.htm [Accessed 20/09/2017]

OEH 2017b, “Subregions of the Sydney Basin”, Office of Environment and Heritage, Sydney. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/SydneyBasin-Subregions.htm [Accessed 20/09/2017].

NPWS 2002, “Native Vegetation Maps of the Cumberland Plain - Final Edition”, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney.

NPWS 2004, “Endangered Ecological Community Information – Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest”, National Parks and Wildlife Service, NSW.

Site Image 2020, Landscape Plan. Site Image Landscape Architects, Redfern.

SLR 2012, “Existing Environment Report – Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre”, SLR Consulting Australia Pty Ltd, Lane Cove, NSW.

Specht RL et al 1995 “Conservation Atlas of Plant Communities in Australia”, Centre for Coastal Management, Southern Cross University Press, Lismore.WSP 2020, Fairfield Sustainable Resource Centre, Soil and Water Management Plan. REF: SWMP-001 Rev D. WSP, Sydney.

Page 50

APPENDIX A

SEARs (biodiversity)

630.12023-R01-v2.2-Fairfield SRC BAR- 20200812.docx Page 1 of 1

4 o Transport Roads & Maritime NSW GOVERNMENT Services

20 January 2017

Our Reference: 5YD17/00059 (A15803605) DP&E Ref: SSD 8184

Manager Industry Assessments Department of Planning and Environment GPO Box 39 SYDNEY NSW 2001

Attention: Bianca Thornton

Dear Sir/Madam,

REQUEST FOR SEARS - EXPANSION OF FAIRFIELD SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE CENTRE CORNER OF HASSALL STREET AND WIDEMERE ROAD, WETHERILL PARK

Reference is made to the Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) email dated 10 January 2017 requesting Roads and Maritime Services (Roads and Maritime) to provide details of key issues and assessment requirements regarding the abovementioned development for inclusion in the Secretary's Environmental Assessment Requirements (SEARs).

Roads and Maritime require the following issues to be included in the transport and traffic impact assessment of the proposed development:

1. Daily and peak traffic movements likely to be generated by the proposed development including the impact on nearby intersections and the need/associated funding for upgrading or road improvement works (if required).

2. Details of the proposed accesses and the parking provisions associated with the proposed development including compliance with the requirements of the relevant Australian Standards (ie: turn paths, sight distance requirements, aisle width, etc).

3. Proposed number of car parking spaces and compliance with the appropriate parking codes.

4. Details of service vehicle movements (including vehicle type and likely arrival and departure times).

Roads and Maritime Services

27-31 Argyle Street, Parramatta NSW 2150 I PO Box 973 Parrannatta NSW 2150 I www.rms.nsw.gov.au I 131 782 Any inquiries in relation to this application can be directed to Zhaleh Alamouti on 8849 2331 or by email at [email protected]

Yours sincerely

Aleks Tancevski A/Senior Land Use Coordinator Network Sydney West Precinct