Referral of proposed action

Proposed action title: Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh

Prepared by:

On behalf of: Eddy Hawach

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 1 of 45

1 Summary of proposed action 1.1 Short description Eddy Hawach, proposes to develop a three lot subdivision at Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh (hereafter referred to as the ‘subject site’) (Figure 1). The proposed development will include three 2 hectare (ha) lots, comprising the allowance of a street setback, residential dwelling, Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and On-site Sewage Management System (OSSM).

The subject site covers a total area of 13.15 ha. The site is located approximately 55 kilometres (km) north-west of the Sydney Central Business District, to the east of Rickards Road, Castlereagh, within the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA).

The proposal will impact on 1.56 ha of land, of which 1.03 ha is identified as Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CRCIF), listed as a Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A total of 11.59 ha of EPBC listed CRCIF within the site will not be impacted.

It is intended that the development of the site aims to conserve the majority of the existing vegetation onsite while realising some development potential.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 2 of 45

Figure 1: Location of subject site

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 3 of 45

1.2 Latitude and longitude

Refer to Figure 2 for locations of these data points.

Decimal degree Degrees, Minutes, Seconds Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude 1 -33.64617510610 150.68449113700 -33° 38’ 46.23’’ 150° 41’ 4.17’’ 2 -33.64630235200 150.68533990800 -33° 38’ 46.69’’ 150° 41’ 7.22’’ 3 -33.64665736190 150.68770815300 -33° 38’ 47.97’’ 150° 41’ 15.75’’ 4 -33.64721049110 150.69139817900 -33° 38’ 49.60’’ 150° 41’ 29.03’’ 5 -33.64897259410 150.69103196500 -33° 38’ 56.30’’ 150° 41’ 27.72’’ 6 -33.64840826210 150.68732515000 -33° 38’ 54.27’’ 150° 41’ 14.37’’ 7 -33.64805273380 150.68498995000 -33° 38’ 52.99’’ 150° 41’ 5.96’’ 8 -33.64792373710 150.68414274300 -33° 38’ 52.53’’ 150° 41’ 2.91’’

1.3 Locality and property description The proposed action is located approximately 55 kilometres (km) north-west of the Sydney Central Business District, to the east of Rickards Road, Castlereagh, within the Penrith Local Government Area (LGA).

The subject site is bordered by Rickards Road and residential development to the west, a dirt bike riding facility to the north, Car wreckers to the south, and remnant vegetation to the east and south-east. The subject site is also located within the Priority Conservation Lands (PCLs) identified in the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan (DECCW 2010).

The subject site comprises existing remnant native vegetation and a single storage shed.

1.4 Size of the development footprint or The proposed three lot subdivision, including the allowance of a work area street setback and establishment of an APZ and OSSM, covers an expected impact of 1.56 ha. 1.5 Street address of the site Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh

1.6 Lot description The Site is legally described as Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh.

1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) The project is wholly within the City of Penrith Council Area.

Council’s contact officer is: Gavin Cherry 02 4732 8125 [email protected]

1.8 Time frame Vegetation clearance and construction works are scheduled to commence in mid- late 2017 and expected to take 9-12 months to complete. Particular focus will be on the establishment of the conservation area prior to construction.

1.9 x No

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 4 of 45

Alternatives time frames, locations or Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each activities alternative, location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3 and 5 (where relevant). 1.11 Commonwealth, State or Territory No assessment x Yes, you must also complete Section 2.5

1.12 Component of larger action x No

Yes, you must also complete Section 2.7 1.13 Related actions/proposals x No Yes, provide details: 1.14 Australian Government funding x No

Yes, provide details: 1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park x No

Yes, you must also complete Section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 5 of 45

Figure 2: Boundary points of the proposed development and subject site

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 6 of 45

2 Detailed description of proposed action

2.1 Description of proposed action

Eddy Hawach proposes to develop a three lot subdivision at Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh (hereafter referred to as the ‘subject site’) (Figure 1). The proposed development will include three 2 ha lots, comprising the allowance of a street setback, three residential dwellings, Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and OSSM. Selective thinning of trees and shrubs and suppression of the ground layer is required to maintain APZ and setback, all tree will be retained in this zone.

It is intended that the development of the site aims to conserve the majority of the existing vegetation onsite while realising some development potential.

An indicative site layout of the development footprint is shown in Figure 3.

The key concepts and objectives of the development will be to:  permit low density residential development  allow for a 25 m setback from Rickards Road  allow for establishment of a 25m APZ - selective thinning of shrubs and suppression of the ground layer is required to maintain APZ, the canopy will remain intact.  incorporate and maximise the existing landscape and topographical characteristics of the site  retain existing native vegetation, much of which is in good condition, and protect and enhance biodiversity and sensitive habitats  protect threatened flora

A summary of the proposed impacts are provided in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Areas of native vegetation and impacts due to the proposed works

Building Setback Total Retained Grand Vegetation community envelope APZ (ha) (ha) impact vegetation Total (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (EPBC Act – 0.15 0.14 0.24 0.53 0.01 0.54 Category A) Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (EPBC Act – 0.18 0.22 0.1 0.50 11.58 12.08 Category D) Cooks River Castlereagh 0.22 0.02 0.29 0.53 - 0.53 Ironbark Forest (TSC Act) Total 0.55 0.38 0.63 1.56 11.59 13.15

2.2 Feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action

Consideration of alternative proposals for the subject site has been undertaken throughout the project to ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved between retention and enhancement of the significant biodiversity values of the subject site and surrounds.

In developing the site layout, a number of alternatives were considered including: 1. An increased number of lots 2. BioBanking the entire site

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 7 of 45

3. Considering other land use proposals that are permissible under the current zoning eg. cattle grazing

The proposed site layout was selected as the preferred option as the subject site is zoned for a minimum of 2 ha lots, and it strives to protect the majority of the existing vegetation onsite while realising some development potential.

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action

There are no alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 8 of 45

Figure 3: Proposed development footprint

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 9 of 45

2.4 Context, including any relevant planning framework and state/local government requirements The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning legislation that relates to the proposed development. It provides a framework for the overall environmental planning and assessment of development proposals. Various legislative instruments, such as the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, and Rural Fires Act (2007) (RF Act) are integrated with EP&A Act and have been reviewed separately.

A substantial array of legislation, policies and guidelines apply to the subject site as listed below;

Table 2: Legislative context

Name Relevance to the project Environmental The proposed development requires consent under the Penrith Local Planning and Environmental Plan and is to be assessed under Part 4 of the EP&A Act. Assessment Act Assessments of significance for impacts to threatened species and 1979 endangered ecological communities have been prepared in accordance with s5A of the Act. Threatened Species The TSC Act aims to protect and encourage the recovery of threatened Conservation Act species, populations and communities listed under the Act. The Act is 1995 integrated with the NSW EP&A Act and requires consideration of whether a development (Part 4 of the EP&A Act) or an activity (Part 5 of the EP&A Act), is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations and ecological communities or their habitats. Noxious Weeds Act The NW Act defines the roles of government, councils, private landholders 1993 and public authorities in the management of noxious weeds. Penrith LEP 2010 Clause 7.3 of the Penrith LEP 2010 has the objective of protecting, enhancing and managing the ecological, hydrological, scientific, cultural and aesthetic values of biodiversity and wildlife habitat corridors, natural waterways and riparian land. The clause applies to the subject land and is triggered by subdivision, earthworks, clearing vegetation and irrigation with treated effluent. Before deciding an application, the consent authority must consider various objectives and must be satisfied that the development has avoided potential adverse impacts and if these are not avoided, the minimisation or mitigation of impacts.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 10 of 45

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation

A Statement of Environmental Effects is currently being prepared in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EP&A Act. It is being prepared as part of a Development Application (DA) to Penrith City Council.

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders)

Consultation for the proposal be undertaken by Penrith City Council as a part of the DA assessment.

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project

The referral seeks approval for the actions proposed relating to the development of three lot residential subdivision. The assessment undertaken for this referral has considered the overall (total) impact of the proposed action on the site’s environmental values for the total development. The development is a standalone project and is not reliant on, or a component of, a larger project.

2.8 Related actions

There are no related actions to this project.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 11 of 45

3 Description of environment & likely impacts

3.1 Matters of national environmental significance

A search using the Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) was undertaken on 14 November 2016 with a 10 km radius of the Site. Matters of National Environmental Significance identified in the PMST are provided below.

3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties

Description

One World Heritage Property occurs within a 10 km radius of the subject site: The Greater Blue Mountains Area.

Nature and extent of likely impact The Greater Blue Mountains Area does not encompass the subject site, therefore no impacts are expected to occur to this World Heritage Property.

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places

Description One National Heritage Place occurs within a 10 km radius of the subject site: The Greater Blue Mountains Area.

Nature and extent of likely impact The Greater Blue Mountains Area does not encompass the subject site, therefore no impacts are expected to occur to this National Heritage Place.

3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)

Description

No Ramsar-listed wetlands occur within the Site.

Nature and extent of likely impact N/A

3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities Description

Species and ecological communities identified in the PMST are listed below.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 12 of 45

Nature and extent of likely impact The likelihood of presence or absence of species and ecological communities identified through the PMST has been assessed. This assessment took into account results of field surveys, suitable on site habitat, local knowledge and professional judgement. The results are presented in the tables below.

Five terms for the likelihood of occurrence of species and communities have been used and are defined as follows:

“Known” = the species was or has been observed on the site

“Likely” = a medium to high probability that a species uses the site

“Potential” = suitable habitat for a species occurs on the site, but there is insufficient information to categorise the species as likely to occur, or unlikely to occur

“Unlikely” = a very low to low probability that a species uses the site

“No” = habitat on site and in the vicinity is unsuitable for the species

Likelihood of Ecological Community EPBC Act occurrence

Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Endangered No Sydney Basin Bioregion Cooks River / Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Critically Endangered Known Bioregion Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Critically Endangered No Forest Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered No

Temperate Highland Peat Swamps on Sandstone Endangered No

Turpentine-Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion Critically Endangered No

Upland Basalt Eucalypt Forests of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Endangered No

Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist Woodland on Shale Critically Endangered No

Cooks River / Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion

Cooks River / Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion (CRCIF) is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act. The CRCIF occurs within the Sydney Basin Bioregion with an estimate of 1011 ha remaining across the Sydney Basin (8% of its original condition) (DotEE 2016a). The majority ecological community is found in the north-west section of the Cumberland Subregion in the Castlereagh area between Penrith and Richmond. Other significant patches occur in the Kemps Creek and Holsworthy areas. Smaller remnants occur in the eastern section of the Cumberland Subregion.

CRCIF occurs on clay-rich soils derived from predominantly Tertiary alluvium and on Wianamatta Shale derived soils found next to Tertiary alluvium, below 100 m above sea level with mean annual rainfall of 800-1000 mm. The main tree species include Eucalyptus fibrosa (Broad-leaved Ironbark) and Melaleuca decora (White-feather Honey- myrtle), with E. longifolia (Woolybutt), E. moluccana (Grey Gum) and E. capitellata (Brown Stringybark) occurring less frequently. The dense shrubby understorey consists of Melaleuca nodosa (Prickly-leaved Paperbark) and Lissanthe strigosa (Peach Heath), with a range of ‘pea’ flower shrubs, such as Dillwynia tenuifolia, Pultenaea villosa

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 13 of 45

(Hairy Bush-pea) and Daviesia ulicifolia (Gorse Bitter Pea) and Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina. Commonly occurring species in the ground stratum include Entolasia stricta (Wiry Panic), Lepidosperma laterale (Variable Sword-sedge), Opercularia diphylla, Dianella revoluta (Blue Flax-lily), Themeda triandra (Kangaroo Grass), Microlaena stipoides (Weeping Grass), Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi (Mulga Fern), Goodenia hederacea subsp. hederacea (Forest Goodenia) and Pratia purpurascens (Whiteroot) (DotEE 2016a).

Field surveys were conducted by ELA in December 2015 to validate the presence, and extent of vegetation occurring within the subject site. The presence of CRCIF was confirmed on site. The vegetation within the subject site was found in three condition states, classed Good, Moderate and Low. Vegetation condition mapping of the subject site is provided in Figure 4.

CRCIF- Good The good condition CRCIF within the subject site consisted of a canopy of Eucalyptus fibrosa, E. crebra (Thin- leaved Ironbark) and Melaleuca decora. The mid-storey consisted of Bursaria spinosa (Blackthorn), Dillwynia tenuifolia, Dillwynia sieberi, Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina, Daviesia genistifolia, Ozothamnus diosmifolius (Dogwood), Exocarpos cupressiformis, Micromyrtus ciliata (Fringed Heath-myrtle), Hakea dactyloides (Finger Hakea), Acacia decurrens (Black Wattle) and Acacia falcata (Hickory Wattle). The groundcover was diverse consisting of Austrodanthonia spp., Aristida vagans (Three-awn Speargrass), Panicum simile (Two-coloured Panic), Austrostipa pubescens, Themeda triandra, Microlaena stipoides, Entolasia stricta, Echinopogon caespitosus (Hedge-hog Grass), Lepidosperma laterale, Imperata cylindrica (Blady Grass), Carex inversa, Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi (Mulga Fern), Goodenia hederacea subsp. hederacea and Pratia purpurascens.

The CRCIF in Good condition is consistent with the EEC CRCIF, listed under the TSC Act and CEEC under the EPBC Act. The CRCIF in good condition within the subject site is categorised as Category D under the EPBC Act.

CRCIF – Moderate The moderate condition CRCIF within the subject site consisted of a canopy of Eucalyptus fibrosa and Melaleuca decora. The mid-storey consisted of a scattered occurrence of Dillwynia tenuifolia, Acacia decurrens, Ozothamnus diosmifolius, Exocarpos cupressiformis and Hakea dactyloides. The ground cover consisted of > 30 % native perennial species including Aristida vagans, Austrostipa pubescens, Microlaena stipoides, Lepidosperma laterale, Imperata cylindrica, Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi, Themeda triandra and Carex inversa.

The ground cover consisted of a scattered occurrence of exotic species including Eragrostis curvula, Sida rhombifolia, Senecio madagascariensis (Fire Weed), Verbena bonariensis (Purple Top) and Lantana camara (Lantana).

The CRCIF in moderate condition is consistent with the EEC CRCIF, listed under the TSC Act and CEEC under the EPBC Act. The CRCIF in moderate condition within the subject site is categorised as Category A under the EPBC Act.

CRCIF - Low The low condition CRCIF within the subject site consisted of a canopy of Eucalyptus fibrosa. The mid-storey consisted of a scattered occurrence of Dillwynia tenuifolia, Acacia decurrens and Ozothamnus diosmifolius. The ground cover consisted of <30 % native perennial species including Aristida vagans, Austrostipa pubescens, Microlaena stipoides, Themeda triandra and Carex inversa.

The ground covers and mid-storey were dominated by exotic species including Eragrostis curvula, Paspalum dilatatum (Paspalum), Cirsium vulgare (Spear Thistle), Conyza bonariensis (Flax-leaf Fleabane), Hypochaeris radicata (Cat’s Ear), Centaurium tenuiflorum, Solanum nigrum, Sida rhombifolia, Senecio madagascariensis, Verbena bonariensis and Lantana camara.

The CRCIF in low condition did not meet the EPBC condition thresholds for the CEEC, given that it consisted of a ground cover with <30% native perennial species.

The proposed development will impact on 1.03 ha of CRCIF as recognised under the EPBC Act listed CRCIF. The loss of 1.03 ha represents approximately 0.1% of the remaining CRCIF left in total on the Cumberland Plain (1011 ha). This impact is considered to be very small in the context of the surrounding stands of CRCIF within the locality (Figure 5) and that are proposed to be protected as a conservation area under a Biobanking Agreement.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 14 of 45

The likely impact to CRCIF is summarised by responding to the MNES Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 criteria:

Significant impact criteria Response Will the action reduce the extent of an The proposal will reduce the current extent of CRCIF through ecological community the removal of 0.33 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF (0.15 ha Category A and 0.18 ha Category D), and the modification of 0.7 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF (0.38 ha Category A and 0.32 ha Category D).

Proposed impacts to EPBC listed CRCIF are detailed in Table 1 and shown in Figure 6.

The EPBC significant impact guidelines (DotEE 2015) recommended a minimum buffer zone of 30 m from the outer edge of the patch is provided to act as a barrier to further direct disturbance. Where the buffer is subject to existing land uses, such as cropping, grazing or fire breaks, these can continue. A 25 m APZ is proposed around the retained vegetation, this will involve selective thinning of trees and shrubs and suppression of the ground layer, all canopy trees will be maintained.

The EPBC significant impact guidelines (DotEE 2015) also suggest that any removal of a CEEC would be significant, however the patch of CRCIF within the subject site extends beyond the patch of CRCIF recorded within the subject site to the east, north and south, and is one connected patch (Figure 5). Therefore, based on the Cumberland Plain mapping (NPWS 2002), the proposed action will reduce the extent of an ecological community by 1.0 %.

In addition, the majority of the vegetation within the development footprint is in poor condition (30% or less native vegetation ground cover) and subject to edge effects from the surrounding land use.

Will the action fragment or increase The lot layout has been designed to maximise the retention of fragmentation of an ecological community. CRCIF within the subject site. The proposed subdivision will result in the removal of 0.33 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF (0.15 ha Category A and 0.18 ha Category D), and the modification of 0.7 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF (0.38 ha Category A and 0.32 ha Category D).

The CRCIF to be removed / modified is located on the western fringe of the community and is bordered by Rickards Road to the west. The proposed action would not fragment CRCIF within the subject site, or in the surrounding landscape. Thus it is unlikely that the habitat would become fragmented or isolated from other habitats as a result of the proposed action. Will the action adversely affect habitat critical Habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological to the survival of an ecological community. community’ refers to areas that are necessary for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal, for the long- term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators), to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community. Such habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 15 of 45

plan for the species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological community; and/ or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the minister under the EPBC Act.

The CRCIF that would be removed / modified is not considered to be habitat critical to the survival of this community because of its small size (1.03 ha) in relation to the patch that will remain (approximately 126 ha). In addition, the size of the native vegetation retained in the community and in the surrounding landscape is able to support ecological processes (such as pollination) that would benefit the patch of CRCIF that would not be cleared. Will the action modify or destroy abiotic (non- The proposal would not substantially alter the abiotic factors living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for the survival of the CEEC given that the APZ will necessary for an ecological community’s provide a buffer for the CEEC and an Erosion and survival, including reduction of groundwater Sedimentation Plan (ESCP) will be implemented to manage levels, or substantial alteration of surface water surface water drainage patterns so that they will not alter the drainage patterns. adjacent retained vegetation. Sediment control will be routinely inspected after rainfall events and periodically inspected during normal conditions.

Will the action cause a substantial change in The proposal will result in the removal of 0.33 ha of EPBC Act the species composition of an occurrence of listed CRCIF (0.15 ha Category A and 0.18 ha Category D), an ecological community, including causing a and the modification of 0.7 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF (0.38 decline or loss of functionally important ha Category A and 0.32 ha Category D). species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting The Category A CRCIF within the subject site has been highly modified and consists of scattered shrubs and approx. 30% native ground cover. In addition, 1.1 ha of CRCIF will be managed as an APZ, creating a buffer from the retained vegetation. The APZ will involve selective thinning of trees and shrubs and suppression of the ground layer. However, a native ground cover will be retained.

11.59 ha of Category D CRCIF will be retained within the subject site under a conservation agreement. The vegetation proposed to be retained contains the community in all its strata’s, and is in good condition.

Therefore, the proposed action is not considered to cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community.

There is potential that the APZ management is likely to encourage a change in the composition of flora species such that weeds are favoured. To compensate, a VMP will be provided as part of the conservation agreements to assist in the management of exotic species. Will the action cause a substantial reduction in The proposal would result in the removal of 0.33 ha of EPBC the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an Act listed CRCIF (0.15 ha Category A and 0.18 ha Category ecological community, including, but not limited D), and the modification of 0.7 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF to: (0.38 ha Category A and 0.32 ha Category D).  assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological However, 11.59 ha will be retained within the subject site under a conservation agreement. Potential indirect impacts on the community, to become established, or local occurrence from invasive species, fertilisers and  causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other pollutants will be mitigated and managed herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants through a VMP as part of the conservation agreements.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 16 of 45

into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the Therefore, the proposal would not cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of CRCIF. ecological community, or Will the action interfere with the recovery of an The proposal will result in a permanent loss of the extent of ecological community CRCIF within the subject site for the proposed action. This action conflicts with the recovery of CRCIF community. Despite this, the works are considered minor considering the patch of CRCIF within the subject site extends beyond the patch of CRCIF recorded within the subject site to the east, north and south, and is one connected patch (Figure 5). Therefore, the proposed action will reduce the extent of the ecological community by 0.8%.

Additionally 11.59 ha of CRCIF in the subject site will be conserved and a VMP will be prepared to provide suitable management practices to protect and maintain the diversity within this patch.

On the basis of the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposed action will result in a significant impact to CRCIF because:  The proposal will reduce the current extent of CRCIF through the removal of only 0.33 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF and the modification of 0.7 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF.  Selective thinning of trees and shrubs and suppression of the ground layer is required to maintain APZ and setback, all tree will be retained in this zone.  11.59 ha of CRCIF in the subject site will be conserved and a VMP will be prepared to provide suitable management practices to protect and maintain the diversity within this patch.  The proposed action would not fragment CRCIF within the subject site, or in the surrounding landscape.

Likelihood of Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act Habitat Associations Occurrence

FAUNA Invertebrates Pommerhelix Dural Land Snail Endangered Dural Land Snail favours area of shale No duralensis sandstone transition in forest habitats that have good native cover and woody debris. Shelters under bark and rocks or occasionally under leaf litter and lighter woody debris. Mainly feeds on the fruiting bodies and hyphae of fungi (TSSC 2015). Fish Macquaria Macquarie Perch Endangered Habitat for the Macquarie perch is bottom or No australasica mid-water in slow-flowing rivers with deep holes, typically in the upper reaches of forested catchments with intact riparian vegetation. Macquarie perch also do well in some upper catchment lakes. In some parts of its range, the species is reduced to taking refuge in small pools which persist in midland–upland areas through the drier summer periods.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 17 of 45

Prototroctes Australian Vulnerable Historically, this species occurred in coastal No maraena Grayling streams from the Grose River southwards through NSW, VIC and TAS. On mainland Australia, this species has been recorded from rivers flowing east and south of the main dividing ranges. This species spends only part of its lifecycle in freshwater, mainly inhabiting clear, gravel-bottomed streams with alternating pools and riffles, and granite outcrops but has also been found in muddy- bottomed, heavily silted habitat. Grayling migrate between freshwater streams and the ocean and as such it is generally accepted to be a diadromous (migratory between fresh and salt waters) species. Amphibians Heleioporus Giant Burrowing Vulnerable Forages in woodlands, wet heath, dry and wet No australiacus Frog sclerophyll forest (Ehmann 1997). Associated with semi-permanent to ephemeral sand or rock based streams (Ehmann 1997), where the soil is soft and sandy so that burrows can be constructed (Environment Australia 2000). Litoria aurea Green and Golden Vulnerable This species has been observed utilising a No Bell Frog variety of natural and man-made waterbodies (Pyke & White 1996) such as coastal swamps, marshes, dune swales, lagoons, lakes, other estuary wetlands, riverine floodplain wetlands and billabongs, stormwater detention basins, farm dams, bunded areas, drains, ditches and any other structure capable of storing water (DECC 2007). Fast flowing streams are not utilised for breeding purposes by this species (Mahony 1999). Preferable habitat for this species includes attributes such as shallow, still or slow flowing, permanent and/or widely fluctuating water bodies that are unpolluted and without heavy shading (DECC 2007). Large permanent swamps and ponds exhibiting well-established fringing vegetation (especially bulrushes–Typha sp. and spike rushes–Eleocharis sp.) adjacent to open grassland areas for foraging are preferable (Ehmann 1997; Robinson 1993). Ponds that are typically inhabited tend to be free from predatory fish such as Mosquito Fish (Gambusia holbrooki) (DECC 2007).

Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn’s Tree Vulnerable Plateaus and eastern slopes of the Great No Frog Dividing Range from Watagan State Forest south to Buchan in Victoria. The species has not been recorded in southern NSW within the last decade. Breeding habitat is the upper reaches of permanent streams and perched swamps. Non-breeding habitat is heath- based forests and woodlands

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 18 of 45

Mixophyes balbus Stuttering Frog Vulnerable A variety of forest habitats from rainforest No through wet and moist sclerophyll forest to riparian habitat in dry sclerophyll forest (DECC 2007) that are generally characterised by deep leaf litter or thick cover from understorey vegetation (Ehmann 1997). Breeding habitats are streams and occasionally springs. Not known from streams disturbed by humans (Ehmann 1997) or still water environments (NSW Scientific Committee 2002).

Reptiles Hoplocephalus Broad-headed Vulnerable Typical sites consist of exposed sandstone No bungaroides Snake outcrops and benching where the vegetation is predominantly woodland, open woodland and/or heath on Triassic sandstone of the Sydney Basin (DECC 2007). They utilise rock crevices and exfoliating sheets of weathered sandstone during the cooler months and tree hollows during summer (Webb & Shine 1998). Some of the canopy tree species found to regularly co-occur at known sites include Corymbia eximia, C. gummifera, Eucalyptus sieberi, E. punctata and E. piperita (DECC 2007).

Birds Anthochaera Regent Critically Associated with temperate eucalypt woodland Potential phrygia Honeyeater Endangered and open forest including forest edges, wooded farmland and urban areas with (a.k.a Xanthomyza mature eucalypts, and riparian forests of River phrygia) Oak (Casuarina cunninghamiana) (Garnett 1993). Areas containing Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) in coastal areas have been observed to be utilised (NPWS 1997). The Regent Honeyeater primarily feeds on nectar from box and ironbark eucalypts and occasionally from banksias and mistletoes (NPWS 1995). As such it is reliant on locally abundant nectar sources with different flowering times to provide reliable supply of nectar (Environment Australia 2000). Botaurus Australasian Endangered Terrestrial wetlands with tall dense No poiciloptilus Bittern vegetation, occasionally estuarine habitats (Marchant & Higgins 1990). Found along the east coast and in the Murray-Darling Basin, notably in floodplain wetlands of the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir Rivers (Marchant & Higgins 1990; NPWS 1990). Reedbeds, swamps, streams, estuaries (Simpson & Day 1999). Favours permanent shallow waters, edges of pools and waterways, with tall, dense vegetation such as sedges, rushes and reeds on muddy or peaty substrate. Also occurs in Lignum Muehlenbeckia florulenta and Canegrass Eragrostis australasica on inland wetlands (NSW Scientific Committee, 2010).

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 19 of 45

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Critically Mainly occur on intertidal mudflats in No Endangered sheltered coastal areas and around non-tidal swamps lakes and lagoons near the coast. They will occur in both fresh and brackish waters. Breeding does not occur in Australia (DotE 2016b). Dasyornis Eastern Bristlebird Endangered Habitat is characterised by dense, low No brachypterus vegetation including heath and open woodland with a heathy understorey; in northern NSW occurs in open forest with tussocky grass understorey; all of these vegetation types are fire prone. Age of habitat since fires (fire-age) is of paramount importance to this species; Illawarra and southern populations reach maximum densities in habitat that has not been burnt for at least 15 years; however, in the northern NSW population a lack of fire in grassy forest may be detrimental as grassy tussock nesting habitat becomes unsuitable after long periods without fire; northern NSW birds are usually found in habitats burnt five to 10 years previously. Grantiella picta Painted Vulnerable A nomadic species that typically inhabits Unlikely Honeyeater Boree, Brigalow and Box-Gum Woodlands and Box-Ironbark Forests with abundant mistletoe (DECC 2007). It is a specialist feeder on the fruits of mistletoes growing on woodland eucalypts and acacias, preferring Amyema sp mistletoe (DECC 2007). Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot Endangered Breeds in Tasmania between September and Unlikely January. Migrates to mainland in autumn, where it forages on profuse flowering Eucalypts (Blakers et al. 1984; Schodde and Tidemann 1986; Forshaw and Cooper 1981). Hence, in this region, autumn and winter flowering eucalypts are important for this species. Favoured feed trees include winter flowering species such as Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Red Bloodwood (C. gummifera), Mugga Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), and White Box (E. albens) (DECC 2007).

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Vulnerable Prefers coastal habitats with intertidal No baueri (baueri), Western mudflats or sandflats, including around bays, Alaskan Bar-tailed harbours and tidal estuaries, feeding in Godwit shallow water and near the water’s edge. They roost on sandy beaches, sandbars and spits and in near-coastal saltmarsh. Known to occur in the Parramatta River Estuary but these habitats not present at the site under consideration. Breeding does not occur in Australia (TSSC 2016a).

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 20 of 45

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Critically Prefers coastal habitats with intertidal No menzbieri (menzbieri), Endangered mudflats, sandflats or banks, including around Northern Siberian bays, harbours, coastal lagoons and Bar-tailed Godwit estuaries. Other records are from ponds, salt lakes, brackish wetlands near coasts and rock platforms. Feeding is in shallow water and near the water’s edge in tidal estuaries and harbours. They roost on sandy beaches, sandbars and spits and in near-coastal saltmarsh. Known to occur in the Parramatta River Estuary but these habitats not present at the site under consideration. Breeding does not occur in Australia (TSSC 2016b).

Numenius Eastern Curlew Critically Mainly found in sheltered coasts including No madagascariensis Endangered estuaries, harbours, bays, inlets and coastal lagoons, on mudflats and sandflats often with beds of seagrass. May also occur on ocean beaches and coral reefs, rock platforms and on rocky islets. Often among saltmarsh and mangroves, and roosts on dry beach sand and occasionally trees and on oyster racks. Breeding does not occur in Australia (DotE 2016r).

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Endangered Prefers fringes of swamps, dams and nearby No Snipe marshy areas where there is a cover of grasses, lignum, low scrub or open timber (DECC 2007). Nests on the ground amongst tall vegetation, such as grasses, tussocks or reeds (ibid.). Breeding is often in response to local conditions; generally occurs from September to December (DECC 2007). Roosts during the day in dense vegetation (NSW Scientific Committee 2004). Forages nocturnally on mud-flats and in shallow water (DECC 2007). Feeds on worms, molluscs, insects and some plant-matter (ibid.).

Mammals Chalinolobus Large-eared Pied Vulnerable The Large-eared Pied Bat has been recorded Unlikely dwyeri Bat in a variety of habitats, including dry sclerophyll forests, woodland, sub-alpine woodland, edges of rainforests and wet sclerophyll forests (Churchill 1998; DECC 2007). This species roosts in caves, rock overhangs and disused mine shafts and as such is usually associated with rock outcrops and cliff faces (Churchill 1998; DECC 2007).

Dasyurus Spot-tailed Quoll, Endangered The Spotted-tailed Quoll inhabits a range of No maculatus Spotted-tailed forest communities including wet and dry maculatus Quoll, Tiger Quoll sclerophyll forests, coastal heathlands and rainforests (Mansergh 1984; DECC 2007j), (SE Mainland more frequently recorded near the ecotones Population) of closed and open forest. This species requires habitat features such as maternal den sites, an abundance of food (birds and small mammals) and large areas of relatively intact vegetation to forage in (DECC 2007). Maternal den sites are logs with cryptic entrances; rock outcrops; windrows; burrows (Environment Australia 2000).

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 21 of 45

Petauroides volans Greater Glider Vulnerable Favours areas with taller Eucalyptus forests No and in particular areas with a diversity of eucalypts and availability of large hollows for shelter. The diet is mainly made up of foliage of eucalypts and sometimes flowers. Higher altitude sites are favoured, but the altitudinal range is from sea level to at least 1200 m altitude (TSSC 2016c).

Petrogale Brush-tailed Rock- Vulnerable Rocky areas in a variety of habitats, typically No penicillata wallaby north facing sites with numerous ledges, caves and crevices (Strahan 1995).

Phascolarctos Koala Vulnerable Associated with both wet and dry Eucalypt No cinereus forest and woodland that contains a canopy cover of approximately 10 to 70% (Reed et al. 1990), with acceptable Eucalypt food trees. Some preferred Eucalyptus species are: Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. punctata, E. cypellocarpa, E. viminalis

Pseudomys New Holland Vulnerable A small burrowing native rodent with a No novaehollandiae Mouse fragmented distribution across Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Inhabits open heathlands, open woodlands with a heathland understorey and vegetated sand dunes. A social animal, living predominantly in burrows shared with other individuals. The home range of the New Holland Mouse ranges from 0.44 ha to 1.4 ha and the species peaks in abundance during early to mid stages of vegetation succession typically induced by fire (DSEWPC 2010)

Inhabits a wide range of habitats including Pteropus Grey-headed Vulnerable Potential poliocephalus Flying-fox rainforest, mangroves, paperbark forests, wet and dry sclerophyll forests and cultivated areas (Churchill 1998, Eby 1998). Camps are often located in gullies, typically close to water, in vegetation with a dense canopy (Churchill 1998).

FLORA

Acacia bynoeana Bynoe’s Wattle Vulnerable Acacia bynoeana is found in central eastern No NSW, from the Hunter District (Morisset) south to the Southern Highlands and west to the Blue Mountains, and has recently been found in the Colymea and Parma Creek areas west of Nowra. It is found in heath and dry sclerophyll forest, typically on a sand or sandy clay substrate, often with ironstone gravels (DECC 2007). Acacia gordonii - Endangered Acacia gordonii is restricted to the north-west No of Sydney, occurring in the lower Blue Mountains in the west, and in the Maroota/Glenorie area in the east, within the Hawkesbury, Blue Mountains and Baulkham Hills local government areas. Grows in dry sclerophyll forest and heathlands amongst or within rock platforms on sandstone outcrops (DECC 2007).

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 22 of 45

Acacia pubescens Downy Wattle Vulnerable Acacia pubescens occurs on the NSW Central No Coast in Western Sydney, mainly in the Bankstown-Fairfield-Rookwood area and the Pitt Town area, with outliers occurring at Barden Ridge, Oakdale and Mountain Lagoon. It is associated with Cumberland Plains Woodlands, Shale / Gravel Forest and Shale / Sandstone Transition Forest growing on clay soils, often with ironstone gravel (NPWS 1997; Benson and McDougall 1996). Allocasuarina - Endangered Allocasuarina glareicola is primarily restricted No glareicola to the Richmond district on the north-west Cumberland Plain, with an outlier population found at Voyager Point. It grows in Castlereagh woodland on lateritic soil (DECC 2007). Asterolasia elegans - Endangered Asterolasia elegans is restricted to a few No localities on the NSW Central Coast north of Sydney, in the Baulkham Hills, Hawkesbury and Hornsby LGAs. It is found in sheltered forests on mid- to lower slopes and valleys, in or adjacent to gullies (DEC 2005). Cryptostylis Leafless Tongue Vulnerable Cryptostylis hunteriana is known from a range No hunteriana Orchid of vegetation communities including swamp- heath and woodland (DEC 2005). The larger populations typically occur in woodland dominated by Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus sclerophylla), Silvertop Ash (E. sieberi), Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) and Black Sheoak (Allocasuarina littoralis); where it appears to prefer open areas in the understorey of this community and is often found in association with the Large Tongue Orchid (C. subulata) and the Tartan Tongue Orchid (C. erecta) (DEC 2005). Bell (2001) has identified Coastal Plains Scribbly Gum Woodland and Coastal Plains Smoothed- barked Apple Woodland as potential habitat on the Central Coast. Flowers between November and February, although may not flower regularly (DEC 2005; Bell 2001). Cynanchum White-flowered Endangered Cynanchum elegans occurs on a variety of No elegans Wax Plant lithologies and soil types, usually on steep slopes with varying degrees of soil fertility. The species occurs mainly at the ecotone between dry subtropical rainforest and sclerophyll forest/woodland communities (NSW NPWS 2002a). In the Illawarra region and Cumberland Plain, the majority of the populations of White-flowered Wax Plant are found in small isolated remnant patches of dry rainforest. Epacris sparsa - Vulnerable Restricted to the lower Grose River, within the No Hawkesbury and Blue Mountains LGAs. Riparian Sandstone Scrub, on the base of cliffs or rock faces, on rock ledges or among rocks in the riparian flood zone. Also pockets of damp clay soil, chiefly on south-west facing slopes. Eucalyptus Black Gum Vulnerable In NSW, found in the Central and Southern No aggregata Tablelands, in the South Eastern Highlands Bioregion and on the western fringe of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. Alluvial soils, on cold, poorly-drained flats and hollows adjacent to creeks and small rivers. Usually occurs in open woodland with a grassy groundlayer.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 23 of 45

Genoplesium Yellow Gnat- Endangered Known from coastal areas from northern No baueri orchid Sydney south to the Nowra district. Previous records from the Hunter Valley and Nelson Bay are now thought to be erroneous. Grows in shrubby woodland in open forest on shallow sandy soils. Haloragis exalata Wingless Vulnerable Disjunct distribution in the Central Coast, No subsp. exalata Raspwort South Coast and North Western Slopes botanical subdivisions of NSW. Protected and shaded damp situations in riparian habitats. Haloragodendron Hal Endangered Confined to a very narrow distribution on the No lucasii north shore of Sydney. Dry sclerophyll forest and low open woodland on sheltered slopes near creeks, in moist sandy loam soils. Melaleuca deanei Deane’s Vulnerable Found in heath on sandstone (DEC 2005), No Paperbark and also associated with woodland on broad ridge tops and slopes on sandy loam and lateritic soils (Benson and McDougall 1998). Micromyrtus - Vulnerable Ku-ring-gai/Berowra area, Holsworthy/ No minutiflora Wedderburn area, Springwood (in the Blue Mountains), Wollemi National Park, Yalwal (west of Nowra) and Central Coast (Hawkesbury River) areas. Heath on sandstone. Pelargonium sp. Omeo Stork's-bill Endangered In NSW, Pelargonium sp. striatellum (G.W. No striatellum Carr 10345) is known from the Southern Tablelands (PlantNet 2011). Otherwise, only known from the shores of Lake Omeo near Benambra in Victoria where it grows in cracking clay soil that is probably occasionally flooded (Walsh & Entwisle 1999). The species is known to occur in habitat usually located just above the high water level of irregularly inundated or ephemeral lakes. During dry periods, the species is known to colonise exposed lake beds. It is not known if the species’ rhizomes and/or soil seedbank persist through prolonged inundation or drought (DSEWPAC 2012). Persoonia hirsuta Hairy Persoonia Endangered Persoonia hirsuta occurs from Singleton in the No north, south to Bargo and the Blue Mountains to the west (DECC 2007). It grows in dry sclerophyll eucalypt woodland and forest on sandstone (PlantNet 2011). Persoonia nutans Nodding Geebung Endangered Associated with dry woodland, Castlereagh No Scribbly Gum Woodland, Agnes Banks Woodland and sandy soils associated with tertiary alluvium, occasionally poorly drained (Benson and McDougall 2000). Endemic to the Western Sydney (Benson and McDougall 2000). Pimelea curviflora - Vulnerable Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora is confined to No var. curviflora the coastal area of Sydney between northern Sydney in the south and Maroota in the north- west. It grows on shaley/lateritic soils over sandstone and shale/sandstone transition soils on ridgetops and upper slopes amongst woodlands (DECC 2007). Associated with the Duffys Forest Community, shale lenses on ridges in Hawkesbury sandstone geology (Pittwater Council 2000).

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 24 of 45

Pimelea spicata Spiked Rice- Endangered In western Sydney, Pimelea spicata occurs on No flower an undulating topography of well-structured clay soils, derived from Wianamatta shale (DEC 2005). It is associated with Cumberland Plains Woodland (CPW), in open woodland and grassland often in moist depressions or near creek lines (Ibid.). Has been located in disturbed areas that would have previously supported CPW (Ibid.). Pomaderris Rufous Endangered In NSW, found around the Colo, Nepean and No brunnea Pomaderris Hawkesbury Rivers, including the Bargo area and near Camden. It also occurs near Walcha on the New England tablelands. Moist woodland or forest on clay and alluvial soils of flood plains and creek lines. Pterostylis gibbosa Illawarra Endangered Known from a small number of populations in No Greenhood the upper Hunter Valley (Milbrodale), the Illawarra region (Albion Park and Yallah) and near Nowra (DEC 2005). Plants grow in a variety of woodland and open forest communities with shallow rocky soils. Pterostylis saxicola Sydney Plains Endangered Terrestrial orchid predominantly found in No Greenhood Hawkesbury Sandstone Gully Forest growing in small pockets of soil that have formed in depressions in sandstone rock shelves (NPWS 1997). Known from Georges River National Park, Ingleburn, Holsworthy, Peter Meadows Creek, St Marys Tower (NSW Scientific Committee 1999). Pultenaea glabra Smooth Bush-pea Vulnerable Restricted to the higher Blue Mountains and No has been recorded from the Katoomba- Hazelbrook and Mount Victoria areas, with unconfirmed sightings in the Mount Wilson and Mount Irvine areas. Swamp margins, hillslopes, gullies and creekbanks, within dry sclerophyll forest and tall damp heath on sandstone.

Pultenaea - Vulnerable Endemic to the Cumberland Plain. Mainly from No parviflora Windsor to Penrith and east to Dean Park, with outlier populations at Kemps Creek and Wilberforce. Dry sclerophyll forest, especially Castlereagh Ironbark Forest, Shale Gravel Transition Forest and transitional areas where these communities adjoin Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland.

Rhizanthella slateri Eastern Endangered In NSW, currently known from fewer than 10 No Underground locations, including near Bulahdelah, the Orchid Watagan Mountains, the Blue Mountains, Wiseman's Ferry area, Agnes Banks and near Nowra. Sclerophyll forest in shallow to deep loams.

Thelymitra Kangaloon Sun Critically Only known to occur on the southern No kangaloonica Orchid Endangered tablelands of NSW in the Moss Vale / Kangaloon / Fitzroy Falls area at 550-700 m above sea level. Swamps in sedgelands over grey silty grey loam soils.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 25 of 45

Thesium australe Austral Toadflax Vulnerable Widespread throughout the eastern third of No NSW but most common on the North Western Slopes, Northern Tablelands and North Coast. Occurs in grassland or grassy woodland. Often found in damp sites in association with Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis) (DECC 2007). The preferred soil type is a fertile loam derived from basalt although it occasionally occurs on metasediments and granite.

Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater)

Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) is listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act. The species range and numbers have contracted greatly since about the 1940s. It previously ranged from near Rockhampton in Queensland, to Wilmington in South Australia. It was last recorded in South Australia in 1977 and is now probably extinct in that state. There were reports of ‘immense’ numbers and ‘very large flocks’ in the early 20th century, but flocks of more than 30 birds are now uncommon

The Regent Honeyeater inhabits temperate woodlands and open forests of the inland slopes of south-east Australia, particularly Box-Ironbark Woodland and riparian forests comprised of River Sheoak. There are two known breeding sites for the Regent Honeyeater in NSW; Capertee Valley and the Bundarra-Barraba regions.

The regent honeyeater’s movement through the landscape is governed by the flowering of select eucalypt species. It is nomadic and partly migratory, with some predictable seasonal movements observed. Breeding varies between regions, and corresponds with flowering of key eucalypt and mistletoe species. Although breeding may occur at the same site between seasons, some pairs change breeding sites between seasons. The timing of breeding varies between regions, and appears to correspond with the flowering of key eucalypt and mistletoe species. Breeding mostly occurs during spring and summer, from August to January. While there is some fidelity to nesting sites, pairs may nest 85 km from a nest site used the previous year, and some pairs change breeding sites between site is used occasionally by the Regent Honeyeater, although it is unlikely that individuals of these species are dependent upon the subject site.

No individuals of the Regent Honeyeater were recorded during the field survey, although all three records of the species from 1998 to 2001 are known within a 5 km radius of the site (OEH 2016). There is potential that the subject site is used occasionally by the Regent Honeyeater, although it is unlikely that individuals of this species are dependent upon the site. The potential impact of the removal of 0.55 of CRCIF has been assessed below. The 1.01 ha of CRCIF to be modified has not been assessed, as the canopy will be retained.

The likely impact to Regent Honeyeater is summarised by responding to the MNES Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 criteria:

Significant impact criteria Response Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a The Regent Honeyeater returns each year to specific breeding population grounds in western NSW during warmer months. During non- breeding season this species will traverse large areas in search of prolific flowering events. The removal of some low lying vegetation within an urbanised environment is highly unlikely lead to the long-term decrease in the size of the population for the following reasons:  no impact will occur on breeding habitat,  no individuals have previously been recorded within the subject site  no increase in fragmentation will occur.

The subject site represents potential foraging habitat for this species. The proposed removal of 0.55 ha of CRCIF is unlikely to lead in the long-term decrease in the size of the population, given the retention of 11.59 ha of CRCIF within the subject site and the availability of habitat adjacent to the subject site

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 26 of 45

Reduce the area of occupancy of the species The area of occupancy has been predicted at 300 km² across Australia and 200 km² within NSW. It is currently contracting within its outer limits, particularly in the southern extent in Victoria (DotEE 2016b). In NSW it is now largely absent from the Central Coast around Sydney region (DotEE 2016b). The removal of vegetation may contribute towards the reduction in the area of occupancy for this species.

The proposed works will involve the removal of 0.55 ha of CRCIF considered potential foraging habitat for the Regent Honeyeater. The area of CRCIF to be modified will undergo only selective thinning of the canopy, with most mature eucalypt species to be retained.

There is potential that during construction works the production of noise and other disturbances may deter some species from foraging in this area, however, these are only temporary disturbances. Therefore, the proposed subdivision is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy of the Regent Honeyeater.

Fragment an existing population into two or There are three potential sub-communities of the Regent more populations Honeyeaters; the Bundarra-Barraba area and the Capertee Valley in NSW, and north-eastern Victoria (DotEE 2016b) and genetic evidence suggests that all the Regent Honeyeaters population are part of one continuous population.

Given that the Regent Honeyeater is part of one population the removal of 0.55 ha of CRCIF is highly unlikely to result in the fragmentation of habitats such that the sub-communities would be split into two or more populations. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival No habitat critical to the survival of the Regent Honeyeater has of a species been declared, however, there are several management sites declared under NSW OEH (OEH 2016b) which are known breeding habitats. These sites are located west of the Great Dividing Range and therefore located outside of the subject site. Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population There are three known breeding sites in NSW for the Regent Honeyeater. Possible impacts on the breeding cycle would include the removal of breeding habitat or foraging habitat along migratory routes and increase in predation of chicks or adults.

The subject site is located outside of the known breeding sites for the Regent Honeyeater and the removal of small amount of shrubs and ground cover species are unlikely to impact on the availability of foraging resources considering the availability of suitable nectar producing species retained within the subject site and the adjacent landscape. Therefore, the works are highly unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of the population.

Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease The lot layout has been designed to maximise the retention of the availability or quality of habitat to the extent CRCIF considered foraging habitat within the subject site. The that the species is likely to decline proposed subdivision will result in the removal of 0.55 ha of CRCIF within the subject site. The CRCIF to be removed is located on the western fringe of the community and is bordered by Rickards Road to the west. The proposed subdivision would not fragment CRCIF within the subject site, or in the surrounding landscape.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 27 of 45

Given the highly mobile nature of this species and the availability of habitat within the subject site and adjacent landscape, the habitat to be removed would not isolate or fragment foraging habitat.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a The proposed works are unlikely to result in the establishment critically endangered or endangered species of an invasive species that is harmful to the Regent becoming established in the endangered or Honeyeater. The works involve clearance of native vegetation critically endangered species’ habitat and incorporation of strict controls to prevent spread of weeds through a VMP as part of the conservation agreements.

Introduce disease that may cause the species The proposed works are unlikely to result in the establishment to decline, or of an introduced disease that is harmful to the Regent Honeyeater. The works involve clearance of native vegetation and incorporation of strict controls to prevent the introduction of new disease into the area.

Interfere with the recovery of the species. Approximately 11.59 ha of potential foraging habitat will be retained throughout the subject site which forms part of a larger patch that extends into the adjacent landscape. Given the highly mobile nature of this species and its wide foraging range, the proposed works will not interfere with the recovery of the Regent Honeyeater.

On the basis of the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposed action will result in a significant impact to the Regent Honeyeater.

Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) – Vulnerable

The Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox - GHFF) plays an important ecological function and is regarded as a ‘keystone’ species for its role in pollination and seed dispersal for forests. It is widely distributed across the coastal and near coastal regions of eastern Australia from Melbourne through to Central Queensland. The species has suffered a large decline in its overall population size as a result of habitat loss through vegetation clearing and illegal shooting.

The GHFF is a highly mobile species and has been recorded travelling up to 2000 km within a nine month period. The species is known to forage widely within the vicinity of their roost sites, travelling up to 50 km a night in search of food which comprises a mix of nectar from Eucalypts, Banksias and Melaleucas as well as fruit. The food sources favoured by the species can be spatially and temporally variable and as such the species moves in response to the abundance of forage resources (DotEE 2016c).

GHFF was not recorded during the survey. There are records of the species within a 10 km radius of the study area (OEH 2016), and suitable foraging habitat is located within the study area. There is potential that the study area is used occasionally by this species, although it is unlikely that individuals of this species are dependent upon resources in the study area.

The closest known GHFF camp is located 5 km north of the subject site at Yarramundi, and contains approximately 2,500 individuals (Hawkesbury City Council 2008).

The potential impact of the removal of 0.55 of CRCIF has been assessed below. The 1.01 ha of CRCIF to be modified has not been assessed, as the canopy will be retained.

The likely impact to the GHFF is summarised by responding to the MNES Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 criteria:

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 28 of 45

Significant impact criteria Response Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an The action would result in the removal of 0.55 ha of CRCIF, important population of a species which is potential foraging habitat for the GHFF. Selective thinning of trees and shrubs and suppression of the ground layer is required to maintain APZ. No known camps would be impacted.

The species is highly mobile and has a large home range travelling long distances on feeding forays (up to 50 km). There is good quality habitat available in the subject site and surrounding landscape. Therefore, the action is unlikely 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 There is a single interbreeding population of GHFF in Australia, population and as such, any colony or individual of the species is an important population of the species. The action is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy of an important population given that no campsites have been recorded within the subject site and that extensive foraging habitat exists in the subject site and surrounding landscape. Fragment an existing important population into There is a single interbreeding population of GHFF in Australia, two or more populations and as such, any colony or individual of the species is an important population of the species. The area of habitat that would be impacted for the proposed development is located on the western fringe of the community and is bordered by Rickards Road to the west. The action would not remove connecting habitat between the subject site and the surrounding landscape as the vegetation extends beyond the patch recorded within the subject site to the north, east and south and is one connected patch. Therefore, the action will not fragment an existing important population into two or more populations. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival Foraging habitat within a 50 kilometre radius of a roost site with of a species greater than 30,000 individuals is foraging habitat critical to the survival of this species. The subject site is located 5 km south of a known camp containing approximately 2,500 individuals. However, the proposed works will not directly impact the camp and would result in the removal/modification of a small amount of marginal foraging habitat consisting of 0.55 ha of CRCIF.

Given the highly mobile nature of the species and the fact that the vegetation to be removed on site does not represent primary roosting or foraging habitat and extensive areas of habitat are present adjacent to the subject site, the proposed action is not considered to have an adverse impact of habitat critical to the survival of the species. Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important As no roosting habitat would be removed or disturbed, it is population unlikely the proposed action would disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population. Potential foraging habitat to be removed is minimal given the retention of 11.59 ha of potential foraging habitat within the subject site and availability in adjacent areas. Thus the action is unlikely to affect the amount of resources available to any breeding individuals. Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease This species is highly mobile in nature and the vegetation to be the availability or quality of habitat to the extent removed on site does not represent primary roosting habitat. that the species is likely to decline In addition, there are extensive areas of habitat present within and adjacent to the subject site. Therefore, the proposed works will not modify, destroy, remove, or isolate or decrease

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 29 of 45

the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline. Result in invasive species that are harmful to a The action would not result in invasive species, such as weeds, vulnerable species becoming established in that would be harmful to GHFF. The works involved clearance the vulnerable species’ habitat of vegetation and incorporation of a VMP to manage the spread of weeds. Introduce disease that may cause the species GHFF are reservoirs for the Australian bat lyssavirus and can to decline cause clinical disease and mortality in the species. The proposed works are unlikely to present a significant ecological stress on known individuals or camps utilizing the subject site and therefore unlikely to affect this species. The proposed works would be unlikely to introduce a disease that may cause this species to decline. Interfere substantially with the recovery of the A Draft National Recovery Plan exists for the GHFF (DECCW species 2009). The overall objectives of the recovery plan are:  To reduce the impact of threatening processes on the GHFF and arrest decline throughout the species’ range,  To conserve the functional roles of GHFF in seed dispersal and pollination,  To improve the standard of information available to guide recovery of the GHFF, in order to increase community knowledge of the species and reduce the impact of negative public attitudes on the species.

Given the proposed action will result in the removal of 0.55 ha of potential foraging habitat for the species, the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the draft National Recovery Plan (DECCW 2009).

On the basis of the above, it is considered unlikely that the proposed action will result in a significant impact to the GHFF.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 30 of 45

Figure 4: Vegetation mapping of the subject site

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 31 of 45

Figure 5: Vegetation mapping and threatened flora within the vicinity

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 32 of 45

Figure 6: Proposed impacts to EPBC listed CRCIF

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 33 of 45

3.1 (e) Listed migratory species Description A PMST search was undertaken with a 10 km radius of the Site. A full listing of migratory species identified in the PMST is provided below. No listed migratory species are considered likely to occur within the Site.

Nature and extent of likely impact

Likelihood of Scientific Name Common Name EPBC Act occurrence Migratory Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift Migratory Marine Bird No Ardea alba Great Egret Migratory Wetlands Species No Ardea ibis Cattle Egret Migratory Wetlands Species No Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Migratory Wetlands Species No Cuculus saturatus Oriental Cuckoo Migratory Terrestrial Species No Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe Migratory Wetlands Species No Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle Migratory Terrestrial Species No Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated Needletail Migratory Terrestrial Species No Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot Migratory Terrestrial Species No Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit Migratory Wetlands Species No

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater Migratory Terrestrial Species Unlikely Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced Monarch Migratory Terrestrial Species Unlikely Monarcha trivirgatus Spectacled Monarch Migratory Terrestrial Species No Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail Migratory Terrestrial Species Unlikely Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher Migratory Terrestrial Species Unlikely Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew Migratory Wetlands Species No Pandion haliaetus Osprey Migratory Wetlands Species No Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous Fantail Migratory Terrestrial Species Unlikely Rostratula benghalensis (sensu Painted Snipe Migratory Terrestrial Species No lato) Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank Migratory Wetlands Species No

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area

Description No Commonwealth marine areas occur within the vicinity of the proposed action.

Nature and extent of likely impact N/A

3.1 (g) Commonwealth land

Description N/A

Nature and extent of likely impact N/A

3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 34 of 45

Description N/A

Nature and extent of likely impact N/A

3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development

Description N/A

Nature and extent of likely impact N/A

3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? x No Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the x No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a x No Commonwealth marine area? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))

3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on x No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the x No Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 35 of 45

3.3 Description of the project area and affected area for the proposed action 3.3 (a) Flora and fauna

A total of 52 flora species were identified within the subject site during the ecological assessment, of which 14 are exotic species.

Two species are declared noxious in the Penrith LGA, and two Weeds of National Significance (WoNS). The following table outlines the noxious species (Penrith LGA) and WoNS identified within the subject site.

Scientific Name Common Name Class

Lantana camara Lantana 4, WoNS

Senecio madagascariensis Fire Weed 4, WoNS

Two threatened flora species were also recorded within the subject site during the ecological assessment, including Dillwynia tenuifolia and Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina, listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. The survey identified approximately 5.5 ha of known D. tenuifolia habitat and 4 ha of known G. juniperina subsp. juniperina habitat within the subject site. Distribution mapping illustrating the location of D. tenuifolia and G. juniperina subsp. juniperina within the subject site are shown in Figure 4. It is estimated the mapped habitat within the subject site comprises two D. tenuifolia individuals per square metre and one G. juniperina subsp. juniperina individual per square metre, resulting in approximately 110,000 D. tenuifolia individuals and 40,000 G. juniperina subsp. juniperina individuals within the subject site.

A range of fauna habitat features were observed within the subject site including vegetated areas of tall open woodland, hollow bearing trees (HBTs), leaf litter / woody debris and one dam. Habitat within the subject site provides potential foraging, breeding and nesting resources for a range of fauna. A total of four HBTs were recorded within the subject site. All HBTs contained small-medium hollows.

Opportunistic sightings of fauna were undertaken during the ecological assessment, with 10 fauna species recorded, consisting of six indigenous bird species, one exotic bird, one amphibian, and two native mammals. No threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act or EPBC Act were recorded within the subject site during the survey. However, 11 threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act and two threatened fauna species listed under the EPBC Act (Grey-headed Flying-fox and Regent Honeyeater) were considered to have potential to occur on site.

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows

One farm dam occurs within the centre of the site. There are no known watercourses or drainage lines within the subject site.

3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics

The soil landscape within the subject site is identified as Agnes Banks, bordered by Freemans Reach and Berkshire Park.

The subject site is entirely comprised of remnant native vegetation identified as Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest. Refer to Section 3.3 (e) below for further detail.

3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features

The subject site is located within the Priority Conservation Lands (PCLs) identified in the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan (DECCW 2010).

3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 36 of 45

Remnant native vegetation within the subject site and surrounds was identified as Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CRCIF), which corresponds to Threatened Ecological Community (TEC), Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, listed as an endangered ecological community (EEC) under the TSC Act and a critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) under the EPBC Act. The vegetation within the subject site was found in three condition states; Good, moderate and low.

The good and moderate vegetation types are consistent with the EEC CRCIF, listed under the TSC Act and CEEC under the EPBC Act. The CRCIF in good condition within the subject site is categorised as Category D and the moderate condition is categorised as Category A under the EPBC Act.

The CRCIF in low condition did not meet the EPBC condition thresholds for the CEEC, given that it consisted of a ground cover with <30% native perennial species.

3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area)

The gradient across the subject site is relatively flat.

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment

The subject site is located within a rural environment. There are several walking tracks throughout the site and the western portion of the site along Rickard Road is being used for storage with a large shipping container and several pipes and general equipment stored within this area.

The vegetation throughout the site is in good condition, with the exception of the patch to the west along Rickard Road which has a high level of weed occurrence due to previous land disturbance.

3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values The subject site does not contain any Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values.

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values

The subject site does not contain any known indigenous heritage values.

3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment

Two threatened flora species were also recorded within the subject site during the ecological assessment, including Dillwynia tenuifolia and Grevillea juniperina subsp. juniperina, listed as vulnerable under the TSC Act. The survey identified approximately 5.5 ha of known D. tenuifolia habitat and 4 ha of known G. juniperina subsp. juniperina habitat within the subject site. Distribution mapping illustrating the location of D. tenuifolia and G. juniperina subsp. juniperina within the subject site are shown in Figure 4. It is estimated the mapped habitat within the subject site comprises two D. tenuifolia individuals per square metre and one G. juniperina subsp. juniperina individual per square metre, resulting in approximately 110,000 D. tenuifolia individuals and 40,000 G. juniperina subsp. juniperina individuals within the subject site. 3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold)

The site is currently under private ownership and is comprised of a single allotment (Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh).

3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area

The majority of the subject site is currently not being used, with the exception of small portion along Rickards Road, which is being used for general equipment storage.

3.3 (m) Any proposed uses of area of proposed action

The site is proposed for residential use.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 37 of 45

4 Environmental outcomes

Proposed environmental outcomes that will be achieved for Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) as a result of the proposed action include the following:

Environmental Outcomes for CRCIF A cumulative total of 11.59 ha of CRCIF will be retained and undergo conservation management, regeneration and revegetation to ensure ecological benefits and improvements on the current condition of the vegetation community to meet the EPBC Act thresholds. This outcome will be provisioned as follows:  Retention and management of 8.65 ha under a BioBanking Agreement  Retention and management of 2.94 ha under a Section 88B covenant under the NSW Conveyancing Act 1919 and a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP)

Potential habitat for the Regent Honeyeater and Grey-headed Flying Fox will be managed and protected within the local area in the form of the abovementioned CRCIF environmental outcomes. The total minimum area of habitat that will contribute to the environmental outcomes for these species is 11.59 ha.

The conservation areas will be improved through a range of ecological restoration works set out in a VMP. A minimum of 8.65 ha will be subject to formal management practices to be set out within a BioBank agreement.

BioBanking is the key conservation measure proposed to ensure biodiversity protection and management that will bring about an improved environmental outcome for the site. BioBanking delivers ongoing benefits through active management of BioBank sites through activities such as revegetation, strategic grazing, and control of weeds and feral animals. Under a BioBanking agreement, landholders are committed to improving or maintaining biodiversity values on a site in perpetuity under the TSC Act.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 38 of 45

5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts The design of the proposed action has followed Step 4 of the Guidelines for threatened species assessment (DEC and DPI 2005) and importantly considered the Significant Impact Guidelines for MNES, which both identify important factors that must be considered when assessing the potential impacts on threatened species, populations, or ecological communities, or their habitats; namely to avoid, minimise and finally to offset any residual impacts.

Avoidance

Impacts to CRCIF was considered in consultation with ELA, Paul Lemm Planning Consultant and Eddy Hawach. A number of development scenarios were considered with the intent of avoiding and minimising impact to CRCIF, within the subject site. However, while impact on CRCIF has not been completely avoided, impacts have been minimised as far as practicable to maintain the financially viability of the proposal.

The ecological assessment conducted by ELA (2015) has been used to inform avoidance and minimisation of direct and indirect impacts to biodiversity values. These principles include:  the lot layout design selection process must include consideration and analysis of the biodiversity constraints of the proposed action  the lot layout should be located in areas where the native vegetation and threatened species habitat is in the poorest condition  the lot layout should be located at the front of the lot to avoid fragmentation of existing vegetation  the project should aim to minimise the amount of clearing or habitat loss

Minimise impacts

The extent and condition of CRCIF was recorded and mapped across the subject site, to minimise the proposed clearing as much as possible. The proposed development footprint was designed to avoid the highest quality CRCIF and to ensure that connectivity was maintained to the local extent located on an adjacent lot to the north and east (Figure 5).

It should be noted that a large portion of the site was mapped as Castlereagh Swamp Woodland by NPWS (2002), however it was confirmed to be CRCIF during the field survey. CRCIF was also noted to extent into the adjacent lot to the east.

The study area is located within the Priority Conservation Lands (PCLs) identified in the Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan (DECCW 2010). The PCLs have been identified as the lands that represent the best remaining opportunities in the region to secure long-term biodiversity benefits for the lowest possible cost. Therefore, the importance of retaining as much as possible of the highest quality CRCIF, and to ensure that connectivity was maintained within the priority lands, was of high importance during the design process.

Mitigate impacts

Actions to mitigate the potential impacts of the proposed development on CRCIF have been provided below. These actions have been drawn from mitigation measures recommended for the associated proposed works where applicable.  11.59 ha will be conserved and managed in perpetuity within the subject site.  The conservation area will be improved through a range of ecological restoration works set out in a VMP, to ensure the protection of CRCIF and will be reviewed every five years.  The clearing boundary is to be clearly marked using steel pickets and flagged bunting to ensure that all clearing operations occur within the approved clearing footprint.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 37 of 45

 All access during the pre-construction, construction and operational phases should be limited to existing roads and designated access tracks.  Install suitable fencing and signage around areas to be conserved.  A regular audit program carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist will be implemented. The audit will be undertaken annually for the first two years and thereafter at two yearly intervals. Audit results will be submitted to Penrith City Council  Erosion and Sedimentation Plan (ESCP) should be prepared and strict erosion and sediment control measures must be implemented on site to protect the retained CEEC.  Sediment control is to be routinely inspected after rainfall events and periodically inspected during normal conditions.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 38 of 45

6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts

6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?

x No, complete section 5.2 Yes, complete section 5.3

6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action. The proposed action is not considered a controlled action for the reasons listed in section 3.1(d) and section 4, and summarised below:

 The proposal will reduce the current extent of CRCIF through the removal of only 0.33 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF and the modification of 0.7 ha of EPBC Act listed CRCIF, which represents 0.8% of the CRCIF in the locality.  Selective thinning of trees and shrubs and suppression of the ground layer is required to maintain APZ and setback, all tree will be retained in this zone.  11.59 ha of CRCIF in the subject site will be conserved and a VMP will be prepared to provide suitable management practices to protect and maintain the diversity within this patch.  The proposed action would not fragment CRCIF within the subject site, or in the surrounding landscape.  No individuals of the Regent Honeyeater or GHFF were recorded during the field survey  There is potential that the subject site is used occasionally by the Regent Honeyeater and GHFF, although it is unlikely that individuals of these species are dependent upon the site  The proposal will only remove 0.55 ha of foraging habitat for the Regent Honeyeater and GHFF.

6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action

Matters likely to be impacted World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E) Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A) Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 39 of 45

7 Environmental record of the responsible party

Yes No 7.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental √ management?

Provide details Eddy Hawach, the party taking the action, is an individual and as such does not have a record of environmental management. However, in building a strong record of responsible environmental management, the party is keen to follow all best practice environmental procedures and follow all necessary environmental legislation throughout the course of the proposed action.

7.2 Has either (a) the party proposing to take the action, or (b) if a permit has been applied for √ in relation to the action, the person making the application - ever been subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources?

If yes, provide details

7.3 If the party taking the action is a corporation, will the action be taken in accordance with N/A the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework?

If yes, provide details of environmental policy and planning framework

7.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?

Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known) √

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 40 of 45

8 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)

8.1 References

 Australian Government Department of the Environment 2013. Matters of National Environmental Significance – Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.  Department of the Environment Conservation Climate Chance and Water (DECCW) 2009 Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus Available from: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/08214dnrpflyingfox.pdf  Department of the Environment Conservation Climate Chance and Water (DECCW) 2009 Cumberland Plain Recovery Plan Available from:  Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE) 2016a Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Approved Conservation Advice for Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/129-conservation- advice.pdf  Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE) 2016b Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Approved Conservation Advice for Anthochaera phrygia - Regent Honeyeater Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/82338-conservation- advice.pdf  Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE) 2016c Species Profile and Threats Database for Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=186  Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE) 2016d. Protected Matters Search Tool. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/pmst/index.html  Eco Logical Australia 2016. Lot 3 DP 184056 Rickards Road, Castlereagh - Flora and Fauna Assessment Prepared for Paul Lemm on behalf of Eddy Hawach.  Hawkesbury City Council 2008 Yarramundi Reserve Available from: https://www.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/34157/YarramundiReserve.pdf  Office of Environmental and Heritage (OEH) 2016. Atlas of NSW Wildlife. Wildlife Data Unit, OEH, Parramatta NSW  Office of Environmental and Heritage (OEH) 2013. The Native Vegetation of the Sydney Metropolitan Area, OEH, Parramatta NSW.  Office of Environmental and Heritage (OEH) 2016. Atlas of NSW Wildlife. Wildlife Data Unit, OEH, Parramatta NSW.

8.2 Reliability and date of information

The information utilised to prepare this referral has been prepared by suitably qualified consultants who are experienced in their areas of expertise, or is information that has been prepared and disseminated by the Australian or New South Wales Governments. The information prepared has been subject to peer review processes internally. The information utilised is considered to be current and suitable for use to support the preparation of this referral.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 41 of 45

8.3 Attachments

 attached Title of attachment(s) You must attach figures, maps or aerial photographs See Figure 1 and 2 showing the project locality (section 1)  Attached to email GIS file delineating the boundary of the

referral area (section 1)  See Figure 4 and 5 figures, maps or aerial photographs  showing the location of the project in respect to any matters of national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3) If relevant, attach copies of any state or local government N/A - approvals and consent conditions (section 2.5) Flora and Fauna copies of any completed assessments to  meet state or local government approvals Assessment (ELA 2016) and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6) PMST 10km radius Flora and Fauna copies of any flora and fauna investigations  and surveys (section 3) Assessment (ELA 2016) Flora and Fauna technical reports relevant to the  assessment of impacts on protected Assessment (ELA 2016) matters that support the arguments and conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4) Bushfire Report (ELA 2016) report(s) on any public consultations N/A - undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 42 of 45

9 Contacts, signatures and declarations

Project title:

9.1 Person proposing to take action

1. Name and Title: Mr Eddy Hawach 2. Organisation: Individual 3. EPBC Referral Number : 4: ACN / ABN : 5. Postal address PO Box 706, Parramatta NSW 2124 6. Telephone: 0420 511 727 7. Email: [email protected]

8. Name of designated proponent (if not the As above same person at item 1 above: 9. ACN/ABN of designated proponent (if As above not the same person named at item 1 above):

I qualify for exemption √ an individual; OR from fees under section 520(4C)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am: □ a small business entity (within the meaning given by section 328-110 (other than subsection 328-119(4)) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); OR □ not applicable.

If you are small business entity you must provide the Date/Income Year N/A that you became a small business entity:

I would like to apply for a √ not applicable. waiver of full or partial fees under Schedule 1, 5.21A of the EPBC Regulations. Under sub regulation 5.21A(5), you must include information about the applicant (if not you) the grounds on which the waiver is sought and the reasons why it should be made: Declaration I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. I agree to be the proponent for this action. I declare that I am not taking the action on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or entity.

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 43 of 45

05/12/16 Signature Date

9.2 Person preparing the referral information (if different from 9.1) . Rebecca Dwyer Name Ecologist Title Eco Logical Australia Organisation 87 096 512 088 ACN / ABN (if applicable) Level 2, Suite 204, 62 Moore Street Austinmer NSW 2515 Postal address 02 4201 2211 Telephone [email protected] Email

Declaration I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

05/12/2016

Signature Date

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 44 of 45

Attachment A: Geographic Information System (GIS) data supply guidelines

If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a point layer. If the area greater than 5 hectares, please provide as a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipline) please provide a polyline layer.

GIS data needs to be provided to the Department in the following manner:  Point, Line or Polygon data types: ESRI file geodatabase feature class (preferred) or as an ESRI shapefile (.shp) zipped and attached with appropriate title  Raster data types: Raw satellite imagery should be supplied in the vendor specific format.  Projection as GDA94 coordinate system.

Processed products should be provided as follows:  For data, uncompressed or lossless compressed formats is required - GeoTIFF or Imagine IMG is the first preference, then JPEG2000 lossless and other simple binary+header formats (ERS, ENVI or BIL).  For natural/false/pseudo colour RGB imagery: o If the imagery is already mosaiced and is ready for display then lossy compression is suitable (JPEG2000 lossy/ECW/MrSID). Prefer 10% compression, up to 20% is acceptable. o If the imagery requires any sort of processing prior to display (i.e. mosaicing/colour balancing/etc) then an uncompressed or lossless compressed format is required.

Metadata or ‘information about data’ will be produced for all spatial data and will be compliant with ANZLIC Metadata Profile. (http://www.anzlic.org.au/policies_guidelines#guidelines).

The Department’s preferred method is using ANZMet Lite, however the Department’s Service Provider may use any compliant system to generate metadata.

All data will be provide under a Creative Commons license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/)

001 Referral of proposed action v November 2016 Page 45 of 45