Flora & Fauna Assessment Of

Addendum Impact Assessment

Lot 99 DP 823635 Hickey Street Iluka Clarence Valley LGA

For: Shellharbour Unit Trust

REF: CVC 14-695

10th July 2017

Keystone Ecological Pty Ltd ABN 13 099 456 149 PO Box 5095 Empire Bay NSW 2257 Telephone 1300 651 021 Email [email protected]

Addendum Impact Assessment

Lot 99 DP 823635 Hickey Street Iluka Clarence Valley LGA

REF: CVC 14 - 695 10th July 2017

Author:

Elizabeth Ashby and Ashleigh McTackett

This document may be cited as:

Ashby, E. (2017) Addendum Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment, Hickey Street, Iluka, Clarence Valley LGA. Unpublished report, Keystone Ecological

Keystone Ecological

Flora and Fauna Specialists Cover photograph: Recent aerial photograph of the

subject site, outlined in red. Mail: PO Box 5095 Empire Bay NSW 2257

Telephone: (02) 4368 1106 Photo: Nearmap, 28th May 2016 Email: [email protected]

ABN: 13 099 456 149

SUMMARY

Keystone Ecological has prepared this Addendum Impact Assessment in response to questions raised by Council and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage to the past iteration of the proposal, along with additional information provided by local residents.

• The latest iteration of the layout has a number of superior features: • It will give rise to a larger and better connected network of bushland parks; • The parks capture the most important trees and other habitat features for fauna, and they will be managed for conservation purposes under and Approved Management Plan; • The area most likely to support Acronychia littoralis will be reained in a bushland park; • The largest and best developed example of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest EEC will be retained and managed for conservation; • The fire trail can remain essentially as is, removing the need for further loss of the EEC; • The APZs are wholly within the development footprint; • The residential lots have been concentrated into the centre of the site, so that there is separation from the bushland parks with less opportunity for indirect impacts and dumping of garden refuse; and • A wide visual buffer is provided to Iluka Nature Reserve;

Formal consideration has been given to the potential for impact on the following 8 listed matters of conservation significance. These are additional entities that OEH requested be considered, and / or are known to occur or have a high likelihood to occur on site and were not previously considered. Entities for which the footprint alteration has an obvious positive or neutral conservation outcome have not been assessed again.

• Coastal Cypress Pine Forest EEC • Ptilinopus superbus Superb Fruit-dove • Ptilinopus magnificus Wompoo Fruit-dove • Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll • Planigale maculata Common Planigale • Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale • Phascolarctos cinereus Koala • Petaurus norfolcensis Squirrel Glider

A small patch of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest EEC will be removed from the centre of the site, but this is not considered likely to result in a significant adverse impact, given the extent of this vegetation within the immediate vicinity, much of which is reserved. Therefore, a Species Impact Statement is not required.

The Superb Fruit-dove and Wompoo Fruit-dove are most likely to use the areas of the site that are to be retained and managed for conservation in bushland parks A and B.

The Spotted-tailed Quoll is unlikely to occur, but if so, is most likely to use the site as a movement corridor.

The Common Planigale is usually associated with areas with access to water and therefore relatively unlikely to occur on site. However, swamp habitat off site to the north west are likely to provide potential habitat for this species.

SUMMARY

The Brush-tailed Phascogale is not considered highly likely to occur on site, and the area of suitable habitat to be removed is relatively minor in the context of what is available in the local area. Most of the suitable habitat on site will be retained, and most of the suitable habitat in the local area is in secure reserves

The Koala is known to occur on site, but the population is small. The majority of the areas of foraging habitat of most value to this species will be retained and managed for conservation purposes. A separate Referral to the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy has also been prepared, although it is judged that the new layout will allow for the persistence of this species on site.

The Squirrel Glider is known from records in the township. It requires a particular kind of floristic diversity in the understorey, canopy that contains winter blossom and many potential den trees. The site is sub-optimal for this species, but the most suitable areas will be retained.

Recommendations for ameliorating impacts and improving the condition of the site are included herein and the recommendations contained in previous reports remain current except for recommended fencing style. Instead of allowing free movement of Koalas, fences are to be of a type that will prevent Koalas climbing into backyards where Dogs may be in residence.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 The Proposal...... 2

2 VEGETATION TYPES ON THE SITE ...... 6

3 IMPACTS AND AMELIORATION ...... 10

4 ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 19

4.1 Coastal Cypress Forest ...... 19 4.2 Ptilinopus superbus Superb Fruit-dove ...... 22 4.3 Ptilinopus magnificus Wompoo Fruit-Dove ...... 26 4.4 Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll ...... 30 4.5 Planigale maculata Common Planigale ...... 35 4.6 Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale ...... 38 4.7 Phascolarctos cinereus Koala ...... 42 4.8 Petaurus norfolcensis Squirrel Glider...... 47

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 53

REFERENCES ...... 55

Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Keystone Ecological has been contracted by the Shellharbour Unit Trust (Stevens Group) to assess the likely impact of a proposed development upon nationally and state listed threatened flora and fauna and their habitats. It is proposed to subdivide Lot 99 DP 823635, Hickey Street, Iluka in the Clarence Valley Local Government Area (LGA) for subsequent residential development.

A Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment (Ashby and McTackett 2015)1 (FFIA) was provided as part of the original Development Application. As a result of a preliminary assessment by Council, the layout was altered and further ecological investigations undertaken. Another assessment report was prepared - being the Additional Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment (Ashby and McTackett 20162) (AFFIA)- to satisfy Council’s Request for Additional Information and also address the new layout.

After exhibition, public comment and further consideration of the proposal by Council and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, another iteration of the subdivision layout has been developed and this Addendum Impact Assessment has been prepared to address the latest subdivision layout and further responses from Council and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

This Addendum Impact Assessment is confined to the ecological matters raised in Council’s letter of 24th January 2017, including the enclosed commentary from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage dated 13th January 2017.

The layout that is the subject of this assessment is shown in the following plans prepared by One Collective Urban Design Studio:

• Masterplan, drawing number PO147-04, dated June 2017. This is provided at Figure 1; • Vegetation Zones, drawing number PO147-05, dated June 2017. This is provided at Figure 2; and • Development Staging Plan, drawing number PO147-06, dated June 2017. This is provided at Figure 3.

This report should be read in conjunction with the original FFIA (Ashby and McTackett 2015), and the AFFIA (Ashby and McTackett (2016). Descriptions of the site, the ecological

1 Ashby, E. and McTackett, A. (2015) Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment, Hickey Street, Iluka, Clarence Valley LGA. Unpublished report, Keystone Ecological 2 Ashby, E. and McTackett, A. (2016) Additional Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment, Hickey Street, Iluka, Clarence Valley LGA. Unpublished report, Keystone Ecological

Keystone Ecological 1 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW investigations undertaken and the legislative context of the assessment process are not repeated here.

1.2 The Proposal

It is proposed to construct a Community Title residential subdivision, including 140 residential lots, access streets, pathways, street landscaping and retained bushland along the western and eastern boundaries, and in patches along the southern boundary and in the north-eastern corner of the site. The areas of retained bushland are within a series of parks within a residual lot. These reserved areas have been located in order to capture the highest value habitats as well as provide corridors for the local movement of fauna.

This revised layout is the result of a multi-disciplinary iterative process, following consultation with Council and takes into account competing constraints that include biodiversity conservation, planning and urban design issues, and bushfire hazard.

The subject lot is 19.41 hectares in extent and development is proposed for 14.11 hectares. The Asset Protection Zones (APZ) are located within the development footprint, shared among the residential lots, the roadways, the landscaped verges, and two of the parks (E and F – see below).

The remaining 5.30 hectares is within proposed Lot 1, which is made up of 6 parks:

• Park A occupies approximately 0.88 hectares. This is situated at the site’s western end and captures the vegetation that is in the best condition on site. • Park B occupies approximately 2.33 hectares. This is situated in the north eastern corner of the site and captures most of the Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum on site. • Park C occupies approximately 0.48 hectares. This is situated on the site’s southern boundary and captures the best developed area on site of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest Endangered Ecological Community (CCPF EEC). • Park D occupies approximately 1.28 hectares. This is situated along the eastern boundary of the site and provides a buffer to Iluka Nature Reserve. • Park E occupies approximately 0.18 hectares. It is situated at the site’s south eastern corner and contains the existing fire trail that is to remain. • Park F occupies approximately 0.15 hectares. It contains APZ and may also be required for some stormwater drainage works.

Keystone Ecological 2 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FIGURE 1: Masterplan, June 2017.

Keystone Ecological 3 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FIGURE 2: Vegetation Zones, June 2017.

Keystone Ecological 4 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FIGURE 3: Development Staging Plan, June 2017.

Keystone Ecological 5 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

2 VEGETATION TYPES ON THE SITE

The site has experienced profound disturbance comprising clearing, sand mining, severe fires, weed infestation, possibly some recontouring and some seeding and / or planting of unknown material. The site continues to be used by locals as a dumping ground for garden waste, old furniture, building materials and other rubbish. Plastic garden pots, mesh and water bottles also indicate covert cultivation of illicit plants.

The vegetation of the site reflects this pattern of abuse, with a mosaic of regenerating locally native canopy species. The understorey is dominated by exotic species across most of the site, particularly Lantana.

A narrow band at the western end of the site has probably been spared the clearing and sand mining as it supports large trees and the landform seems to reflect a more natural pattern of dune and swale.

Although the natural patterns of vegetation are greatly confused by the site’s land use history, three vegetation communities as described by OEH (2012)3 are recognised and their distribution shown in Figure 4:

• Community 190 Coast Banksia woodland and open forest of coastal dunes is the band of relatively undisturbed vegetation at the site’s western end, occupying 0.41 hectares, or 2% of the site. This area has elements of regenerating Littoral Rainforest (for example, some vines and rainforest tree species), but it is not structurally or floristically well developed.

• Community 193 Pink Bloodwood - Brush Box open forest on coastal dunes and sandplains is the dominant community, occupying 18.16 hectares, or 94% of the site.

This vegetation type is represented by 5 sub-types, based largely on disturbance: o 193a – 10.41 hectares, dominated by a dense low canopy of a single age class of Acacia disparrima. This may be a naturally occurring result of fire, or a result of rehabilitation efforts post-sand mining, or a combination of both. o 193b – 1.14 hectares, near the northern boundary of the site. This area contains a number of mature and semi-mature Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum. This area has been delineated due to the high value of this tree species to Koalas as a forage tree. This tree species also occurs in small numbers along Iluka Road in the road reserve and across the road in Iluka Nature Reserve.

3 Office of Environment and Heritage (2012) Vegetation Classification for the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Area of New South Wales

Keystone Ecological 6 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

o 193c – 3.15 hectares, in the site’s south western quadrant. Although still Acacia disparrima comprises a large component of the canopy, this area has a more mixed canopy, including Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood, Lophostemon confertus Brush Box, Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia and occasional rainforest trees and Callitris columellaris Coastal Cypress Pine. o 193d – 2.66 hectares, in the centre of the site. This is typically very open and dominated by weed infestations, typically of Lantana. o 193e – 0.80 hectares, near the north eastern corner. This also has a very open canopy and is highly modified with dense infestations of weeds, but there are elements of regenerating Littoral Rainforest.

• Community 187 Coast Cypress Pine shrubby open forest is restricted on site to a dense patch of adult trees near the site’s southern boundary, occupying 0.25 hectares. An additional patch of 0.20 hectares may also qualify as this community, based on the floristic composition of quadrats located in that area (see the AFFIA for details). However, few adult trees of Coastal Cypress occur, as depicted in Figure 5. Together, these occupy 0.45 hectares, or 2% of the site.

In the Crown land directly to the south of the site, this vegetation type occurs in two large patches of 1.15 hectares and 1.16 hectares. In Iluka Nature Reserve to the east, a patch with the same air photo pattern occupies a further 1.10 hectares.

Keystone Ecological 7 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

LEGEND C Cleared

187 Coast Cypress Pine shrubby open forest

190 Coast Banksia woodland

193 Pink Bloodwood – Brush Box open forest a Dominated by Acacia disparrima b Eucalyptus tereticornis in canopy 193a 190 193a c Mixed canopy 193b d Highly disturbed with infestations of transformer weeds e Highly disturbed with infestations of transformer weeds 193e and regenerating Littoral Rainforest vines and trees

193d

193c

187? 187

193a

193c 187

187

193a

187

FIGURE 4: Vegetation map.

Keystone Ecological 8 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

187

FIGURE 5: Community 187.

Keystone Ecological Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

3 IMPACTS AND AMELIORATION

This Amended Impact Assessment has resulted in a further reconfiguration of the layout. The impact of the proposal on the vegetation on site is illustrated in Figure 6 overleaf, and detailed below in Table 1.

TABLE 1. Vegetation Impact. Total area Vegetation on site Fate (ha) Retention detail (ha) (ha) Code Name Clear Retain Coast Cypress Pine 187 0.45 0.20 0.25 Park C (0.25) shrubby open forest 190 Coast Banksia woodland 0.41 0.00 0.41 Park A (0.41) and open forest 193 Pink Bloodwood - Brush Box open forest, 5 sub-types Park A (0.29) Park B (0.64) Dominated by 193a 10.41 7.91 2.50 Park C (0.22) Acacia disparrima Park D (1.25) Park E (0.10) Eucalyptus tereticornis in 193b 1.14 0.19 0.95 Park B (0.95) canopy 193c Mixed canopy 3.15 2.97 0.18 Park A (0.18) Highly modified with 193d infestations of 2.66 2.65 0.01 Park B (0.01) transformer weeds Highly modified with infestations of Park B (0.73) 193e transformer weeds and 0.80 0.04 0.76 Park D (0.03) regenerating Littoral Rainforest species Park C (0.01) Cleared 0.39 0.30 0.09 Park E (0.08) TOTAL 19.41 14.26 5.15

Keystone Ecological 10 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

LEGEND C Cleared

187 Coast Cypress Pine shrubby open forest

190 Coast Banksia woodland

193 Pink Bloodwood – Brush Box open forest a Dominated by Acacia disparrima 193a b Eucalyptus tereticornis in canopy 190 193a c Mixed canopy 193b d Highly disturbed with infestations of transformer weeds e Highly disturbed with infestations of transformer weeds 193e and regenerating Littoral Rainforest vines and trees 193d

193c

187 187 193a

187 193c

193a

187 C

193a

187

FIGURE 6: Impact of the footprint.

Keystone Ecological 11 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

This layout will have the following outcomes:

Areas of high ecological value. The areas of highest ecological value are retained in the system of parks. These include areas with a natural landform (Park A), the area of greatest concentration of Forest Red Gums (Park B), the best developed patch of Coastal Cypress Forest EEC in a dense stand of large mature trees (Park C), and the area of best potential habitat for Acronychia littoralis Park D).As a natural corollary, the development footprint is therefore concentrated in the areas of least ecological value, 96% of the footprint being within the regenerating Pink Bloodwood - Brush Box open forest. This vegetation type occurs on site in 5 disturbance categories, with the most dominant sub-type being 193a, a simplified community with a virtual monoculture of Acacia disparrima in the canopy. 193a occupies 54% of the site and carries 55% of the development area. One of the other dominant sub-types –193d – is highly modified, and has serious infestations of transformer weeds. This accounts for 14% of the site and will carry 19% of the development area.

1. Bushfire. All Asset Protection Zones are now external to the proposed reserve areas. They have been located within development lots, on roads and in landscaped verges rather than within bushland. There will be no additional impact to retained bushland from bushfire management.

2. Park A. There is a minor change to the shape of Park A and a reduction in its size from 1.00 hectares to 0.88 hectares. The necessity for this has become apparent after detailed drainage design and hydraulic modelling had been carried out.

However, Park A will still retain all of the occurrence of the most intact vegetation and landform on site. There will be a vegetated buffer to this high quality vegetation and its habitats of between 12 and 20 metres to the edge of the footprint, and 40 to 48 metres from residences.

Park A will also continue to provide a direct link from north to south, allowing for the movement of flora and fauna. This area is to be managed for conservation purposes under an approved management plan.

3. Park B. A 30% increase is proposed to the size of this reserve in the north eastern corner of the site, from its original 17,647 square metres to 23,280 square metres. All development lots have been deleted from its Hickey Street frontage and southern boundary, and all of the APZs are now external to the park.

4. Shape of Park B. The edge to area ratio for Park B is improved in this iteration, which will assist in weed control, natural resilience and provide less disturbed fauna habitat.

Keystone Ecological 12 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

5. Iluka Road. All of the lots previously proposed with frontage to Iluka Road have been deleted. The vegetation here will instead be retained in Park D (12,814 square metres). This area is to be managed under an approved management plan.

6. Iluka Road buffer. Park D, along with the road reserve, will act as a visual buffer for Iluka Nature Reserve. It will also provide a visual and acoustic buffer for the residents from the busy road.

7. Acronychia littoralis habitat. Park D captures all of the area that Council considers most likely to support Acronychia littoralis.

8. Biodiversity corridors. Parks B and D will now serve as an uninterrupted wildlife corridor from north to south of up, retaining the existing link from Iluka Nature Reserve to the habitats to the north west. Park A will continue to provide a north south linkage. The landscaping of the wide verges will be sympathetic to and driven by species selection and spacing of trees that favours Koala movement.

9. Koala food trees. Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum is an important tree species, being scarce generally in this post sand mining landscape, and the only primary food tree species of the Koala that occurs on site.

More than 53 individuals of this species were previously identified in the north eastern corner of the site, road reserve and in the adjacent part of the Nature Reserve, as illustrated in the AFFIA. An additional 27 trees have been located on site by members of the local community. Although the identifications, locations and habitat values of these trees have not been verified, their locations as provided to the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy are shown in Figure 7.

The expansion of Park B and the addition of Park D captures the majority of the occurrence of this species. The development will result in the removal of only 11 trees that are scattered across the proposed residential lots, and another 2 in the Hickey Street road reserve.

This area is to be managed for conservation purposes under an approved management plan.

Two other Koala food trees occur on site - Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood is a secondary food tree species, and Lophostemon confertus Brush Box is a supplementary food tree species. These have been located and mapped on site by local residents – see Figure 8.

Bothe of these species are common components of plant community 193 and community 190.

Keystone Ecological 13 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The pattern of development in relation to these tree species is notable – the greatest concentration and diversity of the 3 species is captured by Parks A, B and D. The losses are confined to strips of trees or scattered trees across the middle of the footprint. This pattern of retained habitat will lessen the impact of the development on the Koala.

10. Park C. No change is proposed to the configuration of Park C. This area will retain the best developed example of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest on site. Further, it links with large patches to the south in crown land. APZs are external to the Coastal Cypress Pine Forest. This area is to be managed for conservation purposes under an approved management plan.

11. Coastal Cypress Pine EEC. On site, this vegetation type is best represented by two small patches – one captured by Park C (0.25 hectares) and the other (0.20 hectares) within the development footprint. The patch to be removed is not as well developed as the patch to be retained, being dominated by juveniles and with few mature trees. The understorey is dominated by weeds, particularly Asparagus aethiopicus Ground Asparagus and Lantana camara Lantana (both transformer species and Weed of National Significance), and the invasive grass Megathyrsus maximus Guinea Grass.

In the immediate area of the subject site - within 10 metres to the south and 40 metres to the east - are 3 large patches of this EEC, as shown in Figure 4. On the Crown Land to the south it occurs in two patches of 1.15 hectares and 1.16 hectares in extent and to the east, it is apparent in a patch of 1.10 hectares within Iluka Nature Reserve. This part of the Nature Reserve is being actively managed for conservation purposes by Landcare teams (Martyn Swain, personal communication).

The proposal will facilitate the conservation management of the well developed patch in Park C, while removing a smaller area within the centre of the site. The new layout does not require the loss of any of this community along the edge of the existing fire trail.

12. Road reserves. The lot layout does not require interruption of the vegetation along the road reserves of Elizabeth Street or Iluka Road. These strips of vegetation provide a visual buffer from and to the development, as well as a corridor function for the movement of flora and fauna.

Keystone Ecological 14 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Ameliorative measures proposed in the FFIA and AFFIA remain valid. Many should be incorporated into the Conditions of Consent and include:

• Best practice design elements for management for Koalas in residential and peri- urban areas, as detailed in McAlpine et al. (2007)4; • Habitat connectivity provided by the landscape plan; • Traffic calming measures during construction and after occupation; • Conservation management of the bushland in the parks under an Approved Management Plan. It is recommended that the emphasis of this plan be on weed control and habitat enrichment, using the successful practices demonstrated in Iluka Nature Reserve by the local Landcare group; • Ecological supervision of all clearing to protect resident fauna; • The replacement of hollows with appropriate nest boxes / salvaged hollows, installed prior to clearing and at a ratio of at least 1:1. The numbers of boxes required can be adjusted according to the numbers of hollows observed as the clearing progresses; • Clearing to occur during the season of least impact, particularly to avoid the breeding season of Emu (December to end March); • The re-use of felled timber (especially hollow sections) as terrestrial habitat in retained bushland; • Street lighting that produces minimal spill and glare, with no feature lighting of hollow-bearing trees; • Use of water sensitive urban design principles to manage stormwater; and • Strict observation of all erosion and sediment controls.

The clearing controls and hollow replacement strategy should be included as part of the Approved Management Plan for the retained bushland of the site, and be part of the Conditions of Consent. The clearing controls will detail such things as the methods of clearing and measures to be implemented for rescue and relocation of fauna.

The Approved Management Plan should include a nest box strategy that details appropriate designs, installation methods (e.g. spikeless climbing techniques), monitoring and replacement. Monitoring reports are to be provided as part of the long term management of the community lot.

A recommendation was made in the AFFIA to use fencing that allowed for the free movement of Koalas. However, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage consider that domestic Dogs should only be kept in yards with fencing that will effectively separate them

4 McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Peterson, A., Possingham, H., Callaghan, J., Curran, T., Mitchell, D., and Lunney, D. (2007) Planning guidelines for koala conservation and recovery: A guide to best planning practice. Australian Koala Foundation / Univeristy of Queensland

Keystone Ecological 15 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW from Koalas, and so that earlier recommendation is rescinded. Appropriate fencing design can be found in McAlpine et al. (2007).

Council is of the opinion that Cats should be prohibited from the development. However, Cats have been successfully confined to a property in secure outdoor enclosures and this condition should be considered.

The new layout will more effectively protect the bushland parks from the dumping of garden refuse, as they are now all separated by roads from the residential lots.

An education package should be provided for all new residents that highlights the sensitive nature of the site and surrounds and their environmental obligations. This can include such things as animal control, disposal of garden refuse, and weed potential of garden plants.

Keystone Ecological 16 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FIGURE 7: Distribution of Forest Red Gums and the layout. Dark pink – distribution from FFIA; light pink – distribution determined by locals.

Keystone Ecological 17 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

FIGURE 8: Distribution of all Koala food trees and the current proposed layout. Distribution determined by locals.

Keystone Ecological 18 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

4 ASSESSMENTS OF SIGNIFICANCE

The following Assessments of Significance are provided at the request of the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage, or in order to accommodate the amended vegetation map, additional information and layout where necessary. The remaining Assessments of Significance in the previous assessment reports are considered still applicable and are not amended here. This is because the amended layout is either of no consequence to the subject biota, or it will improve the conservation outcome by retention of more habitat and / or in a more favourable configuration.

4.1 Coastal Cypress Forest

For an ecological profile of this community, see the AFFIA.

(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to an endangered ecological community.

(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to an endangered ecological community.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Response:

The proposed works will remove an area of 0.20 hectares of modified, weedy regrowth and retain and manage for conservation 0.25 hectares. Its local occurrence will be retained almost in its entirety.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Keystone Ecological 19 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Response:

The removal of weed-infested disturbed bushland will remove weed propagules from the local environment. The EEC in Park C will be retained and managed under an approved conservation management plan. This is not likely to modify the composition of the community such that its local occurrence will be placed at risk of extinction

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

The proposal will require the removal of an area of 0.20 hectares of modified, weedy regrowth, while retaining 0.25 hectares of well developed vegetation. Further, there is over 3 hectares of this vegetation in 3 large patches in the immediate area in Crown Land and Nature Reserve.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Response:

The bushland of the coastal sands of Iluka Peninsula are relatively well connected. While the proposal will remove a portion of bushland, there will remain north to south and east to west linkages. The removal of highly modified and weedy bushland is unlikely to significantly exacerbate this pattern

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Response:

The area of habitat to be removed has been highly modified by profound disturbances (clearing, sand mining, fire, weeds). It is also relatively small, representing only 5% of what is in the immediate local area. Its removal is unlikely to place threaten the long term survival of the community in the locality.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

Keystone Ecological 20 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

There is no declared critical habitat for this community.

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

No recovery plan has been published for this community however, the Office of Environment and Heritage is currently developing management strategies for this endangered ecological community. The following management strategy has been identified for this community (OEH 2016b):

1. The extent and condition of this ecological community will be improved or maintained primarily via positive management consistent with Catchment Action Plans, water management plans, and by regulating clearing. Where it occurs on private lands, this ecological community will also benefit from voluntary agreements with landholders to manage the land for conservation purposes.

A number of recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2016a):

2. Avoid edge encroachment and trampling, using defined walking tracks and fencing where appropriate. 3. Undertake weed management in remnants. 4. Generally, avoid fire in this community but arrange ecological burning where assessed by OEH as necessary for regeneration. 5. Expand and connect isolated remnants by planting and/or bush regeneration.

The proposed development retains the largest and best patch of this community on site within bushland reserve as part of the design and a site-specific management plan is recommended.

Therefore, the proposal is largely consistent within these outcomes.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation”.

Conclusion: The area of this community to be removed is relatively minor, being 5% of what is in the immediate local area. The patch of retained EEC will be managed for

Keystone Ecological 21 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW conservation purposes. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened community.

4.2 Ptilinopus superbus Superb Fruit-dove

The Superb Fruit-dove is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is listed as a migratory species under the schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The Superb Fruit-dove is a small colourful foliage-dwelling pigeon found in rainforest, adjoining mangroves and eucalyptus forests and scrublands containing fruiting species (Simpson and Day 1999)5. This species is found in north eastern rainforest, forest and mangroves along east coast of Australia, becoming rarer further south. This species is notoriously difficult to identify when in typical habitat, however falling fruit from feeding can assist. A loud whistle can be heard from the wings when this species is in flight (Slater et al. 1995)6.

Nests consist of a fine interlocked structure of forked twigs but looks deceivingly flimsy in dense vegetation or in the fork of a tree (Pizzey and Knight 1997)7. Breeding occurs from September to January (OEH 2017a)8.

Part of the population is migratory or nomadic and it travels at night. Some of the migratory population, particularly young birds, fly south in autumn (OEH 2017a).

A call of this species was heard during survey of the western end of the subject lot in 2015. The calling bird could not be located, but it was most likely in the moist forest to be retained in Park A. Marginal foraging habitat for this species occurs across the subject site in the trees and shrubs that produce soft fruit (such as Lilly Pilly or Lantana), but the best developed and most intact habitat is along the site’s western boundary.

Few records of this species occur within the broader study area with only two records occurring in the Iluka region, dating from 1998 and both from within Iluka Nature Reserve (ALA 207)9.

5 Simpson K., and Day, N. (1999) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sixth Edition. Penguin Books, Australia 6 Slater, P., Slater, P., and Slater, R. (1995) The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds. Lansdowne Publishing, Australia 7 Pizzey, G., and Knight, F. (1997) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins Publishers, Hong Kong 8 Office of Environment and Heritage (2017a) Threatened Species Profile (http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/) 9 Atlas of Living Australia (2017) Explore your area: Iluka. (http://biocache.ala.org.au/explore/your- area#9.398007939236077|153.35570661114502|11|ALL_SPECIES)

Keystone Ecological 22 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Relevant ameliorative measures for this species include the retention of the best examples of suitable habitat in Park A, and the conservation management of potential habitat in Park B.

Response:

The best areas of potential habitat for this species occurs within Park A and Park B, but also in any areas that support soft-fruited trees. The conservation management of the retained park areas will be benefit to this species.

Potential habitat for this species is well represented within the broader area (particularly in Iluka Nature Reserve) and therefore the relatively small area to be modified by the proposal is unlikely to place the local population of this species at risk of extinction.

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

Keystone Ecological 23 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Some suitable foraging resources will be lost in the soft-fruited trees scattered across the site in the 5.85 hectares of community 193b, c, d and e to be removed, and particularly in the Lantana infestations that will be cleared and controlled. The best habitat will be retained in 4.81 hectares in the Parks.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Response:

The proposal will fragment habitat for this species to some degree. However, as it is highly mobile, the pattern and scale of fragmentation is unlikely to prevent this species from accessing habitat or moving around its home range.

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Response:

The vegetation to be removed is the most disturbed on site, with the better intact habitats to be retained. Scattered rainforest trees and Lantana infestations acrossthe site are not likely to be as important for this species as intact areas in better condition on site, or in the large tracts of suitable habitat reserved in the adjacent Nature Reserve.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

There is no declared critical habitat for this species.

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

Keystone Ecological 24 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

This species has been assigned to the “landscape species” management stream under the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The management stream aims to recover the species through (OEH 2016b)10:

1. Liaise with relevant landholders and managers to protect, rehabilitate, enlarge and reconnect habitat. Raise awareness of weed threats and need for compensatory plantings. 2. Develop local government biodiversity conservation strategies. 3. Raise community awareness of ecological requirements of Rose-crowned Fruit- dove including importance of Camphor Laurel, native figs and laurels as a food source and need to replace Camphor Laurel with other winter-fruiting laurels and figs. 4. Raise awareness of threats of window strike and ways to reduce threat. 5. Compile, store and maintain data on biology and ecological requirements particularly information on breeding success and seasonal movements. 6. Exclude stock from rainforest remnants and around paddock fig trees to encourage natural regeneration. 7. Ensure that Camphor Laurel removal is compensated for by replacement with winter-fruiting native laurels, figs and Elaeocarpaceae to avoid significant reduction of existing food resources. 8. Protect rainforest from fire and fire hazard reduction measures. 9. Ensure fruit-dove's ecological requirements are considered in fire planning and hazard reduction guidelines. 10. Prepare Habitat Management Guidelines for fruit-doves, including exclusion of stock, weed removal, and exclusion of fire from rainforest and rainforest remnants, habitat restoration and corridor planning. 11. Collect and analyse data on demographics and undertake PVA analysis. Identify breeding and non-breeding food requirements. 12. Prevent rainforest habitat loss and fragmentation and expand and reconnect habitat. Measures include grazing exclusion and paddock fig tree protection. 13. Ensure habitat protection in fire planning, direct visitors away from primary feed trees. 14. Prepare Recovery Plan - in conjunction with other threatened rainforest fruit- doves. 15. Include protection of population's habitat and ecological requirements in statutory planning in relevant shires. 16. Undertake weed control in and adjacent to littoral rainforest to augment Fruit- dove habitat.

A single recovery activity has also been identified for this species (OEH 2016a):

Retain and protect rainforest remnants.

10 Office of Environment and Heritage (2017b) Conservation Project (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.aspx

Keystone Ecological 25 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The proposal retains a large vegetated buffer between known populations and development and removes or disturbs a very small area of potential habitat. Therefore, together with the recommendations for minimising potential impact of runoff and sedimentation, the proposal is largely consistent with these recovery strategies.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation”.

Conclusion: The area of suitable habitat to be removed is relatively minor in the context of what is available in the local area. Most of the best habitat on site will be retained, and most of the suitable habitat in the local area is in secure reserves. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.

4.3 Ptilinopus magnificus Wompoo Fruit-Dove

The Wompoo Fruit-Dove is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The Wompoo Fruit-dove is a large, multi-coloured rainforest pigeon, up to 56 cm long, with a pale grey head shading into rich green back and wings. There is a broken yellow band across each wing. The breast and belly are plum-purple and the underparts are yellow (OEH 2017a)11. The Rose-crowned Fruit-dove and the Superb Fruit dove are similar species but appear much smaller than the Wompoo Fruit-dove and have shorter tails (NSW Scientific Committee 2010)12.

There are seven subspecies of Wompoo Fruit-dove recognised with four found in New Guinea and three subspecies found in Australia (NSW Scientific Committee 2010). This species is largely restricted to the main blocks of rainforest occurring along the east coast of Australia but can occur from the Hunter River in NSW north to the Cape York peninsula. It is rare south of Coffs Harbour with only historical records from the Illawarra, which is likely due to habitat clearance (OEH 2017a).

It feeds alone or in loose flocks on a diverse range of trees and vine fruits in rainforest, low elevation moist eucalypt forest and brush box forests (OEH 2017a). It feeds almost entirely on fleshy fruits, including Acmena smithii, Ficus species, Livistona australis and

11 Office of Environment and Heritage (2017a) Threatened species profile database. 12 NSW Scientific Committee (2010) Wompoo Fruit-Dove Ptilinopus magnificus –review of Current information in NSW, Vulnerable species listing

Keystone Ecological 26 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Syzygium australe, and relies on a diversity of irregularly fruiting trees in a mosaic within large contiguous tract of forest (NPWS 2002)13.

This species occurs within patches of subtropical rainforests and adjoining wet sclerophyll habitats but has also been recorded using single trees in farmland. It is most often seen in mature forests, but is also found in remnant and regenerating rainforest (OEH 2017a).

Breeding occurs in spring and early summer and is largely confined to the north coast from the Queensland border south to Coffs Harbour and the Dorrigo Plateau NSW Scientific Committee 2010). Core breeding occurs at mid to high elevations and mostly within conservation reserves.

Threats to this species include degradation of rainforest remnants from fire, grazing by livestock and weed invasions. The greatest threat is the clearing and fragmentation of supbtropical rainforest (NSW Scientific Committee 2010).

This species was not recorded on the subject site during surveys. This species has been documented 6 times within the broader study area with the closest record dating from 2007 when this species was heard calling in Iluka Nature Reserve, approximately 500 metres to the east of the subject site (ALA 2017).

(a) in the case of a threatened species, whether the life cycle of the species is likely to be disrupted such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction

Response:

Critical habitat features for this species include foraging resources and breeding sites, particularly in Lowland Rainforest. The appropriate parts of the site include scattered Littoral Rainforest trees in regenerating bushland; no Lowland Rainforest occurs onsite. Therefore, the habitats are likely to be sub-optimal for this species. The best developed habitats are to be retained and improved under an Approved Management Plan and therefore will provide better habitat for this species in the long run.

Response:

13 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Threatened Species of the Upper North Coast of NSW: Fauna. NPWS, Coffs Harbour

Keystone Ecological 27 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that it’s local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Although sub-optimal, suitable foraging resources will be lost in the soft-fruited trees scattered across the site in the 5.85 hectares of community 193b, c, d and e, to be removed.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and,

Response:

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality

Response:

Keystone Ecological 28 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Lowland Rainforest is favoured by this species, which does not occur on site. However, individual elements occur (such as soft-fruited trees), but not in the numbers or condition that would represent important habitat for the long-term survival of a local population of this species.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. This species has been assigned to the “landscape species” management stream under the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH 2017b). The management stream aims to recover the species by:

1. Encourage landholders with littoral and floodplain rainforest remnants on their property to enter into land management agreements (preferably in-perpetuity covenants or stewardship agreements) that protect these areas from clearing, grazing or other disturbances. 2. Implement bush regeneration within patches of rainforest habitat to remove invasive weeds, taking particular care to compensate for camphor laurel removal by planting winter-fruiting native laurels, figs and Elaeocarpaceae to avoid significant reduction of existing food resources. 3. Liaise with land managers with rainforest habitat to raise awareness about the species' likely presence and sensitivity to disturbance (e.g. from timber harvesting or hazard reduction burning).

A number of recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2017a):

1. Plant locally-occurring fruit-bearing trees and shrubs. 2. Protect remnant rainforest patches during burning-off activities. 3. Retain forested corridors that link east to west migration routes. 4. Encourage and initiate weed control programs. 5. Protect rainforest and moist forest habitat. 6. Protect known and potential food trees. 7. Initiate and support rainforest regeneration projects.

The proposal is largely consistent with these recovery strategies.

Keystone Ecological 29 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation”.

4.4 Dasyurus maculatus Spotted-tailed Quoll

The Spotted-tailed Quoll is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is listed as Endangered under the Schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The Spotted-tailed Quoll is the largest of the quolls, with brown fur and white spots over the body, extending onto the tail. Unlike the Eastern Quoll, this species has five toes on the hind foot, providing considerable agility when climbing (Strahan 1995)14.

This species has a distribution ranging from Fraser Island in Queensland to south west Victoria and Tasmania (Menkhorst and Knight 2001)15 but has contracted considerably since European settlement (OEH 2017a). Most recent estimates indicate that 41% of its distribution occurs within the estate of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (OEH 2017b).

It is known to occur from the sub-alpine zone, to the coast, and inland to the western plains along the Murray River (Edgar and Belcher 1995)16. This species occupies a wide variety of habitats, and has been recorded from rainforest, open forest, woodland, coastal heathland and inland riparian forest (Edgar and Belcher 1995).

14 Strahan, R. (1995) A Photographic Guide to Mammals of Australia. New Holland, Sydney Australia 15 Menkhorst, P and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Australia 16 Edgar, R. and Belcher, C. (1995) Spotted-tailed Quoll. In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Hurstville

Keystone Ecological 30 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Spotted-tailed Quolls require large areas of relatively intact vegetation for foraging (NSW NPWS 1999)17 and is an opportunistic hunter and scavenger. This species usually spends the day sleeping in a den in a crevice, cave, hollow log, hollow tree, boulder field or rocky cliff face (Menkhorst and Knight 2001, OEH 2017a). They use latrines, usually located on the tops of boulders or logs in prominent high places (Belcher et al. 2008), presumably as a means of communication. These latrines may be used by a number of individuals (OEH 2017a).

Females are territorial and have a home range of up to 750 hectares with their home ranges generally along densely vegetated creek lines (OEH 2017a). Males are not territorial and their large overlapping home ranges of between 2,000 and 5,000 hectares encompass many females (Belcher et al. 2008). Males may move up to 5 kilometres during their daily activities and are known to travel up to 8 kilometres in a single night (Belcher et al. 2008)18. They usually traverse their home ranges along densely vegetated creek lines (OEH 2017a).

They are mostly nocturnal but will hunt during the day. Although it spends most of the time on the ground, it is an excellent climber and is known to raid possum and glider dens and prey on roosting birds (OEH 2017a). Prey items are varied and include gliders, possums, small wallabies, rats, birds, bandicoots, rabbits and insects as well as carrion and domestic fowl.

Breeding generally occurs between April and July (Edgar and Belcher 1995). The average litter size is five and both sexes mature at about one year of age (OEH 2017a).

This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. A total of 16 records of this species occur within the broader study area. BioNet shows that the closest record dates from 2004 when this species was observed within Iluka Nature Reserve, approximately 200 metres south east of the subject site. However, all but 2 of these records arise from a survey of the local community and therefore the locations and time of observation may be unreliable and may include multiple records of the same animal. The 2 other records are of an animal trapped in 1992 (in the Iluka township) and identified from hair during a survey of Bundjalung National Park in 1994.

This species is considered to be very rare and the site provides sub-optimal habitat only. However, the site may be within the home range of individuals using better habitat elsewhere and nearby and therefore may at least provide corridor habitat.

17 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Threatened Species Information – Spotted- tailed Quoll 18 Belcher, C., Burnett, S. and Jones, M. (2008) Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. In: Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) The Mammals of Australia. Third edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney

Keystone Ecological 31 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Response:

The habitat to be removed is not of high quality for this species, being simplified with few hollows, little felled timber, no rocky outcrops and few prey species. Together with the small-scale clearing in the context of the home ranges occupied by this species makes the proposal unlikely to place a local population at risk of extinction. Moreover, the habitat on site is most likely used as a movement corridor and this feature of the site will remain essentially unchanged.

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Keystone Ecological 32 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The proposed clearing will remove approximately 13.96 hectares of vegetation, most of which is probably unsuitable for this species.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Response:

The clearing proposal has been framed so that connectivity of habitat in the local area remains. The proposal will fragment habitat but not isolate habitat for this wide-ranging species.

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Response:

The habitat contained within the subject site for this species potentially will facilitate local movements and may also provide some foraging opportunities. As highly disturbed potential habitat it cannot be regarded as important for the long term survival of the species in the local area.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

There is no declared critical habitat for this species.

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. As part of the Saving Our Species program, this species has been assigned to the “Landscape species” management stream by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (2017b). This is due to the species being distributed across relatively large areas and is subject to threatening processes that generally act at the landscape scale (e.g. habitat loss or degradation) rather than at distinct, definable locations.

The key threats to the viability of landscape-managed species are loss, fragmentation and degradation of habitat, and widespread pervasive factors such as impacts of climate

Keystone Ecological 33 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW change and disease. However, the following specific recovery strategies have been identified for this species (OEH 2017b):

1. Conserve old-growth forest stands and other areas of known habitat under perpetual, funded conservation agreements such as BioBanking agreements, conservation property vegetation plans or inclusion in the conservation reserve system; 2. Identify and target restoration and revegetation projects at areas where connectivity between large areas of known habitat is compromised, with the aim of increasing the width, condition and security of critical landscape links; 3. Implement (or augment coordinated), cross-tenure, landscape scale predator control programs in areas where significant populations of Spotted-tailed Quoll are known to occur, and monitor populations of the target introduced predator; 4. Monitor significant Spotted-tailed Quoll populations to investigate the impact of fox and wild dog baiting; 5. Design and distribute an educational brochure for designing 'quoll-proof' poultry runs and aviaries and distribute; 6. Modify poultry runs and aviaries based on best-practice guidelines; 7. Incorporate methods to reduce the numbers of Spotted-tailed Quolls killed at sections of roads where road kills are frequently reported. Assess the effectiveness of different mitigation methods; and 8. Monitor survival of Spotted-tailed Quoll populations in habitat newly colonised by cane toads.

One management site for this species has been recognized, in the Byadbo Wilderness Area in Kosciuszko National Park. The Office of Environment and Heritage have identified three conservation management actions that need to be undertaken on this site to ensure the population of threatened species is sustained (OEH 2017b):

1. Reduce the impact of Foxes by use of pest control trials; 2. Monitor pest species to determine if their densities have been reduced and maintained at a low level; and 3. Minimise illegal hunting and trapping by engagement with the community.

A number of other recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2017a):

1. Consult with OEH/NPWS if Spotted-tailed Quolls are raiding poultry, rather than taking direct action; 2. Consult with OEH/NPWS if poison baiting is planned in or near areas where Spotted-tailed Quolls are known or likely to occur; 3. Undertake Cat and Fox control using poison-baiting techniques least likely to affect quolls; and 4. Retain and protect large, forested areas with hollow logs and rocky outcrops, particularly areas with thick understorey or dense vegetation along drainage lines.

Keystone Ecological 34 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The proposal will not threaten the success of any of these recovery strategies.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposal will contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation” and the “Loss of Hollow-bearing Trees”.

Conclusion: The area of suitable habitat to be removed is relatively minor in the context of what is available in the local area. The best potential habitat on site will be retained, habitat connectivity will be retained, and most of the suitable habitat in the local area is in secure reserves. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.

4.5 Planigale maculata Common Planigale

The Common Planigale is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

It is a tiny marsupial with a body length of only about 8 centimetres with a tail as long as its body (OEH 2017a). They are a small carnivorous marsupial and were once classified as a species of Antechinus (Burnett 2008)19. They are found in coastal and sub-coastal areas from central NSW north through Queensland and in north wester Western Australia (Burnett 2008). The species reaches its southern distribution limit on the NSW lower north coast (OEH 2017a).

It occurs in nearly all terrestrial habitats, including montane rainforests, eucalypt forest, heathland, marshland, grassland and rocky areas where there is surface cover, and usually close to water (OEH 2017a). It is commonly found close to human habitation and may shelter under rubbish in weed infested urban reserves or more conventional natural shelters such as logs and rocks (Burnett 2008).

They are nocturnal and terrestrial, foraging among leaf litter, dense grass or low vegetation (Burnett 2008). They are fierce predators, repeatedly attacking the back of the head of prey until subdued (Burnett 2008) and will consume insects and small vertebrates, some nearly their own size (OEH 2017a).

19 Burnett, S. (2008) Common Planigale Planigale maculata. In: Van Dyk, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) The Mammals of Australia. Third edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney

Keystone Ecological 35 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

In eastern Australia, this species breeds from October to January and probably have a peak in activity associated with breeding between November and January (Burnett 2008). The female builds a nest that is lined with grass, eucalypt leaves and shredded bark (OEH 2017a).

Museum records indicate that they are preyed upon by cats and dogs, their remains have been found in Northern Quoll scats, the regurgitated pellets of Barn Owls and in the stomach of a Cane toad (Burnett 2008).

Opinion in the scientific literature indicates that populations of this species are not threatened as they have a wide distribution, are able to tolerate disturbed habitats, and occur at high density at many sites (Burnett 2008).

This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. Potential habitat for this species occurs across the site and shelter occurs in hollow logs, however the absence of a water source makes it sub-optimal. A total of 5 records of this species occur within the broader study area. BioNet shows the closest record from the northern side of the Clarence River in 2006 at Woombah, when this species was trapped, approximately 8 kilometres north west of the subject site. The habitats in that area have a swamp element, which is absent from the subject site. The most suitable part of the site is within the relatively intact mesic forest that is to be wholly retained in Park A.

Response:

The removal of potential foraging and sheltering habitat of a sub-optimal nature is unlikely to threaten the life cycle of this species such that a viable local population is at risk of extinction.

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Keystone Ecological 36 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Sub-optimal habitat will be removed in 13.96 hectares of disturbed vegetation.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Response:

The layout of the retained parks will maintain connectivity of habitat, although clearing for the development footprint will increase habitat fragmentation.

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Response:

As potential sub-optimal habitat, the vegetation to be removed is not considered important to the long-term survival of a viable local population.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

Keystone Ecological 37 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. However, a number of recovery strategies have been identified (DECC 2009). Of relevance are the following:

1 Control foxes, feral cats and cane toads; 2 Reduce the impact of burning to retain diverse understorey species and cover, such as hollow logs and bark; 3 Maintain adequate ground cover, especially near water; 4 Control cattle access to reduce grazing and trampling of waterside vegetation; and 5 Protect areas of habitat from clearing and development.

These objectives and strategies are served by this assessment process with survey conducted for this species and recommendations made for minimisation of potential impact and conservation of important habitat features. They are also partly satisfied by the provision of survey data to the relevant authorities. Most importantly, they are served by the retention and conservation management of the bushland parks.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation”.

Conclusion: The area of suitable habitat to be removed is relatively minor in the context of better habitat that is available in the local area. All of the most suitable habitat on site will be retained, and most of the suitable habitat in the local area is in secure reserves. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.

4.6 Phascogale tapoatafa Brush-tailed Phascogale

The Brush-tailed Phascogale is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 1 of the Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

The Brush-tailed Phascogale is tree-dwelling marsupial carnivore with a characteristic, black, bushy ‘bottlebrush’ tail, resembling a small lithe possum.

Keystone Ecological 38 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

It has a patchy distribution around the coast of Australia. In NSW, it is more frequently found in forest on the Great Dividing Range in the north-east and south-east of the State with a few records from central NSW (OEH 2017a). It prefers dry sclerophyll open forest with sparse groundcover of herbs, grasses, shrubs or leaf litter (OEH 2017a) primarily where the annual rainfall exceeds 500mm. This species also inhabits heath, swamps, rainforest and wet sclerophyll forest.

It is an agile climber and forages preferentially on the larger rough barked trees, feeding mainly on arthropods but will also eat other invertebrates, nectar and sometimes small vertebrates. The Brush-tailed Phascogale nests and shelters in tree hollows with entrances 2.5 - 4 centimetres wide and use many different hollows over a short time period.

Mating occurs in autumn and winter. Like the smaller Dasyurids, males die soon after the mating season but females may live up to three years, although they usually produce only one litter. Females have exclusive territories of between 20 and 60 hectares, while males have overlapping territories of up to 100 hectares (OEH 2017a).

This species was not recorded on the subject site during survey. Potential habitat for this species occurs across the subject site with foraging resources available and suitable tree hollows providing nesting habitat and shelter. BioNet shows a total of 16 records of this species have been documented within the broader study area from 1980 to 1997. All but 4 of these records arise from a survey of the local community and therefore the locations and time of observation may be unreliable. They may also include multiple records of the same animal (e.g. a cluster of records from 1997 near the subject site have identical identifiers). The 4 other records are of 2 observations to the north in Bundjalung National Park, 1 observation mapped in Iluka township and the last as a dead animal near Woombah. The absence of recent records may indicate a real absence on the Iluka peninsula.

Response:

The important life cycle features are the availability of suitable hollows for breeding, the availability of foraging habitat and the availability of mates. The lost hollows will be replaced by appropriate nest boxes / salvaged hollows and terrestrial habitat will be enriched in the retained bushland. Connectivity to adjacent habitat will not be compromised by the proposal.

(b) in the case of an endangered population, whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on the life cycle of the species that constitutes the endangered

Keystone Ecological 39 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW population such that a viable local population of the species is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Approximately 13.96 hectares of sub-optimal foraging habitat in open dry forest will be removed.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Response:

The configuration of the proposal will retain connectivity of habitat within the site and with habitat external to the site.

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Keystone Ecological 40 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Response:

As potential sub-optimal habitat, the vegetation to be removed is not considered important to the long-term survival of a viable local population.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

There is no recovery plan or threat abatement plan for this species. This species has been assigned to the “landscape species” management stream under the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. A number of recovery strategies have been identified (OEH 2017b).

1. Establish a long term monitoring program targeting at least 30 populations across the known range of Brush-tailed phascogales. The program will incorporate sites used for experimental fox control. 2. Undertake a targeted community education program that raises awareness about threats such as predation from cats. 3. Develop and provide environmental assessment guidelines for Local Councils and other consent or determining authorities to enable adequate consideration of the potential impacts of activities or actions on phascogales. 4. Monitor the effectiveness of forestry threatened species licence conditions and refine and negotiate changes if required. 5. Undertake research into the impact of hazard reduction burn practices. 6. Undertake fox and wild dog control at priority sites. 7. Design and implement an ecological burn (Dinner Creek) including habitat requirements of the species in Demon Nature Reserve.

A number of recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2017a):

1. Undertake fox and feral cat control. 2. Retain and protect habitat, particularly mature or oldgrowth forest containing hollow-bearing trees. 3. Retain nest trees and recruitment trees (future hollow-bearing trees). 4. Provide nest boxes in areas where tree-hollows have been removed.

Keystone Ecological 41 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The proposal is largely consistent with these recovery strategies with the replacement of hollow-bearing trees, the conservation management of the retained bushland and rehabilitated areas under a vegetation and habitat management plan.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposed works contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation”.

Conclusion: The area of suitable habitat to be removed is relatively minor in the context of what is available in the local area. Most of the suitable habitat on site will be retained, and most of the suitable habitat in the local area is in secure reserves. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.

4.7 Phascolarctos cinereus Koala

For an ecological profile of this community, see the AFFIA.

Further information regarding the distribution and abundance of Koala feed trees has been collected by local residents and is shown at Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7 shows Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum, the only primary food tree on site. Another primary food tree species occurs in low numbers on the golf course to the north (Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany). Together with the 53+ individuals of Eucalyptus tereticornis previously identified in the north eastern corner of the site, road reserve and in the adjacent part of the Nature Reserve, an additional 27 trees have been located on site by members of the local community.

Figure 8 shows the distribution and abundance of Eucalyptus tereticornis, along with Corymbia intermedia Pink Bloodwood (a secondary food tree) and Lophostemon confertus Brush Box (a supplementary food tree). The summary provided by the residents shows 80+ Eucalyptus tereticornis, 364 Corymbia intermedia, and 181 Lophostemon confertus.

Of significance is the distribution of these trees.

The Eucalyptus tereticornis trees are principally in the north east corner of the site in Park B and D, and across the road in Iluka Nature Reserve. A small number occur in a narrow band of 193c in the south eastern section of the site, and two occur towards the western end. The vast majority of this primary food tree occur within the area to be retained and managed for conservation under an Approved Management Plan.

Keystone Ecological 42 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The Corymbia intermedia trees are clustered along the western edge in Park A, the eastern edge in Park B and D, as well as in three narrow bands in the centre and south eastern section. There is also a group near the south western corner along the Elizabeth Street frontage. This species is well represented in the proposed bushland parks.

There are fewer Lophostemon confertus, but they follow a similar pattern to Corymbia intermedia, with concentrations along 3 narrow bands in the development footprint, but the majority within Park A on the western boundary and in Parks B and D on the eastern boundary.

These latter two species are common components of the dominant vegetation types in this area.

The narrow bands of food trees in the development footprint occur across approximately 1.5 hectares, and the retained bushland parks comprise 4.8 hectares of bushland that will be managed for conservation purposes.

Other than the Koala caught on a wildlife camera on site in 2014, there have been recent sightings of this species near the subject site (information provided to the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy by Mr Peter Appleton of Iluka):

• May 2016 at Frazer’s Reef, approximately 2 kilometres north east of the subject site in Bundjalung National Park; • 5th January 2017, a single animal disturbed in Elizabeth Street and relocated into bushland approximately 200 metres to the west of the subject site; and • 8th February 2017, animal sighted in the same release area in Elizabeth Street.

The January and February 2017 sightings are likely to be the same animal.

Response:

The development proposal will remove 13.96 hectares of vegetation that contain potential food trees, it is demonstrably poor habitat. Almost all primary food trees will be retained in Parks B and D, as will the concentrations of secondary and supplementary species in Park A.

All possible design elements have been incorporated into the layout of the proposal in order to accommodate this species. The majority of the best habitats have been retained in Parks A, B and D. The connectivity of these parks across the site and with off site bushland will facilitate north-south and east-west movements.

Keystone Ecological 43 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The streetscapes are to be landscaped for Koalas in particular (using food trees and planted at intervals recommended by expert panel) and other threatening processes are to be controlled (such as traffic and dogs). Thus, it is considered unlikely that the proposal will place a viable local population at risk of extinction.

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Secondary quality habitat concentrated in narrow bands of trees across 1.8 hectares of disturbed vegetation is to be removed. The best habitat is to be retained in 4.49 hectares of bushland parks.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Keystone Ecological 44 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Response:

The configuration of retained and rehabilitated vegetation will facilitate the movements of Koalas across the site and in the local area.

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Response:

Applying the two sets of assessment rules of habitat quality as provided in the NSW Approved Recovery Plan (DECC 2008)20, the vegetation of the site is categorised as being:

• Secondary habitat Class A – capable of supporting a medium density of Koalas, between 0.1 and 0.75 Koalas per hectare; and • Secondary habitat Class B – capable of supporting a medium to low density Koala population.

However, the Koala population has to recover from a very low base. A modelling study of the Iluka population (Lunney et al. 2002)21 concluded that the decline and eventual extinction of the Iluka population was inexorable, unless there was a major influx of migrating Koalas and significant alterations to the factors influencing disease and mortality. The small handful of sightings and the condition of the available habitat does not yet change that conclusion.

Nevertheless, Koala foraging and sheltering habitat is important for the local population’s persistence, but the area of the development footprint contains the least important component of that secondary habitat, as it contains very few primary food trees, and made up of scattered trees.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

20 Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (2008) Approved Recovery Plan for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) 21 Lunney, D., O’Neill, L.O., Matthews, A. and Sherwin, W. (2002) Modelling mammalian extinction and forecasting recovery: Koalas at Iluka NSW, Australia. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney

Keystone Ecological 45 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Response:

A number of objectives and strategies for this species have been detailed in the Recovery Plan for the Koala (DECC 2008). Of relevance to this proposal are the following recovery actions:

• Implement the objectives of SEPP 44 and the National Koala Conservation Strategy for the conservation of koalas and koala habitat in NSW; • DECCW, together with DoP, will work with councils and catchment management authorities to assist them in developing koala habitat protection measures for incorporation in relevant local environmental plans (LEPs), and regional natural resource and vegetation management plans; • Assess koala population dynamics and habitat use across the NSW range; and • DECCW, through collaboration with a wide range of researchers and conservation partners, will coordinate and promote implementation of the recovery plan, with a focus on using the NSW Priorities Action Statement as the primary information and coordination tool.

Other recovery strategies identified by OEH (2017a) include:

• Undertake feral predator control; • Apply low intensity, mosaic pattern fuel reduction burns in or adjacent to Koala habitat; • Retain suitable habitat, especially areas dominated by preferred feed-tree species; • Identify road-kill blackspots and erect warning signs, reduce speed limits or provide safe crossing points to reduce Koala fatalities; • Protect populations close to urban areas from attacks by domestic dogs; and • Revegetate with suitable feed tree species and develop habitat corridors between populations.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposal will contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation”.

Keystone Ecological 46 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Conclusion: The habitat on site and in the local area is likely only to be able to support a low to medium density population. Very few records exist in the immediate vicinity and the population may still not be able to recover. Nevertheless, the areas of best habitat for this species on site will be retained and managed for conservation purposes. The configuration of the retained areas and the landscaped verges will facilitate the movements of Koalas. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.

4.8 Petaurus norfolcensis Squirrel Glider

The Squirrel Glider is listed as Vulnerable under Schedule 2 of the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995). This species is not listed under the Schedules of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). Specific populations of Squirrel Gliders in the Pittwater Local Government Area (on the Barrenjoey Peninsula) and the Wagga Wagga LGA have been declared as endangered populations under the TSC Act (1995).

The Squirrel Glider is a medium sized glider with a distribution from north Queensland to western Victoria (NSW Scientific Committee 2008)22. Within New South Wales, the Squirrel Glider has been recorded as far inland as the Pilliga (NPWS 1999)23. It is very similar in appearance and ecology to the closely-related Sugar Glider, Petaurus breviceps (Suckling 1995)24.

This species is found in dry sclerophyll forest, swamp forest and woodlands dominated by flowering eucalypts with a Banksia or Acacia shrub layer (NSW Scientific Committee 2008). Occurrence of this species is highly localised and dependent on the availability of suitable foraging habitat and hollow trees (Fallding and Smith 2008)25. Their diet varies seasonally with the Squirrel Glider feeding on Acacia gum, eucalypt sap, pollen, nectar, insects (particularly caterpillars), honeydew and manna (OEH 2017a). It may exploit the feeding notches made by Yellow-bellied Gliders (NPWS 1999) and, in the winter when other resources are scarce, are known to feed on Banksia integrifolia Coast Banksia, Eucalyptus fibrosa Red Ironbark, Eucalyptus camaldulensis River Red Gum, Eucalyptus paniculata Grey Ironbark, Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum, Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and, in some areas, Eucalyptus pilularis Blackbutt (NPWS 1999). They also feed

22 NSW Scientific Committee (2008) Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis Review of Current Information in NSW. NSW Scientific Committee, Sydney. 23 NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Threatened Species Information – Squirrel Glider 24 Suckling , G.C. (1995) Squirre l Glider In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Australia 25 Fallding, M.P. and Smith, A.P. (2008) Squirrel Glider review for Morisset Structure Plan area, Lake Macquarie City Council

Keystone Ecological 47 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW on edible gum provided by some Acacia species during the winter. These include Acacia mearnsii, Acacia parramattensis and Acacia irrorata (Smith and Murray 2003)26.

To support the Squirrel Glider, a vegetation community must contain at least one flora species that flowers heavily in winter and one or more of the eucalypts should be smooth- barked as these trees form hollows more readily and support a greater diversity of invertebrates (NPWS 1999).

In a study on the Central Coast (Smith and Murray 2003) the Squirrel Glider was most abundant in forests and woodlands with an overstorey of winter-flowering eucalypts (Corymbia maculata Spotted Gum, Eucalyptus robusta Swamp Mahogany, Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum) or an understorey of winter-flowering banksias (Banksia spinulosa) or pinnate-leaved acacias (Acacia irrorata). The highest estimated density (0.7–1 hectare) occurred in associations of Eucalyptus haemastoma Scribbly Gum or Eucalyptus racemosa Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum, Angophora costata Smooth-barked Apple and Corymbia gummifera Red Bloodwood with an understorey of Banksia spp and Xanthorrhoea spp. The lowest estimated densities occurred in forests with an understorey dominated by casuarinas or non-pinnate acacias and in stunted, low (<17 metre high) forest and woodland close to the coast. The abundance of all possums and gliders increased significantly with canopy height, canopy cover, the number of mature and old-growth trees and the number of trees with hollows (Smith and Murray 2003).

Squirrel Gliders live in family groups comprising a single adult male, one or more adult females and offspring (OEH 2017a). These groups occupy home ranges of between 0.65 and 8.55 hectares that varies according to habitat quality (NPWS 1999). They may move between 300 and 500 metres in a single night’s foraging and can glide up to 50 metres between trees (NPWS 1999).

In the Hunter-Central Rivers region, this species has been recorded in various vegetation formations, including Dry Sclerophyll Forest, Forested Wetland, Heathland, and Wet Sclerophyll Forest (OEH 2017a). It has not been recorded using Littoral Rainforest.

This species was not recorded on site during survey. Potential habitat for this species occurs across the site due to the presence of hollow-bearing trees and foraging resources, including Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum and Banksia integrifolia subsp. integrifolia Coast Banksia. However, most of the site is poor habitat for this species, given the low density of hollow-bearing trees, the highly modified understorey and the concentration of suitable forage trees in small areas. The best parts of the site for this species have been captured in Parks A, B and D.

A total of 27 records of this species have been documented in the broader study area with the closest record occurring approximately 200 metres to the south of the subject site in

26 Smith, A.P. and Murray, M. (2003) Habitat requirements of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and associated possums and gliders on the New South Wales central coast. Wildlife Research 30(3):291-301

Keystone Ecological 48 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

2010 (OEH 2017c; ALA 2017). Many of these records are from the Iluka township, with at least one being a Cat kill.

Response:

The proposal will retain the best areas of habitat for this species and replace any lost hollows with suitable nest boxes and / or salvaged hollows. The conservation management of the bushland parks will also improve the condition of the exiting habitat, with removal of transformer weeds and reinstatement of understorey.

It is considered that the proposal is unlikely to place a local viable population at risk of extinction.

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(c) in the case of an endangered ecological community or critically endangered ecological community, whether the action proposed:

(i) is likely to have an adverse effect on the extent of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction, or

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(ii) is likely to substantially and adversely modify the composition of the ecological community such that its local occurrence is likely to be placed at risk of extinction,

Response:

This question is not relevant to a threatened species.

(d) in relation to the habitat of a threatened species, population or ecological community:

Keystone Ecological 49 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

(i) the extent to which habitat is likely to be removed or modified as a result of the action proposed, and

Response:

Sub-optimal foraging and denning habitat occurs within the 13.96 hectares of vegetation to be removed, however, the components of this area that are suitable for this species is much smaller, concentrated in the areas that support winter-flowering and the those hollow-bearing trees that are suitable for this species.

(ii) whether an area of habitat is likely to become fragmented or isolated from other areas of habitat as a result of the proposed action, and

Response:

While the proposal will fragment potential habitat to some extent, it will not prevent movement across the landscape or isolate populations due to the connectivity that will be retained in the pattern of retained bushland parks.

(iii) the importance of the habitat to be removed, modified, fragmented or isolated to the long-term survival of the species, population or ecological community in the locality,

Response:

Smith (2002) has developed a series of criteria by which habitat can be ranked for this species. The critical components to be considered are patch size, connectivity, floristic assemblage, presence of hollows and disturbance history.

The area of bushland on the subject site is large and well connected to nearby expanses of bushland, most of which is reserved. However, the floristic assemblage provides sub- optimal forage for this species and is profoundly disturbed with significant weed infestations, adjacent residential development, and unfettered access by dogs and cats.

The loss of potential den trees can be compensated for by the installation of appropriate nest boxes in the retained parks.

As potential sub-optimal habitat, it is not regarded as important for the survival of a local population of this species.

(e) whether the action proposed is likely to have an adverse effect on critical habitat (either directly or indirectly),

Response:

No critical habitat has been declared for this species.

Keystone Ecological 50 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

(f) whether the action proposed is consistent with the objectives or actions of a recovery plan or threat abatement plan,

Response:

This species has been assigned to the “landscape species” management stream by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. The management stream aims to recover the species through the following critical management actions (OEH 2017b):

1. Raise public awareness of the importance of large old trees (living and dead), which provide important hollow and food resources. Protect large old trees and ensure their continued presence in the landscape by retaining medium sized trees, facilitating regeneration, and undertaking replanting. Large old trees within, adjacent to, or connecting vegetation remnants are particularly important. 2. Protect, manage and restore habitat, prioritising sites within a region that may better function as drought refuges. Encourage the retention of a floristically and structurally diverse understorey, and raise public awareness of the damage caused to food resources by slashing/underscrubbing and over-grazing. 3. Identify important populations and engage stakeholders in the development and implementation of a local area management plan (a map based document detailing the works necessary to secure the long term viability of the population). Undertake baseline studies to support the preparation of local area management plans (LAMPs). 4. Ensure populations remain connected by avoiding gaps greater than 50m between habitat patches and along linear remnants. Eliminate gaps through revegetation or the installation of crossing structures (e.g. rope bridges, glide poles), focusing on important movement pathways. Investigate the influence of habitat fragmentation on gene flow in different landscapes across the species' distribution. 5. Identify sites where hollows are limiting and develop and implement strategies to increase hollow availability that have clear objectives and include monitoring, maintenance, and reporting requirements. Actions include nest box installation, the humane control of introduced species, and the protection of trees having the potential to develop hollows. 6. Reduce direct mortality due to entanglement on barbed wire, vehicle collisions, and predation by cats and dogs. Encourage the use of plain wire fencing and the covering of barbed wire with polypipe. At sites with a high risk of vehicle collision, install crossing structures (e.g. rope bridges, glide poles) and/or reduce the canopy gap through revegetation. Confine cats and dogs at night.

A number of specific recovery activities have also been identified (OEH 2017a):

1. Retain den trees and recruitment trees (future hollow-bearing trees); 2. Retain food resources, particularly sap-feeding trees and understorey feed species such as Acacias and banksias;

Keystone Ecological 51 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

3. Replace top one or two strands of barbed wire on fences with regular wire in and adjacent to habitat; 4. Retain and protect areas of habitat, particularly mature or old growth forest containing hollow-bearing trees and sap-feeding trees; and 5. In urban and rural areas retain and rehabilitate habitat to maintain or increase the total area of habitat available, reduce edge effects, minimise foraging distances and increase the types of resources available.

The proposal is consistent with these strategies.

(g) whether the action proposed constitutes or is part of a key threatening process or is likely to result in the operation of, or increase the impact of, a key threatening process.

Response:

The proposal will contribute to the Key Threatening Process “Clearing of Native Vegetation” and “Loss of Hollow-bearing Trees”.

Conclusion: The habitat on site is sub-optimal for this species and it was not recorded during survey. Nevertheless, the areas of best habitat for this species on site will be retained and managed for conservation purposes. The configuration of the retained areas and the landscaped verges will facilitate local movements of this species. The proposal is unlikely to result in a significant adverse impact on this threatened species.

Keystone Ecological 52 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• The latest iteration of the layout has a number of superior features: • It will give rise to a larger and better-connected network of bushland parks; • The parks capture the most important trees and other habitat features for fauna, and they will be managed for conservation purposes under and Approved Management Plan; • The area most likely to support Acronychia littoralis will be retained in a bushland park; • The largest and best developed example of Coastal Cypress Pine Forest EEC will be retained and managed for conservation; • The fire trail can remain essentially as is, removing the need for further loss of the EEC; • The APZs are wholly within the development footprint; • The residential lots have been concentrated into the centre of the site, so that there is separation from the bushland parks with less opportunity for indirect impacts and dumping of garden refuse; and • A wide visual buffer is provided to Iluka Nature Reserve;

Keystone Ecological 53 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

The Superb Fruit-dove and Wompoo Fruit-dove are most likely to use the areas of the site that are to be retained and managed for conservation in bushland parks A and B.

The Spotted-tailed Quoll is unlikely to occur, but if so, is most likely to use the site as a movement corridor.

Keystone Ecological 54 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

REFERENCES

Ashby, E. and McTackett, A. (2015) Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment, Hickey Street, Iluka, Clarence Valley LGA. Unpublished report, Keystone Ecological Ashby, E. and McTackett, A. (2016) Additional Flora and Fauna Impact Assessment, Hickey Street, Iluka, Clarence Valley LGA. Unpublished report, Keystone Ecological Office of Environment and Heritage (2012) Vegetation Classification for the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Area of New South Wales McAlpine, C., Rhodes, J., Peterson, A., Possingham, H., Callaghan, J., Curran, T., Mitchell, D., and Lunney, D. (2007) Planning guidelines for koala conservation and recovery: A guide to best planning practice. Australian Koala Foundation / Univeristy of Queensland Simpson K., and Day, N. (1999) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Sixth Edition. Penguin Books, Australia Slater, P., Slater, P., and Slater, R. (1995) The Slater Field Guide to Australian Birds. Lansdowne Publishing, Australia Pizzey, G., and Knight, F. (1997) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Harper Collins Publishers, Hong Kong Office of Environment and Heritage (2017a) Threatened Species Profile (http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/) Atlas of Living Australia (2017) Explore your area: Iluka. (http://biocache.ala.org.au/explore/your- area#9.398007939236077|153.35570661114502|11|ALL_SPECIES) Office of Environment and Heritage (2017b) Conservation Project (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/savingourspeciesapp/SearchResults.aspx Office of Environment and Heritage (2017a) Threatened species profile database. NSW Scientific Committee (2010) Wompoo Fruit-Dove Ptilinopus magnificus –review of Current information in NSW, Vulnerable species listing NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Threatened Species of the Upper North Coast of NSW: Fauna. NPWS, Coffs Harbour Strahan, R. (1995) A Photographic Guide to Mammals of Australia. New Holland, Sydney Australia Menkhorst, P and Knight, F. (2001) A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne Australia Edgar, R. and Belcher, C. (1995) Spotted-tailed Quoll. In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Hurstville NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Threatened Species Information – Spotted-tailed Quoll Belcher, C., Burnett, S. and Jones, M. (2008) Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. In: Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) The Mammals of Australia. Third edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney Burnett, S. (2008) Common Planigale Planigale maculata. In: Van Dyk, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) The Mammals of Australia. Third edition. Reed New Holland, Sydney

Keystone Ecological 55 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017 Addendum Impact Assessment Hickey Street, Iluka, NSW

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW (2008) Approved Recovery Plan for the koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) Lunney, D., O’Neill, L.O., Matthews, A. and Sherwin, W. (2002) Modelling mammalian extinction and forecasting recovery: Koalas at Iluka NSW, Australia. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Sydney NSW Scientific Committee (2008) Squirrel Glider Petaurus norfolcensis Review of Current Information in NSW. NSW Scientific Committee, Sydney. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1999) Threatened Species Information – Squirrel Glider Suckling , G.C. (1995) Squirre l Glider In: Strahan, R (Ed.) (1995) The Mammals of Australia. Reed New Holland, Australia Fallding, M.P. and Smith, A.P. (2008) Squirrel Glider review for Morisset Structure Plan area, Lake Macquarie City Council Smith, A.P. and Murray, M. (2003) Habitat requirements of the squirrel glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) and associated possums and gliders on the New South Wales central coast. Wildlife Research 30(3):291-301

Keystone Ecological 56 Ref: CVC 14-695 – July 2017