Flora and Fauna Assessment - Riverside Oaks Golf Course - Conacher Travers 2001

Biodiversity Development Assessment Report

Riverside Oaks Golf Course 74 O’Briens Road, Cattai

March 2021 (REF: 18ROME02)

Biodiversity Development Assessment Report

Riverside Oaks Golf Course 74 O’Briens Road, Cattai

Accredited Michael Sheather-Reid B. Nat. Res. (Hons.) – Managing Director assessors: Accredited Assessor no. BAAS17085 Lindsay Holmes B. Sc. – Senior Botanist – Accredited Assessor no. BAAS17032 George Plunkett B. Sc. (Hons.), PhD – Botanist – Accredited Assessor no. BAAS19010 Corey Mead B. App. Sc. – TreeHouse Ecology - Fauna Ecologist - Accredited Assessor no. BAAS19050 Plans prepared: Sandy Cardow B. Sc. Approved by: Michael Sheather-Reid (Accredited Assessor no. BAAS17085) Date: 02/03/2021 File: 18ROME02BDAR

Disclaimer:

This report has been prepared to provide advice to the client on matters pertaining to the particular and specific development proposal as advised by the client and / or their authorised representatives. This report can be used by the client only for its intended purpose and for that purpose only. Should any other use of the advice be made by any person, including the client, then this firm advises that the advice should not be relied upon. The report and its attachments should be read as a whole and no individual part of the report or its attachments should be interpreted without reference to the entire report.

The mapping is indicative of available space and location of features which may prove critical in assessing the viability of the proposed works. Mapping has been produced on a map base with an inherent level of inaccuracy, the location of all mapped features is to be confirmed by a registered surveyor.

TBE Environmental Pty Ltd 38A The Avenue t: 02 4340 5331 ABN 85 624 419 870 Mt Penang Parklands e: [email protected] PO Box 7138 Central Coast Highway Kariong NSW 2250 Kariong NSW 2250 www.traversecology.com.au

Executive Summary

Travers bushfire & ecology (TBE) has been engaged by Nanshan Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd to prepare a biodiversity development assessment report (BDAR) at the Riverside Oaks Golf Course, Cattai. The site is known as the Riverside Oaks Tourist Resort and is currently an operational golf resort facility with significant tourist accommodation and social and corporate event management facilities.

Purpose of BDAR

The BDAR assesses the biodiversity impacts of a proposed concept masterplan to enable four (4) proposed residential precinct areas, hotel and associated access roads and services including asset protection zones (APZs).

Background

The surveyed landscape presently contains two (2) golf courses, tourist lodging, club house and function centre and residential development in the north-east part of the site, containing forty-two (42) lots.

The study area is subject to a previously approved master plan (1989) based on previous surveys by Ecotone Ecological Consultants (1997) and Conacher Travers (2001). This plan included development spread within each of the major existing bushland portions providing hotel accommodation, holiday cabins, a resort complex, roads and a driving range. Some of this previous masterplan including Areas B, C, D and some of Area F (Figure 1.1) were acted upon to make up the current layout.

The 1989 approval and APZs had an estimated impact area of 35.6 ha. The concept master plan has been developed to have less impact upon the site’s ecological resources and to maintain arboreal connectivity. The proposed concept master plan is smaller and estimated to have an impact on 29.44 ha of remnant native vegetation.

The 1989 approval design in its entirety, including the remaining works will significantly impact upon natural resources and sever some arboreal connectivity across the landscape.

In 2016 an Ecological Assessment report was prepared by Travers bushfire & ecology to support a Planning Proposal to provide a more consolidated landscape and protect important habitat. This assessment supported the implementation of the development control plan (DCP) for the site. A draft amendment to The Hills SCP 2012 Part B Section 1 - Rural has been prepared to support the 2016 planning proposal.

The Planning Proposal was approved in 2018 by the Minister for an amendment to the Hills Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 to permit up to three hundred (300) dwelling houses and tourist accommodation (refer to Figure 1.2).

The biodiversity offset strategy (separate document) will take the 1989 approval into consideration for determining the appropriate offsets and rehabilitation works on retained vegetation on site.

Concept masterplan

A concept masterplan (2019) has been prepared that is generally consistent with the DCP, with the hotel design at the northern tip of Precinct C.

Precincts A and B have also been refined to reduce their footprint. An Ecological Consistency Report was prepared by Travers bushfire & ecology (April 2019) to identify the consistencies and inconsistencies in anticipated ecological impacts between the Riverside Oaks Tourism Complex, as referred to in Part B Section 1 - Rural of The Hills Development Control Plan 2012 (DCP), and the current proposed concept masterplan.

Figure A below shows the original 1989 approved layout.

Figure A - Master Plan Approval (1989)

Figure B - Updated Master Plan, May 2019

The Ecological Consistency Report has been provided to Council and fundamentally demonstrated that the proposed concept masterplan does not significantly vary from the DCP outcomes and is consistent with the ecological outcomes and recommendations as proposed under the DCP and recommendations as agreed to by Dr Ross Goldingay for Yellow-bellied Glider. In particular there has been an improvement in the area of land protected under the conservation zone and the tree retention areas.

The key outcomes of the Ecological Consistency Report include:

• Closer examination of tree retention associated with the proposed hotel precinct and precinct C has identified priority areas for protection and enhancement of canopy connectivity. • Remapping of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) to Yellow Bloodwood - Narrow-leaved Apple heathy woodland PCT 1640 using the BAM (2020) associated with precinct B. • An overall reduced impact on (SSTF) and a not significant impact caused by the proposed changes as embodied in the Concept masterplan • An improvement in the overall width and extent of tree retention areas in precincts A, B & C resulting in an increase of 4.6 ha protected under tree retention areas which results in a significant improvement in canopy connectivity for Yellow-bellied Glider. • Detailed examination of the Hotel Precinct and proposed enhancement works to maintain and improve canopy connectivity. • More detailed assessment for arboreal connectivity options through the golf course

iii

Figure C – Overlay between approved Masterpolan (1989) and the concept master plan DA2019

It is noted that the consistency report was prepared prior this BDAR and changes in the concept masterplan have been made in response to agency comments. The two key changes are the provision of the eastern link road to RFS standards and the expansion of the stewardship site to cover all remaining large remnants of vegetation within the study area in accordance with the Biodiversity Offset Strategy.

The concept masterplan will form the development application, and will be assessed within this report in accordance with BAM (2020). It includes the creation of four (4) Residential Development Precincts (A, B, C & D) and one (1) Tourist Precinct (H). This includes a conservation area which forms part of a Biodiversity Stewardship Site. All residual lands are to be managed in accordance with a vegetation management plan. Figure 1.2 of the document (or Figure B in the executive summary) shows the four (4) proposed development precincts (A-D) and the Hotel Precinct (H), Figure 1.3 depicts the staging of the development.

In addition to the development precincts, an upgraded secondary road link has been provided to the south of precincts A & B extending to the east, entering Wisemans Ferry Road. For the purposes of determining development impacts, the link road between Precinct C, B and A out to the south-east corner of the study area has allowed 4m either side of the road for potential cut and fill impacts. The link road follows the existing access track where possible with an increased pavement width of 8m.

will be the relevant neighbourhood association, funding for long term management will be incorporated into the Community Title Scheme. The fuel management plan will be integrated with the VMP and will detail the ongoing vegetation management requirements of the APZ and fire trails as well as incorporating a strategic burn program. Almost 55 ha of the proposed lands will be set up in the agreed conservation area, managed as a biodiversity stewardship site to be registered on title. Currently, the proposed stewardship site contains 52.84 ha of native vegetation.

The ecological assessment in 2016 has involved extensive liaison with Dr Ross Goldingay Southern Cross University (with respect to the Yellow-bellied Glider), The Hills Shire Council and the then Office of Environment & Heritage.

A Vegetation Management Plan has been prepared incorporating the Yellow-bellied Glider Management Plan to conserve and restore habitat features as well as provide addition management features within the remaining natural landscape for recorded biodiversity.

Biodiversity impacts of 1989 consent compared with the 2019 concept masterplan

For comparative purposes, the following table shows the change in impacts between the vegetation types on site.

Table A – PCT impacts comparison between 1989 and 2019

Threatened ecological 1989 2019 % change in Vegetation community community approved proposed impact Masterplan Masterplan impacts (ha) impacts (ha) PCT 835 River-flat Eucalypt 1.02 1.94 +90% Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Forest on Coastal Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion Floodplains PCT 877 Western Sydney Dry 1.86 0.27 -85% Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of the Rainforest Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion PCT 1083 0.20 0.00 -100% Red Bloodwood - scribbly gum heathy woodland on sandstone plateaux of the Sydney Basin Bioregion PCT 1106 0.00 0.00 0% River Oak riparian woodland of the NSW North Coast Bioregion and northern Sydney Basin Bioregion PCT 1395 Shale-Sandstone 31.95 27.23 -15% Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Broad- Transition Forest leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion PCT 1640 0.57 0.00 -100% Yellow Bloodwood - Narrow-leaved Apple heathy woodland on sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin PCT 1736 Freshwater Wetlands on 0.00 0.00 0% Water Couch - Tall Spike Rush Coastal Floodplains freshwater wetland of the Central Coast and lower Hunter TOTAL 35.60 29.44 -17%

movement, and has been endorsed by Ross Goldingay (expert on Yellow-bellied Glider). The current proposal will utilise many of the areas under the previous proposal but will retract in many areas.

The 1989 approval had eleven (11) separated areas for development. The current proposal has eight (8). By consolidating the development areas, the proposal will reduce overall impacts by concentrating development in less clumps and will require less future APZ management.

Recorded biodiversity

Ecological survey and assessment have been undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation and BAM methodology including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act), the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act), the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act).

In respect of matters required to be considered under the EP&A Act and relating to the species / provisions of the BC Act, the following threatened biodiversity has been recorded within the study area.

• Fifteen (15) threatened fauna species including Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides), White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum), Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis), Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris), Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus), East-coast Freetail Bat (Micronomus norfolkensis), Large Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus orianae oceansis), Little Bent- winged Bat (Miniopterus australis) and Dural Land Snail (Pommerhelix duralensis).

• Four (4) threatened ecological communities (TECs) were recorded including Shale- Sandstone Transition Forest, Western Sydney Dry Rainforest, River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains and Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains. Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains will not be impacted by the Development Proposal. Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest is listed as a critically endangered ecological community whilst the others are listed as endangered.

• No threatened flora species were recorded. Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens has been assumed as present due to lack of seasonal survey during the flowering period of Sep-Oct. Ten (10) specimens are assumed present in the BAM calculator (BAM-C).

The Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat was recorded only to a ‘possible’ level of certainty. Further to the recorded threatened fauna listed above there is an anecdotal record of Barking Owl (Ninox connivens) exists with also a ‘possible’ call heard during survey. Previous records of Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne australis) and Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicea) also exists on or along the edges of the site from surveys undertaken in 1997.

In respect of matters required to be considered under the EPBC Act, two (2) threatened fauna species including Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and Dural Land Snail (Pommerhelix duralensis), two (2) protected migratory bird species including Rainbow Bee- eater (Merops ornatus) and Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii), no threatened flora species and two (2) threatened ecological communities, 1. Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion, 2. Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist Shale Woodland on Shale, and 3. As of December 2020, River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of

Southern NSW and Eastern Victoria listed under this Act were recorded within the study area. Both are listed as critically endangered ecological communities under this Act.

In respect of matters relative to the FM Act, the study area fronts approximately 1.6 km along the Hawkesbury River which provides potential threatened fish species habitat. The proposed activity is not located in an area identified as critical habitat, therefore very unlikely to have a detrimental effect on water quality, water quantity or any direct / indirect impacts upon threatened fish species habitat from the proposed action. Therefore, a species impact statement should not be required for the proposed development in regard to fish species.

Impact assessment

The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal have been carefully considered in Section 3.8 of this report.

Recommendations have been outlined within Section 3.10 to avoid/minimise/offset the identified potential ecological impacts of the proposal, to address threatening processes and to create a more positive ecological outcome for threatened species and their associated habitats, especially in comparison to the approved 1989 master plan design.

The development proposal will see the impact of 29.44 ha of native vegetation, which includes impacts to three (3) different vegetation units including the following (PCT below refers to Plant Community Type):

• PCT 835 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion - 1.94 ha - equivalent to the EEC River- flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains • PCT 1395 Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion - 27.23 ha - equivalent to the CEEC - Shale Sandstone Transition Forest • PCT 877 Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion - 0.27 ha - equivalent to the EEC Western Sydney Dry Rainforest

Our earlier draft report advised there would be impacts to PCT 1640 - Yellow Bloodwood - Narrow-leaved Apple heathy woodland on sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin, however we have revised the PCT determination in the north-east and south-east corners of the site. PCT 1640 has now been refined to the north-east corner only and is fully within the proposed stewardship site.

Likely to significantly affect threatened species, threatened communities or threatened populations

The test of significance (in accordance with Section 7.3 of the BC Act) is not required when undertaking assessments through the BOS. This assessment was undertaken in previous versions of this BDAR as a guide only but has been removed for this updated version. The previous test of significance concluded that the development proposal is not likely to have a significant effect on any threatened species, TECs or threatened populations with the exception of Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest given the impact was very large and reduced the ability for the community to survive in the long term.

vii

Serious and irreversible impacts

The assessment of serious and irreversible impacts is set out under Section 6.7.2 of the BC Regulation 2017 to guide the determining authority on this decision. These principles have been reviewed and assessed in Appendix 3 (species) and Appendix 4 (communities).

As a result of this assessment, it is considered that further trapping survey is required to inform of the presence of important breeding habitat for Large-eared Pied Bat and Eastern Cave Bat. This is explained in detail in the assessment in Appendix 3. The report concludes that there are no serious and irreversible impacts on other candidate biodiversity values.

Significant impact under the FM Act

There will be no significant impact on matters listed under the FM Act.

Significant impact under the EPBC Act

The proposed subdivision development was considered to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance for Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and Dural Land Snail. As such, a referral to Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (Commonwealth) is recommended.

Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) – Threshold assessment

The proposed development exceeds both nominated threshold triggers of 1) the proposal impacts areas shaded purple on the Biodiversity Values Land Map, and 2) the Area Clearing Threshold as outlined in Section 3.1.

BAM calculator results for the proposed 2019 concept masterplan

The BAM Calculator provides a means of objectively determining the loss of biodiversity as a result of a proposed development. Tables B and C set out the class and number of credits assessed as reflecting the residual impacts of the proposed development on biodiversity values.

Table B – Ecosystem credits for plant community types (PCT) for the 2019 concept masterplan

Zone PCT and Threatened Veg. Area Biodiversity Candidate Ecosystem code ecological integrity (ha) risk SAII credits community loss weighting 1 835 good River-flat 43.4 1.9 2.00 42 Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains 2 877 good Western Sydney 41.3 0.3 2.00 true 6 Dry Rainforest 3 1395 good Shale-Sandstone 51.7 27.2 2.50 true 880 Transition Forest Total 928

viii

Table C - Species credits for candidate threatened species (note 1) for the 2019 concept masterplan

Species Credit requirement Gang-gang Cockatoo 704 Glossy Black-Cockatoo 704 Large-eared Pied Bat 1127 Southern Myotis 384 Barking Owl 704 Dural Woodland Snail 704 Eastern Cave Bat 1127 Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens 15

Note 1: the number of required species credits can be refined further with target surveys and breeding habitat assessment.

Credit reduction due to approved 1989 masterplan

Given there is an approved masterplan for the site in 1989, the biodiversity credits required for the development apply for impacts caused by the 2019 concept masterplan where it goes beyond the 1989 consent. To evaluate the residual impacts from the 2019 concept masterplan, the credits generated by the full impact (Table B and C) need to be reduced by the relevant proportion.

As a result of removing the area approved under the 1989 consent, the credits required overall are reduced to 33.4%. Table D provides a breakdown in credits per PCT and Table E shows the difference in species credit requirements after removing the area approved under the 1989 consent.

Given that there is an approved development on site, we seek only to acquire the reduced credit requirements referred to in Table D and E.

Table D - Ecosystem credits for 2019 concept masterplan (discounting the 1989 consent area)

PCT Total Area of Proportion Total Proportion of impacted impact covered credits credits not area in beyond the under the based on approved 2019 1989 1989 the 2019 under the concept approved approved concept 1989 masterplan masterplan masterplan masterplan masterplan (ha) (ha) (%) 835 - Forest Red Gum - Rough- 1.94 1.38 71.13 42 30 barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion 877 - Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of 0.27 0.001 0.37 6 1 (only the Sydney Basin Bioregion and because there South East Corner Bioregion is an impact) 1395 - Narrow-leaved Ironbark - 27.23 8.64 31.73 880 279 Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion Total 928 310 (33.4%)

Table E - Species credits for 2019 concept masterplan (discounting the 1989 consent area)

Species Credit requirement by Proportion of credits current 2019 masterplan not approved under the 1989 masterplan Gang-gang Cockatoo 704 235 Glossy Black-Cockatoo 704 235 Large-eared Pied Bat 1127 376 Southern Myotis 384 128 Barking Owl 704 235 Dural Woodland Snail 704 235 Eastern Cave Bat 1127 376 Epacris purpurascens var. 15 5 purpurascens Total 5,469 1,825 (33.4%)

List of abbreviations APZ asset protection zone BAM Biodiversity Assessment Method BAR Biodiversity Assessment Report BC Act Biodiversity Conservation Act (2016) BC Reg Biodiversity Conservation Regulation (2017) BCAR Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report BDAR Biodiversity Development Assessment Report BOS Biodiversity Offset Scheme BPA bushfire protection assessment BSSAR Biodiversity Stewardship Site Assessment Report CEEC Critically endangered ecological community DAWE Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment DCP development control plan DEC NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (superseded by DECC from April 2007) DECC NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (superseded by DECCW from October 2009) DECCW NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (superseded by OEH from April 2011) DEWHA Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage & the Arts (superseded by SEWPAC) DOEE Commonwealth Department of Environment & Energy (superseded by DAWE from February 2020) DPIE NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment EEC endangered ecological community EPA Environment Protection Authority EP&A Act Environmental Planning and Assessment Act (1979) EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) FM Act Fisheries Management Act IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia LEP local environmental plan LGA local government area LLS Act Local Land Services Act (2013) NES national environmental significance NPW Act National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) NSW DPI NSW Department of Industry and Investment OEH Office of Environment and Heritage (superseded by DPIE from August 2019) PCT plant community type RFS NSW Rural Fire Service ROTAP rare or threatened Australian plants SAII Serious and Irreversible Impacts SEPP State Environmental Planning Policy SEWPAC Commonwealth Dept. of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities (superseded by DOEE) SIS species impact statement SULE safe useful life expectancy TEC threatened ecological community TPZ tree preservation zone TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) – Superseded by the Biodiversity Conservation Act (2016) VMP vegetation management plan YBG Yellow-bellied Glider

Preface

The following table lists the main current staff members, their qualifications and their input into the preparation of this BDAR.

Staff name Qualifications BDAR input Michael-Sheather- • Bachelor of Natural Resources Project management, joint Reid (Hons), University of New author and BDAR review. (Managing Director) England • Accredited BioBanking Assessor (No 204) • Accredited Biodiversity Assessor (BAAS17085) • MUSIC Modelling – Stormwater quality and quantity modelling (RMIT) • Bush Regeneration II Certificate, Ryde TAFE Lindsay Holmes • Bachelor of Science – Biology, Botanical survey, data (Manager of Ecology) James Cook University, Qld analysis, joint BDAR author, • Bush Regeneration II Certificate, running of BAM calculator. Ourimbah TAFE • Biobanking Assessor (No. 199) • Accredited Biodiversity Assessor (BAAS17032) George Plunkett • Bachelor of Science (Honours) – Botanical survey, data (Botanist) Ecology / Botany, University of analysis. New England (UNE), NSW • PhD – Plant systematics, ecology and evolution • Accredited Biodiversity Assessor (BAAS19010) Corey Mead • Bachelor of Applied Science, Fauna survey, data analysis, (Senior Fauna Southern Cross University joint BDAR author. Ecologist) (1994) • Accreditied Biobanking Assessor (No.231) • Accredited Biodiversity Assessor (BAAS19050) Sandy Cardow Bachelor of Science (Biological GIS analysis, calculation of (GIS Analyst) Sciences) (Macquarie University) impact areas, presentation (1998) of figures.

xii

Table of Contents

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose ...... 1 1.1.1 Certification of BAM compliance ...... 1 1.1.2 Terminology ...... 2 1.2 Site description ...... 3 1.2.1 Site overview ...... 3 1.2.2 Landscape features ...... 3 1.2.3 Zoning ...... 4 1.3 Proposed concept masterplan ...... 5 1.3.1 Identification of development site footprint ...... 10 1.4 Statutory assessment requirements ...... 10 1.4.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) ...... 10 1.4.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) ...... 10 1.4.3 Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) ...... 11 1.4.4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) .... 11 1.4.5 Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act) ...... 12 1.4.6 Licences ...... 12 1.4.7 The Hills Local Environment Plan 2012 ...... 12 Biodiversity (Terrestrial) ...... 12

SECTION 2.0 – BIODIVERSITY ASSESSMENT ...... 22 2.1 Pre-survey information collation & resources ...... 22 2.2 Flora survey methodology ...... 24 2.3 Fauna survey methodology ...... 25 2.4 Field survey effort ...... 30 2.5 Survey limitations ...... 37 2.6 Accuracy of identification ...... 39 2.7 Flora results ...... 41 2.7.1 Native vegetation extent ...... 41 2.7.2 Flora species ...... 41 2.7.3 Evidence and justification used to identify a PCT in the development area ...... 41 2.7.4 Plant community types (PCTs) descriptions ...... 46 2.7.5 Vegetation integrity assessment ...... 51 2.8 Fauna results ...... 54 2.9 Habitat results ...... 54 2.9.1 Fauna habitat observations ...... 54 2.9.2 Habitat tree data ...... 55 2.10 BAM calculator species ...... 56

SECTION 3.0 – IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 59 3.1 Requirement for a BDAR ...... 59 3.1.1 BOS thresholds ...... 59 3.1.2 Declared area of outstanding values ...... 60 3.2 Serious and Irreversible Impacts on biodiversity values ...... 61 3.3 Previous surveys reviewed ...... 62 3.4 Flora ...... 65 3.4.1 Local / Regional flora matters ...... 65 3.4.2 State legislative flora matters...... 65 (a) Threatened flora species (NSW) ...... 65 (b) Endangered flora populations (NSW) ...... 67 (c) Threatened ecological communities (NSW) ...... 68 (d) Ecosystem credit species ...... 70 (e) Species credit species ...... 71 (f) Local data ...... 73

xiii

(g) Expert reports ...... 73 (h) Endangered wetland communities ...... 74 (i) Groundwater dependent ecosystems ...... 74 (j) Coastal wetlands ...... 75 3.4.3 Matters of national environmental significance - flora ...... 76 (a) Threatened flora species (national) ...... 76 (b) Threatened ecological communities (national) ...... 77 3.5 Fauna ...... 77 3.5.1 Key fauna habitat ...... 77 3.5.2 Local fauna matters ...... 78 3.5.3 State legislative fauna matters ...... 79 (a) Threatened fauna species (NSW) ...... 79 (b) Endangered fauna populations (NSW) ...... 82 (c) SEPP (Koala Habitat Protection) 2020 ...... 82 (d) Ecosystem credit species ...... 82 (e) Species credit species ...... 83 (f) Local data ...... 87 (g) Expert reports ...... 87 3.5.4 Matters of national environmental significance - fauna ...... 87 (a) Threatened fauna species (National) ...... 87 (b) Protected migratory species (National) ...... 90 3.6 Vegetation connectivity and wildlife corridors ...... 91 3.7 Barrier effects ...... 95 3.8 Potential ecological impacts ...... 97 3.9 Avoid and minimise impacts ...... 99 3.9.1 Avoidance of impacts ...... 99 3.9.2 Mitigation measures ...... 99 3.10 Recommendations ...... 100 3.11 Biodiversity credit results ...... 107 3.11.1 Offset requirements assessed in accordance with the BAM calculator...... 107 3.11.2 Impacts not requiring offset ...... 107 3.11.3 Areas not requiring assessment ...... 107 3.11.4 Ecosystem credits and species credits ...... 107 3.12 Credit impact on 1989 approved masterplan ...... 110 SECTION 4.0 – CONCLUSIONS ...... 116 4.1 Legislative compliance ...... 116 4.2 Additional works ...... 118 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 119

xiv

Figures

Figure 1.1 – Approved Masterplan (1989) with APZs ...... 6 Figure 1.2 – Updated masterplan 2019 ...... 7 Figure 1.3 – Preliminary staging plan ...... 8 Figure 1.4 – Comparative impact between 1989 and 2019 ...... 9 Figure 1.5 – Biodiversity mapped areas The Hills LEP 2012 (green hatch) ...... 13 Figure 1.6 – Site map ...... 16 Figure 1.7 – Location map ...... 17 Figure 1.8 – IBRA bioregions ...... 18 Figure 1.9 – IBRA subregions ...... 18 Figure 1.10 – Mitchell Landscapes ...... 19 Figure 1.11 – Local geology ...... 19 Figure 1.12 – Local soil landscapes ...... 20 Figure 1.13 – Regional vegetation mapping (NPWS 2002) ...... 21 Figure 1.14 – Zoning ...... 21 Figure 2 – Fauna survey effort ...... 40 Figure 3.1 - Location of 2020 plots for PCT determination (Plot A-H) ...... 45 Figure 3.2 – Flora survey effort and results (PCTs and vegetation zones) ...... 57 Figure 4 – Fauna survey results ...... 58 Figure 5 – Biodiversity Values Land Map (sensitive biodiversity values shown in purple) ...... 60 Figure 6 – Vegetation Mapping NPWS 2002 ...... 62 Figure 7 – Vegetation Mapping (The Hills Shire Council) ...... 63 Figure 8.1 – Local threatened flora species (1) ...... 66 Figure 8.2 – Local threatened flora species (2) ...... 66 Figure 8.3 – Local threatened flora species (3) ...... 67 Figure 9.1 – Locally mapped TECs (The Hills Shire Council mapping) ...... 68 Figure 9.2 – Locally occurring Freshwater Wetlands as mapped by NPWS 2002 ...... 69 Figure 10 – Coastal waterbodies and proximity areas...... 76 Figure 11.1 – Local threatened fauna species (1) ...... 80 Figure 11.2 – Local threatened fauna species (2) ...... 80 Figure 11.3 – Local threatened fauna species (3) ...... 81 Figure 12 – Existing corridor ...... 92 Figure 13 – Proposed corridor ...... 93 Figure 14 – Conservation outcomes (Overview) ...... 112 Figure 15 – Conservation outcomes (Yellow-bellied Glider)...... 113 Figure 16 – Species credit species polygons ...... 114 Figure 17 – Candidate SAII - Serious & Irreversible Impacts (SAIIs) ...... 115

Tables

Table 1.1 – Site features ...... 3 Table 1.2 – Landscape features ...... 3 Table 2.1 – Fauna survey effort ...... 30 Table 2.2 – Flora survey effort ...... 37 Table 2.3 – Plot and transect survey effort – development site ...... 37 Table 2.4 - PCT comparative data ...... 44 Table 2.5 – PCTs ...... 50 Table 2.6 – Current vegetation integrity score ...... 51 Table 2.7 – Future vegetation integrity score ...... 53 Table 2.8 – Observed fauna habitat...... 54 Table 3.1 – BOS entry threshold report ...... 60 Table 3.2 – Candidate SAII entities ...... 61 Table 3.3 – State listed threatened flora species with suitable habitat present ...... 65 Table 3.4 – Species credit species (flora) ...... 71 Table 3.5 – Nationally listed threatened flora species with suitable habitat present ...... 76 Table 3.6 – State listed threatened fauna species with suitable habitat present ...... 79 Table 3.7 – Predicted ecosystem credit species (fauna) ...... 82 Table 3.8 – Candidate species credit species (fauna) ...... 84 Table 3.9 – Nationally listed threatened fauna species with suitable habitat present ...... 88 Table 3.10 – Recommendation measures ...... 100 Table 3.11 – Requirement for ecosystem credits ...... 108 Table 3.12 - Species credits for candidate threatened species ...... 108 Table 3.13 – Ecosystem credit summary ...... 109 Table 3.14 – Credit classes for PCT 877 and 1395 - Like for like options...... 109 Table 3.15 – Species credit summary...... 110 Table 3.16 - Ecosystem credit review based on approved 1989 masterplan ...... 111 Table 3.17 - Species credit review based on approved 1989 masterplan ...... 111 Table A1.1 – Flora observations for the study area ...... 124 Table A1.2 – Fauna observations for the study area ...... 130 Table A2.1 – Threatened flora habitat assessment ...... 134 Table A2.2 – Nationally threatened fauna habitat assessment ...... 139 Table A2.3 – Migratory fauna habitat assessment ...... 155

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Flora and Fauna Species Lists Appendix 2 – Threatened & migratory species habitat assessment Appendix 3 – Serious and Irreversible Impacts - Assessment - Species Appendix 4 - Serious and Irreversible Impacts - Assessment – Communities Appendix 5 – Plot datasheets Appendix 6 – Matters of National Environmental Significance - Significant impact criteria Appendix 7 - BAM calculator outputs

xvi

SECTION 1.0 – INTRODUCTION

Introduction 1

Travers bushfire & ecology has been engaged to prepare a biodiversity development assessment report for a Concept Masterplan development proposal to cater for four (4) residential precinct areas containing approximately three hundred (300) residential lots within the property area of the Riverside Oaks Golf Course, Cattai, as well as a hotel and associated access.

The Riverside Oaks Golf Course is located within Lot 28 DP 270416 located to the south of O’Briens Road, to the west of Wisemans Ferry Road, to the east of the Swallow Rock Reach of the Hawkesbury River and to the north of Little Cattai Creek. This entire lot is hereafter referred to as the ‘study area’.

In accordance with the Threatened Species Assessment Guidelines (DECC 2007) the ‘subject site’ will refer to the area of direct impacts incorporating all four (4) precinct areas access roads and APZs as described in Section 1.3.

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Biodiversity Development Assessment Report (BDAR) is to:

• Carry out a botanical survey to describe the vegetation communities and their conditions • Carry out a fauna habitat survey for the detection and assessment of fauna and their potential habitats • Complete targeted surveys for threatened species, populations and ecological communities • Prepare a biodiversity development assessment report in accordance with the requirements of the: • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) • Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (BC Reg.) • Biodiversity Assessment Methodology (BAM) • Prepare an assessment of impacts caused by the proposal in accordance with the • Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and • Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) • Determine biodiversity credit requirements for the proposed development impacts as per the concept Masterplan.

1.1.1 Certification of BAM compliance

Section 6.15 of the BC Act regarding the currency of a BDAR requires:

(1) A biodiversity assessment report cannot be submitted in connection with a relevant application unless the accredited person certifies in the report that the report has been prepared on the basis of the requirements of (and information provided under) the

biodiversity assessment method as at a specified date and that date is within 14 days of the date the report is so submitted. (2) A relevant application is an application for planning approval, for vegetation clearing approval, for biodiversity certification or in respect of a biodiversity stewardship agreement.

Refer to the preface for individual consultant input on this project. The report has been co- written by Michael Sheather-Reid (BAAS 17085), Lindsay Holmes (BAAS 17032), George Plunkett (BAAS 19010) and Corey Mead (BAAS 19050). Lindsay Holmes and George Plunkett are the botanists who undertook the BAM plots, threatened species surveys and botanical reporting. Corey Mead undertook the fauna assessment and fauna reporting. Lindsay Holmes is the primary consultant who undertook the BAM credit calculations.

We certify here that the report has been prepared on the basis of the requirements of (and information provided under) the BAM as at 1 March 2021, and that date is within 14 days of the date the report is so submitted.

1.1.2 Terminology

Throughout this report the terms subject site and study area are used. It is important to have a thorough understanding of these terms as they apply to the assessment.

Subject site means the area directly affected by the proposal.

Study area means the subject site and any additional areas which are likely to be affected by the proposal, either directly or indirectly. The study area should extend as far as is necessary to take all potential impacts into account.

Direct impacts are those that directly affect the habitat and individuals. They include, but are not limited to, death through predation, trampling, poisoning of the animal/plant itself and the removal of suitable habitat. When applying each factor, consideration must be given to all of the likely direct impacts of the proposed activity or development.

Indirect impacts occur when project-related activities affect species, populations or ecological communities in a manner other than direct loss. Indirect impacts can include loss of individuals through starvation, exposure, predation by domestic and/or feral animals, loss of breeding opportunities, loss of shade/shelter, deleterious hydrological changes, increased soil salinity, erosion, inhibition of nitrogen fixation, weed invasion, fertiliser drift, or increased human activity within or directly adjacent to sensitive habitat areas. As with direct impacts, consideration must be given, when applying each factor, to all of the likely indirect impacts of the proposed activity or development.

1.2 Site description

1.2.1 Site overview

Table 1.1 provides an overview the planning, cadastral and topographical details of the study area.

Table 1.1 – Site features

Location Riverside Oaks Golf Course - Lot 28 DP 270416 - O’Briens Road, Cattai The site is located to the west of the intersection of Wisemans Ferry Road and O’Briens Road in the suburb of Cattai, which is approximately 47 km to the north- Location description west of Sydney. The Hawkesbury River forms the boundary to the west, and Little Cattai Creek to the south. The size of the entire Riverside Oaks site is approximately 227 ha. The proposed Area development area is approximately 36ha. The size of the stewardship site is approximately 55 ha. Local government area The Hills RE2 Private Recreation, except for two (2) wetland areas which are E2 - Zoning Environmental Conservation (Figure 1.14). Grid reference MGA-56 305700E 6287800N Zone 56 Approximately 1-60 m AHD in the full study area, and the proposed stewardship Elevation site. The study area contains very gentle slopes across the golf course lands, with Topography moderate to steep slopes around existing bushland areas, many with small drop offs and large exposed rocks. There are several dams and wetlands across the study area, but no permanent creeks within the study area. The study area is within the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Area, with the Hawkesbury River located along the Catchment and drainage western boundary, and Little Cattai Creek along the southern boundary.

Within the stewardship site, Little Cattai Creek forms part of the southern boundary. The study area contains recreational and retained bushland areas, a small portion of residences in the north-east, and tourist accommodation near the centre of the Existing land use site. There are two (2) buildings of historical significance within the study area. The stewardship site only contains vacant bushland.

1.2.2 Landscape features

Table 1.2 examines the landscape features of the proposed development site in accordance with the BAM.

Table 1.2 – Landscape features

IBRA bioregions / subregions Sydney Basin bioregion – Yengo subregion (Figure 1.8 and 1.9). NSW landscape region and The majority of the study area is the Blaxlands Ridge Mitchell Landscape. Only area the floodplain areas are located Hawkesbury - Nepean Channels and Floodplains (Figure 1.7). Native vegetation extent in the The assessment circle is 1,460 ha. The estimated amount of native vegetation 1500m buffer area in the assessment circle, utilising regional mapping is 791 ha approx.

% native vegetation cover in 54% (791/1460 ha). This falls into the 30-70% category. the landscape (1500m buffer) Cleared areas The development footprint contains approximately 5.0ha of cleared landscape. Evidence to support Regional mapping and ground-truthed vegetation assessment using the BAM differences between mapped 2020. vegetation extent and aerial imagery Rivers and streams classified The site map (Figure 1.6) shows the study area with Little Cattai Creek as a 5th according to stream order order stream, whilst the Hawkesbury River is a 6th order or above. Wetlands within, adjacent to There are several dams and wetlands across the study area, shown on the site and downstream of the site map (Figure 1.6). The dams are essentially clear of vegetation and have no PCT defined. The wetlands contain some vegetation have been mapped as a freshwater wetland PCT, however they are essentially open water bodies. Connectivity features There are three (3) major portions of open forest habitat that exist within the study area that have a combined area of approximately 90 ha. These large areas each are connected by passages as narrow as 20 m in width and contain various and important habitat types within their complete extent such as rocky outcrops, caves, fringing dams, steep terrain and tree species variations. These major vegetation areas are also connected to adjacent extensive open forest areas and subsequently forms part of a wildlife corridor that continues north towards the Maroota Ridge State Conservation Area and south into Cattai National Park.

The riparian zone on the south western border of the site is made up of a narrow band of weed infested River Oak vegetation which provides little passageway for native terrestrial fauna and arboreal mammals and yet it does offer small connective values to Cattai National Park. Areas of geological There are three (3) separate soil landscapes. The Freeman’s Reach (FR) soil significance and soil hazard landscape in the low-lying areas of the site where alluvium is derived from the features Narrabeen Groups, Hawkesbury Sandstone and Wianamatta Group material. The Lucas Heights (LH) soil landscape occurs in the northern parts of the site and contains the Mittagong Formation. The Gymea (GY) soil landscape occurs in the southern parts of the site, containing Hawkesbury Sandstone with minor shale and laminate lenses (Figures 1.11 and 1.12).

There are areas of crevices and small caves in the study area, mostly on west or south-west facing slopes that contain the Western Sydney Dry Rainforest vegetation. There will be areas contained within the proposed stewardship site in the south-west.

1.2.3 Zoning

The site is currently zoned part RE2 Private Recreation and part E2 Environmental Conservation under The Hills Local Environmental Plan 2012 (LEP 2012). The site has a total area of approximately 227ha and is currently functioning as a golf course and holiday accommodation resort. An extract of the Land Zoning Map of LEP 2012 is provided in Figure 1.14.

1.3 Proposed concept masterplan

The site is known as Riverside Oaks Tourist Resort and is currently an operational golf resort facility with significant tourist accommodation and social and corporate event management facilities.

The study area is subject to an approved master plan (1989) (refer to Consistency Report). The 1989 consent included development spread within each of the major existing bushland portions providing hotel accommodation, holiday cabins, a resort complex, roads and a driving range. The 1989 consent has commenced due to approved development applications on the northern aspect of the site.

That 1989 consent significantly impacted upon natural resources and severed some connectivity ties across the landscape. Figure 1.1 depicts the extensive impact of that 1989 approval which includes the required asset protection zones that fringe those developments.

A Planning Proposal was approved in 2018 by the Minister for an amendment to the Hills Local Environmental Plan (LEP) 2012 to permit up to three hundred (300) dwelling houses and tourist accommodation. This was supported by extensive ecological survey and assessment (Travers bushfire & ecology 2016) which in most part was used for the preparation of this BDAR with updated vegetation and fauna survey.

The proposed concept masterplan, assessed as part of this report, includes the creation of four (4) Residential Development Precincts (A, B, C & D) and one (1) Tourist Precinct (H). The concept masterplan also includes road access between the precincts and a secondary access out to Wisemans Ferry Road. Figure 1.2 shows the four (4) proposed development precincts (A-D) and the Hotel Precinct (H) whilst Figure 1.3 depicts the staging of the development.

Peripheral areas within the golf course lands (outside of the subdivision lots) include areas important for biodiversity as well as areas that will be used for asset protection and fire trails. The management of these peripheral areas is to be assured through the preparation of a vegetation management plan, biodiversity stewardship agreement and a fuel management plan, with long term management being undertaken by the landowner. Where the landowner will be the relevant neighbourhood association, funding for long term management will be incorporated into the Community Title Scheme. The fuel management plan will be integrated with the VMP and will detail the ongoing vegetation management requirements of the APZ and fire trails as well as incorporating a strategic burn program. Almost 55 ha of the proposed lands will be set up in the agreed conservation area, managed as a biodiversity stewardship site to be registered on title. Currently, the proposed stewardship site contains 52.84 ha of native vegetation.

For the purposes of determining development impacts, the link road between Precinct C, B and A out to the south-east corner of the study area has allowed 4m either side of the road for potential cut and fill impacts. The link road follows the existing access track where possible with an increased pavement width of 8m.

The impact on native vegetation by the current 2019 master plan is an improved outcome on the 1989 approval by over 6 ha of native vegetation, and a reduction of impact by approximately 17%. The 2019 master plan provides a more consolidated clumped planning approproch that will assist in maintaining connectivity through the landscape for fauna movement, and has been endorsed by Ross Goldingay (expert on Yellow-bellied Glider). The current proposal will utilise many of the areas under the previous proposal but will retract in many areas.

Figure 1.1 – Approved Masterplan (1989) with APZs

Figure 1.2 – Updated masterplan 2019 (Source: Arcadia, May 2019)

Figure 1.3 – Preliminary staging plan (Source: BG&E, dated 20/03/20 – revision G)

Figure 1.4 highlights the differences between the 1989 approved master plan versus the proposed 2019 master plan. It shows the areas in common (blue), areas rescinded (blue) and areas expanded (blue). Note that the overall impact has been reduced through consolidation of precincts into larger areas and for improved fauna movement through the landscape.

Figure 1.4 – Comparative impact between 1989 and 2019

1.3.1 Identification of development site footprint

The entire study area to the boundary of Riverside Oaks is 227 ha. The proposed development site covers the 4 stages as shown on the Site Map (Figure 1.7). It includes roads and access features, future housing, hotel and resort features, as well as any asset protection zones (APZs) that are required. The development impact area caused by the concept masterplan is 35.9 ha of which there is 29.44 ha of vegetation.

1.4 Statutory assessment requirements

1.4.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

Prior to any development taking place in New South Wales a formal assessment needs to be made of the proposed work to ensure it complies with relevant planning controls and, according to its nature and scale, confirm that it is environmentally and socially sustainable. State, regional and local planning legislation indicates the level of assessment required, and outlines who is responsible for assessing the development. The development assessment and consent system are outlined in Part 4 and the infrastructure and environmental impact assessment system is outlined in Part 5 of the EP&A Act.

1.4.2 Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act)

The BC Act repeals the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001 and the animal and plant provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.

The BC Act and the Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 establishes a regulatory framework for assessing and offsetting impacts on biodiversity values due to proposed developments and clearing. It establishes a framework to avoid, minimise and offset impacts on biodiversity from development through the Biodiversity Offsets Scheme.

A BDAR is required to accompany an application for development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act if the development is likely to significantly affect threatened species or communities. A development is likely to significant affect threatened species if it:

• is likely to significant affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, taking into account the matters set out in s7.3 of the BC Act; • it involves the clearing of native vegetation, loss of habitat and other prescribed impacts to which the BOS applies and exceeds the BOS threshold. As set out in r7.1 of the BC Reg. the BOS threshold will be exceeded if the development exceeds the threshold for clearing of native vegetation or involves clearing of native vegetation, or other prescribed impacts, on land included on the Biodiversity Values Map; or • is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

In addition to the duty to consider the environmental impact of the development in s5.5 of the EP&A Act, if a BDAR is required, the authority is to take into consideration the likely impact of the development on biodiversity values as set out in the BDAR and may (but is not required to) consider further impacts on biodiversity values.

Where development consent is granted, the conditions of consent must require credits to be retired to offset the residual impact of the development in the number and class specified in the BDAR, although the authority may reduce the number of credits required if justified having regard to the environmental, social and economic impacts of the proposed development and with the concurrence of the Environment Agency Head.

1.4.3 Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)

The FM Act provides a list of threatened aquatic species that require consideration when addressing the potential impacts of a proposed development. Where a proposed activity is located in an area identified as critical habitat, or such that it is likely to significantly affect threatened species, populations, ecological communities, or their habitats, an SIS is required to be prepared.

1.4.4 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

The EPBC Act requires that Commonwealth approval be obtained for certain actions. It provides an assessment and approvals system for actions that have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (NES). These may include:

• World Heritage Properties and National Heritage Places • Wetlands of International Importance protected by international treaty • Nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities • Nationally listed migratory species • Commonwealth marine environment • The environment on commonwealth land

Actions are projects, developments, undertakings, activities, and series of activities or alteration of any of these. An action that needs Commonwealth approval is known as a controlled action. A controlled action needs approval where the Commonwealth decides the action would have a significant effect on an NES matter.

Where a proposed activity is located in an area identified to be of NES, or such that it is likely to significantly affect threatened species, ecological communities, migratory species or their habitats (that are of NES), then the matter needs to be referred to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (DAWE) for assessment.

Threshold criterion apply to specific NES matters which may determine whether a referral is or is not required, such as for the EPBC-listed ecological communities Cumberland Plain Woodland and Shale-Gravel transition Forest. Consultation with DAWE may be required to determine whether a referral is or is not required. If there is any doubt as to the significance of impact or whether a referral is required, a referral is generally recommended to provide a definite decision under the EPBC Act.

A significant impact is regarded as being:

A ‘significant impact’ is an impact which is important, notable or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts. You should consider all of these factors when determining whether an action is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance. Source: EPBC Policy Statement

Guidelines on the correct interpretation of the actions and assessment of significance are located on the department’s web site http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications.

1.4.5 Coastal Management Act 2016 (CM Act)

The Coastal Management Act (CM Act, 2016) establishes the framework and overarching objects for coastal management in New South Wales. The CM Act commenced on 29 June 2018 and replaces the previous Coastal Protection Act (1979).

The purpose of the CM Act is to manage the use and development of the coastal environment in an ecologically sustainable way, for the social, cultural and economic well-being of the people of New South Wales.

The CM Act also supports the aims of the Marine Estate Management Act 2014, as the coastal zone forms part of the marine estate.

The CM Act defines the coastal zone, comprising four (4) coastal management areas:

1. coastal wetlands and littoral rainforests area; areas which display the characteristics of coastal wetlands or littoral rainforests that were previously protected by SEPP 14 and SEPP 26 2. coastal vulnerability area; areas subject to coastal hazards such as coastal erosion and tidal inundation 3. coastal environment area; areas that are characterised by natural coastal features such as beaches, rock platforms, coastal lakes and lagoons and undeveloped headlands. Marine and estuarine waters are also included 4. coastal use area; land adjacent to coastal waters, estuaries and coastal lakes and lagoons.

The CM Act establishes management objectives specific to each of these management areas, reflecting their different values to coastal communities.

1.4.6 Licences

Individual staff members of Travers bushfire & ecology are licensed under Clause 20 of the National Parks and Wildlife (Land Management) Regulation 1995 and Sections 120 & 131 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 to conduct flora and fauna surveys within service and non-service areas. NPWS Scientific Licence Numbers: SL100848.

Travers bushfire & ecology staff are licensed under an Animal Research Authority issued by the NSW Department of Primary Industries. This authority allows Travers bushfire & ecology staff to conduct various fauna surveys of native and introduced fauna for the purposes of environmental consulting throughout New South Wales.

1.4.7 The Hills Local Environment Plan 2012

A LEP provides for a range of zonings which list development that is permissible or not permissible, as well as the objectives for development within a zone.

The site is zoned under The Hills Shire LEP 2012 as RE2 – Private Recreation and E2 – Environmental Conservation.

Council has requested how the development application may demonstrate compliance to the following clause 7.4 Biodiversity (Terrestrial) within The Hills Local Environment Plan 2012.

Biodiversity (Terrestrial)

(1) The objective of this clause is to maintain terrestrial biodiversity, including by:

(a) Protecting native fauna and flora, and (b) Protecting the ecological processes necessary for their continued existence, and (c) Encouraging the recovery of native fauna and flora and their habitats.

(2) This clause applies to land identified as “Biodiversity” on the Terrestrial Biodiversity and Acid Sulfate Soils Map.

Response: Figure 1.5 shows a snapshot of the study area from The Hills LEP 2012. The green striped hatching is the land applied to the ‘biodiversity’ clause which accounts for all of the existing remnant open forest areas within the study area. 1, 3, 4 and 5 refer to the acid sulfate soil category.

Figure 1.5 – Biodiversity mapped areas The Hills LEP 2012 (green hatch)

(3) Before determining a development application for development on land to which this clause applies, the consent authority must consider:

(a) any potential adverse impacts from the proposed development on the following:

(i) The condition and significance of the vegetation on the land and whether it should be substantially retained,

Response: Approximately 108ha of intact and degraded vegetation is represented within the study area. The majority is regarded as TEC vegetation (as described in Section 3.4) except in the north-west and south-west corners. Areas of open forest support habitat for fifteen (15) recorded threatened fauna species (as described in Section 3.5). The condition of vegetation across the study area is variable, although the resilience of the vegetation is considered moderate to high.

The concept masterplan proposes retaining of approximately 55ha of vegetated land to be conserved in a biodiversity stewardship site, with residual vegetated areas to be managed and restored to improve local biodiversity values.

(ii) The importance of the vegetation in that particular location to native fauna,

Response: The importance of the vegetation to native fauna is described in the assessment of individual threatened fauna species recorded (Appendix 2) and within the discussion on connectivity (Section 3.6). Portions of open forest areas mapped as ‘biodiversity’ provide key habitat components for select fauna species and in particular threatened species including those described in Section 3.5

It has been the intention of Travers bushfire & ecology to appropriately record key habitat features and advise of best option development areas to avoid impacts on known or potential key habitat features. This process has also been guided by Dr Ross Goldingay who is a recognised Yellow-bellied Glider expert.

The outcome is that currently proposed development areas are located in areas where vegetation is found to be of least importance within the existing open forest remnants. Regardless of this the proposal will remove or modify up to 29.44ha of habitat utilised by local fauna and threatened species.

(iii) Any potential to fragment, disturb or diminish the biodiversity values of the land,

Response: The ‘biodiversity’ mapped areas within the study area, whilst providing large patches, are somewhat fragmented from extensive local open forest areas due to previous clearance within the site specifically for the golf course. As described in Section 3.6, these patches are currently connected by narrow pinch points as narrow as 20-30m. As a result, the existing habitats along these areas whilst providing linkage through the site, this does not act as a valuable regional corridor between adjacent local large open forest areas which are otherwise more directly connected by other means.

Habitat proposed for removal within the biodiversity’ mapped areas will further fragment the cross-site connectivity and habitats, and will disturb and diminish the biodiversity values of the land as any removal of natural habitat area would be expected to do. As described above however, the current proposed development areas are located in areas where vegetation is found to be of least importance to biodiversity based on current knowledge and survey, and the concept masterplan has been improved to retain a habitat corridor which is ultimately important for the Yellow- bellied Glider.

(iv) the condition and role of the vegetation as a habitat corridor, and

Response: This is explained in detail in Section 3.6.

(b) Any proposed measures to minimise or mitigate those impacts.

Response: Mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce the ecological impacts of the proposal and ensure that the biodiversity values of the site may be best ensured. Mitigation measures are outlined in Section 3.9.2 and 3.10.

(4) Development consent must not be granted to development on land to which this clause applies unless the consent authority is satisfied that:

(a) the development is designed, sited and will be managed to avoid any significant adverse environmental impact, or

Response: Ecological assessment reporting (2016) included a significance of impact test of significance, concluded the following:

“In accordance with Section 5A of the EP&A Act, the significance of impact test concluded that the proposed rezoning may have a significant impact on the critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest. Negotiation with Council has occurred on this matter reflecting previous master planning approvals with the same or greater impact. To overcome this scenario, it is agreed that offsetting the loss should occur in line with the NSW Biodiversity offsetting policy. This approach would see much of the remaining lands formally set aside as part of an offsetting agreement with the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage and The Hills Shire Council.”

(b) if that impact cannot be reasonably avoided-the development is designed, sited and will be managed to minimise that impact, or

Response: Development to the proposed extent cannot be undertaken within the remaining available land of the study area without avoiding impacts on open forest areas which provides habitat for identified local biodiversity. As described in Section 3.9, the development has been sited to minimise these impacts. Management to further reduce impacts are outlined in Section 3.9.2 and 3.10 and include the preparation and implementation of a Vegetation Management Plan and Yellow-bellied Glider Habitat Management Plan.

The design of the precinct layout is on the basis that it is best to concentrate development within designated areas and manage remaining natural areas to support biodiversity instead of undertaking an even spread of development throughout the open forest portions resulting in no quality or largely intact habitat areas. In this regard the proposal is a significant improvement on the previously approved masterplan in 1989. It is also recognised, based on surveys to date, that the previous proposal would have resulted in a significant negative result on local biodiversity.

The new proposal also seeks to manage retained vegetation through a Stewardship Site Agreement, a vegetation management plan, and the community title scheme to assist in the improvement of retained vegetation through access control, weed control and habitat enhancement.

Response: The development will need to be managed to mitigate impacts. These measures are outlined in Section 3.10.

Figure 1.6 – Site map

Figure 1.7 – Location map

Figure 1.8 – IBRA bioregions

Figure 1.9 – IBRA subregions © Travers bushfire & ecology – Biodiversity Development Assessment Report 18

Figure 1.10 – Mitchell Landscapes (Source: Google Earth Pro – Mitchell Landscape layer)

Figure 1.11 – Local geology (Source: Google Earth Pro – Geology 100K - Penrith)

Figure 1.12 – Local soil landscapes (Source: eSPADE NSW Office of Environment and Heritage)

Figure 1.13 – Regional vegetation mapping (NPWS 2002)

Figure 1.14 – Zoning (Source: Planning Portal, 2019)

SECTION 2.0 – BIODIVERSITYBiodiversity ASSESSMENT

2 Assesssment

2.1 Pre-survey information collation & resources

A review of the relevant information pertinent to the subject site was undertaken.

Documents reviewed include:

• DCP 2012 Part B Section 1 - Rural, The Hills Shire Council • Ecological Assessment - Riverside Oaks Golf Course, O’Briens Road, Cattai (Travers bushfire & ecology, March 2016) • Bushfire Protection Assessment - Concept DA, Riverside Oaks Lot 28 DP 270416, 74 O’Briens Road, Cattai (Travers bushfire & ecology, March 2019 - draft) • Riverside Oaks Tourist Resort Development Application (Arcadia Landscape Architects, January 2019 Issue A) • Riverside Oaks Resort Hotel Concept (BDA Architects, February 2019 Issue C) • Masterplans for Precincts A, B, C and D (BG & E) • Vegetation Management Plan (Travers bushfire & ecology, January 2016) • Yellow-bellied Glider Management Plan (Travers bushfire & ecology, 2014)

Standard technical resources utilised:

Legislation

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) • Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) • Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (BC Reg.) • Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)

Survey guidelines

• Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened birds (DEWHA 2010) • Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened fish (DEWHA 2011) • Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened frogs (DEWHA 2010) • Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals (DEWHA 2011) • Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened bats (DEWHA. 2010) • Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened reptiles (DEWHA 2011) • Matters of National Environmental Significance (Commonwealth of Australia 2013) • Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities 2004 (working draft), Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) • Threatened Species Survey and Assessment Guidelines: Field Survey Methods for Fauna – Amphibians (DECC – April 2009a) • Hygiene Protocol for the Control of Diseases in Frogs (DECC 2008) • Region based guide to the echolocation calls of Microchiropteran bats (DEC 2004) • Species credit threatened bats and their habitats (OEH 2018)

Mapping resources

• Aerial photographs (Google Earth Pro / Spatial Information Exchange / NearMap) • Topographical maps (scale 1:25,000) • LiDAR data for contours (Land and Property Information, est. 2015 estimated)

Threatened species records

• NSW DPIE BioNet - Atlas of NSW Wildlife, which holds data from a number of custodians. Data obtained late 2018. • EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool - DOEE (2019)

Vegetation mapping/resources

• Rare or Threatened Australian Plants (ROTAP) • The Hills Shire Council vegetation mapping (2008) • Vegetation Mapping of the Cumberland Plain (NPWS 2002) • Bionet Vegetation Classification System • NSW Guide to Surveying Threatened Plants (OEH 2016)

Desktop assessment:

To determine the likely and actual occurrence of flora species, fauna species and plant communities on the subject site, desktop assessments were undertaken including:

• A literature review – A review of readily available literature for the area was undertaken to obtain reference material and background information for this survey.

• A data search – A search of the Atlas of NSW Wildlife (DPIE 2020) was undertaken to identify records of threatened flora and fauna species located within a 10 km radius of the site. Searches were also undertaken on the DOEE (now DAWE) – ‘protected matters search tool’ website to generate a report that will help determine whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the EPBC Act are likely to occur in the area of interest. The search was broadened to a 10 km radius like the Atlas search. These two (2) searches combined, enabled the preparation of a list of threatened flora and fauna species that could potentially occur within the habitats found on the site (Tables A2.1, A2.2 and A2.3).

Vegetation mapping:

• Vegetation mapping of the Cumberland Plain (2002) was initially utilised to assist in mapping the vegetation communities across the site. Over the many years of working on the project, the vegetation communities have been redefined and have been recently converted to plant community types (PCTs) in line with BAM.

• The regional mapping, albeit outdated, is useful for assisting in assessing connectivity and features required for the location map (such as the estimated extent of native vegetation within the 1500 m buffer).

2.2 Flora survey methodology

Several surveys have been undertaken.

1997 - Ecotone Ecological Consultants undertook field investigations in July and August 1997. It is not known the level of survey conducted but considered reasonable given the size of the species list. Their methodology statement says “The well vegetated areas of the site were traversed on foot and native plant species were identified either in the field or were collected for later identification using Robinson, 1991, and Harden, 1990-93.”

2001 - Flora and fauna survey was undertaken by Conacher Travers in April and May 2001 for the assessment of a Masterplan incorporating holiday cabins, a resort complex, roads and a driving range within the bushland areas of the study area. The works included a systematic stratified sampling regime incorporating the placement of random transects within each of the identified vegetation communities.

2012 - Travers bushfire & ecology undertook stratified survey was undertaken for a small portion of the site on 25 of January 2012 for proposed development near the main club house area, seen on the figures immediately east of Quadrat 14 This included the placement of three (3) Biometric style quadrats. No threatened species were observed and the vegetation was described as Shale Sandstone Transition Forest with Mesic Elements.

2013 - In 2013, Travers bushfire & ecology undertook flora survey on 19 and 20 November. Field work included the placement of twenty-three (23) Biometric style quadrats within remnant areas of vegetation. A random meander was incorporated into the survey with a concentration on areas of vegetation likely to be developed rather than those areas likely to be conserved, or those existing as linear remnants amongst the fairways. Target survey of threatened plants was limited to those areas likely to be developed and within quadrats. The 2013 survey saw a sharp increase in the number of flora species recorded. In 2001, a total of one hundred and forty-eight (148) species were noted and in 2013, two hundred and forty-two (242) were noted. Between 90-95% of species observed in 2001 were observed again in 2013. Extensive tree surveys were undertaken in areas identified for use by the Yellow-bellied Glider. These surveys enabled data to be cross-matched in order to ascertain habitat corridor priority areas.

2015 - A tree survey was undertaken at the pinch point near the main club building to ascertain the species that required protection for Yellow-bellied Glider migration from north to south and vice versa.

Note: General landscaping species were not added into the species list (Table A1.1 Appendix 1).

2018 - In November 2018, all of the study area was re-surveyed using BAM plots. The following information was collected at each of the twenty-nine (29) 20m x 20m full floristic plots:

• Native over storey, mid-storey and ground cover recorded for all observed species and an estimate of stems. • Stratum (and layer): stratum and layer in which each species occurs • Growth form: growth form for each recorded species • Species name: scientific name and common name • Percent projected foliage cover of the understorey strata and exotic vegetation

The following information was collected at each of the 20m x 50m transect plot sites:

• Number of trees with hollows visible from the ground within the 20m x 50m plot • The total length of fallen logs >10 cm in diameter within the 20m x 50m plot • The proportion of regenerating over storey species within the vegetation zone • Number of large trees • Estimates of leaf litter cover, bare ground, cryptograms and rocks in 1x1m subplots at five (5) locations along the 50m central transect

The vegetation types observed in the study area were converted to their relevant PCT. The condition of the vegetation was moderately uniform throughout each community, therefore was not stratified into different zones.

Prior to the November 2018 survey, an updated search of the then OEH Bionet database was undertaken. Target threatened species searches were again undertaken during this period via belt transects approximately 5-10m apart, although these were not captured by GPS nor shown on the figures of the report.

Target surveys for threatened species were undertaken throughout the majority of the development area in belt transects where possible, 5-10m apart, subject to major weed infestations and rock outcrops where it was too steep to walk safely.

2019 - Additional BAM plots were undertaken in the proposed stewardship site on 26 March and 10 September 2019.

All plot sheets utilised for the BAM calculator for this BDAR are in Appendix 5.

2020 - 20x20m portions of the BAM plots were utilised in eight (8) locations to comparatively assess and determine the extent of PCT 1640.

2.3 Fauna survey methodology

Site survey effort accounting for techniques deployed, duration, and weather conditions are outlined in Table 2.1 and are depicted on Figure 2. This included survey in 2001, 2013, 2015 and 2019.

The following are site specific survey techniques implemented by Travers bushfire & ecology during 2013 and more recent 2019 surveys. For a description of survey techniques deployed during previous surveys by Conacher Travers (2001) and Ecotone Ecological Consultants (1997) see these respective reports. Fauna species recorded by Conacher Travers (2001) have been included into the current species list (see Table A1.2 in Appendix 1).

Diurnal birds

2013

Nineteen (19) diurnal bird census points were undertaken within the study area during survey. A minimum of 15 minutes of survey was undertaken at each census point in an area radiating out to between 30-50m. Bird census points were selected to give an even spread and representation across the site and its communities (see Figure 2). Census points were also commenced in locations where bird activity was apparent, as often different small bird species are found foraging together. Opportunistic diurnal bird survey was conducted between census points and whilst undertaking other diurnal surveys.

Given the previous recording of Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) within the northern portions of the study area (Conacher Travers 2001) and chewed cones found during Yellow-bellied Glider target surveys in 2013 further target searches for signs of activity were carried out. Allocasuarina trees were searched for chewed cones indicating foraging activity.

Six (6) spotting scope outlook stations were undertaken to identify wetland birds from different vantage points. The spotting scope to x47 magnification is placed on a tripod for stable long- distance views.

2015

November 2015 target diurnal survey was undertaken for Little Lorikeet and Gang-gang Cockatoo given previous 2014 surveys recording these species were not during the breeding period. The Little Lorikeet recognised breeding period is August-December and the best time to determine nesting locations for Gang-gang Cockatoo is during November. Survey was concentrated within the proposed precinct areas over two days to rule out presence. During this survey all hollows considered suitable for Gang-gang Cockatoo were identified by GPS and are shown on Figure 4.

2019

Survey undertaken in May 2019 was to determine any breeding presence for Glossy Black- Cockatoo and Powerful Owl as well as any microbat overhang roost sites. Survey included listening for calling birds proximate to the identified large hollows prior and during the dusk period during the field visits. Opportunistic diurnal bird survey was undertaken during other diurnal survey undertaken at this time, particularly within the indicated Powerful Owl roosting habitat search areas on Figure 2.

Nocturnal birds

2013

Given the suitability of habitat present, Masked Owl (Tyto novaehollandiae), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Barking Owl (Ninox connivens), Sooty Owl (Tyto tenebricosa), and Bush Stone-curlew (Burhinus grallarius) were targeted by call-playback techniques.

2015

November 2015 target GPS surveys for hollows suitable for Yellow-bellied Glider and Gang- gang Cockatoo also included large hollows suitable for owls within precinct areas. These are shown on Figure 4.

2019

Survey was undertaken in May 2019 to determine any breeding presence for Powerful Owl. This is the onset period to breeding when owls often call in the dusk and pre-dawn period as pairing for breeding commences. A dusk listening session was undertaken on the 1st May at two locations by two separate ecologists. One ecologist focused on the northern study area (incorporating Precincts C & D) and the second ecologist focused on the southern study area (incorporating Precincts A & B). A walk along the edges of these precincts were undertaken after the one hour listening point was completed.

Song-meters were deployed for two weeks following the listening for calls survey. These recorded the complete nocturnal period from sundown to sunrise. Listening point, spotlighting transects and song-meter locations are shown on Figure 2.

Diurnal survey included searches for any signs of Powerful Owl roosting activity. This was undertaken where dense mid-storey foliage was present, typically in the gully and Dry Rainforest portions of the site. Search areas are shown on Figure 2.

2020

Large hollows within precinct areas were searched for signs of activity by owls during August.

Arboreal and terrestrial mammals

2013

Elliott type A and B traps were used for trapping arboreal and terrestrial mammals during 2013 surveys. Trapping consisted of one hundred and sixty-two (162) arboreal trap nights and one hundred and fifty (150) terrestrial trap nights.

Terrestrial trap-lines of alternating type A and B Elliott traps using 10-25m separations were placed along the same line as the arboreal traps in the most suitable terrestrial habitats.

Eleven (11) trap-lines were set on the nights of 28, 29, 30, and 31 October 2013. The location of the trap-lines is shown on Figure 2.

Cage trapping was also conducted during 2013 surveys, to target the threatened species Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) as well as bandicoots / potoroos. Cage trapping consisted of a total of thirty-five (35) trap nights. Cage traps were placed in suitable areas of dense shrub and ground cover along each of the Elliott trap lines. The cage traps were baited with chicken wings, sardines, rolled oats / peanut butter / honey mix and white truffle oil.

Given the suitability of habitat present Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) and Squirrel Glider (Petaurus norfolcensis) were targeted by call-playback techniques during nocturnal; survey.

Given the potential for Koala to occur, the complete spot assessment technique (SAT) described by Phillips & Callaghan (2008) was undertaken as a measure of Koala ‘activity’ at four (4) locations within the study area. In this case the proportion of trees showing signs of Koala use is calculated and the location and density of droppings found were documented.

Yellow-bellied Glider was recorded during 2013 surveys (as well as by previous consultants). Following this additional target surveys, monitoring and habitat assessments were undertaken for this species under the guidance of expert Dr Ross Goldingay during 2014-16. The detailed survey effort associated with this work, as well as associated advice and review by Dr Goldingay is outlined in Attachments 1-8 of the Ecological Assessment report prepared by Travers bushfire & ecology (March 2016).

2018/19

Preliminary monitoring of Yellow-bellied Glider activity through the study area was undertaken by placement of five (5) song-meters in the summer of 2018/19 and then three (3) song-meters in the winter of 2019. Locations are set at appropriate distances according to the call range of the species to attempt to record calls during foraging movements whilst reducing potential overlap. Locations of recorders are shown on Figure 2.

Three (3) surveillance cameras were placed on quality hollows within a significant habitat tree identified as a potential Yellow-bellied Glider denning tree located on the edges of Precinct D. Another camera was placed on another suitable hollow nearby to the north at this same time,

for two months from the end of August 2019. This was to determine tree value for potential retention.

2020

Eighteen surveillance cameras were deployed in late winter 2020 to target terrestrial mammals including species credits Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby, Spotted-tailed Quoll and to a lesser extent Brush-tailed Phascogale. Locations of recorders are shown on Figure 2.

Bats

2013

Recording of microbats was undertaken overnight from passive recording stations selected to represent different foraging habitats present (see Figure 2 for locations).

Harp (Constantine) traps were also used to survey for micro-chiropteran bat species. One (1) harp trap was set on the nights of 28, 29, 30 and 31 October 2013. The harp trap was set in two separate locations for a minimum of two (2) nights. Harp trapping consisted of a total of four (4) trap nights.

2019

Detailed searches of the steep sandstone rocky escarpments above the Dry Rainforest habitats were undertaken in May 2019. These searches targeted locations of suitable roosting activity by microbats. Suitable overhangs and small caves with dark crevices in the ceiling were searched with a spotlight for the presence of any roosting bats or piles of guano on the floor indicating previous roosting directly above.

2020

A further search for overhangs suitable for roosting by microbats along the escarpment areas adjacent to proposed Precincts C & D was undertaken in August and December 2020. Caves previously identified as difficult to access on foot were accessed by abseiling down the cliff face. All overhangs were inspected with use of a torch to check for signs of roosting locations indicated by guano piles and insect remains on the floor, as well as checking of crevices and narrow holes in the ceiling.

Amphibians

2013-15

Habitat searches targeting Red-crowned Toadlet was undertaken along selected ephemeral drainages located within the study area. Dry conditions were encountered during and prior to 2013 surveys which reduced the recording potential of this species at this time. Therefore, November 2015 target habitat searches were undertaken following enough local rain. The habitat found was again determined to be only marginally suitable and drainages present are too ephemeral for likely presence.

Reptiles

2013

Three trapping transects each consisting of six (6) reptile funnel traps were placed within the three large sections of remnant vegetation adjacent to sandstone outcroppings. Funnel traps

were placed for three (3) diurnal trapping days from 29 to 31 October 2013 amounting to thirty- six (36) funnel trap days.

2019

Searches along the rocky escarpment for bat overhangs/caves also opportunistically targeted quality rock on rock habitat searches for reptiles.

Habitat trees

A complete assessment of the location of all habitat trees present within the study area has not been undertaken as part of surveys to date. During the YBG target surveys in May, July and September 2013 trees were searched for hollows containing potential denning opportunity for this species. The location of identified hollow-bearing trees and the number of hollows within considered likely suitable for use were recorded on a Trimble handheld GPS unit. The habitat tree surveys were undertaken to spatially observe suitable YBG den and other potentially important tree locations. Tree tags were not placed on any of these trees and complete tree data has not been collected. The number of available hollows in each recorded tree has also not been documented for gliders so this number should be observed as a potential minimum.

Recent tree health assessment survey of all trees within the APZ areas of Precinct C also included hollow data.

Dural Land Snail

2016

Targeted habitat searches for Dural Land Snail were stratified within the proposed development precincts and offset areas of Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest targeting the most appropriate areas of habitat within. Search areas within and surrounding the proposed precincts are shown on Figure 2.

Logs, stumps, artificial refuse and rocks were turned over and rotten sections of logs were peeled away with an iron bar. Larger movable logs were most targeted. Some dense areas of leaf litter with likely moisture retaining properties were also opportunistically scraped using a three-pronged rake.

Where living specimens were located these were returned and habitat was left nearest to found state. Some dead shell specimens were collected for sample analysis. All recorded locations were identified by a Trimble GPS unit to sub-1m accuracy.

2019

Searches along the rocky escarpment for bat overhangs/caves also opportunistically targeted quality rock on rock and log habitat searches for snails.

2020

Due to the absence of snail recordings in Precinct A & B further detailed searches within these development areas were undertaken on the 24th September 2020.

2.4 Field survey effort

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 below detail the flora and fauna survey effort undertaken for the study area.

Table 2.1 – Fauna survey effort

Fauna Survey effort time Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) group (24hr) 2/4/01 7/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, heavy rain Diurnal observations 1hr 1600 - 1700 3/4/01 6/8 cloud 20oC, 6-11kph S wind, no rain Diurnal observations 1hr 0800 - 0900 4/4/01 1/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, no rain Diurnal observations 1hr 0800 - 0900 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Diurnal observations 1hr 0900 - 1000 21/5/01 1/8 cloud 20oC, no wind Diurnal observations 1hr 1200 - 1300 28/10/13 7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 29oC Diurnal opportunistic 6hrs 15min 1230 - 1845 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-19oC Diurnal opportunistic 2hrs 25min 0620 - 0845 8/8 cloud, nil-mod S wind, late storm, smoky, temp 25-31oC Census points / Diurnal opportunistic 4hrs 30min 1030 - 1500 30/10/13 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-25oC Census points / Diurnal opportunistic 2hrs 45min 0745 - 1030 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 25-30oC Census points / Diurnal opportunistic 4hrs 35min 1245 - 1720 31/10/13 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-20oC Census points / Diurnal opportunistic 3hrs 30min 0700 - 1030 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-30oC Diurnal opportunistic 2hrs 1100 - 1300 Diurnal 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 27-22oC Census points / Diurnal opportunistic 2hrs 5min 1500 - 1705 birds 01/11/13 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-24oC Diurnal opportunistic 5hrs 30min 0630 - 1100 02/09/15 4/8 cloud, light W wind, no rain, temp 21oC Diurnal opportunistic 4hrs 5min 1340 - 1745 17/11/15 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 28oC Target LL & GGC breeding habitat & activity searches (Precinct D) 6hrs 1400 - 2000 19/11/15 0/8 cloud, light W wind, no rain, temp 38-32oC Target LL & GGC breeding habitat & activity searches (Precincts A, B & C) 8hrs 15min 1145 – 2000 1/5/19 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20oC Diurnal opportunistic 6hrs 40min 1100 – 1740 2/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 15oC Diurnal opportunistic 1hr 0600 - 0700 2-6/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-23oC Diurnal opportunistic 6hrs 45min 0830 - 1515 21/5/19 0-2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 25-22oC Diurnal opportunistic 4hrs 55min 1220 - 1715 22/8/19 0/8 cloud, mod-light W wind, no rain, temp 17oC Diurnal opportunistic 8hrs 30min 0900 - 1730 24/7/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-15oC Diurnal opportunistic 4hrs 1330 - 1730 26/8/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16oC Diurnal opportunistic (Precinct C) 5hrs 15min 1230 - 1745 27/8/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18oC Diurnal opportunistic (Precinct D) 2hrs 20min 1000 - 1220 4/9/20 Not documented Diurnal afternoon census (Precincts A & B) 1hr 1645 - 1745

Survey effort / time Fauna group Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) (24hr) 2/4/01 7/8 cloud 18oC, no wind, light rain Owl call playback 30 min 1830 - 1900 3/4/01 4/8 cloud 17oC, no wind, no rain Owl call playback 45min 1815 - 1900 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Owl call playback 45min 1830 - 1915 21/5/01 6/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Owl call playback 30 min 1745 - 1815 28/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-17oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1945 - 2230 Call playback (species identified in Section 2.5) Commenced @ 2015 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp 20-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 1930 - 2130 Call playback (species identified in Section 2.5) Commenced @ 2050 30/10/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-14oC Spotlighting 2hrs 20min 1945 - 2105 Nocturnal Call playback (species identified in Section 2.5) Commenced @ 2010 birds 31/10/13 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-15oC Spotlighting 1hr 1930 - 2030 02/09/15 7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-16oC Spotlighting/listening 1hr 20min 1740 - 1900 18/12/18-19/2/19 various Song-meter x5 10 song-meter months (summer) 1/5/19 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-15oC Dusk listening / Spotlighting 2hrs 20min 1740 – 2000 Call playback (species identified in Section 2.5 – not Powerful Owl) Commenced @ 1900 2/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 15oC Dawn listening 1hr 0600 - 0700 2-6/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-23oC Roost habitat search 6hr 45min 0830 - 1515 2-25/5/19 various Song-meter x 3 9 song-meter weeks (autumn) 21/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 22-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1715 – 2000 26/8/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, 2/4 moon, temp 13-12oC Stag-watch (lgs Significant Hab Tree west of Prec C 1hr 35min 1740 – 1915

Survey effort / time Fauna group Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) (24hr) 2/4/01 7/8 cloud 18oC, no wind, light rain Anabat II 30 min 1830 – 1900 Spotlighting 3/4/01 4/8 cloud 17oC, no wind, no rain Anabat II 1hr 30 min 1830 - 2000 Spotlighting 4/4/01 1/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, no rain Anabat II 1hr 1800 – 1900 Spotlighting 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Anabat II 2hrs 1800 – 2000 Spotlighting 21/5/01 6/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Anabat II 2hrs 1700 - 1900 Spotlighting 28/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >15oC Anabat x3 1930 - overnight Harp trap x1 1 trap night 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp >14oC Anabat x2 1930 - overnight Bats Harp trap x1 1 trap night 30/10/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >11oC Anabat x1 1900 - overnight Harp trap x1 1 trap night 31/10/13 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >13oC Harp trap x1 1 trap night 1/5/19 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-15oC Spotlighting 2hr 20min 1740 – 2000 Call playback Commenced @ 1900 2/5/19 2-6/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-23oC Rocky habitat roots searches 6hr 45min 0830 - 1515 2-21/5/19 Various – mostly fine Ultrasoninc recording inside large dome overhang west of Pr C 19 recorder nights 21/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 22-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1715 – 2000 26/8/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16oC Cave/overhang searches (Precinct C) 5hrs 15min 1230 - 1745 27/8/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18oC Cave/overhang searches (Precinct D) 2hrs 20min 1000 - 1220 10/12/20 2-7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 22-29oC Cave/overhang searches (Precincts C & D) 8hrs 30min 0930 - 1600

Fauna group Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) Survey time effort 2/4/01 7/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, heavy rain Elliott trapping 50 trap nights / night 3/4/01 6/8 cloud 20oC, 6-11kph S wind, no rain Elliott trapping + spotlighting 1hr 1900 -2000 4/4/01 1/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, no rain Elliott trapping 50 trap nights 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Elliott trapping + spotlighting 1hr 30 min 1900 - 2030 21/5/01 6/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Elliott trapping + spotlighting 1hr 1800 - 1900 22/5/01 1/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Elliott trapping 40 trap nights 23/5/01 2/8 cloud 16oC, no wind Elliott trapping 40 trap nights 24/5/01 1/8 cloud 15oC, no wind Elliott trapping 40 trap nights 29/5/13 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-16oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / opportunistic 2hrs 55min 1335 - 1630 30/5/13 0-4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-21oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / opportunistic 5hrs 50min 1030 - 1650 3/7/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-17oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / opportunistic 1hr 40min 1420 - 1600 4/7/13 0/8 cloud, light wind, no rain, temp 20-22oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / opportunistic 4hrs 35min 1045 - 1600 5/7/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18oC Targeted YBG Den tree searches / opportunistic 1hr 20min 1000 - 1120 4/9/13 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 21-26oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / floristics mapping 4hrs 1300 - 1700 5/9/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-30oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / floristics mapping 7hrs 0900 - 1600 6/9/13 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-28oC Targeted YBG Hollow searches / floristics mapping 2hrs 30min 0900 - 1130 29/5/13 0-1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-13oC Targeted YBG activity / listening / spotlighting 2hrs 20min 1730 - 1950 30/5/13 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 9-13oC, Stag-watching x2, Targeted YBG activity 5hrs 55min 0515 - 2200 3/7/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-8oC Stag-watching x2, Targeted YBG activity 8hrs 10min 1720 - 0130 4/7/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-9oC Targeted YBG activity / listening / spotlighting 7hrs 30min 1730 - 0100 Arboreal 4/9/13 0/8 cloud, light wind, no rain, temp 15-8oC Stag-watching x1, Targeted YBG activity 8hrs 1730 - 0130 mammals Camera surveillance on suspected den overnight 5/9/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-10oC Targeted YBG activity / listening / spotlighting 6hrs 20min 1810 - 1230 6/9/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16oC Targeted YBG activity / listening / spotlighting 2hrs 30min 0430 - 0700 6/9 - 9/9/13 various Camera surveillance on potential den 3 nights 28/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-17oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1945 - 2230 Call playback (Yellow-bellied and Squirrel Gliders) Commenced @ 2015 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >15oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 25 trap nights 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp 20-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 1930 – 2130 Call playback (Yellow-bellied and Squirrel Gliders) Commenced @ 2050 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp >14oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 55 trap nights 30/10/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-14oC Spotlighting 2hrs 20min 1945 - 2105 Call playback (Yellow-bellied and Squirrel Gliders) Commenced @ 2010 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >11oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 55 trap nights 31/10/13 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-15oC Spotlighting 1hr 1930 - 2030 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >13oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 30 trap nights 2/09/15 7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-16oC Spotlighting 1hr 20min 1740 – 1900 1/5/19 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-15oC Spotlighting / stag-watching x1 2hr 20min 1740 – 2000 Call playback (Yellow-bellied and Squirrel Gliders) Commenced @ 2120 21/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 22-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1715 – 2000 26/8/20 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, 2/4 moon, temp 13-12oC Stag-watch (lgs Significant Hab Tree west of Prec C 1hr 35min 1740 – 1915 22/8-13/10//19 various Surveillance cameras x4 (Prec D hollows) 100+ camera days/nights

Survey effort / time Fauna group Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) (24hr) 2/4/01 7/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, heavy rain Elliott trapping 50 trap nights / night 3/4/01 6/8 cloud 20oC, 6-11kph S wind, no rain Elliott trapping + spotlighting 1hr 1900 - 2000 4/4/01 1/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, no rain Elliott trapping 50 trap nights 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Elliott trapping + spotlighting 1hr 30 min 1900 - 2030 21/5/01 6/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Elliott trapping + spotlighting 1hr 1800 - 1900 22/5/01 1/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Elliott trapping 40 trap nights 23/5/01 2/8 cloud 16oC, no wind Elliott trapping 40 trap nights 24/5/01 1/8 cloud 15oC, no wind Elliott trapping 40 trap nights 28/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-17oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1945 - 2230 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >15oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 25 trap nights Cage trapping 5 trap nights Surveillance camera 3 camera nights 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp 20-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 1930 – 2130 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp >14oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 55 trap nights Terrestrial mammals Cage trapping 5 trap nights Surveillance camera 3 camera nights 30/10/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-14oC Spotlighting 2hrs 20min 1945 - 2105 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >11oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 55 trap nights Cage trapping 5 trap nights Surveillance camera 3 camera nights 31/10/13 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-15oC Spotlighting 1hr 1930 - 2030 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp >13oC Elliott trapping (A&B type) 30 trap nights Cage trapping 5 trap nights Surveillance camera 3 camera nights 02/09/15 7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-16oC Spotlighting 1hr 20min 1740 – 1900 1/5/19 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-15oC Spotlighting 2hr 20min 1740 – 2000 21/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 22-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1715 – 2000 24/7-26/8/20 various Surveillance camera x18 594 camera days/nights

Survey effort / time Fauna group Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) (24hr) 3/4/01 4/8 cloud 17oC, no wind, no rain Habitat search 1hr 30 min 1400 – 1530 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Habitat search 1hr 30 min 1100 – 1330 28/10/13 7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 29oC Diurnal opportunistic 6hrs 15min 1230 - 1845 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-19oC Diurnal opportunistic 2hrs 25min 0620 - 0845 8/8, S wind, late storm, smoky, temp 25-31oC Diurnal opportunistic 4hrs 30min 1030 - 1500 30/10/13 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-25oC Diurnal opportunistic and habitat searches 2hrs 45min 0745 - 1030 1/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 25-30oC Diurnal opportunistic and habitat searches 4hr 35min 1245 - 1720 Funnel traps x18 18 trap nights Reptiles 31/10/13 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-30oC Diurnal opportunistic and habitat searches 2hr 1100 - 1300 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 27-22oC Diurnal opportunistic and habitat searches 2hr 5min 1500 - 1705 Funnel traps x18 18 trap nights 01/11/13 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-24oC Diurnal opportunistic 5hr 30min 0630 - 1100 Funnel traps x18 18 trap nights 1/5/19 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20oC Habitat search / diurnal opportunistic 6hrs 40min 1100 – 1740 2/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 15oC Diurnal opportunistic 1hr 0600 - 0700 2-6/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-23oC Habitat search / diurnal opportunistic 6hr 45min 0830 – 1515 24/9/20 1/8 cloud, light W wind, no rain, temp 21oC Habitat searches (Precincts A & B) 3hr 5min 1145 - 1450 3/4/01 4/8 cloud 17oC, no wind, no rain Spotlight / Call Detection 1hr 1800 – 1900 4/4/01 1/8 cloud 21oC, no wind, no rain Spotlight / Call Detection 1hr 2000 – 2100 5/4/01 0/8 cloud 18oC, 6-11kph E wind Spotlight / Call Detection 2hr 1900 – 2100 21/5/01 6/8 cloud 14oC, no wind Spotlight / Call Detection 1hr 1800 - 1900 28/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20-17oC Spotlighting / call detection 2hrs 45min 1945 - 2230 29/10/13 8/8 cloud, no wind, light rain, temp 20-16oC Spotlighting / call detection 2hrs 1930 – 2130 30/10/13 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-14oC Spotlighting / call detection 2hrs 20min 1945 - 2105 Amphibians 31/10/13 3/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 16-20oC Target searches 3hr 30min 0700 - 1030 4/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-15oC Spotlighting / call detection 1hr 1930 - 2030 02/09/15 7/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 17-16oC Spotlighting / call detection 1hr 20min 1740 - 1900 17/11/15 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 24-22oC Target RCT habitat & activity searches (Precinct D) 1hr 30min 2000 - 2130 19/11/15 0/8 cloud, light W wind, no rain, temp 38-32oC Target RCT habitat & activity searches (Precincts A, B & C) 1hr 2000 – 2100 1/5/19 0/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 18-15oC Spotlighting / call detection 2hr 20min 1740 – 2000 21/5/19 2/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 22-16oC Spotlighting 2hrs 45min 1715 – 2000

Survey effort / time Fauna group Date Weather conditions Survey technique(s) (24hr) 7/6/16 Fine & sunny Habitat searches (Precincts B & A) 6.5hrs 7/6/16 Fine & sunny Habitat searches (Precincts A & C) 8hrs 7/6/16 Fine & sunny Habitat searches (Precincts C & D) 6.5hrs 7/6/16 Fine & sunny Habitat searches (Offset areas of SSTF) 6.5hrs Molluscs 7/6/16 Fine & sunny Habitat searches (Offset areas of SSTF) 8hrs 7/6/16 Fine & sunny Habitat searches (Offset areas of SSTF) 6hrs 1/5/19 8/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 20oC Opportunistic habitat searches 6hrs 40min 1100 – 1740 2/5/19 2-6/8 cloud, no wind, no rain, temp 19-23oC Opportunistic habitat searches 6hr 45min 0830 – 1515 24/9/20 1/8 cloud, light W wind, no rain, temp 21oC Habitat searches (Precincts A & B) 2hr 5min 1145 - 1450

Table 2.2 – Flora survey effort

Flora survey Survey technique(s) Dates Vegetation Survey of the boundaries of all communities – 4/4/01, 5/4/01, 25/1/12, communities field verification and aerial photographic 19/11/13, 20/11/13 interpretation

Stratified sampling Vegetation transects 4/4/01, 5/4/01

Biometric quadrats in all existing bushland or 25/1/12, 19/11/13, remnant areas 20/11/13

26/11/18, 27/11/18, BAM plots 28/11/18, 29/11/18, 26/03/19, 10/09/19, 23/04/20, 22/02/21

Target searches for Target searches in known habitats 4/4/01, 5/4/01, threatened species or 25/1/12,19/11/13, populations 20/11/13, 26/11/18, 27/11/18, 28/11/18, 29/11/18, 30/11/18, 23/04/20

Table 2.3 – Plot and transect survey effort – development site

Minimum plot Veg zone Area Plot transect sites PCT Condition transect sites no. (ha) sampled required 1 835 good 1.9 1 G1, G3, G11 (3) 2 877 good 0.3 1 G8 (1) L1, G9, G10, G12, L12 3 1395 good 27.2 4 G13, G14 (7) - - cleared area - - -

Note: Ecotone Ecological Consultants was engaged to undertake surveys in 1997 for the study area. The dates of flora survey are not noted precisely, however, the report indicates survey was undertaken on 22 July, and four (4) dates in August. We cannot ascertain however if flora survey was undertaken on all occasions. Having been done in 1997, the number of threatened flora species was much less than at present as the TSC Act was relatively new. Investigations of their flora species list found no threatened species since the time of their surveys.

2.5 Survey limitations

It is important to note that field survey data collected during the survey period is representative of species occurring within the subject site for that occasion. Due to effects of fire, breeding cycles, migratory patterns, camouflage, weather conditions, time of day, visibility, predatory and / or feeding patterns, increased species frequency or richness may be observed within the subject site outside the nominated survey period. Habitat assessments based on the identification of micro-habitat features for various species of interest, including regionally significant and threatened species, have been used to minimise the implications of this survey limitation.

Flora survey limitations

There is a potential to overlook some flora species unless they are flowering. This risk has been minimalised by undertaking target surveys in any area where native vegetation was present, by traversing in a zig zag pattern (belt transects, approximately 7-10m apart) within proposed development areas. Limited and/or opportunistic target surveys have been conducted in other areas.

Specific threatened flora species survey was limited to areas likely to be developed and immediately surrounding. Limited searches for threatened flora species were undertaken within the Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and River Oak communities as well as linear and mostly canopy only species adjoining fairways. These communities are also largely outside or fully outside of the development area.

Some flora species are difficult to identify unless flowering. Flora survey has been undertaken over the months of March, April, July, August and November which cover a relatively broad range and flowering times. There are some summer flowering cryptic species which may have been missed for surveys conducted to date but none of these are currently listed as threatened under the BC Act or EPBC Act that would have potential to occur.

Fauna survey limitations

Most trapping and detailed survey effort for fauna was undertaken within 2013. This effort is now more than five years old. Further effort to accommodate for this will be undertaken as part of independent Precinct and access road assessments. For survey such as updated Elliott trapping this will be undertaken collectively across all areas at this time.

Although there is now some expired survey, that will be updated, the site’s habitat values for threatened biodiversity has now become well known. Species credit species that require updated survey but are known to not be present from historical surveys have not been included in the credit calculations for this report (refer to Table 3.8).

Other threatened species credit species that have been recorded within 10km since the previous extensive survey efforts include Eastern Cave Bat and Large-eared Pied Bat. These two (2) species have been recently recorded present on adjacent lands to the north-east and local records suggest a higher local presence to the north, particularly for Large-eared Pied Bat. These two species have now been assumed present for the current assessment, which has subsequently generated for offset. This is also given that no updated microbat ultrasonic recording has been undertaken in the acceptable season to rule out presence. Ultrasonic recording was undertaken at one high dome cave targetting roosting activity in this cave only in May 2019. All other microbat surveys apart from detailed roost searches described below are outdated.

Recent inspections of overhangs and small caves has documentded all locations of recent bat roosting activity, however inspections in both winter and summer 2020 have not recorded the species present. The early summer 2020 inspections therefore did not record any maternity roosts of importance. These observations were able to see all ceiling holes and crevices via torchlight, therefore the searches are considered thorough at this time. Nonetheless, no microbat trapping effort has been undertaken to determine presence of ‘breeding individuals’ utilising the study area during the advised period indicated by the ‘Species Credit’ threatened bats and their habitat (OEH 2018) guide.

Further trapping survey should therefore be undertaken during the mid-November to end of January period to satisfy the guidelines. The guidelines state that roosting can be cryptic and breeding habitat should effectively be determined by the presence of breeding individuals during

trapping surveys on site, regardless if they are directly present within the potential breeding habitat. It is recommended that further detailed summer trapping survey for microbats is undertaken as part of individual precinct DAs to better guide the assessment and credits calculated for these species. This should be undertaken in association with updated ultrasoninc recording surveys targeting rocky escarpments adjacent to Precincts C & D.

Fauna surveys in May 2019 found evidence of owl roosting activity in the southern Dry Rainforest community. Given that this period is the lead in to the Powerful Owl breeding period further detailed searches for potential breeding hollows within this area were undertaken. A large hollow-bearing tree considered suitable for breeding by Powerful Owl and also showing signs of use (likely by owls) was found along the far southern edges of the forest area. Survey in August 2020 found that this hollow was not being utilised at this time. This location is well set back from proposed development such that indirect impacts of the proposal would not be on breeding activity but rather loss of nearby foraging habitat.

The Powerful Owl and non-threatened Southern Boobook have been recorded on song-meter by calls in this area during May 2019. Further investigations to confirm the location of Powerful Owl nesting has not been undertaken, however knowledge and inspections of suitable large hollows within and close to proposed development precincts is confident that breeding habitat and subsequent species credits are not required for large forest owls.

A female robin was also identified to the south of Precinct C during recent May 2019 surveys. This robin was expected to be the non-threatened Rose Robin however Flame Robin has been previously recorded on site in 1997 and confirmation was not made. A song-meter deployed at this location did not confirm the species. The assessment of threatened robins remains valid.

It is expected that Yellow-bellied Glider is denning within the proposed development footprints and it is quite possible that threatened hollow-dependent microbats are also roosting in hollows within the footprints also. The numerous hollows within the proposed development landscape have not been stag-watched during the appropriate season. Whilst not expected based on observations to date, confirmation that medium to large hollows within proposed development footprints, particularly Precincts A & B, are also not being used for nesting by the recorded threatened cockatoos is required to confidently rule these species credits out. In the absence of this, measures to ‘avoid / minimise / offset’ impacts on threatened species cannot be effectively resolved.

Given the number of hollows present in the proposed development footprints, stag-watching all of them would be an exhaustive process. Thus, a careful hollow removal/relocation process has been recommended to effectively recover any important hollows to gliders and microbats. Following a full survey of all hollows present in proposed development areas, a select number of hollows considered most suitable for use should ideally be stag-watched as a minimum.

2.6 Accuracy of identification

Specimens of threatened or suspected threatened flora species were sent to Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens for confirmation or a positive identification.

Scats and hair samples found during survey were sent to Barbara Triggs.

All snails recorded were the same species. The top (spiral side), side (showing aperture) and underside (showing umbilicus) of the best condition snail specimens found were photographed and sent to Frank Koehler of the Australian Museum Malacology Unit for confirmation of identification.

Figure 2 – Fauna survey effort © Travers bushfire & ecology – Biodiversity Development Assessment Report 40

2.7 Flora results

2.7.1 Native vegetation extent

The native vegetation extent within the study area has been ground-truthed. The amount of native vegetation is 109.23. Within the development site, there is 29.44 ha.

2.7.2 Flora species

All flora species observations are listed in Table A1.1 in Appendix 1.

2.7.3 Evidence and justification used to identify a PCT in the development area

Justification for identifying the PCTs has been based on two (2) methods. The first method inputs a cluster of dominant species into the PCT tool in Bionet (DPIE) which spits out a list of potential PCTs and number of indicator species. The ones that have the higher number of indicator species are then checked for spatial distribution and edaphic criteria. The second method then compares those that are associated with TECs against the Scientific Committiee’s Final Determinations to see how well they align.

Floodplain vegetation on low lying lands, dominated by E. tereticornis and A. floribunda with occasional Melaleuca species

In reviewing the plots in the vicinity of this vegetation association, we believed there was a strong correlation to the EEC River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains (RFEF). This would also align to some previous mapping by NPWS 2002 and Baulkham Hills Shire Council 2008.

The following PCTs are associated with RFEF; 686, 687, 691, 763, 828, 835, 839, 941, 971, 1064, 1108, 1109, 1120, 1139, 1212, 1228, 1232, 1251, 1293, 1318, 1326, 1386, 1522, 1556, 1594, 1618, 1646, 168, 1720, 1794 and 1800.

Removing those that are not in the Sydney Basin Bioregion, or refer to the southern Sydney Basin Bioregion, that leaves 835, 941, 1064, 1120 and 1232. PCT 941 removed as the vegetation dominates do not include Mountain Blue Gum and Thin-leaved Stringybark. PCT 1064 removed as it is not a Paperbark swamp forest. PCT 1232 removed as it was not a Swamp Oak floodplain swamp forest. PCT 1120 removed as it has been decommissioned.

Consequently, the PCT for this community is PCT 835 - Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion. The common species listed by DPIE regularly occur in this vegetation, although there appears to be several influences from adjoining communities where there is sandstone and / or dry rainforest.

Dry rainforest heavily dominated by Backhousia myrtifolia on steep sheltered slopes

Backhousia myrtifolia is a dominant mid-storey species in this community. There are Eucalypts present, however they are less dense than surrounding communities. There are numerous rainforest species present that are listed in the scientific committee’s final determinations for Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (WSDR). This is supported by previous vegetation mapping of the area by NPWS and Baulkham Hills Shire Council. There is only one (1) PCT that fits this EEC, PCT 877 - Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion.

Grey Gum dominated woodland-forest on shale and sandstone

These areas are generally above the floodplain across the majority of the site, except the far eastern parts. Common canopy species include E. punctata, E, crebra, A. bakeri and A. binervia. The majority of this area has been previously mapped as the CEEC, Shale- Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF). A review of the scientific committee’s final determinations would generally agree that the vegetation would quality as the CEEC on floristics, landscape position, soils and geology.

SSTF associated PCT includes 1395. PCT 792 and 1281 have been removed due to the listed canopy species being absent. Therefore PCT 1395 has been attributed to this vegetation community.

Final PCTs in the development area are as follows:

• 835 - Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion • 877 - Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion • 1395 - Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion

Other PCTs within the study area include:

• 1640 - Yellow Bloodwood - Narrow-leaved Apple heathy woodland on sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin occurs in the north-east corner of the study area near the corner of Wisemans Ferry Road and O’Briens Road. The dominant canopy species in these areas include C. eximia, E. punctata, A. bakeri and A. binervia. Potential PCTs where Yellow Bloodwood occurs include; 1255, 1623, 1640, 1783, 1786 and 1912. PCTs removed based on location include 1327, 1328 and 1634. PCTs removed based on vegetation description having limited compatibility to that on site; 1783, 1786 and 1912, leaving 1255, 1623 and 1640. A review of the mid-storey and ground layer predicted species found that 1640 was the most suitable candidate for this vegetation community.

• PCT 1106 - River Oak riparian woodland of the NSW North Coast Bioregion and northern Sydney Basin Bioregion occurs along the embankment of the Hawkesbury River along the western study area boundary. Because the oaks are Casuarina cunninghamiana not Casuarina glauca, this does not equate to the EEC Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest. This is the only potential PCT that fits in terms of distribution, located in the north-western Sydney area.

• PCT 1083 - PCT 1083 Red Bloodwood - scribbly gum heathy woodland on sandstone plateaux of the Sydney Basin Bioregion occurs as a small patch of vegetation amongst the existing houses near the northern study area boundary. This will not be impacted and hasn’t had the scrutiny of other PCTs to be justified.

• PCT 1736 Water Couch - Tall Spike Rush freshwater wetland of the Central Coast and lower Hunter is a poor fit for the freshwater wetlands on site, but there is no other potential PCT available that describes the wetland vegetation in accordance with the location. These areas will not be impacted by the proposal.

Specific justification on PCT 1640 extent

Our previous BDAR advised the presence of PCT 1640 within most of Precinct B (south- eastern corner of the study area) and near the corner of Wisemans Ferry and O’Briens Road intersection in the proposed stewardship area in the north-east corner of the study area.

Council asked for additional justification of why PCT 1640 was added to the vegetation communities across the site where it has been previously mapped as PCT 1395, part of the Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest.

It was noted that there was a strong Yellow Bloodwood association in both these areas and that sandstone outcropping was quite prominent in certain areas, indicating that the shale influence was very limited. The presence of Grey Gum and Narrow-leaved Apple (Eucalyptus punctata and Angophora bakeri) also dominated these areas with just a few A. floribunda, E. tereticornis and E. crebra in the mix, mostly in Precinct B. The three (3) most dominant canopy species described PCT 1640 very closely based on dominant canopy species, and the edaphic features were also a good fit.

On 23 April 2020, Travers bushfire & ecology revisited the mapped area of PCT 1640 to confirm the extent in a more rigorous manner and to provide further justification in the BDAR upon its extent. Eight (8) 20x20m portions of the BAM plots were undertaken, including five (5) in the north-east (stewardship area) and three (3) in or adjacent to Precinct B.

Data from each plot was compared to the Scientific Committee’s final determinations for Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest, then compared to the distinctive species for PCT 1395 and PCT 1640 within the Bionet PCT tool.

The biggest issue with using the Bionet PCT tool is that when data is entered and potential PCTs are returned, it will rank the potentials against the number of species matches. If a PCT has a large list of indicator species it may get a higher number of matches as opposed to a smaller list. This is definitely the case for PCT 1395 versus PCT 1640, and that is why in Council’s use of the tool, PCT 1640 was off the radar as a potential PCT as it was low on the list of likely PCTs based on the species input into the tool.

For this round of quantitative analysis, hard copies of the plot data were used to determine percentages of indicative species rather than just numbers of species. In PCT 1395 there are twenty-two (22) species in the list and for PCT 1640 there are only sixteen (16) species in the list.

For all eight (8) plots, the proportion of native species observed in each plot ranged from 47- 63% which is relatively uniform across the plots. The proportion of species may be influenced by a wide number of factors but in Precinct B, there is a bit of an ecotone between the adjoining Western Sydney Dry Rainforest on the steep embankment to the immediate south where Backhousia myritifolia is one of the dominant mid-storey species.

Comparisons between PCT 1395 and 1640 Bionet PCT tool were made to compare percentages as opposed to indicator species. The percentages were higher in Plots A, B, C and D for PCT 1640, although there was only 5% difference for Plot A. Given that there was not a discernible difference for Plot A and that 60% of species in the plot are listed in the final determinations for Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest, we concluded that Plot A should be remapped as PCT 1395 as part of the precautionary principle. In Plot E, the proportion of PCT 1640 was considerably lower than 1395 and has now been re-mapped as PCT 1395. It was also noted that there were much lower percentages for PCT 1640 species in Plot F, G and H that were undertaken in or adjacent to Precinct B, therefore these have also reverted back to PCT 1395 as they couldn’t be adequately supported.

Table 2.4 provides the percentages and determination for each plot.

Table 2.4 - PCT comparative data

Plot A Plot B Plot C Plot D Plot E Plot F Plot G Plot H SSTF Final 28/47 30/56 22/47 24/42 21/36 13/23 17/27 15/29 Determination 60% 54% 47% 57% 58% 57% 63% 52% 14/22 14/22 12/22 13/22 10/22 9/22 11/22 9/22 PCT 1395 (SSTF) 64% 64% 55% 59% 45% 41% 50% 41% PCT 1640 (not 11/16 12/16 10/16 11/16 5/16 4/16 5/16 2/16 SSTF) 69% 75% 63% 69% 31% 25% 31% 13% 1395 - keep as Final PCT EEC, PCT PCT PCT PCT PCT PCT PCT determination too 1640 1640 1640 1395 1395 1395 1395 close to call

On the basis of the above, PCT 1640 has been remapped as PCT 1395 in the development area. The north-east area has been refined and made smaller, now covering a total area of 2.67 ha in total, all within the proposed stewardship site area.

Figure 3.1 - Location of 2020 plots for PCT determination (Plot A-H)

2.7.4 Plant community types (PCTs) descriptions

Seven (7) vegetation communities were identified within the study area. Three (3) of these (the first three listed below) are within the proposed development site. Only those in the development site will be described in detail as well as PCT 1640 as it was surveyed in detail.

• PCT 835 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion • PCT 1395 Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion • PCT 877 Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion • PCT 1640 Yellow Bloodwood - Narrow-leaved Apple heathy woodland on sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin • PCT 1106 River Oak riparian woodland of the NSW North Coast Bioregion and northern Sydney Basin Bioregion • PCT 1083 Red Bloodwood - scribbly gum heathy woodland on sandstone plateaux of the Sydney Basin Bioregion • PCT 1736 Water Couch - Tall Spike Rush freshwater wetland of the Central Coast and lower Hunter

PCT 835 - Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion

This vegetation community occurs around the existing golf course area between fairways as managed canopy only vegetation. There are some remnants of the vegetation along the southern study area boundary and near the freshwater wetlands in the northern portion of the study area. This community has been heavily impacted by previous development. Vegetation within this community may have some influence from the adjoining Shale / Sandstone Transition Forest with rocky outcrops present occasionally, as well as some rainforest influence from adjoining dry rainforest. Lantana camara heavily infests many of the remnants away from the fairways.

Canopy – Eucalyptus tereticornis, Angophora floribunda and to a lesser extent, Eucalyptus amplifolia.

Sub-canopy – Alphitonia excelsa, Acacia binervia, Clerodendrum tomentosum, Acacia parramattensis, Melaleuca linariifolia, Melaleuca styphelioides, Casuarina cunninghamiana and Melia azedarch.

Mid-storey – Kunzea ambigua and Trema tomentosa var. viridus.

Ground Layer (under 1m tall) – Dichondra repens, Geranium homeanum, Commelina cyanea, Centella asiatica, Carex appressa, Juncus spp., Oplismenus aemulus, Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides and Cynodon dactylon.

Photo 1 - Plot G3 at the southern tip of Precinct D

PCT 1395 - Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion

This vegetation community occurs readily around the study area outside the floodplain influence. The topography is gentle to moderate and contains rock outcrops.

Structure – An open forest containing canopy trees between 15-25m in height, a sub-canopy of Acacia binervia of 12-18m in height, a variable mid-storey cover up to 4m tall and a variable cover of grasses, herbaceous material and ferns. The large populations of Eastern Grey Kangaroos and rabbits on site limits the growth of some ground layer vegetation and may cause an increase in grasses species over other material. Impacts through weed invasion are common with patches of Lantana camara present in most patches of vegetation.

Canopy – Eucalyptus punctata, Eucalyptus crebra, Corymbia eximia, and to a lesser extent Angophora floribunda and Eucalyptus tereticornis.

Sub-canopy – Acacia binervia, Allocasuarina littoralis, Angophora bakeri, Alphitonia excelsa and Acacia parramattensis.

Mid-storey – Kunzea ambigua, Persoonia linearis, Exocarpos spp., Notelaea longifolia, Leptospermum trinervium, Pittosporum revolutum, Breynia oblongifolia, Myrsine variabilis, Backhousia myrtifolia, Jacksonia scoparia and Leucopogon muticus.

Ground Layer (under 1m tall) – Entolasia marginata, Echinopogon caespitosus, Themeda triandra, Aristida vagans, Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides, Oplismenus aemulus, Platysace lanceolata, Pimelea linifolia, Billardiera scandens, Solanum prinophyllum, Cheilanthes sieberi,

Pomax umbellata, Lomandra longifolia, Lomandra multiflora var. multiflora, Lepidosperma laterale, Hibbertia diffusa and Commelina cyanea.

Photo 2 - Plot G9 in the southern portion of Precinct C

PCT 877 - Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion

This vegetation community occurs mostly on southern and western slopes on very steep topography, usually on the lower portion of slopes. Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (WSDR) is typically associated with gullies and sheltered slopes of hilly, relatively steep sections of the generally elevated Cumberland Plain in the Razorback Range from Cobbitty to Picton, and sporadically elsewhere in Western Sydney including Fairfield City Farm, Grose Vale and Cattai. Soils are clay soils on Wianamatta Shale. The only occurrence of WSDR in conservation reserves is within Cattai National Park which is adjacent to the southern site boundary on the southern side of Little Cattai Creek.

There are slight to moderate impacts of weed invasion within this vegetation community including Lantana camara in the mid-storey and Tradescantia albiflora in the ground layer. As it is largely on the edges of vegetation remnants, there will be continued edge effects impacting this community.

Significant species for WSDR listed by NPWS (1997) include: Cynanchum elegans, Croton verreauxii, Legnephora moorei, Deeringia amaranthoides, Diospyros australis, Celastrus australis, Geijera latifolia, Solanum stelligerum, Maclura cochinchinensis, Aphanopetalum resinosum and Senna clavigera. Of these, Croton verreauxii, Maclura conchinchinensis, Steblus brunonianus and Aphanopetalum resinosum were observed.

Emergents – Eucalyptus tereticornis and Syncarpia glomulifera.

Canopy – Eucalyptus tereticornis, Melaleuca styphelioides, Callistemon salignus, Alphitonia excelsa, Melicope micrococca and Ficus rubiginosa.

Photo 3 - Plot G8 near the western boundary of Precinct C

Mid-storey – Backhousia myrtifolia, Guioa semiglauca, Doryphora sassafras, Acmena smithii, Clerodendrum tomentosum, Aphanopetalum, resinosum, Parsonsia straminea, Cissus antarctica and Trema tomentosa var. viridus.

Ground Layer (under 1m tall) – Maytenus silvestris, Plectranthus parviflorus, Pandorea pandorana, Oplismenus aemulus, Dichondra repens, Adiantum aethiopicum, Geitonoplesium cymosum, Stephania japonica, Pittosporum multiflorum, Smilax glyciphylla and Doodia spp..

PCT 1640 - Yellow Bloodwood - Narrow-leaved Apple heathy woodland on sandstone ranges of the Sydney Basin

This vegetation community occurs in the eastern port of the study area on sandstone geology with basically no shale influence. The canopy layer is dominated by Corymbia eximia (Yellow Bloodwood), which is very rare except on the edges of PCT 877. The mid-storey is typified by good diversity of shrubs unless dominated by small patches of Backhousia myrtifolia such as in the area surrounding Precinct B.

Canopy - Corymbia eximia, Eucalyptus punctata, Angophora floribunda, Eucalyptus crebra and Eucalyptus tereticornis.

Mid-storey - Backhousia myrtifolia, Acacia binervia, Kunzea ambigua, Callistemon salignus, Persoonia linearifolia, Acacia parramattensis, Bursaria spinosa, Clerodendrum tomentosum,

Alphitonia excelsa, Breynia oblongifolia, Leptospermum trinervium, Banksia marginata, Duboisia myoporoides, Angophora bakeri, Pittosporum revolutum and Morinda jasminoides.

Ground Layer - Lomandra longifolia, Einadia hastata, Solanum prinophyllum, Pteridium esculentum, Microlaena stipoides, Entolasia stricta, Pomax umbellata, Dianella caerulea, Cheilanthes sieberi, Lomandra multiflora and Lepidosperma laterale.

Photo 4 - Yellow Bloodwood dominated vegetation in Plot L4 in the stewardship site

Table 2.5 – PCTs

% Area within PCT Vegetation Vegetation TEC status PCT name Cleared development code formation class (BC Act) site (ha)

Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple River-flat Coastal grassy woodland on Forested 1.9 to be Eucalypt Forest 835 Floodplain 93 alluvial flats of the Wetlands impacted on Coastal Wetlands Cumberland Plain, Floodplains Sydney Basin Bioregion Grey Myrtle Dry Rainforest of the Dry 0.3 to be Western Sydney 877 Sydney Basin Bioregion Rainforest 25 Rainforest impacted Dry Rainforest and South-east Corner Bioregion. Narrow-leaved Ironbark – Broad-leaved Ironbark Coastal – Grey Gum of the Grassy Valley 27.2 to be Shale Sandstone 1395 edges of the 80 Woodlands Grassy impacted Transition Forest Cumberland Plain, Woodlands Sydney Basin Bioregion.

2.7.5 Vegetation integrity assessment

A vegetation integrity assessment is an assessment on the site’s condition. Vegetation patches are broken into zones of roughly equal quality and then surveyed by transect plots. The number of required transect plots is dependent upon the size of the zone.

Once data from the transect plot has been collected, the composition of native plant species per growth form is assessed, along with numbers of stems, percentages of exotic or high threat exotic species present, number and sizes of Eucalypt and non-Eucalypt tree stems, litter cover, rock cover, cryptogram cover, hollows and fallen logs. Therefore, the vegetation integrity assessment is a measure of composition, structure and function.

The breakdown of PCTs and zones is shown on Figure 3.2. Impacted areas (the subject site) are shown cross-hatched. Figure 3.2 shows the location of the plots in relation to the impacted areas.

The vegetation integrity score is obtained using equations and weightings based upon a number of entities to calculate scores for composition, structure and function, for an overall current vegetation integrity score.

Table 2.6 – Current vegetation integrity score

Vegetation Area (ha) Composition Structure Function Current zone name condition condition condition vegetation score score score integrity score 835_good 1.94 60.7 42.9 89 61.4 877_good 0.27 45.7 48 83.8 56.9 1395_good 27.23 42.8 53.2 96.7 60.4

The future vegetation integrity score is measured assuming there will be limited vegetation retained in APZs, and full vegetation loss in all other construction areas.

For APZ management, there would be limited impacts to the composition, however the structure and function, this will diminish more rapidly. Whilst there would be a reduction in the biomass, APZ management rarely prescribes the removal of all vegetation, all of one layer, or removal of a particular species. Instead, the management usually requires the thinning of vegetation in a particular stratum which means that the diversity of native species isn’t necessarily compromised. There tends to be more impact upon the structure scores as the covers for each stratum are typically reduced, and the function data as litter may be removed, and regeneration of canopy species is limited.

a) Assumed APZ management for PCT 835 Forest Red Gum - Rough-barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion

Zone composition data is assumed as follows:

• tree species reduced to benchmark as they were above (4) • shrub species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (2) • grass and grass species like reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (2) • forb species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (1) • fern species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (0) • other species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (0)

Zone structure data is assumed as follows:

• tree cover reduced to 15% • shrub cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (6.5%) • grass and grass like cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (2.8%) • forb cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (0.2%) • fern cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (0%) • other cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (0%)

Zone function data is assumed as follows:

• regeneration changed to absent • stem classes changed to 3, assuming smaller ones would be removed • number of large trees reduced to benchmark as they were above (1) • litter reduced to 10% • coarse woody debris set to 0m • high threat weed cover set to 5%

b) Assumed APZ management for PCT 877 - Grey Myrtle Dry Rainforest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South-east Corner Bioregion.

Zone composition data is assumed as follows:

• tree species retained at 7 • shrub species retained at 2 • grass and grass like species reduced by 1 • forb species reduced by 2 • fern species retained at 1 • other species reduced by 1

Zone structure data is assumed as follows:

• tree cover reduced to 15% • shrub cover reduced to 15% • grass and grass cover like retained at 1.3% • forb cover retained at 0.5% • fern cover retained at 0.1% • other cover retained at 0.4%

Zone function data is assumed as follows:

• regeneration changed to absent • stem classes changed to 3, assuming smaller ones would be removed • number of large trees retained at 2 • litter reduced to 10% • coarse woody debris set to 0m • high threat weed cover set to 5% c) APZ management for PCT 1395 - Narrow-leaved Ironbark – Broad-leaved Ironbark – Grey Gum of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion.

Zone composition data is assumed as follows:

• tree species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (7) • shrub species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (2) • grass & grass species like reduced to match the plot with least number of species (3) • forb species to match the plot with the least number of species >0 (3) • fern species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (1) • other species reduced to match the plot with the least number of species (3)

Zone structure data is assumed as follows:

• tree cover reduced to 15% • shrub cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (15%) • grass and grass like cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (1.3%) • forb cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover >0 (0.5%) • fern cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (0.1%) • other cover reduced to match the plot with the least cover (0.4%)

Zone function data is assumed as follows:

• regeneration changed to absent • stem classes changed to 3, assuming smaller ones would be removed • number of large trees reduced match the plot with the least number of trees • litter reduced to 10% (2) • coarse woody debris set to 10m (matching plot with the least) • high threat weed cover set to 1% as several plots had low numbers.

Given the above clarification, the future vegetation integrity score will be above 0 as indicated in Table 2.7. Table 2.7 – Future vegetation integrity score

Vegetation Management Area Composition Structure Function Future Change Total zone name (ha) condition condition condition veg integ in change in score score score score score score Development 0.67 0 0 0 0 -61.4 835 good -43.4 APZ 1.27 20.6 19.8 51 27.5 -33.9 Development 0.08 0 0 0 0 -56.9 877 good -41.3 APZ 0.19 36 8.6 35 22.2 -34.7 Development 14.12 0 0 0 0 -60.4 1395 good -51.7 APZ 10.97 16.7 15.6 29.3 19.7 -40.7

2.8 Fauna results

All fauna species observations are listed in Table A1.2 in Appendix 1.

2.9 Habitat results

2.9.1 Fauna habitat observations

The fauna habitats present within the site are identified within the following table.

Table 2.8 – Observed fauna habitat

Topography Flat  Gentle  Moderate  Steep  Drop-offs  Vegetation structure Closed Forest Open Forest  Woodland  Heath Grassland  Disturbance history Fire Under-scrubbing  Cut and fill works  Tree clearing  Grazing Soil landscape DEPTH: Deep  Moderate  Shallow  Skeletal  TYPE: Clay Loam  Sand  Organic  VALUE: Surface foraging  Sub-surface foraging  Denning/burrowing  WATER RETENTION: Well Drained  Damp / Moist  Water logged Swamp / Soak Rock habitat CAVES: Large Small  Deep Shallow  CREVICES: Large  Small  Deep  Shallow  ESCARPMENTS: Winter / late sunny aspects  Shaded winter / late aspects  OUTCROPS: High Surface Area Hides Med. Surface Area Hides  Low Surface Area Hides SCATTERED / High Surface Area Hides Med. Surface Area Hides Low Surface Area Hides  ISOLATED: Feed resources Eucalypts  Corymbias  Melaleucas  FLOWERING TREES: Banksias Acacias  SEEDING TREES: Allocasuarina  Conifers C. maculata  E. crebra  E. globoidea E. sideroxylon WINTER FLOWERING E. squamosa E. grandis E. multicaulis E. scias EUCALYPTS: E. robusta  E. tereticornis  E. agglomerata E. siderophloia FLOWERING PERIODS: Autumn  Winter  Spring  Summer  OTHER: Mistletoe  Figs / Fruit  Sap / Manna  Termites  Foliage protection UPPER STRATA: Dense  Moderate  Sparse  MID STRATA: Dense Moderate  Sparse  PLANT / SHRUB LAYER: Dense  Moderate  Sparse  GROUNDCOVERS: Dense Moderate  Sparse  Hollows / logs TREE HOLLOWS: Large  Medium  Small  TREE HOLLOW TYPES Spouts / branch  Trunk  Broken Trunk  Basal Cavities  Stags  GROUND HOLLOWS: Large  Medium  Small 

Vegetation debris FALLEN TREES: Large  Medium  Small  FALLEN BRANCHES: Large  Medium  Small  LITTER: Deep  Moderate  Shallow  HUMUS: Deep Moderate  Shallow  Drainage catchment WATER BODIES Wetland(s) Soak(s) Dam(s)  Drainage line(s)  Creek(s)  River(s)  RATE OF FLOW: Still  Slow  Rapid CONSISTENCY: Permanent  Perennial  Ephemeral  RUNOFF SOURCE: Urban / Industrial Parkland  Grazing Natural  RIPARIAN HABITAT: High quality Moderate quality  Low quality  Poor quality  Artificial habitat STRUCTURES: Sheds  Infrastructure  Equipment SUB-SURFACE Pipe / culvert(s) Tunnel(s) Shaft(s) FOREIGN MATERIALS: Sheet  Pile / refuse 

2.9.2 Habitat tree data

During the Yellow-bellied Glider target surveys in May, July and September 2013 trees were searched for hollows containing potential denning opportunity for this species. The location of identified hollow-bearing trees and the number of hollows within considered likely suitable for use were recorded on GPS. Locations of notable sap feed trees were recorded also at this time.

Figure 2 shows the areas covered during each of the three site visits as well as additional effort in 2015. This included identifying hollows suitable for Gang-gang Cockatoo and / or large forest owls within all the proposed development precinct areas. Some potential small owl hollows were also noted. All of the hollows recorded during surveys are shown on Figure 4 but again it should be highlighted that this does not account for all hollows present, as many small hollows and other medium and large hollows are present.

The suitable Yellow-bellied Glider hollows in-particular should be carefully checked for occupation, signs of use or suitability for use at the time of removal. If used or considered suitable for use this hollow should be sectionally cut and reaffixed to an appropriate tree in the conservation area.

Prior to these survey no high-quality large hollows had been observed and considered suitable for large forest owls within the development areas. One large yet discrete hollow considered potentially suitable for Powerful Owl was subsequently observed in the dense gully area in the outer southern portion of Precinct D. This has since fallen. Another nearby tree as well as a large hollow observed within Precinct C is considered less suitable for Powerful Owl. Further survey of these hollows was undertaken recently in early May 2019 to search for signs of Powerful Owl activity leading into the upcoming breeding season. This survey did find an additional potentially suitable large hollow for nesting in the Dry Rainforest community south of the proposed Precinct C. This survey however recorded no activity by Powerful Owl.

In summary, there are numerous denning opportunities for YBG throughout the study area. Whilst there are suitable hollows also for Glossy Black-Cockatoo and Gang-gang Cockatoo these don’t appear to be utilised within the proposed development precincts. There are surprisingly very few quality opportunities for nesting / roosting opportunities in large hollows by large forest owls. Other hollows within the development landscape may well be utilised for roosting and denning by threatened microbats however these cannot be effectively located without exhaustive survey. The above data is depicted in mapping but will not be tabulated until all hollow-bearing tree resources are accounted for within the proposed development areas.

2.10 BAM calculator species

The BAM calculator predicts the following ecosystem species:

Australian Bittern Little Bent-winged Bat (foraging) Barking Owl (foraging) Little Eagle (foraging) Black Bittern Little Lorikeet Black-chinned Honeyeater Masked Owl (foraging) Brown Treecreeper Painted Honeyeater Diamond Firetail Powerful Owl (foraging) Dusky Woodswallow Regent Honeyeater (foraging) Eastern False Pipistrelle Rosenberg's Goanna Eastern Coastal Free-tailed Bat Scarlet Robin Eastern Osprey (foraging) Speckled Warbler Flame Robin Spotted-tailed Quoll Gang-gang Cockatoo (foraging) Square-tailed Kite (foraging) Glossy Black-Cockatoo (foraging) Swift Parrot (foraging) Golden-tipped Bat Turquoise Parrot Greater Broad-nosed Bat Varied Sittella Grey-headed Flying-fox (foraging) White-bellied Sea-Eagle (foraging) Hooded Robin Yellow-bellied Glider Koala (foraging) Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat Large Bent-winged Bat (foraging)

The BAM calculator predicts the following candidate species credit species:

Acacia bynoeana Hibbertia puberula Acacia pubescens Hibbertia superans Barking Owl (breeding) Koala (breeding) Brush-tailed Phascogale Large Bent-winged Bat (breeding) Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Large-eared Pied Bat Bush Stone-curlew Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. fletcheri Callistemon linearifolius Little Bent-winged Bat (breeding) Cumberland Plain Land Snail Little Eagle (breeding) Cynanchum elegans Masked Owl (breeding) Dillwynia tenuifolia Melaleuca deanei Dillwynia tenuifolia end. pop. (Baulkham Hills) Persicaria elatior Dural Woodland Snail Persoonia hirsuta Eastern Cave Bat Pilularia novae-hollandiae Eastern osprey (breeding) Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora Eastern Pygmy-possum Pomaderris brunnea Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens Powerful Owl (breeding) Gang-gang Cockatoo (breeding) Prostanthera cineolifera Gang-gang Cockatoo end. pop. Red-crowned Toadlet Giant Barred Frog Regent Honeyeater (breeding) Giant Burrowing Frog Rutidosis heterogama Glossy Black-Cockatoo (breeding) Senna acclinis Grammitis stenophylla Southern Myotis Green and Golden Bell Frog Square-tailed Kite (breeding) Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora Squirrel Glider Grevillea parviflora subsp. supplicans Stuttering Frog Grey-headed Flying-fox (breeding) Swift Parrot (breeding) Gyrostemon thesioides Tetratheca glandulosa Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata Velleia perfoliata Hibbertia procumbens White-bellied Sea-Eagle (breeding)

Figure 3.2 – Flora survey effort and results (PCTs and vegetation zones)

Figure 4 – Fauna survey results © Travers bushfire & ecology – Biodiversity Development Assessment Report 58

SECTION 3.0 – IMPACT ASSESSMENTImpact

3 Assessment

3.1 Requirement for a BDAR

A BDAR is required to accompany an application for development consent under Part 4 of the EP&A Act if the development is likely to significantly affect threatened species.

A development is likely to significantly affect threatened species if it:

a) is likely to significantly affect threatened species or ecological communities, or their habitats, taking into account the matters set out in s7.3 of the BC Act; b) It involves the clearing of native vegetation, loss of habitat and other prescribed impacts to which BOS applies and exceeds the BOS threshold. As set out in r7.1 of the BC Reg, the BOS threshold will be exceeded if the development exceeds the threshold for clearing of native vegetation or involves clearing native vegetation, or other prescribed impacts; on land included on the Biodiversity Values Map; or c) Is carried out in a declared area of outstanding biodiversity value.

3.1.1 BOS thresholds

The BOS includes two (2) elements to the threshold test – an area trigger and land mapped on the Biodiversity Values Land Map.

The area threshold varies depending on the minimum lot size (shown in the Lot Size Maps made under the relevant Local Environmental Plan (LEP)), or actual lot size (where there is no minimum lot size provided for the relevant land under the LEP).

The area threshold applies to all proposed native vegetation clearing associated with a development proposal – for example in the case of a subdivision; all future clearing across the lots subject to the subdivision, must be considered. Thresholds outlined under the BOS are outlined in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 identifies that the site has a minimum lot size of 10 ha, and the clearing area threshold for which the BOS applies is 0.5 ha. Based on the Concept Masterplan, 2019 (Figure 1.2), the proposed development exceeds this element to the BOS threshold and a BDAR is required.

Figure 5 – Biodiversity Values Land Map (sensitive biodiversity values shown in purple) (Source: https://www.lmbc.nsw.gov.au/Maps/index.html?viewer=BosetMap)

Table 3.1 – BOS entry threshold report

(a) Biodiversity Values Map

The proposal will impact on areas in the northern portion of the study area that are mapped on the Biodiversity Values Map. Therefore, the development exceeds this element to the BOS threshold and a BDAR is required.

(b) Area of impact

Based upon the minimum lot size, impacts of 0.5 ha or greater will trigger the BOS. The development also exceeds this element to the BOS threshold.

3.1.2 Declared area of outstanding values

The study area does not form part of any currently declared areas of outstanding biodiversity.

3.2 Serious and Irreversible Impacts on biodiversity values

An impact is to be regarded as serious and irreversible if it is likely to contribute significantly to the risk of a threatened species or ecological community becoming extinct because:

a) It will cause a further decline of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to be in a rapid rate of decline, or b) It will further reduce the population size of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very small population size, or c) It is an impact on the habitat of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very limited geographic distribution, or d) The impacted species or ecological community is unlikely to respond to measures to improve its habitat and vegetation integrity and therefore its members are not replaceable.

Candidate entities recorded or with potential to occur within the study area include:

Table 3.2 – Candidate SAII entities

Species / TEC Species BC Potential to (Scientific name) (Common name) Act occur Shale Sandstone Transition Forest E recorded on site Western Sydney Dry Rainforest E recorded on site Miniopterus schreibersii subsp. oceanensis Large Bent-winged Bat E recorded Miniopterus australis Little Bent-winged Bat E recorded Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot E  Chalinolobus dwyeri Large-eared Pied-bat V  Vespadelus troughtoni Eastern Cave Bat V  Anthochaera phrygia Regent Honeyeater E low

• The SAII assessment provisions for threatened species are outlined under Section 9.1.2 of the BAM (2020) and have been applied to the recorded Large Bent-winged Bat and Little Bent-winged Bat within Appendix 3. An assessment has also been undertaken for Large-eared Pied Bat and Eastern Cave Bat as prompted by the BAM calculator and expected to occur based on local records. As a result of this assessment, it is considered that further trapping survey is required to inform of the presence of important breeding habitat for Large-eared Pied Bat and Eastern Cave Bat. This is explained in detail in the assessment in Appendix 3.

The proposal will not likely cause a serious or irreversible impact on Large Bent-winged Bat and Little Bent-winged Bat. The study area does not contribute to any Important Mapped Areas for Swift Parrot or Regent Honeyeater and therefore no SAII is considered likely for these species. Neither species have been recorded present in surveys to date.

• The additional impact assessment provisions for TECs are outlined under Section 9.1.1 of the BAM (2020) and have been applied to the recorded SSTF and WSDR. As a result of this assessment, it is considered that the impact on WSDR of 0.152% in the subregion does not constitute a SAII. The impact of 0.33% in the subregion on SSTF does not constitute SAII.

3.3 Previous surveys reviewed

The following regional vegetation mapping and reports were reviewed to assist identification of vegetation communities and other threatened biodiversity with potential to occur for assessment.

Vegetation mapping of the Cumberland Plain (NPWS 2002)

This broad scale mapping shows that most of the larger patches of vegetation are Shale- Sandstone Transition Forest, denoted as dark blue (2). The green patches adjoining fairways (11) and major creek / river systems are Alluvial Woodland, or pink (12) Riparian Forest. These correspond to Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest, Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains or River-flat Eucalypt Forest. The purple areas (36) correspond to Freshwater Wetlands. Solid colours represent good quality vegetation near to expected benchmarks. Striped polygons refer to areas of vegetation that are poorer in quality that are sometimes canopy only remnants or have been previously cleared or managed.

Figure 6 – Vegetation Mapping NPWS 2002

Vegetation Mapping by The Hills Shire Council, 2008

This broad scale vegetation mapping over the LGA includes the following mapping within the study area. Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest (purple), River-flat Eucalypt Forest (Maroon), Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (aqua), Sydney Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland (flesh-yellow colour) and Paperbark Forest (Wetland Complex) (light pink).

Figure 7 – Vegetation Mapping (The Hills Shire Council)

Species Impact Assessment - Riverside Oaks Golf Course - Ecotone Ecological Consultants 1997

This report was undertaken for the proposed golf resort extension. Field surveys were conducted in July and August of 1997. The only threatened species observed was the Yellow- bellied Glider (Petaurus australis). The then eight (8) part test of significance concentrated on this species and the Eastern Freetail-bat. The result of the test was a not significant impact. Many of Sydney’s TECs were not listed under the TSC Act at the time and it was concluded the site did not contain Cumberland Plain Woodland or Maroota Sands Swamp Forest.

Flora and Fauna Assessment - Riverside Oaks Golf Course - Conacher Travers 2001

This report assessed a previous master plan providing holiday cabins, a resort complex, roads and driving range within bushland areas surrounding the golf course. Survey recorded two TECs including Shale / Sandstone Transition Forest and Sydney Coastal River Flat Forest and recorded four threatened fauna species including Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis), Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus), Glossy Black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami) and Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis).

This report identified the need for a comprehensive land use management plan (CLUMP) to be prepared to appropriately manage the development areas, golf course and bushland areas. Sub- plans proposed include a Bushland Management Plan, Bushfire Management Plan, Pest Species Management Plan and Soil/Erosion and Water Quality Erosion Management Plan.

Draft Yellow-bellied Glider Habitat Assessment & Monitoring - Travers bushfire & ecology 2013

The field monitoring for this report narrowed down two areas (but not specific locations) containing YBG den trees during two nights of survey in May, June and September 2013. Yellow-bellied Glider movements over half the night were documented. Sap trees were also identified however numerous trees showing scarring and other glider chew marks made it difficult to identify important sap resources. Floristic mapping across the entire study area was also undertaken to identify potential important seasonal foraging areas that were not well represented across the site and requiring retention.

This report concluded that survey results to date were limited as gliders were not calling close to den locations, movements were not very extensive and tree scarring is extensive such that the most valued sap feed locations are difficult to determine. The report identified that a glider expert should be engaged to direct any further monitoring undertaken and particularly given that an expert will be required to sign off on the important habitat features and the anticipated impacts on the local YBG family group.

Flora and Fauna Assessment - Corporate Lodge Construction at ‘Riverside Oaks’ Lot 13 DP 70416 No. 74 O’Briens Road, Cattai - Travers bushfire & ecology January 2012

This report assessed the impact of the construction of three (3) of the originally approved two storey corporate lodges within the central portion of ‘Riverside Oaks’ approximately 30–50 metres south-west of the clubhouse.

Flora survey recorded one TEC Shale / Sandstone Transition Forest. Fauna survey was based off a desktop assessment. The report concluded a not significant impact on threatened species and TECs.

Ecological Assessment - Riverside Oaks Golf Course, O’Briens Road, Cattai - Travers bushfire & ecology March 2016

This report assessed a Planning Proposal under the previous TSC Act 1995 for four development precincts similar to the current location, the hotel contained within Precinct C. The Conservation Zone was proposed as a Biobank Site - 32.08ha. A further 31.97ha was to be protected by a VMP.

State legislation identified thirteen (13) threatened fauna, five (5) TECs and no threatened flora species. National legislation identified one threatened fauna species and three (3) protected migratory bird species. A potential significant impact was concluded on Shale- Sandstone Transition Forest under both the state and national assessment.

All work up to this date on the Yellow-bellied Glider inclusive of Habitat Assessment & Monitoring (TBE 2014), Expert Advice on Yellow-bellied Glider (Dr Ross Goldingay), Discussions (Dr Ross Goldingay, The Hills Shire Council and TBE), Advice and Final Confirmation of the proposed mitigation measures from Dr Ross Goldingay were attached to this report. A not significant impact on the Yellow-bellied Glider was concluded.

3.4 Flora

A number of landscaping species were observed largely around the corporate lodges, existing residential dwellings and the main clubhouse. These were generally not taken into consideration in preparing the species list.

Of the two hundred and forty-five (245) flora species recorded, none observed are on the schedules of the BC Act or EPBC Act.

All species are listed in Table A1.1 in Appendix 1.

3.4.1 Local / Regional flora matters

The following regionally significant species were observed with the Western Sydney Dry Rainforest community:

• Croton verreauxii • Maclura conchinchinensis • Aphanopetalum resinosum

3.4.2 State legislative flora matters

(a) Threatened flora species (NSW)

The BAM calculator identifies candidate species required to be surveyed unless suitable conditions are not available or the species is vagrant. The following species in Table 3.3 are likely to have some level of suitable habitat presence.

Table 3.3 – State listed threatened flora species with suitable habitat present

BC When surveyed Scientific name Potential to occur Survey period Act (month(s)) Acacia bynoeana E1  Any November 2018 Eucalyptus sp. Cattai E1  Any November 2018 Hibbertia superans E1  Jul-Dec November 2018 Persoonia hirsuta E1  Any November 2018 Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora V  Oct-Mar November 2018 Tetratheca glandulosa V  Aug-Nov November 2018 Grevillea parviflora subsp. supplicans E1 low Aug-Nov November 2018 Lasiopetalum joyceae V low Sep-Nov November 2018 Syzygium paniculatum V low Apr-Jun April 2020 Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens V poor Sep-Oct November 2018 Olearia cordata V unlikely Any November 2018

Note: If the above species is listed under the EPBC Act, there will be detailed description in Appendix 2.

Despite potential habitat availability, no state listed threatened flora species were observed during surveys undertaken.

Survey has not been undertaken in the correct survey period for Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens although belt transects were undertaken in November 2018 in select locations

for the species. It often prefers damp areas at the headwalls around creeks or ephemeral drainage lines near the shale and sandstone boundaries. There are very few places on site that appear to contain suitable habitat, and despite survey being undertaken just outside of the flowering period, species are unlikely to have been overlooked. Regardless, the survey is not considered to be compliant and ten (10) specimens have been assumed as present in the BAM-C.

Figure 8.1 – Local threatened flora species (1)

Figure 8.2 – Local threatened flora species (2)

Figure 8.3 – Local threatened flora species (3)

(b) Endangered flora populations (NSW)

There are three (3) known endangered populations within The Hills Shire Council and a further recognised population within 10km. These include:

• Dillwynia tenuifolia in The Hills LGA • Darwinia fascicularis subsp. oligantha in The Hills and Hornsby LGAs • Wahlenbergia multicaulis population, Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Canterbury, Hornsby, Parramatta and Strathfield local government areas • Keraudrenia corollata var. denticulata in the Hawkesbury LGA.

Dillwynia tenuifolia in The Hills LGA – the population prefers habitats of the Cumberland Plain CEEC that were not present within the study area. It has been known to inhabit low sandstone influence areas on the very margins of the Cumberland Plain also which is present. The population (and nearest individuals) are recognised as being a minimum of 5-6 km away. The population is thus not likely going to occur within the study area.

Darwinia fascicularis subsp. oligantha in The Hills and Hornsby LGAs – the population is known from the Maroota area approximately 10km away. The associated vegetation and habitat includes rock platforms and rocky heath associated with friable sandstone shallow soils. Associated species include Allocasuarina nana, A. distyla, Banksia ericifolia and Caustis flexuosa. As none of the associated species were recorded, the population is not likely to have any potential habitat present.

Wahlenbergia multicaulis population, Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Canterbury, Hornsby, Parramatta and Strathfield local government areas – the population has not been recorded within an 10km radius of the study area and is unlikely to occur.

Keraudrenia corollata var. denticulata in the Hawkesbury LGA – the population is not recognised within The Hills LGA and is therefore not considered to occur. The nearest recording is approximately 10km away to the north.

Four (4) EECs were located within the study area, namely;

• River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains • Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains • Western Sydney Dry Rainforest • Shale Sandstone Transition Forest

Figure 9.1 – Locally mapped TECs (The Hills Shire Council mapping)

The above figure shows the extent of three (3) TECs in the locality as mapped by The Hills Shire Council (2008) that also occur within the study area. Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest is the TEC with the largest extent that occurs near the plateau areas. It occurs extensively in the NW and SW areas of Sydney adjacent to the Cumberland Plain, however most remnants are quite fragmented as they occur on the fringes of urban expansion and have been utilised for small properties (agricultural and pastoral pursuits) historically.

Western Sydney Dry Rainforest is rare in the local area. The largest areas of this TEC are within the study area, confined to the steep south to south-west facing slopes. The TEC extends just beyond the site to the east near the southern boundary, and there is a small amount located within Cattai NP to the south. All other fragments occur to the north, mostly within 1km of the Hawkesbury Rive in the suburbs of South Maroota, Sackville North and Lower Portland. The portion within the study area represents close to 25% (1/4) of that within the LGA.

River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains occurs quite extensively through the local area along tributaries of the Hawkesbury River and flat floodplain areas and valley floors. It is well conserved in the adjoining Cattai NP. It has been extensively cleared though for grazing land locally.

Figure 9.2 – Locally occurring Freshwater Wetlands as mapped by NPWS 2002

Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains have not been mapped within the view by Council in this mapping iteration, however Freshwater Wetlands have been mapped by NPWS 2002 as shown above in purple. There are wetlands within the site however these will not be impacted. There are extensice wetlands to the east of the site along Cattai Creek and its tributaries, as well as small areas on the floodplains surrounding the site locally.

The proposal will likely see no direct and minimal indirect impacts upon Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains. The Precincts are located over Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (CEEC), Western Sydney Dry Forest (EEC) and River Flat Eucalypt Forest (EEC) (and non- EEC vegetation) and there is expected to be a 27.3 ha loss within the study area, inclusive of APZs.

APZs and likely edge effects from narrowing of remnants could impose a significant risk upon the long-term survival in a local context without significant measures to minimise such risks. A stewardship site is proposed to protect approximately 55 ha of vegetation across the study area, with a stringent vegetation management plan including weed control to be implemented across other residual areas to assist in minimising the long-term risks.

The Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (WSDR) occurs on steep slopes that are generally not suitable for development or APZs. Precinct C will remove or modify approximately 0.27ha (inclusive of asset protection zones).

The total loss of 2.63% within the study area. A significant impact in this regard is not likely to occur.

Similar to the WSDR, there will be small impacts to the River-flat Eucalypt Forest EEC within totalling 1.94 ha, of which 1.27 ha is for APZs, therefore full clearing will not be required. The likely removal or modification of vegetation is small and not considered to be classed as a significant impact. This EEC is also conserved within Cattai National Park to the south.

Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest

The current proposal is less invasive upon Shale Sandstone Transition Forest than the original 1989 masterplan approval. It is difficult to measure as the vegetation polygons have been altered since the approval and the GIS layers aren’t necessarily still of usable nature given their age.

The current impact upon this CEEC is approximately 44.5% however that includes 15.23 ha of impact from development, and 12.00 ha for vegetation management as APZs.

The impacts are large and likely to be a significant impact, also requiring assessment and determination under the EPBC Act.

There is a proposed stewardship site for the study area that will assist in maintaining a portion of the EEC in the long-term, with residual areas to be managed under a stringent VMP, through revegetation and weed control, as well as reducing or controlling other impacts such as illicit access, pest fauna, sediment and erosion control, etc. The VMP will be included in a planning agreement and the community title scheme.

In conclusion, it is recognised that any such previous master plan consents would have had significant impacts on ecological resources for local biodiversity, particularly upon the loss of extensive areas of Shale Sandstone Transition Forest which would be available for the important Yellow-bellied glider population.

The revised (and current) proposal has largely reduced the likelihood of habitat removal for the YBG through the retention of important habitat resources e.g. sap trees, corridors and mass suitable vegetation assemblages etc.’ and to this extent the need for a species impact statement may be excessive. The proposed offsetting arrangement is a far superior solution given the impacts of past approvals.

TBE have considered the current known and likely threatened species and CEEC habitat values and we have advised of a recommended development and conservation area layout that also gives adequate consideration to cross-site corridor function (see Figure 15). This concept also eliminates development where YBG winter foraging and habitat resources such as sap feed trees and two recorded denning areas. The areas containing higher concentrations of potential remaining denning hollows have also been retained.

(d) Ecosystem credit species

There are no flora ecosystem credit species to assess.

(e) Species credit species

Based upon the BAM calculator and field surveys to date, the following predicted threatened species were considered:

Table 3.4 – Species credit species (flora)

Potential Absent based on Presence BC to occur sufficient survey Common name PCTs Expert Act (presence during selected Assumed status) months report Acacia bynoeana E1 ✓ 1395 ✓ November Acacia pubescens V x Justified below Callistemon linearifolius V ✓ 835, 1395 ✓ November Cynanchum elegans E1 x Justified below Dillwynia tenuifolia V x Justified below Dillwynia tenuifolia endangered E2 x Justified below population (Baulkham Hills) ✓ 10 Epacris purpurascens var. V ✓ 1395 specimens purpurascens assumed Eucalyptus fracta V x Justified below Grammitis stenophylla E1 x Justified below Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora V x Justified below Grevillea parviflora subsp. E1 ✓ 1395, 1640 ✓ November supplicans Gyrostemon thesioides E1 x Justified below Haloragis exalata subsp. exalata V x Justified below Hibbertia procumbens E1 x Justified below Hibbertia puberula E1 x Justified below Hibbertia superans E1 ✓ 1395, 1640 ✓ November Keraudrenia corollata var. E2 x Justified below denticulata endangered population Leionema lamprophyllum subsp. E2 x Justified below obovatum endangered population Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. fletcheri E1 x Justified below Melaleuca deanei V x Justified below Melaleuca groveana V x Justified below Olearia cordata V x Justified below Persicaria elatior V x Justified below Persoonia hirsuta E1 ✓ 1395, 1640 ✓ November Pilularia novae-hollandiae E1 x Justified below Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora V ✓ 1395, 1640 ✓ November Pomaderria brunnea E1 x Justified below Prostanthera cineolifera V x Justified below Rutidosis heterogama V x Justified below Senna acclinis E1 x Justified below Tetratheca glandulosa V ✓ 1395, 1640 ✓ November Velleia perfoliata V x Justified below

Justification for flora species

Acacia pubescens - No records within 5km of the site and very few within 10km. Typically prefers clay soils, however those on site are sandier. No potential habitat in PCT 877, and unlikely to occur on PCT 835 on the more clayey soils as the site is disjunct from the main population on the Cumberland Plain.

Cynanchum elegans - Prefers rainforest environment so PCT 877 and parts of PCT 835 may provide some suitability, however the species is not known to occur within 10 km of the site therefore not expected to occur.

Dillwynia tenuifolia - Prefers laterised clay soils and tertiary alluvium, often associated with the Cumberland Plain Woodland, Shale-Gravel Transition Forest and Cooks River / Castlereagh Ironbark Forest TECs. Eucalyptus fibrosa is usually the dominant canopy species. Eucalyptus globoidea, E. longifolia, E. parramattensis, E. sclerophylla and E. sideroxylon may also be present or codominant, with Melaleuca decora frequently forming a secondary canopy layer. This vegetation association is absent from the site.

Dillwynia tenuifolia endangered population (Baulkham Hills) - not present based on reasons listed above.

Eucalyptus fracta - The site is outside of the known distribution of the species (known from Broken Back Range near Cessnock).

Grammitis stenophylla - Grows in moist places usually near streams, on rocks or in trees, in rainforest and moist eucalypt forest. There is no moist eucalypt forest present, and the rainforest is a dry version. There are no streams adjacent to the remnant dry rainforest in the development area. There are also no records within 10km of the site.

Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora - The typical soil and vegetation associations are absent. There are also no records within 10 km of the site.

Gyrostemon thesioides - A rare species with sightings restricted in the Sydney area to the Nepean, Colo and Georges River. Grows on hillsides and riverbanks on fine sandy soils. These are absent from the development area. There are no records within 10km of the site.

Haloragis exalata subsp. exatata - Prefers protected and damp places which are typically absent from the development area. There are also no records within 10 km of the site.

Hibbertia procumbens - Typically grows in heath-like communities and edges of hanging swamps. Restricted to the Central Coast region, so likely to be outside of the species natural distribution. There are no records within 10km of the site.

Hibbertia puberula - Favours low heath and sandy soils. No records within 10 km of the site.

Keraudrenia corollata var. denticulata in the Hawkesbury local government area - The site is located in The Hills Shire Council local government area.

Leionema lamprophyllum subsp. obovatum endangered population of the Hunter Catchment - The site is not located in the Hunter Catchment.

Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. fletcheri - Prefers sites containing sandstone, occasionally with laterites where the understorey is very heathy. Only known locally from Paulls Road at South Maroota approximately 6km north-east. These attributes are absent from the development

area. The north-east corner of the study area containing PCT 1640 may provide marginal habitat, but this area is unaffected by the proposal.

Melaleuca deanei - The species occurs mostly in ridgetop woodland habitat. PCT 1640 may be suitable in the north-eastern corner of the study area, however the habitat in the development area is not. There is a lot of influence in the vegetation from adjoining Dry Rainforest, and there is a lack of typical heathy shrubs. The nearest records are approximately 8km away.

Melaleuca groveana - The southern distribution of the species is the northern end of Yengo National Park. It would appear the site is located outside of the species’ natural range.

Olearia cordata - Typically grows on sandstone ridges and upper slopes. There are only a few records within 10km however there are records approximately 4 km north-east. PCT 1640 in the north-east corner of the study area may provide marginal potential for the species, but within the development area, the vegetation association is not suitable.

Persicaria elatior - This is an erect herb that grows on the edges of lakes and streams or in places that may be partially waterlogged. These features are absent from the development site. There are also no records within 10km of the site.

Pilularia novae-hollandiae - Grows in swamps and waters as a semi-aquatic fern. These attributes are absent from the development area. There are also no records within 10km of the site.

Pomaderris brunnea - Grows on creek embankments and floodplains on clay and alluvial soils. There may be some potential in PCT 835, but given there are no records within 10km, it is not expected to occur.

Prostanthera cineolifera - Grows on exposed sandstone ridges which are absent from the site. Mostly known from Scone - Cessnock, with a population at St Albans approximately 30km to the north.

Rutidosis heterogama - The southern extent of the species distribution is around Wyong. The site is outside of its natural range.

Senna acclinis - Grows on the margins of subtropical, littoral and dry rainforest. Not expected to occur given the nearest record is 10km away and the only likely potential habitat within the development area is very tiny.

Velleia perfoliata - Grows in heath and open forest over sandstone, often found in shallow depressions on sandstone shelves, on rocky hill sides and under cliffs, including moss and lichen mats formed on rock. The vegetation association in PCT 1640 may be suitable, but the underlying typical substrate is absent. There are no records within 10 km.

(f) Local data

Local data has not been used in this case.

(g) Expert reports

Expert reports have not been utilised for flora on this project.

(h) Endangered wetland communities

A number of wetland communities have been listed as TECs under the NSW BC Act. We note that ‘wetlands’ are included in the definition of ‘waterfront lands’ in accordance with the Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) due to their inclusion in the definition of a ‘lake’ under the same Act. TECs that are considered to be an endangered protected wetland are as follows:

• Artesian springs ecological community • Castlereagh Swamp Woodland Community • Coastal Saltmarsh in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions • Coastal Upland Swamp in the Sydney Basin bioregion • Coolibah–Black Box woodland in the Darling Riverine Plains, Brigalow Belt South, Cobar Peneplain and Mulga Lands bioregions • Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions • Kurri sand swamp woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion • Lagunaria swamp forest on Lord Howe Island • Maroota Sands swamp forest • Newnes Plateau Shrub Swamp in the Sydney Basin Bioregion • Swamp oak floodplain forest of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions • Swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions • The shorebird community occurring on the relict tidal delta sands at Taren Point • Upland wetlands of the drainage divide of the New England Tableland Bioregion • Wingecarribee Swamp

No endangered wetland communities were present within the development area, nor within 40m of the development. Therefore, a referral to the Natural Resource Assessment Regulator is not required.

As part of the re-mapping of vegetation in accordance with the BAM, we have re-assessed the waterbody previously mapped in the 2016 ecological assessment as a wetland to the north of the proposed hotel precinct. Based on this assessment we have concluded that it is not a freshwater wetland as it is an open waterbody with vegetation limited to occasional fringing macrophytes. It does not meet the definition of freshwater wetland.

(i) Groundwater dependent ecosystems

Groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) are communities of plants, animals and other organisms whose extent and life processes are dependent on groundwater. Some examples of ecosystems which depend on groundwater are:

• wetlands; • red gum forests, vegetation on coastal sand dunes and other terrestrial vegetation; • ecosystems in streams fed by groundwater; • limestone cave systems; • springs; and • hanging valleys and swamps.

Alluvial groundwater system discharging into a river

GDEs are therefore ecosystems which have their species composition and their natural ecological processes determined by groundwater (NSW State Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems Policy April 2002).

PCT 835 is a GDE. The proposal will have only a limited impact upon this vegetation. 0.67 ha will be used for development, whilst 1.2 ha will be modified and utilised as an APZ. Maintenance of the ground covers is most important to assist in limiting the impacts to the GDE. It may be slashed to reduce the biomass but should be retained and encouraged as a low growing layer to limit evapotranspiration.

(j) Coastal wetlands

The Interactive Mapping Tool (DPE) was reviewed for the study area. There are two (2) wetlands mapped on site in the northern portion. We have confirmed that the western one is actually a dam and is not a wetland as it doesn’t contain vegetation typical to wetland communities. The proposed hotel is within the mapped proximity buffer. The north-eastern dam is a wetland. The adjacent precinct will not impede upon its buffer and the north-eastern wetland. The existing access road and a small section of fairway has been constructed within the buffer. There is also a buffer to a mapped wetland south of Little Cattai Creek near the southern site boundary. The proposed APZs from the adjoining precinct will not impact on the buffer.

Figure 10 – Coastal waterbodies and proximity areas

3.4.3 Matters of national environmental significance - flora

(a) Threatened flora species (national)

A review of the schedules of the EPBC Act indicated the potential for a list of threatened flora species to occur within a 10 km radius of the site. These species have been considered for habitat presence and potential to occur within Appendix 2.1.

Based on the habitat assessment within Appendix 2.1, it is considered that the subject site provides varying levels of potential habitat for the following nationally listed threatened flora species:

Table 3.5 – Nationally listed threatened flora species with suitable habitat present

EPBC Scientific name Potential to occur Act Acacia bynoeana V  Persoonia hirsuta E  Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora V  Syzygium paniculatum V low Olearia cordata V unlikely

No nationally listed threatened flora species were observed within the study area.

(b) Threatened ecological communities (national)

• With respect to Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest (CEEC), the clearing is estimated at 27.23 ha. As the impact is large, a referral to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment is recommended.

• With respect to Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist Woodland on Shale, the clearing is estimated at 0.27 ha, most of which is for an APZ in Precinct C. A referral to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment is not required.

• As of December 2020, River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains of Southern NSW and Eastern Victoria was listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act. The clearing is estimated at 1.94 ha. Given the large extent in the locality, it was considered that a significant impact was unlikely.

3.5 Fauna

All fauna species recorded during survey(s), key fauna habitat observations and habitat tree data are provided in Section 2.9.

3.5.1 Key fauna habitat

Most notable habitat features for threatened fauna species recorded or with considered potential to occur include:

- Large hollows (30+cm) - Medium hollow (10-30cm) particularly those with use by Yellow-bellied Glider - Small hollows (<10cm) - Seeding Allocasuarina spp. present in high numbers given the recorded presence of Glossy Black-Cockatoo - Rock on rock habitat - Shallow caves and overhangs along the rocky escarpment, some with recorded roosting use by microbats - Ephemeral drainages - Diverse seasonal flowering opportunities for nectivorous species. - Rainforest habitats with fruiting trees associated also with steep rocky areas - Winter flowering trees - High quality and expansive areas of open forest/woodland habitats - Yellow-bellied Glider sap feed Grey Gums - Open water large adjacent river, smaller dams and wetland habitat - Fringing wetland vegetation - Varying aspects from exposed rocky north-western aspects for reptiles to highly sheltered southern steep slopes. Such are transitioning habitats from the river foreshores to hilltop - Large terrestrial logs containing various sized hollows.

A complete assessment of the location of all habitat trees and the respective size of hollows within has not been conducted within the proposed development areas and precincts. Locations of trees containing hollows suitable for Yellow-bellied Glider has however been undertaken in these areas. The locations of all Yellow-bellied Glider sap feed trees have been

identified throughout the study area. The locations of all large hollows suitable for threatened owls and cockatoos has also been identified within the study area. These trees are all considered as significant habitat trees within the landscape and are depicted on Figure 4.

All hollow-dependent threatened fauna species recorded during surveys include the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum), Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis), East-coast Freetail Bat (Micronomus norfolkensis), Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus) and Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris). Following surveys and habitat assessment it is considered that the Yellow-bellied Glider and East-coast Freetail Bat have highest potential to utilise the hollows proposed for removal.

No threatened species use of hollows to be removed has been recorded during surveys to date, however detailed stag-watching of all of these hollows has not been undertaken. Winter 2020 surveys are considered sufficient to rule out breeding use of large hollows within proposed development areas by large forest owls. Potential use of medium to large sized hollows by the recorded threatened cockatoos is not expected based on observations to date, however this should ideally be confirmed during independent Precinct assessment surveys.

Other notable hollow-dependent fauna species recorded during surveys include Australian King Parrot, Australian Owlet-nightjar, Australian Wood Duck, Eastern Rosella, Galah, Long-billed Corella, Musk Lorikeet, Rainbow Lorikeet, Red-rumped Parrot, Sacred Kingfisher, Spotted Pardalote, Striated Pardalote, Sulphur Crested Cockatoo, Southern Boobook, White-throated Treecreeper, Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo, Brown Antechinus, Sugar Glider, Common Ringtail Possum, Common Brushtail Possum, Gould’s Wattled Bat, Chocolate Wattled Bat, Eastern Freetail-bat, Eastern Forest Bat, Long-eared Bat, Little Forest Bat, Southern Forest Bat, White striped Freetail Bat, Large Forest Bat, Lace Monitor, Whistling Tree Frog Dwarf Tree Frog, and Peron’s Tree Frog.

Several hollow-bearing trees will be removed by the proposal. Hollow bearing tree surveys undertaken to date for YBG suitable den sites in identified areas have found that medium and small sized hollows are otherwise in relatively high density across the open forest areas of the study area. The proposal will therefore require the removal of a number of hollow-bearing trees, estimated possibly in excess of two-hundred.

A strict removal of hollows process is recommended in Section 5.4 to prevent impacts on hollow-dependent fauna. This includes the initial identification of all hollows, supervision of their removal to effectively recover fauna and the relocation of hollows (or replacement with nest boxes) within the conservation areas of the site.

3.5.2 Local fauna matters

Fauna species recorded present during survey and listed as a regionally significant species within the Native Fauna of Western Sydney - Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey (NPWS 1997) and not since listed as threatened include the Whistling Kite, White-bellied Sea Eagle, Latham’s Snipe, Great Egret, Nankeen Night Heron, Peaceful Dove, Bar-shouldered Dove, Common Bronzewing, White-winged Chough, Brown Toadlet, Smooth Toadlet, Lace Monitor, Tree-base Litter Skink, Brown Antechinus, Eastern Grey Kangaroo and Swamp Wallaby.

Of these species, potential breeding habitat (or habitat otherwise of likely importance) will be impacted for the Bar-shouldered Dove, Common Bronzewing, Lace Monitor, Tree-base Litter Skink, Brown Antechinus, Eastern Grey Kangaroo and Swamp Wallaby.

3.5.3 State legislative fauna matters

(a) Threatened fauna species (NSW)

The BAM calculator identified BC Act listed threatened fauna species that may have suitable habitat on site based on the PCTs that are present. Fifteen (15) state listed threatened fauna species have been recorded in the study area, these are listed in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 – State listed threatened fauna species with suitable habitat present

Common name BC Act White-bellied Sea Eagle V Little Eagle V Gang-gang Cockatoo V Glossy Black-Cockatoo V Little Lorikeet V Powerful Owl V Varied Sittella V Yellow-bellied Glider V Grey-headed Flying-fox V Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat V East-coast Freetail Bat V Little Bent-winged Bat V Large Bent-winged Bat V Southern Myotis V Dural Land Snail E1

Figure 11.1 – Local threatened fauna species (1)

Figure 11.2 – Local threatened fauna species (2)

Figure 11.3 – Local threatened fauna species (3)

Yellow-bellied Glider

Yellow-bellied Glider (YBG) was recorded present within the site during 2013 and previous surveys suggesting that at least one and possibly two glider groups were utilising the site as part of core home ranges. Due to the possible impacts of removing important den site(s), important connectivity areas, sap feed trees and other feeding resources target survey effort was undertaken, and a Yellow-bellied Glider Habitat Assessment & Monitoring report was prepared by Travers bushfire & ecology (2013). This report has been updated (June 2014)

The impetus of this monitoring report was that Dr Ross Goldingay was to be engaged to review the habitat features and provide advice on impacts. Dr Goldingay visited the site on 12 and 13 February 2014 and was provided with the preliminary conservation / development plan prepared by Travers bushfire & ecology for submission in November 2013.

Dr Goldingay provided advice in respect of additional work and conservation necessities and from this the then Planning Proposal was moulded to maintain sap and seasonal flowering resources. A second site visit by Dr Goldingay occurred on 21 September 2015 to review the detailed survey work undertaken for habitat retention and to outline any outstanding issues. This included a meeting between Dr Goldingay, The Hills Shire Council Senior Ecologist Mark Chidel and Corey Mead from Travers bushfire & ecology.

Survey and review were again undertaken up until January 2016 to address these issues and complete other final threatened species survey requirements. A final response to the outstanding issues from the final site visit and relating to YBG was provided to Dr Goldingay on 24 November 2015.

Dr Goldingay initially requested a buffer width of 20 m around precincts A, B & C to permit ongoing connectivity for gliders. This fringe was initially proposed only at 15m. Subsequent minor design tweaking to the periphery of Precinct A was undertaken in January 2016 and an alternate solution of a 30m buffer only down the western side was agreed. Furthermore, recent

amendments have reduced the development area of Precinct A to permit a buffer of between 20-40m on both sides of this precinct. A small portion of this strip at the southern end on both sides is reduced below 20m. Dr Goldingay will be provided a summary of the proposed masterplan and final conservation outcomes for YBG.

The Monitoring Report, additional work requested by Dr Goldingay, site meeting minutes, further identified mitigation measures by Dr Goldingay and Dr Goldingay’s final review and conservation outcomes and recommendations are all outlined in Attachments 1-8 of the Ecological Assessment report (TBE 2016). Associated mapping is provided also in this previous report.

In summary, the proposal has been designed to ensure there is sufficient connectivity across the site and limited impacts upon the habitat resources required for the YBG population to be retained in perpetuity. Such habitat features and the subsequent conservation outcomes in respect to YBG are shown on Figure 15. Hence it was concluded that the proposal would not cause a significant impact upon this species. TBE can certify that sufficient habitat retention and mitigation measures have been applied in respect to the local population of YBG in general accordance with Dr Goldingay’s recommendations.

FM Act – No habitats suitable for threatened aquatic species were observed within the study area itself however the adjacent Hawkesbury River provides potential threatened fish species habitat. It is considered that there will be no detrimental effect on water quality, water quantity or any indirect impacts upon threatened fish species habitat from the proposed action. The proposed activity is not located in an area identified as critical habitat under the FM Act.

(b) Endangered fauna populations (NSW)

There are no endangered fauna populations within The Hills LGA.

In November 2020, the NSW Government announced plans to revert to operations under the former State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 - Koala Habitat protection (SEPP 44) while a new policy is developed in 2021 that would protect koalas and the interests of farmers. The study area is not required to be considered under SEPP 2020 as the Hills LGA is not listed on Schedule 1 of this Policy.

(d) Ecosystem credit species

Based upon the BAM calculator, habitat assessment and field surveys to date, the following threatened fauna ecosystem species are considered as confirmed predicted species:

Table 3.7 – Predicted ecosystem credit species (fauna)

BC Potential to Excluded Foraging Common name (justified habitat Act occur below) only White-bellied Sea Eagle (foraging) V recorded Little Eagle (foraging) V recorded Gang-gang Cockatoo (foraging) V recorded Glossy Black-Cockatoo (foraging) V recorded Little Lorikeet V recorded Varied Sittella V recorded Yellow-bellied Glider V recorded

Grey-headed Flying-fox (foraging) V recorded Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat V recorded East-coast Freetail Bat V recorded Little Bent-winged Bat (foraging) V recorded Large Bent-winged Bat (foraging) V recorded Swift Parrot (foraging) E   Turquoise Parrot V  Dusky Woodswallow V  Barking Owl (foraging) V  Masked Owl (foraging) V  Spotted-tailed Quoll V  Eastern Falsistrelle V  Greater Broad-nosed Bat V  Square-tailed Kite (foraging) V low Brown Treecreeper V low Regent Honeyeater (foraging) E4A low Black-chinned Honeyeater V low Scarlet Robin V low Flame Robin V low Black Bittern V unlikely Painted Honeyeater V unlikely Diamond Firetail V unlikely Koala (foraging) V unlikely Australasian Bittern E Not likely  Osprey (foraging) V Not likely  Golden-tipped Bat V Not likely  Speckled Warbler V Not likely  Hooded Robin V Not likely  Rosenberg’s Goanna V x 

The species that have been excluded above are excluded based on the absence of any suitable habitat, available extent of remaining habitat, geographic distribution, and last known local record being decades old, lack of suitable geological features, isolation of particular habitats or degradation of habitats.

(e) Species credit species

Based upon the BAM calculator, habitat assessment and field surveys to date, the following threatened fauna species credit species are considered as confirmed candidate species:

Table 3.8 – Candidate species credit species (fauna)

Survey adequacy Presence of species Potential Potential to occur Preferred Survey Confirmed BC breeding Common name (presence status) Candidate Associated PCTs Act habitat survey Actual survey sufficient to Expert / Habitat Assumed Species absent period period rule out report (TBDC) presence Grey-headed Flying-fox (breeding) V Yes (recorded)  Little Bent-winged Bat (breeding) V Yes (recorded)  Powerful Owl (breeding) V Yes (recorded) x (present) May-Aug May/Aug  Southern Myotis V Yes (recorded) n/a Oct-Mar May recorded  x  All within 200m of an open water body White-bellied Sea Eagle (breeding) V Yes (recorded) x (present) Jul-Dec Aug  Dural Land Snail E Yes (recorded) n/a All May recorded  x  1395 Gang-gang Cockatoo (breeding) V Yes (recorded) x (present) Dec-Jan May/Aug x (not thorough)  x  1395 Glossy Black-Cockatoo (breeding) V Yes (recorded) x (present) Apr-Aug Apr x (not thorough)  x  1395 Large Bent-winged Bat (breeding) V Yes (recorded)  Little Eagle (breeding) V Yes (recorded) x (present) Apr-Aug May/Aug  Large-eared Pied Bat V Yes n/a Nov-Jan May x  x  835/877/1395 Barking Owl (breeding) V Yes x (present) May-Dec May x  x  1395 Eastern Cave Bat V Yes n/a Nov-Jan May/Aug x (not thorough)  x  835/877/1395 Swift Parrot (breeding) E Yes  IA Mapping   Masked Owl (breeding) V Yes x (present) May-Aug May/Aug  Regent Honeyeater (breeding) E4A Yes (low)  IA Mapping  Squirrel Glider V Yes (unlikely) n/a All - previously Square-tailed Kite (breeding) V Yes (unlikely) x (present) Sep-Jan May/Aug previously Koala (breeding) V Yes (unlikely) x (present) All May previously Red-crowned Toadlet V Yes (unlikely) n/a All - previously Bush Stone-curlew E No (not likely) Cumberland Plain Land Snail E No (not likely) Eastern Pygmy Possum V No (not likely) Green and Golden Bell Frog E No (not likely) Osprey (breeding) V No (not likely) Brush-tailed Phascogale V No (not likely) Brush-tailed Rock Wallaby E No (not likely) Giant Burrowing Frog V No Giant Barred Frog E No Stuttering Frog E No Gang-gang Cockatoo End. Pop. E2 No

The impact area polygon for species credit species with potential habitat present is indicated on Figure 16.

Species polygons for the Barking Owl, Gang-gang Cockatoo and Glossy Black-Cockatoo are limited to PCT 1395 as the other vegetation zones impacted do not contain suitable breeding hollows. These polygons will be refined based on the results of breeding presence following individual Precinct surveys. Eastern Cave Bat and Large-eared Pied Bat species polygons are equivalent to the extents of impacted areas of PCTs 1395, 877 & 835 as these are all within 2km of suitable roosting escarpments. Species polygons for Southern Myotis are all areas within 200m of potential open water foraging habitat that overlay impacted areas of PCTs 877, 1395 & 835 as mapped on Figure 16.

Excluded species based on absence of habitat:

Giant Burrowing Frog

There are no suitable perennial waterbodies, drainage lines or hanging swamp habitat suitable for breeding by this species within the study area. Whilst this species may travel extended distances from breeding locations, there is no such breeding habitat within these distances to and from the development footprints.

Green and Golden Bell Frog

There a no dams or wetlands with sufficient fringing reedy vegetation for shelter, foraging and breeding within the study area.

Osprey (breeding)

There are no high outlook trees within the development footprints that have a vantage outlook over open water habitats that this species would potentially utilise for nesting. This species is not expected to utilise the habitat available within the footprints. No nesting or breeding activity was observed within the study area and there is an absence of records of this species in the locality.

Brush-tailed Phascogale

This species is not known to the locality with no recent or historical records. The species is ruled out as a vagrant. Regardless of this historical trapping and camera survey effort has not recored presence.

Gang-gang Cockatoo endangered population in the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai LGAs

The study area is not located within the recognised extent of this population area.

Giant Barred Frog and Stuttering Frog

Whilst the BAM-C has raised these two frog species from the presence of impacted Dry Rainforest and adjacent open forest communities, there are no suitable perennial to permanent breeding drainages within the narrow moist forest reaches or the entire study area.

Bush Stone-curlew

This species has never been known to the locality and is considered unlikely to occur. Regardless of this sufficient site visits in alternate seasons have been undertaken to rule out

presence of this species across the suitable lower floodplain (mostly golf course area) available habitat.

Cumberland Plain Land Snail

The vegetation zones with some association with the typical host community (Cumberland Plain Woodland) for this species are either high sandstone influence (PCT 1395) and thus unsuitable or are highly managed for the golf course area (PCT 835). This is particularly compounded by the fact that no adjacent Cumberland Plain Woodland habitat is present that may support core habitat to overflow into adjacent diminishing habitats. Habitat searches have been undertaken throughout the development footprint for snails. This habitat is only suitable for the Dural Land Snail. These two snail species are parapatric whereby there are no distributional overlaps between species (Clark 2009).

Eastern Pygmy Possum

The site provides a lack of understorey vegetation for shelter and passage and does not contain a high diversity of seasonal foraging options including the limited presence and abundance of Banksia sp typically occupied as habitat within this part of the state. Therefore, the species is not considered likely to occur. Nonetheless extensive target trapping survey utilising denning tubes left for over 6 weeks will be undertaken as part of individual Precinct assessments. Previous Elliott trapping surveys have not recorded presence.

Excluded species based on the absence of breeding habitat:

Grey-headed Flying Fox (breeding)

Breeding habitat is the same as roosting habitat typically located in dense shelter foliage close to water in lower depressions. Such habitat is not present within the development footprint and the nearby dry rainforest habitat closest to roosting habitat has not recorded roosting use.

Large Bent-winged Bat (breeding) and Little Bent-winged Bat (breeding)

Some small and large overhangs along the rocky escarpment edges within the study area did show evidence of temporary roosting by microbats. Both of these two species have been recorded within the study area however, the overhangs (open caves) observed present within the study area are not deep, extensive or enclosed to provide adequate thermal regulation and breeding opportunity by either species.

Excluded species based on adequate survey:

Powerful Owl (breeding) or Masked Owl (breeding)

Large hollows within or close to proposed development precinct have all been inspected to rule out any recent breeding by large forest owls.

White-bellied Sea Eagle (breeding) & Little Eagle (breeding)

Both of these species have been recorded during surveys. A search of the study area for nesting locations has been undertaken as part of all previous surveys. No eagle nests have been recorded in the proposed development precincts.

Square-tailed Kite (breeding)

This species has not been recorded within the study area during combined surveys in various seasons to date. No raptor nests consistent with these species have been observed present within or close to the development footprints.

Squirrel Glider

Targeted and extensive arboreal Elliott trapping was undertaken for this species in 2001 and 2013. There were no recorded captures. Updated surveys are required to confirm absence.

Koala

Target Koala surveys incorporating SATs in 2013 as well as spotlighting within the most suitable habitat areas of the study area have not recorded presence. No secondary indications of site use have been recorded by evidence of scats, characteristic pock marks, or by response call. Updated Koala survey is required in detailed grid-based surveys across the study area to effectively rule out for upcoming individual Precinct development assessments.

Red-crowned Toadlet

The study area has been well traversed over various seasons to determine that there is a lack of quality natural ephemeral breeding habitat opportunities and no calls have been heard within roadside ditches.

Excluded species based on the absence of important mapped habitat:

Swift Parrot (breeding)

This species breeds in Tasmania. The site is not mapped as containing important habitat for this species on the BAM - Important Areas (DPIE) mapping.

Regent Honeyeater (breeding)

The site is not mapped as containing important habitat for this species on the BAM - Important Areas (DPIE) mapping.

(f) Local data

Local data has not been used in this case.

(g) Expert reports

Expert reports have not been utilised for fauna on this project.

3.5.4 Matters of national environmental significance - fauna

(a) Threatened fauna species (National)

EPBC Act – A review of the schedules of the EPBC Act identified a list of threatened fauna species or species habitat likely to occur within a 10 km radius of the subject site. These species have been listed in Table A2.2 (Appendix 2), and those with potential habitat within the subject site are considered with respect to the impact criteria in Appendix 6 for nationally listed species.

Based on the habitat assessment within Appendix 2, it is considered that the subject site provides varying levels of potential habitat for the following nationally listed threatened fauna species:

Table 3.9 – Nationally listed threatened fauna species with suitable habitat present

EPBC Common name Potential to occur Act Grey-headed Flying-fox V recorded Dural Land Snail E recorded Swift Parrot E  Spotted-tailed Quoll E  Large-eared Pied Bat V  Regent Honeyeater CE low Painted Honeyeater V unlikely Koala V unlikely Greater Glider V unlikely

Two (2) nationally listed threatened fauna species including Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and Dural Land Snail (Pommerhelix duralensis) were recorded within the study area during surveys undertaken.

Grey-headed Flying-fox

Several Grey-headed Flying-foxes were observed in flight over the study area during 2013 nocturnal surveys. Locations where individuals were observed foraging on flowering trees within the study area at this time are shown on Figure 4. Recent May 2019 survey also recorded foraging.

No diurnal roosting camps were recorded present within the study area and it is considered unlikely that this species is utilising the available habitat within the study area for roosting and subsequent breeding.

The Significant Impact Criteria for a vulnerable species listed under the EPBC Act (Appendix 6) was reviewed to assess the impacts on this species as a result of the proposed masterplan. As the subject site does not contain any likely roosting or subsequent breeding habitat and foraging habitat will remain well represented in the locality, it is concluded that there will not be any significant impact on this species.

Dural Land Snail

Target surveys for the Dural Land Snail were undertaken within the study area in June 2016. Recorded locations are shown on Figure 4. No snails were recorded within Precinct A or Precinct B, but were recorded in Precincts C & D.

From the species profile and survey results it may be concluded that the Dural Land Snail habitat within the study area is provided in the typical Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest community (PCT 1395) but also within the Yellow Bloodwood Sandstone Ridgetop Woodland community (PCT 1640). The Species has not been recorded within the Dry Rainforest or Floodplain Forest communities but may occur in the ecotone between these and the known communities.

The recorded communities also have notable absence of Dural Land Snail in some portions. Given the species can be discrete and difficult to detect it is difficult to clearly define the suitable or unsuitable portions of habitat within the two recorded communities. Poor habitat may be the result of previous fire but based on observations is expected to be associated with disturbed areas.

For example, the proposal will remove expansive areas of PCT 1395 which is the typical host community. Almost all of the Precinct A area contains this community, however no snails have been recorded within this area. Precinct A has notable higher understorey disturbance with high Kangaroo surface wear and resting activity and Lantana growth. It is likely then that much of the Shale-Sandstone community does not support adequate habitat.

Alternatively, much of Precinct D appears to provide quality habitat. Precinct C is in-between with some quality habitat areas and Precinct B is quality habitat of a higher sandstone influence and possibly of lower carrying capacity.

The proposal will therefore remove areas of suitable habitat for the Dural Land Snail, the amount of which is difficult to quantify and cannot be associated directly to the recorded community and areas of direct impact. Fundamentally, large areas of quality recorded species habitat will be removed but also large areas of quality recorded species habitat will be retained. The potential for snails to occur in each of the proposed Precincts has been estimated as follows:

• Snails, if present within Precinct A, would be expected to occur only at lower densities due to poor habitat, past disturbances and limited areas of good habitat which would equate to approximately <20%. • Whilst Precinct B is not the typical host community and contains higher sandstone influence, snails are expected to occur based on the quality of the understorey and adjacent records in this same community (50%). • Precinct C also has some good quality areas of Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest (70%) but also has disturbed areas with notable less shelter opportunities (30%). • Good quality habitat (100%) with abundant shelter opportunities occurs throughout Precinct D.

The state assessment has concluded a not significant impact given that retained areas containing recorded living specimens are considered sufficient to support local populations. This is given that Precincts A and B together, Precinct C and Precinct D likely contain three separate populations. Each of these population areas contain sufficient remaining quality habitat areas for relocated individuals out of the proposed development areas. Therefore, snails may be relocated into suitable habitat within the same population extent.

This conclusion is also with consideration to the extent of suitable remaining habitat containing recorded living specimens of each expected population. Habitat enhancement measures of weed removal and relocating terrestrial habitat shelters (rocks and logs) from development areas into conservation areas will also further enhance this extent of habitat for the future. This species further justifies the necessity for this restoration to be undertaken in a careful and high detail manner.

In accordance however, with the EPBC Act assessment criteria (Appendix 6), an action is likely to have a significant impact on an endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: a. Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population; b. Reduce the area of occupancy of the species; c. Fragment an existing population into two or more populations;

d. Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; e. Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population; f. Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline; g. Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat; h. Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or i. Interfere with the recovery of the species.

This criterion applied to any snail species will generally result in a significant impact conclusion. As the proposal will lead to long-term decrease in the size of a population (a), will reduce the area of occupancy (b) and will decrease the availability of quality habitat (f) a large impact in respect to EPBC Act criteria is concluded for the Dural Land Snail. Therefore, a referral to Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (Commonwealth) in respect to this species is recommended.

Recommendations have been outlined within Section 3.10 to reduce the impacts on Dural Land Snail.

With consideration to the EPBC Act Significant Impact Criteria, no other nationally listed threatened fauna species with potential to occur, will be significantly impacted as a result of the proposed masterplan.

(b) Protected migratory species (National)

The EPBC Act Protected Matters Report provides additionally listed terrestrial, wetland and marine migratory species of national significance likely to occur, or with habitat for these species likely to occur, within a 10 km radius of the subject site. The habitat potential of migratory species that have not been considered in the threatened species habitat assessment are considered in Table A2.3 (Appendix 2).

Two (2) nationally protected migratory bird species were recorded present during surveys including Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) and Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii). The Significant Impact Criteria for migratory species listed under the EPBC Act (Appendix 6) was reviewed to assess the impacts on these species as a result of the development proposal.

The Latham’s Snipe was observed foraging along the fringes of the large north-western dam. There is no suitable breeding habitat for the Latham’s Snipe within the study area and foraging areas will remain unchanged by the proposal.

The Rainbow Bee-eater was recorded at the base of the Dry Rainforest community and in the open adjacent disturbed landscape, subject at the time to preparations for further golf construction. It was considered to be likely breeding within the study area at the 2013 recorded location based on the observation of numbers, time of year and behaviour during survey. This area is not likely impacted by the proposal. The Rainbow Bee-eater was recorded along the river edge also during 2015 additional surveys.

This species excavates a burrow for nesting located in flat or sloping ground, in the banks of rivers, creeks or dams, in roadside cuttings, in the walls of gravel pits or quarries, in mounds of gravel, or in cliff-faces. Therefore, a nesting burrow on site may be located anywhere from the river bank to the base of the Dry Rainforest communities in the western parts of the site.

The current proposal does not impact on recorded locations or expected breeding habitat locations, however, has the potential to indirectly impact these locations. The upgrading of the

western portions of the golf course during and following the 2013 and 2015 recordings may already have had such effect on breeding from a further managed landscape and increased presence of golfers. It is recommended that more recent summer surveys are undertaken to establish any breeding locations of the Rainbow Bee-eater so that such locations, where and if present, can have appropriate measures undertaken to reduce nesting disturbance.

The impact assessment for these recorded species and other nationally protected migratory species with potential to occur has concluded a not significant impact.

3.6 Vegetation connectivity and wildlife corridors

There are three (3) major portions of open forest habitat that exists within the study area that have a combined area of approximately 90ha. These large areas each are connected by passages as narrow as 20m in width and contain various and important habitat types within their complete extent such as rocky outcrops, caves, fringing dams, steep terrain and tree species variations.

These major vegetation areas are also connected to adjacent extensive open forest areas and subsequently forms part of a wildlife corridor that continues north towards the Maroota Ridge State Conservation Area and south into Cattai National Park (see Figure 1.7).

In some major portions of this internal corridor the understorey is quite sparse, disturbed or overrun with lantana and other woody weeds making these areas poorly suitable for native terrestrial mammals. This was reflected in the survey results with low recordings of native rats and antechinus and higher occurrence of introduced Black Rats.

The over storey alternatively is well developed throughout and maintains a high-quality corridor for arboreal fauna movement. The naturally occurring canopy species present within the study area are generally all well represented within different portions within the full extent of the corridor. This diversity attracts higher floristically dependent fauna species diversity throughout each represented flowering season.

Arboreal fauna, particularly gliders also utilise the existing golf course to the east as part of their movement corridor as large remnant trees still remain along the edge of fairways. These strips provide the majority of winter-spring flowering Forest Red Gum as well as other planted trees for a few other unique foraging opportunities. Such opportunities do not exist for gliders in the two remaining golf course areas to the north-west and south-west due to the separation of trees present.

The riparian zone on the south western border of the site is made up of a narrow band of weed infested Swamp Oak vegetation which provides little passageway for native terrestrial fauna and arboreal mammals and yet it does offer small connective values to Cattai National Park.

By way of explanation, a corridor is used to ensure wildlife can move between vegetation parcels that contain habitat characteristics suitable for each taxa and foraging opportunities for those taxa. In other words, they need protection and food. They also need mating opportunity and for some wildlife movement opportunity is quite small as they are territorial whilst others are more opportunistic and migrate over larger areas.

For some wildlife the dispersal (home) range is quite small whilst others migrate over larger areas. Where wildlife numbers, particularly some populations, and diversity are in large quantities and require movement to and from large areas (ecosystems) then a suitable large corridor linkage should be provided. Likewise, if a small quantity of wildlife is known to be present then a smaller corridor may accommodate these species / populations adequately.

The proposal is for four (4) development resort precincts located within the existing vegetated areas that contribute to the existing corridor. These precincts are located central to large forest patches or at the edge to retain corridor function along the complete extent (see Figure 10). Bushfire asset protection zones have also been shown and these may contribute to arboreal connectivity only.

The narrow linkages between major forest portions along the existing corridor will not be impacted by the proposal. Some of these narrow linkages have been further fragmented by recent development and restoration of these ‘pinch points’ are priority to improve overall corridor function.

The impact of the proposal in respect to corridor function is the reduction in net size of each of the three (3) large habitat areas. As a result, the corridor widths at these locations will also be reduced from a maximum of approximately 560m, 390m & 370m at their widest sections (see Figure 13) with the minimum widths remaining consistent at less than 50m. Reduced widths of the corridor as a result of Precincts C & D will also provide additional arboreal connectivity within the respective APZs.

Figure 12 – Existing corridor

When accounting for APZs, the corridor size class range (DECCW) of 100-500m will be reduced into the 30-100m class along the edge of each of the major bushland portions. This would provide an inappropriate outcome at these locations by contrast to the current habitat connectivity available. Despite this, the current proposal does consider the following:

• Threatened species mobility – With the exception of the Dural Land Snail the number of threatened fauna species recorded during survey are all flying or gliding species that would not be limited for movement by the reduced widths. The assessment of each individual species will then consider unique habitat features that will be removed within each development area. Retained habitat within the remaining corridor area is considered sufficient and viable for the Dural Land Snail provided that adequate restoration efforts are undertaken.

• Connectivity to adjacent remnant – The cross-site corridor does not provide the only passage for local fauna passage between the habitats outside of the site to the east. Therefore, the corridor is not an important regional corridor but rather provides internal habitat for a diverse fauna assemblage and provides local connective values.

• Ecosystem variation – The development precincts are located on plateau areas and will not subsequently impact on any caves, steep rocky escarpments, or riparian drainages which are contained within the corridor. Tree species present within proposed precinct are also generally well represented outside of these areas within the remaining open forest portions. The major exception to this is the reduction of Grey Gums which typically grow in the sandstone influence plateaus which are a Yellow- bellied Glider sap feed tree species.

Figure 13 – Proposed corridor

Wildlife corridors allow movement of flora and fauna between patches of wildlife habitat (Soule & Gilpin, 1991). The preservation or establishment of corridors to link habitats has been proposed as a practical conservation measure to ameliorate habitat loss and fragmentation effects (Bennett 1990). It is essential for a corridor to have the following characteristics in order to be effective:

• Vegetated corridors that comprise a mosaic of different habitats are considered more likely to contain the necessary food, shelter and nesting resources for fauna. Therefore, corridors that link patches over the entire ecological gradient from ridge to gully would conserve more species, especially those that have large home ranges and changing seasonal requirements (Lindenmayer et al. 1994).

• The quality of the habitat within the corridor is important. Some fauna would reluctantly utilise corridors of low quality, such as areas invaded by weeds or subject to frequent fires, or due to a reduction in the availability of essential resources (such as feeding, shelter, roosting and breeding sites).

• The size of the corridor is also important. For example, corridors with mature trees, but with little or no understorey may afford good habitat for birds, bats and some arboreal fauna, but not for ground-dwelling fauna.

Ambrose reported in 2006 that corridors that are 200 or more metres in width tend to facilitate the movement of all fauna by providing at least some core interior habitat that is not affected by edge environments (Lindenmayer 1994). Corridors between 80 and 200m width tend to be effective at moving many fauna, including some fauna that do not tolerate urban disturbance and fragmentation (such as Sugar Gliders and some forest-dependent birds) (Bennett 1990, Saunders & de Rebeira 1991, Catterall et al 1991, Bentley & Catterall 1997).

Corridors less than 30m in width tend to be effective only for servicing the most tolerant of urban fauna (for instance, Brushtail Possums, Bush Rats, common urban birds, and fauna habitat generalists) (Bentley 1990, Lindenmayer 1994, Catterall et al 1991, Bentley & Catterall 1997). The proposal will reduce the corridor from the first to the second of these categories.

Lynch & Saunders (1991) found that the existence of a well-developed understorey was the single most important vegetation-related factor in corridor use by small bushland birds (Sewell & Catterall 1998). In respect to the degraded nature of much of the existing corridor, whilst these corridors may be reduced in size, their improved quality of understorey may somewhat respond to this impact.

It is therefore recommended that the overall corridor function may also be enhanced by restoration measures of the remaining habitat areas as a valuable offset to habitat loss and improving connectivity in the existing narrow sections. The question remains as to what an acceptable width on this site is.

The previous initial Planning Proposal layout with five precincts and located more centrally within the large western bushland remnant would have resulted in an unacceptable outcome for cross-site connectivity. This is given the high recorded fauna diversity and overall length of this corridor through the site.

Travers bushfire & ecology have considered the current known and likely threatened species and TEC habitat values and we have advised of a recommended development and conservation area layout that also gives adequate consideration to cross-site corridor function (see Figure 12). This concept also eliminates development where Yellow-belied Glider winter foraging and habitat resources such as sap feed trees and two recorded denning areas. The

areas containing higher concentrations of potential remaining denning hollows have also been retained.

The locations of all four precincts have considered maintaining the major cross-site connectivity area (indicated as the blue area on Figure 14). Other secondary connectivity and foraging opportunity for YBG will be provided with canopy only connectivity within managed areas via the following:

• existing retained trees along fairway edges of the older eastern golf course area, • proposed planted trees along fairway edges of the newer western golf course area, • trees fringing the edges of Precincts A, B & C where they about the golf course area. A 15m wide tree protection area will be maintained along the northern fringes of Precincts B & C and a 20m wide tree protection area will be maintained around the northern edge of Precinct A (as required by glider expert Dr Goldingay) specifically to maintain connectivity for YBG between the available foraging resources within the conservation areas and the golf course fairways, and • within APZs. Identified YBG sap feed trees, suitable hollows and foraging trees within APZ will also be prioritised for retention and access where possible.

Further to the above glider poles will be placed at select location to improve connectivity where anticipated canopy breaks will occur including at the entry roundabout pinch-point area.

The current proposal provides better use of the landscape and reduces the fragmentation and edge to width ratio effect on this corridor. Whilst the total habitat area and size of patch remnants will still be reduced and some pinch points will be extended, these may be effectively restored to improve remaining corridor quality.

The locations of proposed development areas therefore have been reviewed to ensure that acceptable corridor widths outside of APZ are considered as a first point and that corridors facilitate currently known and suspected important threatened species habitat.

These newly recommended development areas have progressively (2013/14/19) been refined or expanded to achieve a similar developable area with reduced APZ constraints and subsequently resulting in improved connectivity.

The currently proposed APZs and development areas have been contained within the advised areas. Figure 11 outlines the current pinch-points in connectivity which may be improved as well as areas along the corridor extent that are currently weed infested which may also be improved.

3.7 Barrier effects

Roads and other linear infrastructure have potential to cause direct and indirect barriers effects to wildlife. Barrier effects of such infrastructure are outlined by Van der Ree et al (2007):

• physical obstructions • loss of habitat • removal of foraging and nesting resources • canopy separation • incursion of weeds • increased presence of feral animals • vehicle collisions • altered microclimatic conditions • changes to acoustics

The barrier effects of road construction can potentially limit the behaviour of select fauna species such as small terrestrial species or those that have had their habitat areas removed/divided, whilst others such as microbats may alternatively prosper with better foraging conditions and a more open vegetative landscape.

Ground dwelling animals are generally reported to be inhibited by cleared road corridors of greater than 12m (i.e. single carriage way roads). The loss of direct canopy connectivity above the road is also reported as inhibiting the movement of non-gliding arboreal mammals and canopy gaps of greater than 30m for gliding mammals. Birds and more mobile species have been reported as being affected by loss of vegetative connectivity of between 30-200m subject to the species’ ability to move, endurance, shyness, susceptibility to predation, presence of trees that act as ‘stepping stones’, the presence of key foraging plants or areas and the availability of nest or roosting resources.

The proposal involves the upgrade of the entry road straight leading into the roundabout next to the clubhouse. This road is to be raised gradually up to approximately 4m at the highest point from the existing surface to facilitate access during flood events. Retaining walls will be placed on either side of the raised road with two box culverts placed along the extent. As a result of this upgrade the existing planted avenue trees along at least one side of the road edge will require removal. This is given that raising the road will impact between 1-2m from the edge of road depending on how high the road is lifted. The trees along the northern edge were selected as the priority side for retention, if possible, as they provide greater contribution and buffering to the north-south cross-site corridor vegetation that exists to the immediate north.

The finer ecological effects of raising a pre-existing road structure and placing retaining wall barriers can be determined by the degree of change against the likely species currently making successful passage. In this case the degree of change is the behavioural change of terrestrial fauna species that would typically cross above the road and would alternatively be redirected through the two provided box culverts. The degree of change also includes the loss of trees from at least one side. The change is not likely to impact on flying species however flight behaviour between dams for wading birds and waterfowl will be altered.

The open managed golf course area exists to the immediate south of the southern avenue of planted trees along the existing road edge (see to the south of the roadside corridor at this location on Figure 11). Therefore, with consideration to all recorded terrestrial native fauna species during survey only the Eastern Grey Kangaroo would be considered to make the more regular passage. To a lesser extent the Swamp Wallaby and dispersing frog species could also make passage. Many species have been eliminated from consideration due to the open and managed nature of the landscape in the golf course area to the immediate south, for example reptiles. The European Red Fox and Rabbit likely also currently make this cross-road passage.

The provision of a barrier wall and two 1500 wide x 1200 high box culverts along the majority of this 600m road section will likely redirect all of these species. The macropod species are not expected to utilise these culverts but are highly mobile and can generally access the entire surrounds without significant behavioural change. The redirection of frogs through the culverts will maintain passage, particularly given higher traffic loads, but may increase predation at these pinch points. Therefore, sedges and rock shelters should be provided on either side of the culverts.

The vehicle traffic is expected to increase across the site so the redirection through the culverts is an improvement to reduce collisions at this point which will otherwise increase for the remaining cross site road upgrades.

The upgrade will also include the modification to the roundabout which might include the loss of trees within the centre of the roundabout as well as impacts and potential loss of some trees on either side of the road at the main corridor crossing point. Trees have been identified by GPS however a more detailed road design will be provided at this location as part of future DA stages. It has been recommended to retain trees where possible, particularly large trees on either side of the road within the main corridor section, however glider poles (and/or a fauna rope bridge) will be provided at this location in the event of tree removal or where appropriate.

The road upgrade is therefore not likely to cause any barrier effect to recorded threatened or protected migratory fauna species recorded or with considered potential to occur. All threatened species with potential to occur and make passage across the road at this location are flying or gliding species. With the removal of trees from at least the southern side gliding by gliders will not likely occur anymore at this location anyway. This is not considered a negative impact as the connectivity for gliders beyond these trees to the south is almost diminished and therefore not likely currently used.

The culverts may provide additional roosting opportunity for threatened recorded microbats particularly the Southern Myotis and Bentwing-bats, if small gaps are provided in the ceiling at joining points. This opportunity in the design should be investigated to enhance threatened species habitat opportunity as art of the proposal.

The avenue of trees contains Spotted Gums (Corymbia maculata) and Lemon-scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora) that provide foraging opportunity for nectarivorous species during winter and spring will be reduced from the upgrade. Therefore, the road upgrade along the entry section is not expected to cause any significant barrier effects to native fauna species considered, particularly threatened species. The replanting of roadside vegetation is recommended to replace the existing foraging opportunities that will be lost.

3.8 Potential ecological impacts

The direct, indirect and cumulative ecological impacts have been considered in respect to recorded biodiversity, threatening processes and extent of impact as a result of the proposed works.

The direct impacts of the proposal within the subject site are considered as:

• Removal of hollows suitable for recorded threatened species including Powerful Owl, Little Lorikeet, Gang-gang Cockatoo, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Yellow-bellied Glider, Southern Myotis, East-coast Freetail Bat and Yellow-bellied Sheathtail Bat. • Removal of Yellow-bellied glider sap feed trees including potential removal of one major use tree in Precinct D. This tree also contains one of the few large hollows considered potentially suitable for large forest owls. • Removal of potential breeding habitat for some recorded threatened fauna species (including Yellow-bellied Glider, Varied Sittella and microbats as well as species that may vary and alternate breeding activity). Dr Goldingay has provided advice in regard to the Yellow-bellied Glider and its habitat requirements based on ecological data proffered by TBE. • Reduced extent of open forest habitat within the three large vegetated portions that are present along the existing cross-site corridor and narrowing of corridor function at these additional ‘pinch-points’. • Removal of dead trees for perching use by recorded raptors and Rainbow Bee-eater. • Removal of rock-on-rock shelter habitat. • An impact of 0.27 ha of PCT 877 (Western Sydney Dry Rainforest). • An impact of 27.23 ha of PCT 1395 (Shale Sandstone Transition Forest).

• An impact of 1.94 ha of PCT 835 (River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains). • Up to 29.44 ha loss of vegetated habitat for threatened species. • Subsequent removal of threatened fauna species foraging habitat including: a) Seasonal flowering resources for Yellow-bellied Glider, Little Lorikeet and Grey- headed Flying-fox. b) Seeding Allocasuarina spp. for the recorded Glossy Black-Cockatoo c) Seeding trees for the recorded Gang-gang Cockatoo d) Air space and prey species habitat for recorded Powerful Owl, Varied Sittella, East-coast Freetail Bat, Large Bent-winged Bat, Little Bent-winged Bat and Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat.

The potential indirect impacts of the proposal are considered as:

• All four (4) existing large consolidated areas of habitat will become further fragmented with larger edge to width effects. Displaced animals will then compete in the remaining adjacent habitats. With respect to birds for example, Bell Miner will dominate remaining habitat south of Precinct D and Noisy Miner may dominate other long clearance edge habitats. As a result, the remaining portions of habitat will be less capable of supporting non-dominant bird species. • Edge effects such as further weed incursions will have higher potential to impact into the adjacent remaining natural habitat areas. • Increased presence of dogs and subsequent aural and olfactory attraction of feral dogs and resultant impacts of dogs on native wildlife. • Reduced areas for the existing large Kangaroo population to rest during hot days. Currently the Precinct A area has high rest areas for kangaroos. • Increased spill-over effects from noise, activity, scent and lighting into the adjacent quality natural habitat areas. • Increased soil nutrients from changes to runoff that may provide further opportunities for weed plumes.

The potential cumulative impacts (combined results of past, current and future activities) of the proposal are considered as:

• Increased risk of weed invasion and fungal mobilisation or infections. • Cumulative loss or impacts upon PCTs in the locality. • Cumulative loss or impacts upon endangered ecological communities. • Further fragmentation of the connective remnant and loss of consolidated open forest habitat areas. • Increased varied human presence and activity within the remaining natural habitat areas of the adjacent bushland remnant. • Edge effects from inappropriate use of remaining native vegetation areas such as additional clearing, dumping of materials, dumping of faecal, food or general waste and building refuse.

3.9 Avoid and minimise impacts

The following actions and designing of works have been undertaken to either avoid or minimise impacts on biodiversity values:

3.9.1 Avoidance of impacts

• Major access road located on existing tracks or through existing cleared zones • Development has avoided rocky escarpment areas containing Dry Rainforest and overhangs for microbat roosting opportunity. • Development has avoided existing dams utilised by waterfowl and wading birds including recorded migratory species (Latham’s Snipe) habitat. • Development is located away from riverside habitat. • Avoidance of impacts upon PCTs 1640, 1083, 1106 and 1736. • Direct avoidance of breeding habitat for a number of threatened fauna species. • Avoidance of significant geological site features. • In contrast to the previously approved master plan (1989) the current proposal places the development in four main precincts within the natural landscape instead of scattered throughout. This combined with the required reduced APZs allows larger areas of intact natural vegetation. The placement of the precincts also improves the maintenance of existing connectivity through the site. • Avoidance of impacts on steep slopes that will lessen sediment and erosion impacts. • Consolidation of future development to selected environs as opposed to having them more spread out and reducing connectivity values. • There is an overall reduction of impacts from the 1989 approval.

3.9.2 Mitigation measures

Retained vegetation will be enhanced with the conservation zone and retained vegetation areas as per the DCP.

Other actions proposed for the site to avoid or minimise impacts in the future include the following:

a) Minimise clearing particularly on steeped sloped areas. b) Undertake feral pest management including control of foxes, cats, rabbits, avian pests, and any other miscellaneous species as required. c) Limit vegetation removal in APZs and establishing OPA areas able to maintain trees. d) Integrated weed management under the VMP and control of high threat exotics. This particularly relates to the high occurrence of Lantana through the open forest understorey areas. This will also assist in reducing Bell Miner dominance on remaining habitat. e) Undertake further survey to identify levels of use of caves and overhangs for roosting by microbats and undertake subsequent measure to ensure their protection and longevity at DA stage for Precinct C and D. f) Measures recommended to reduce impacts on Yellow-bellied Glider, some of which required by glider expert Ross Goldingay: a) A detailed monitoring and habitat assessment was undertaken to establish important habitat features and seasonal foraging opportunities for YBG. Development has been located to, where possible, avoid removal and indirect impact on recorded major sap feed trees, activity areas and unique seasonal flowering trees established during the 2013 monitoring (refer to Attachments 1- 8 in the Ecological Assessment report (Travers bushfire & ecology Ref: A15003F2 2016).

b) The design process surrounding Precinct C and the Hotel has been modified to ensure connectivity and varying seasonal foraging opportunities are retained for YBG at this potential pinch point. c) Planting of seasonal foraging trees for Yellow-bellied Gliders along the edges of the western golf course areas (adjacent to the river) to replace the foraging habitat removed. d) Retention of fringing vegetation around the north of Precincts A & C (15m) and Precinct B (20m) to maintain gliding connectivity to the adjacent golf course areas. e) Placement of gliding poles in any locations where connectivity may be compromised. f) A strict hollow removal and recovery process whereby suitable hollows for YBG will be prepared for placement in retained trees. g) Retained important habitat features outside of the biodiversity stewardship site will be protected under an 88B ‘protection’ covenant.

g) Implementaiton of a Vegetation Management Plan. h) Other recommended measures indicated in Section 3.10.

3.10 Recommendations

The following recommendations are made to avoid, minimise or ameliorate the above potential ecological impacts, address threatening processes and to guide a more positive ecological outcome for threatened species and their associated habitats.

The recommendations have been carried forward from the rezoning ecological assessment and remain rtelavent for future DA’s withn the site. Future DA’s may require the following recommended reports to be revised or updated.

Table 3.10 – Recommendation measures

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility Management plans Protection and Vegetation Management Plan management of retained native A Vegetation Management Plan for whole site including the Management In DRAFT Proponent vegetation and following actions: Plan associated habitats (a) Landscaping within the property is to use locally Approval occurring native species commensurate to the Required existing TECs on site, subject to their location within prior to the site. commencem (b) Protection measures for overhangs and small caves ent of works potentially utilised for temporary roosting by microbats. The SAII Impact Assessment on candidate SAII subterranean roosting/breeding microbats (refer to Appendix 3) has identified that such further measures are of importance to protect the identified bat roosts potentially utilised by these species. These measures include: ▪ Control foxes and feral cats around roosting sites, ▪ Retain native vegetation around roost sites, ▪ Minimise the use of pesticides in foraging areas. ▪ Protect roosting sites from damage or disturbance.

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility (c) Limit access to remnant vegetation areas which should remain as conservation value items and not recreational areas. (d) Appropriate ecological burn regimes. (e) Prioritised weed control. (f) Revegetation of mid-storey species in areas that have been heavily grazed or in patches of Lantana. (g) Hollow relocation and nest box installation. (h) Sediment and erosion control. (i) Prioritise restoration works at identified pinch-points along the cross-site corridor (j) Prioritise removal of Lantana in locations of Bell Miner colonies (Precinct D) to prevent this species dominance of remaining habitat areas. (k) Relocation of terrestrial habitat resources such as rock slabs and hollow logs. (l) Avoid direct and indirect impacts upon the Western Sydney Dry Rainforest if possible, to limit any impacts on recorded regionally significant species. (m) Undertake feral pest management, also including control of cats, dogs, foxes, rabbits, avian pests, and black rats. (n) Revegetation works in heavily grazed or weed dominated areas to promote natural and assisted regeneration. (o) Undertake weed management and habitat restoration within retained habitat areas to enrich use potential of remaining fragments. Prioritise habitat restoration areas in consideration to cross-site corridor function. Areas where narrow corridor gaps (pinch points) occur and highly degraded understory areas should be restored as a first measure to offset habitat loss along the complete existing cross-site local corridor. (p) Vegetation plantings should be undertaken outside of APZs but between proposed development areas and retained habitat areas to attempt to reduce lighting and noise spill-over into these habitat areas. These vegetated screenings should consider lighting locations for roads and pathways (q) Fencing (prior to and during construction) - Where they adjoin the development areas, the boundaries of the conservation areas shall be clearly marked out on- site to ensure their protection. All areas of natural vegetation retention shall be protected by fencing, prior to construction, to ensure that these areas are not damaged during the construction phase (r) Project ecologist (prior to and during construction) - Construction activities will be intermittently supervised on-site and monitored by a project ecologist to ensure that the recommendations of this report are implemented. All staff involved with the development shall undergo an induction and training program to reinforce the ecological and environmental objectives of the development (s) Undertake water quality testing (prior to and during construction) to ensure no eutrophication of the wetlands on site. (t) The VMP is to be progressed in parallel with the concept Masterplan DA assessment.

Protection and Yellow-bellied Glider Habitat Management Action Plan Management In progress Proponent management of Plan Yellow-bellied Glider The management of the Yellow-bellied Glider habitat will be Approval Habitat specified through the preparation of a Yellow-bellied Glider Required prior to

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility Habitat Management Action Plan (YBG – MAP). The YBG- commencem MAP is to specifically address: ent of works

a) Identify critical points of connectivity for YBG based on presence of appropriate sap trees, hollows and glide capabilities. b) Future monitoring of the YBG family group(s) should be undertaken under the guidance of Dr Ross Goldingay. Monitoring is to be undertaken for a 3-year period post-construction. Ideally a baseline level of monitoring should occur before the development takes place, given that several years may have elapsed since the previous YBG surveys. These surveys should use song meters to monitor YBG activity at approximately 6 locations across the site and should each cover a period of at least 2 months. c) Dr Goldingay has recommended that clearance of vegetation for the precinct development areas should be staged such that the clearance is not undertaken at the same time. Clearance for Precinct A should be undertaken last. d) Cats are prohibited for any new development unless specified housing, tagging and tracking devices requirements are met and no dogs are permitted to be kept in lots around the precinct perimeter. e) All street and footpath lighting adjacent to the conservation area should be constructed to minimal height standards and directed downwards with lighting baffles to prevent lighting spill over into the natural habitat areas. Houses and facilities around the perimeter of each precinct are to also have controlled lighting to prevent any excessive spill over onto either the conservation areas or the connectivity avenues along the golf course interface. Lighting at Precinct B should be so there is no spill over towards the nearby areas where a second YBG den is located across the fairway to the nearby north. This may require replanting a vegetated fringe across the northern edge of this precinct. f) The selection of trees to retain within APZs should consider the following trees in order of priority: (i) Identified YBG Sap feed trees (ii) Identified hollows suitable for YBG (iii) Mature Yellow Bloodwood trees in good health surrounding Precinct B (as identified on Figure 7a of the Ecological Assessment report by TBE 2016) (iv) Other trees of most likely foraging importance for YBG including Grey Gum, Forest Red Gum, Red Bloodwood (v) Other Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Angophora trees g) An 88B ‘protection’ covenant is to be applied over all other locations of important YBG current and future habitat areas. This includes: ▪ All trees within the identified areas containing den trees ▪ Fringing connectivity trees within the tree protection areas surrounding Precincts A, B & C.

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility ▪ Replanting areas between fairways in the new 18-hole golf course area adjacent to the Hawkesbury River. ▪ All trees between the fairways of the original 18-hole golf course that is indicated of connectivity importance on Figure 14. ▪ Trees identified as sap or potential denning hollows within APZs h) Detailed GPS surveys of all trees within the retained connective fringes for gliders surrounding Precincts A, B & C should be undertaken at the DA stage. This survey will incorporate a tree health assessment such that the connective viability may be predicted following the selected removal of trees in notable poor health. i) Tree retention and tree planting should occur around the development precincts to facilitate movement by gliders across the subject site. In particular, some tree retention around Precinct A. j) Tree retention and supplementation is needed on the northern edge of the road that traverses the site, to facilitate movement of gliders between the southern areas and the north. k) Planting of swamp mahogany and forest red gum trees along the edges of the golf course fairways north of Precinct C and along the fairways in the south-west parts of the site should occur for the purposes of providing additional winter-flowering habitat for YBGs to compensate for the loss of habitat caused by the proposed development. It will also provide greater habitat connectivity across the subject site. Tree planting densities for revegetation areas in the ‘rough’ are to be planted at 1 tree per 150m2 with the following species mix; 35% Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), 35% Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) and 30% mixed local myrtaceous trees. Trees will be planted ideally at distance of 10-15m apart and no greater than 20m apart.

Management of Pets Pet Management Plan for Residential Precincts Management On hold Proponent and mitigation of plan potential impacts A pet management plan is to be prepared and incorporated approval within the Community statement of the whole and site and required prior within each precinct to precinct DA approval Management of Over Abundant Kangaroo Management Plan Not required Drafted and Proponent Kangaroos for DA part of the A Kangaroo management plan is to be prepared and approval overarching incorporated within the Community statement of the whole Biodiversity and site and within each precinct Stewardship Site Management Plan Management of pest Pest Management Plan Required for Proponent fauna mitigation of master plan potential impacts A pest management plan is to be prepared and incorporated approval within the Community statement of the whole and site and proposed to within each precinct. It is to include management measures be a for foxes, rabbits, cats, dogs and black rats. condition of consent Management of Biodiversity Stewardship Site (BSS) Management plan Prior to Drafted Proponent Biodiversity establishme Stewardship Site and nt of

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility compliance BCT A Biodiversity Stewardship Site (BSS) Management plan is biodiversity approval to be prepared for conservation lands as specified in the stewardship above BDAR. Note this document is to be embodied within site as the approved vegetation management plan for the entire site approved by . the Biodiversity Conservatio n Trust Identification and Target microbat survey for roost sites To be In progress Proponent protection of undertaken Microbats caves and Some small caves / overhangs along the escarpments for precinct roots located outside of the proposed development areas have DA consent demonstrated temporary roosting activity by microbats. between Further survey is recommended to determine the species November and frequency of use of these overhangs. Any regularly used and January sites warrant additional measures (such as fencing) to prevent people entering these habitat areas.

Trapping survey should be undertaken during the mid- November to end of January period to satisfy the ‘species credit’ threatened bats and their habitats guidelines. Detailed searches of the existing overhangs during this period have been undertaken to conclude that these are not of any likely breeding importance. However, the guidelines do state that roosting can be cryptic and breeding habitat should effectively be determined by the presence of breeding individuals during trapping surveys on site, regardless if they are directly present within the potential breeding habitat. This further survey will also effectively advise the SAII assessment for these two candidate species.

Detailed searches of these habitat features have been undertaken during the summer breeding period and no maternity colony or any roosting during this time was recorded.

Nonetheless these are notable habitat features requiring protection from indirect impacts associated with the proposal. These features are to be strictly protected from any lighting spill-over, human or pet disturbance.

Lighting adjacent to the overhangs should be constructed to minimal height standards and directed downwards with lighting baffles to prevent lighting spill over towards the natural habitat areas. This may also require planting a vegetated shrub layer / hedging barrier between the overhangs and lighting locations. This will need to be suitable for APZ inner protection area standards of <15% canopy cover and therefore will need to be strategically placed away from existing mature trees to be retained.

No cats or dogs should be permitted within the study area. There should be signage at the site entry to ensure this. Identification of Rainbow Bee-eater survey Prior to In progress Proponent breeding locations for Precinct DA Rainbow Bee-eater It is recommended that more recent summer surveys are consent undertaken to establish any breeding locations of the Rainbow Bee-eater so that such locations, where and if present, can have appropriate measures undertaken to reduce nesting disturbance.

Protect Dural Land Dural Land Snail Survey & Relocation Protocol Prior to In progress Proponent Snail habitat and Precinct DA relocate affected live Prior to any habitat removal, a search for living Dural Land consent specimens Snail specimens within the development areas is to be

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility undertaken by a fauna ecologist following rainfall. Recovered specimens are to be relocated into retained habitat areas and a monitoring of success undertaken. A snail relocation and mitigation protocol is to be prepared by the project ecologist. A snail expert should be engaged to oversee the final snail relocation / monitoring plan preparation; and its eventual implementation and monitoring.

General fauna Fauna habitat protection and impact mitigation measures In progress Proponent protection and impact mitigation measures A complete hollow-bearing tree survey is to be undertaken within the proposed development areas to identify hollow resources in these areas. This is so that potential habitat for hollow-dependent species can be identified and quantified. Where possible the trees should be retained in-situ.

a) The felling of hollow-bearing trees is to be Condition of conducted under the supervision of a fauna consent and ecologist to ensure appropriate animal welfare pre- procedures are taken, particularly for threatened construction species. Hollows of high quality or with fauna for each recorded residing within should be dismantled for precinct DA relocation and all hollows should be inspected for occupation, signs of previous activity and potential for reuse. b) Subsequent hollows of retention value are to be Condition of relocated to nearby conservation areas. If these are consent and placed as on ground habitat and are not reattached pre- to a new recipient tree then they are to be replaced construction with appropriately sized nest boxes affixed to a for each retained tree. All hollow sections considered precinct DA suitable for Yellow-bellied Glider should where possible be recovered and prepared for placement into an appropriate retained tree. c) Constructed nest boxes should as priority target Condition of recorded hollow-dependent threatened species consent and (and their prey species). Boxes should be pre- constructed of weatherproof timber (marine ply), construction fasteners and external paint and appropriately for each affixed to a recipient tree under the guidance of a precinct DA fauna ecologist. d) If a threatened species is found to be occupying the Condition of hollow at the time of removal then this hollow consent and section is to be reattached to a recipient tree within pre- the nearby conservation areas as selected and construction directed by the fauna ecologist. The welfare and for each temporary holding of the residing animal(s) is at the precinct DA discretion of the fauna ecologist. e) The relocated hollow section and nest boxes Condition of should be well secured in the recipient tree in a consent and manner that will not compromise the current or pre- future health of that tree. construction for each precinct DA

f) Similarly with hollows, rocky shelter habitat and Condition of quality terrestrial shelter logs are to be relocated consent and from development areas into conserved habitat. pre- This is to be done under the supervision of a fauna construction ecologist to ensure best habitat outcomes, such as for each high surface area rock on rock shelter outcomes. precinct DA

g) If any fauna species, a nest or roost is located Condition of during development works, then works should consent and

Matter/potential Recommended response/Action Timing/mile Status Responsi impact/potential risk stone. bility cease until safe relocation can be advised by a pre- contact fauna ecologist. construction for each precinct DA

h) The proposed road design stage should retain Pre or during trees where possible on either side of the entry construction road through the identified corridor area (at the entry roundabout). Where these trees require removal glider pole(s) and rope bridges may be required to ensure connectivity is maintained at this location. i) The exact location of these poles is to be Pre or during determined following more detailed road construction engineering designs where the true impact on adjacent trees can be more accurately determined. Such locations will need to consider the current pedestrian crossing as well as any lighting. Lighting of this area should be minimised particularly on either side of the road at the identified corridor. j) The tree located in the southern edge of Precinct D As part of a is a significant habitat tree. This is identified as a condition of major Yellow-bellied Glider sap feed tree, consent containing a large hollow suitable for large-forest owls, and several other hollows including hollows suitable for Yellow-bellied Glider. This Grey Gum is a suspected YBG den tree. This tree should be retained within the APZ of Precinct D where possible. k) The replanting of roadside vegetation along the Construction entry road upgrade section is recommended to or post- replace the existing foraging opportunities that will construction be lost. The current avenue of Lemon-scented Gum provides a unique late autumn flowering resource for gliders. These trees that are removed due to the road upgrade should be replanted along the new road-edges. Sedges and rock shelters for frogs should also be provided on either side of the two proposed under-road culverts to reduce predation at these pinch points. l) The proposed culverts along the entry road During upgrade have opportunity to provide additional construction roosting habitat for threatened recorded microbats particularly the Southern Myotis and Bentwing- bats. Small gaps are to be provided in the ceiling at joining points. If this is not achieved then custom constructed bat boxes should be fixed to the completed ceiling. This is to enhance threatened species habitat opportunity as part of the proposal.

3.11 Biodiversity credit results

3.11.1 Offset requirements assessed in accordance with the BAM calculator

The following impacts were assessed using the BAM calculator:

• 1.9 ha* of PCT 835 • 0.3 ha* of PCT 877 • 27.2 ha* of PCT 1395 • Loss of habitat for threatened species, including species credits for Gang-gang Cockatoo, Glossy Black-Cockatoo, Large-eared Pied Bat, Southern Myotis, Barking Owl, Dural Woodland Snail, Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens and Eastern Cave Bat.

*Note: the BAM calculator rounds impact requirements to the nearest 0.1 ha, hence the discrepancy with the values stated elsewhere in the BDAR.

The habitat on site is poor for Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens. Whilst surveys have undertaken across most areas of potential, they have not been undertaken during the seasonal survey requirements of Sep-Oct. Surveys have been undertaken in late November in recent years. Whilst there is a low likelihood of occurrence, for the purposes of undertaken the BAM-C, ten (10) specimens were assumed as being present.

3.11.2 Impacts not requiring offset

All areas of native vegetation impact will require offsetting and have been accounted for in the BAM calculator. All of the zones had a vegetation integrity score above the minimum requirements.

3.11.3 Areas not requiring assessment

Cleared areas within the development footprint will have a zero (0) vegetation integrity score and are not required to be offset. These areas have no native vegetation or only a few selected herbs or groundcovers. All other vegetated areas within the development footprint have been accounted for in 5.5.1.

3.11.4 Ecosystem credits and species credits

Ecosystem credits and species credits that measure the impact of the development on biodiversity values have been calculated, assuming full removal of vegetation for roads and development whereby the vegetation integrity score is assumed to be zero (0).

Thinning of vegetation and management within APZs will reduce both cover and abundance (and potentially species richness). The result of this means that all impacted areas will still have some future biodiversity value, and as such, the future vegetation integrity score will be above 0. There will be a significant drop in the scores, but as they still retain some value, the number of credits required is less. Future vegetation integrity score for each vegetation zone at the development site is shown in section 2.7.5.

Habitat suitability for threatened species has been considered in section 2. Some species are considered for species credits, particularly if potential breeding habitat is compromised or impacted.

Ecosystem credits for plant community types (PCTs), ecological communities and threatened species habitat is shown below in Table 3.11. Species credits for threatened species are shown in Table 3.12.

Given that there is a 1989 masterplan approval, we are only seeking credits for the areas of impact outside of these in accordance with the current 2019 concept masterplan. The proportioned credit values are shown in the final columns and highlighted in orange.

Table 3.11 – Requirement for ecosystem credits

Zone PCT and Veg. Area Biodiversity Candidate Ecosystem Proportion of code integrity (ha) risk weighting SAII credits based credits not loss on the current approved 2019 concept under the 1989 masterplan masterplan 1 835 good 43.4 1.9 2.00 42 30 2 877 good 41.3 0.3 2.00 true 6 1 3 1395 good 51.7 27.2 2.50 true 880 279 Total 928 310

Table 3.12 - Species credits for candidate threatened species

Veg. zone Veg. Area (ha) Biodiversity Candidate Species Proportion Species credits name integrity risk SAII credits for of impacts based on loss weighting 2019 concept impacts outside masterplan of the approved 1989 masterplan Gang-gang Cockatoo 1395 good 51.7 27.23 2.00 false 704 Subtotal: 704 33.4% 235 Glossy Black-Cockatoo 1395 good 51.7 27.23 2.00 false 704 Subtotal: 704 33.4% 235 Large-eared Pied Bat 835 good 43.4 1.94 3.00 true 63 877 good 41.3 0.27 3.00 true 8 1395 good 51.7 27.23 3.00 true 1,056 Subtotal: 1127 33.4% 376 Southern Myotis 835 good 43.4 1.94 2.00 false 39 877 good 41.3 0.27 2.00 false 6 1395 good 51.7 27.23 2.00 false 339 Subtotal: 384 33.4% 128 Barking Owl 1395 good 51.7 27.23 2.00 false 704 Subtotal: 704 33.4% 235 Dural Woodland Snail 1395 good 51.7 27.23 2.00 false Subtotal: 704 33.4% 235 Eastern Cave Bat 835 good 43.4 1.94 3.00 true 63

Table 3.13 – Ecosystem credit summary

PCT TEC Area (ha) Credits - Credits - 2019 proportioned masterplan for approved 1989 impacts 835 - Forest Red Gum - Rough- River-flat Eucalypt 1.9 42 30 barked Apple grassy woodland on Forest on Coastal alluvial flats of the Cumberland Floodplains Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion 877 - Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of Western Sydney Dry 0.3 6 1 the Sydney Basin Bioregion and Rainforest in the South East Corner Bioregion Sydney Basin Bioregion 1395 - Narrow-leaved Ironbark - Shale Sandstone 27.2 880 279 Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum Transition Forest in open forest of the edges of the the Sydney Basin Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion Bioregion

Table 3.14 – Credit classes for PCT 877 and 1395 - Like for like options

PCT Trade with PCTs Trading Containing In IBRA subregions groups HBT 835 - Forest Red River-Flat Eucalypt Forest Coastal Yes Yengo, Cumberland, Gum - Rough-barked on Coastal Floodplains of Floodplain Hunter, Kerrabee, Apple grassy the New South Wales Wetlands Pittwater, Wollemi woodland on alluvial North Coast, Sydney >90% and Wyong. flats of the Basin and South East or Cumberland Plain, Corner Bioregions Any IBRA subregion Sydney Basin (including PCT's 686, that is within 100 Bioregion 828, 835, 839, 941, 971, kilometers of the 1064, 1108, 1109, 1212, outer edge of the 1228, 1232, 1293, 1318, impacted site. 1326, 1386, 1522, 1556, 1594, 1618, 1646, 1648, 1720, 1794, 1800) 877 - Grey Myrtle dry Western Sydney Dry Dry Yes Yengo, Cumberland, rainforest of the Rainforest in the Sydney Rainforests Hunter, Kerrabee, Sydney Basin Basin Bioregion (including <50% Pittwater, Wollemi Bioregion and South PCT's 877) and Wyong.

PCT Trade with PCTs Trading Containing In IBRA subregions groups HBT East Corner or Bioregion Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. 1395 - Narrow- Shale Sandstone Coastal Yes Yengo, Cumberland, leaved Ironbark - Transition Forest in the Valley Hunter, Kerrabee, Broad-leaved Sydney Basin Bioregion Grassy Pittwater, Wollemi Ironbark - Grey Gum (including PCT's 792, Woodlands and Wyong. open forest of the 1281, 1395) >=70% and or edges of the <90% Any IBRA subregion Cumberland Plain, that is within 100 Sydney Basin kilometers of the Bioregion outer edge of the impacted site.

Table 3.15 – Species credit summary

Species Area (ha) Credits - 2019 Credits - masterplan proportioned for approved 1989 impacts Callocephalon fimbriatum / Gang-gang Cockatoo 27.23 704 235 Calyptorhynchus lathami / Glossy Black-Cockatoo 27.23 704 235 Chalinolobus dwyeri / Large-eared Pied Bat 29.44 1127 376 Myotis macropus / Southern Myotis 15.17 384 128 Ninox connivens / Barking Owl 27.23 704 235 Pommerhelix duralensis / Dural Woodland Snail 27.23 704 235 Vespadelus troughtoni / Eastern Cave Bat 29.44 1127 376 Epacris purpurascens 10 15 5 specimens

3.12 Credit impact on 1989 approved masterplan

Given there is an approved masterplan for the site in 1989, the numbers of credits required for the development should only be accounted for where the 2019 concept masterplan goes beyond those boundaries. To evaluate the residual impacts from the 2019 concept masterplan, the credits generated by the full impact (Table 3.16 and 3.17) need to be reduced by the relevant proportion.

If credits are only sought for the vegetation impacts beyond the boundary of the approved masterplan of 1989, the credits required overall are reduced to 33.4%, with a significant reduction of credits for PCT 1395 from 880 to 279. Table C shows the details of the breakdown in credits per PCT and Table D shows the difference in species credits between the current and approved masterplans.

Given that there is an approved development on site, we seek only to acquire the reduced credit requirements referred to in Table 3.16 and 3.17.

Table 3.16 - Ecosystem credit review based on approved 1989 masterplan

PCT Total Area of Proportion Total Proportion impacted impact covered credits of credits area in 2019 beyond the under the based on not concept 1989 1989 the 2019 approved masterplan approved approved concept under the (ha) masterplan masterplan masterplan 1989 (ha) (%) masterplan 835 - Forest Red Gum - Rough- 1.94 1.38 71.13 42 30 barked Apple grassy woodland on alluvial flats of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion 877 - Grey Myrtle dry rainforest of 0.27 0.001 0.37 6 1 (only the Sydney Basin Bioregion and because South East Corner Bioregion there is an impact) 1395 - Narrow-leaved Ironbark - 27.23 8.64 31.73 880 279 Broad-leaved Ironbark - Grey Gum open forest of the edges of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin Bioregion Total 928 310 (33.4%)

Table 3.17 - Species credit review based on approved 1989 masterplan

Figure 14 – Conservation outcomes (Overview)

Figure 15 – Conservation outcomes (Yellow-bellied Glider)

Figure 16 – Species credit species polygons

Figure 17 – Candidate SAII - Serious & Irreversible Impacts (SAIIs)

SECTION 4.0 – CONCLUSIONS

Conclusions 4

Travers bushfire & ecology has been engaged by Nanshan Holdings (Aust) Pty Ltd to prepare a biodiversity development assessment report (BDAR) at the Riverside Oaks Golf Course, Cattai. The purpose of the assessment is for a development proposal summarised into a concept masterplan to enable four (4) proposed residential precinct areas and a hotel to be built.

Ecological survey and assessment have been undertaken in accordance with relevant legislation including the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and the Fisheries Management Act 1994.

4.1 Legislative compliance

In respect of matters required to be considered under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and relating to the species / provisions of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016, the following threatened biodiversity has been recorded within the study area.

• Fifteen (15) threatened fauna species including Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), Little Eagle (Hieraaetus morphnoides), White-bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami), Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum), Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis), Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris), Southen Myotis (Myotis macropus), East-coast Freetail Bat (Micronomus norfolkensis), Large Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus orianae oceansis), Little Bent- winged Bat (Miniopterus australis) and Dural Land Snail (Pommerhelix duralensis).

• Four (4) TECs, River-flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains, Western Sydney Dry Rainforest, Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains and Shale Sandstone Transition Forest were recorded within the study area. Note that Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains will not be impacted by the Masterplan proposal.

• No threatened flora species were recorded.

In respect of matters required to be considered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, two (2) threatened fauna species Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) and Dural Land Snail (Pommerhelix duralensis), two (2) protected migratory bird species Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) and Latham’s Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii), no threatened flora species, and two (2) TECs, Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin and Western Sydney Dry Rainforest and Moist Shale Woodland listed under this Act were recorded within the study area.

Likely to significantly affect threatened species, threatened communities or threatened populations

Serious and irreversible impacts

The assessment of serious and irreversible impacts is set out under Section 6.7.2 of the BC Reg 2017 to guide the determining authority on this decision. These principles have been reviewed and assessed in Appendix 3 & 4. The impact on SSTF has been assessed as a candidate SAII. Despite the impact, the proportion of impact is only 0.33% within the IBRA subregion. Given the proposed rehabilitation works, and securing of other SSTF on site, the overall conclusion was that the proposal is not likely to have a SAII on biodiversity values.

The impact assessment provisions for threatened species outlined under Section 9.1.2 of the BAM (2020) have been applied to the recorded Little Bent-winged Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat as well as two species prompted for assessment by the BAM calculator including Large- eared Pied Bat and Eastern Cave Bat (refer to Appendix 3). The latter two (2) have not been recorded present but have assumed presence given the absence of target microbat surveys during warmer months in the last five (5) years. This assessment has been undertaken to guide the determining authority on potential SAIIs caused by the proposal. No SAII is expected on these threatened fauna species however further surveys to determine breeding individuals of Large-eared Pied Bat and Eastern Cave Bat is still required to demonstrate the study area does not form important breeding habitat.

Shale Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) as well as Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (WSDR) are listed in the BAM calculator as a candidate ecological community that meets the SAII principles and criteria. The thresholds for clearing of these communities have not yet been published to determine if they meet the criteria. The proposal impacts on both SSTF and WSDR, and these TECs have been assessed against the SAII criteria (refer to Appendix 4).

Significant impact under the FM Act

In respect of matters relative to the FM Act, the study area fronts approximately 1.6km along the Hawkesbury River which provides potential threatened fish species habitat. The proposed activity is not located in an area identified as critical habitat therefore very unlikely to have a detrimental effect on water quality, water quantity or any direct / indirect impacts upon threatened fish species habitat from the proposed action. Therefore, a species impact statement should not be required for the proposed development in regard to fish species.

There will be no significant impact on matters listed under the FM Act.

Significant impact under the EPBC Act

The proposed subdivision development was considered to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance for Shale Sandstone Transition Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. As such, a referral to Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment (Commonwealth) is recommended.

4.2 Additional works

Further ecological surveys will be required for individual Precinct DA’s. It has also been determined that some additional survey work is beneficial to refinining potential or known breeding habitat of selected species where survey has not been fully adequate to rule out species presence and thus species credits have been attracted to the Masterplan proposal. If further survey is undertaken, this may rule out the presumed presence of a few additional fauna species and thus could reduce the credit obligations and associated costs.

Bibliography

Ambrose, S. (2007) Supplementary Fauna Survey and Assessment – Proposed Plant Nursery, Enterprise Drive, Glenning Valley, Ambrose Ecological Services.

Allison, F. R., Hoye, G. A. and Law, B. S. (2008) East-coast Free-tailed Bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis). In The Mammals of Australia. 3rd Ed. Reed Books

Auld, B. A. & Medd, R. W. (1996) Weeds. Inkata Press.

Bannerman, S. M. & Hazelton, P. A. (1990) Soil Landscapes of the Penrith 1:100 000 Sheet. Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney.

Barker, J., Grigg, G. C. & Tyler, M. J. (1995) A Field Guide to Australian Frogs. Surrey Beatty & Sons.

Barnett, J. L., Howe, R. A. and Humphreys, W. F. (1978) The use of habitat components by small mammals in eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 3: 277-285.

Barrett, G., Silcocks, A., Barry S., Cunningham R. & Poulte, R. (2003) The New Atlas of Australian Birds. Birds Australia, Melbourne.

Bennett, A. F. (1990a) Habitat Corridors: Their Role in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Department of Conservation and Environment, Victoria.

Bennett, A. F. (1990b) Habitat corridors and the conservation of small mammals in a fragmented forest environment. Landscape Ecology. 4: 109-122.

Benson, D. H. (1986) The Vegetation of the Gosford and Lake Macquarie 1:100,000 Sheet.

Bentley, J. M. and Catteral, C. P. (1997) The use of bushland, corridors and linear remnants by birds in south-eastern Queensland, Australia. Conservation Biology. 11: 1173-1189.

Bishop, T. (1996) Field Guide to the Orchids of New South Wales and Victoria. UNSW Press.

Blakers, M., Davies, S. J. J. F. and Reilly, P. N. (1984) The Atlas of Australian Birds. (Melbourne University Press: Melbourne)

Briggs, J. D. & Leigh, J. H. (1995) Rare or Threatened Australian Plants. CSIRO.

Caterall, C. P., Green, R. J. and Jones, D. N. (1991) Habitat use by birds across a forest- suburb interface in Brisbane: implications for corridors. In: Saunders, D.A. & Hobbs, R. J. (eds). Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton.

Churchill, S. (2008) Australian Bats, 2nd Ed., Jacana Books, Crows Nest, Sydney.

Clout, M. N. (1989) Foraging behaviour of Glossy Black-Cockatoos. Australian Wildlife Research, 16:467-473.

Cogger, H. G. (1996) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. Reed Books Australia.

Cogger, H. G. (2000) Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia (sixth edition). Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Courtney, J. & Debus, S. J. S. (2006) Breeding habits and conservation status of the Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna and Little Lorikeet G. pusilla in Northern New South Wales. Australian Field Ornithology 23, 109-124.

DEC (2004) Threatened Species Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for developments and activities (working draft), New South Wales Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville, NSW.

DECC (2008) Bio-banking Methodology.

DECC (2008) Hygiene protocol for the control of disease in frogs. Information Circular Number 6. DECC (NSW), Sydney South.

DECCW & Water NSW (2010). NSW Wetlands Policy – NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change.

DEWHA. 2010. Survey guidelines for Australia's threatened bats. Department of Environment Water Heritage and Arts.

Dwyer, P. D. (1995a) Common Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii). In The Mammals of Australia. R. Strahan (Ed.) Reed Books, Chatswood.

Dwyer, P. D. (1995b) Little Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus australis). In The Mammals of Australia. R. Strahan (Ed.) Reed Books, Chatswood.

Ecotone Ecological Consultants (1994) Bat Survey of Wyrrabalong National Park. Draft report prepared for the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service.

Ehmann, H. (1997) Threatened Frogs of New South Wales. FATS Group.

EPBC (1999) Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 - Interactive Map Database Search - http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/pmst /pmst-coordinate.jsf

EPBC Listing Advice (2009) Advice to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee on an amendment to the List of Threatened Ecological Communities and the EPBC Act 1999 – Cumberland Plain Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest.

French, K., Paterson, I., Miller, J. and Turner, R. J. (1993) Nectarivorous bird assemblages in Box-Ironbark Woodlands in the Capertee Valley, New South Wales. Emu 103, 345- 356.

Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G. M. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Garnett, S. T. and Crowley, G. M. (2000) The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2000. (Natural Heritage Trust). Environment Australia, Canberra, ACT.

Goldingay, R. L. (2008) Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis). In The Mammals of Australia. 3rd Ed. New Holland, Australia.

Goldingay, R. L. and Kavanagh, R. P. (1991) The Yellow-bellied Glider: a review of its ecology and management considerations. In Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna. D. Lunney (Ed.). The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Sydney, pp. 365- 375.

Griffiths, K. (1997) Frogs and Reptiles of the Sydney Region. University NSW Press.

Harden, G. (1993) Flora of New South Wales. University NSW Press.

Higgins, P. J. (Ed) (1999) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volume 4: Parrots to Dollarbird. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Horton, P. & Black, A. B. (2006) The Little Lorikeet in South Australia, with notes on the historical status of other lorikeets. South Australian Ornithologist 34, 229-243.

Hoser, R. (1989) Australian Reptiles and Frogs. Pierson & Co.

Hoye, G. (1995) A Bat Survey of the Morisset Forestry District - EIS for State Forests.

Hoye, G. A. & Hall L. S. (2008) Large Bent-winged Bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceansis). In The Mammals of Australia. R. Strahan (Ed.) Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Irish, P. and Kavanagh, R. (2011) Distribution, habitat preference and conservation status of the Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) in The Hills Shire, north western Sydney. Australian Zoologist. Vol. 35 (4) 941-952

IUCN (2008) Guidelines for using the IUCN Red List Categories and Criteria. Version 7.0. Standards and Petitions Working Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission Biodiversity Assessments Sub-committee, Switzerland

Kavanagh, R. P. (1997) Ecology and Management of Large Forest Owls in South-eastern Australia. PhD thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Lamp, C. & Collett, F. (1996) A Field Guide to Weeds in Australia. Inkata Press.

Lavazanian, E., Wallis, R. and Webster, A. (1994) Diet of the Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua) living near Melbourne, Victoria. Wildlife Research, 21: 643-646.

Lindenmayer, D. B. (1994) Wildlife Corridors and the mitigation of logging impacts on fauna in wood production forests in south-eastern Australia: a review. Wildlife Resources. 21:323-340.

Lindenmayer, D. B. Cunningham, R. B., Donnelly, C. F., Triggs, B. J. and Belvedere, M. (1994) The conservation of arboreal marsupials in montane ash forests of the Central Highlands of Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Patterns of use and the microhabitat requirements of the Leadbeater’s Possum Gymnobelidus leadbeateri in linear retained habitats (wildlife corridors). Biological Conservation. 68 43-51.

Lindsey, T. R. (1992) Encyclopedia of Australian Animals - Birds. Angus and Robertson Publishers, Sydney.

Lunney, D., Urquart, C .A. & Reed, P. (1988) Koala Summit, NPWS.

Marchant, S., & P. J. Higgins (Eds) (1990) Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Volumes 1-7 Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Morrison, R. G. B. (1981) A Field Guide to the Tracks & Traces of Australian Animals. Rigby.

NSW Office Environment & Heritage (2011) Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea Gould 1837 - vulnerable species listing,

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1997) Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

NSW Scientific Committee (2001) Final Determination to list the Gang-gang Cockatoo as a vulnerable species in NSW. NPWS Hurstville.

NSW Scientific Committee (2007) Little Lorikeet analysis November 2007. Hurstville

Noske, R. A. (1998) Social Organisation and Nesting Biology of the Cooperatively-breeding Varied Sittella Daphoenositta chrysoptera in North-eastern New South Wales. Emu Austral Ornithology 98(2), 85-96.

OEH (2014) Biobanking Assessment Methodology.

OEH (2018) ‘Species credit’ threatened bats and their habitats, NSW survey guide for the Biodiversity Assessment Method

OEH (2019) Atlas of NSW Wildlife (Bionet) for the relevant 1:100,000 scale map sheet.

Olsen, P., Weston, M., Tzarosm C. & Silcocks, A. (2005) The state of Australia’s birds 2005: Woodlands and Birds. Supplement to Wingspan 15(4), 32pp.

Parnaby, H. (1992) An interim guide to identification of insectivorous bats of south-eastern Australia. The Australian Museum, Sydney, Technical Report, No. 8.

Phillips, S. & Callaghan, J. (2008) The Spot Assessment Technique: a tool for determining levels of localised habitat use by Koalas Phascolartoc cinereus. Aust. Koala Foundation. Manuscript submitted to: Ecological management and Restoration

Pizzey, G. & Knight, F. (1999) A Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Angus & Robertson

Readers Digest (1976) Complete Book of Australian Birds.

Richardson, F. J., Richardson, R. G. & Shepherd, R. C. H (2007) Weeds of the South-East: an Identification Guide for Australia. Everbest Printing Co. Pty. Ltd. China.

Richards, G. C. (2008) Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris). In The Mammals of Australia. Reed Books, Chatswood.

Robinson, L. (2003) Field Guide to the Native Plants of Sydney (3rd ed). Kangaroo Press.

Robinson, M. (1996) A Field Guide to Frogs of Australia. Reed.

Russell, R. (1988) Yellow-bellied Glider (Petaurus australis) In The Australian Museum Complete Book of Australian Mammals. R. Strahan (Ed.). Angus and Robertson, Sydney.

Saunders, D. A. and de Rebeira, C. P. (1991) Values of corridors to avian populations in a fragmented landscape. In: Saunders, D.A. & Hobb, R.J. (eds). Nature Conservation 2: The Role of Corridors (Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton).

Schodde, R. and Tidemann, S. (Eds) (1986) Readers Digest complete book of Australian Birds. Second Edition. Reader’s Digest Services Pty Ltd, Sydney.

Seddon, J. A., Briggs, S. V. & Doyle, S. J. (2003) Relationships between bird species and characteristics of woodland remnants in central New South Wales. Pacific Conservation Biology 9, 95-119.

Sewell, S. R. and Catterall, C. P. (1998) Bushland modification and styles of urban development: their effects on birds in south-eastern Queensland. Wildlife Research. 25:41-63.

Simpson & Day (1996) Field Guide to the Birds of Australia. Viking.

Smyth, A., MacNally, R. & Lamb, D. (2002) Influence of forest management and habitat structural factors on the abundances of hollow-nesting bird species in subtropical Australian eucalypt forest. Environmental Management 30, 547–559

Specht, R. L., Specht, A., Whelan, M. B. & Hegarty, E. E. (1995) Conservation Atlas of Plant Communities in Australia. Southern Cross University Press, Lismore.

Travers bushfire & ecology (2013) Yellow-bellied Glider Habitat Assessment & Monitoring - Riverside Oaks Golf Course, O’Briens Road, Cattai.

Triggs, B. (1996) Tracks, Scats & Other Traces: A Field Guide to Australian Mammals. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Trounson, Donald & Molly (1998) Australian Birds Simply Classified. Murray David Publishing Pty Ltd, NSW.

Van der Ree, Gulle, Holland, Van der Grift, Mata, Suarez (2007) Overcoming the Barrier Effect of Roads-How Effective are Mitigation Strategies? – An international review of the use and effectiveness of underpasses and overpasses designed to increase the permeability of roads for wildlife.

Van Dyke, S. and Strahan, R. (Eds) (2008) The Mammals of Australia (3rd Edn). Reed New Holland, Sydney.

Watson, J., Freudenberger, D. & Paull D (2001) An assessment of the focal-species approach for conserving birds in variegated landscapes in south-eastern Australia. Conservation Biology 15, 1364-1373.

Watson, J., Watson, A., Paull, D. & Freudenberger, D. (2003) Woodland fragmentation is causing the decline of species and functional groups of birds in south-eastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 8, 261-270.

Wheeler, D. J. B., Jacobs, S. W. L. & Norton, B. E. (1994) Grasses of New South Wales. University of New England.

Wilson, K. W. and Knowles, D. G. (1988) Australia’s Reptiles - A Photographic Reference to the Terrestrial Reptiles of Australia. Cornstalk Publishing.

A1 Flora and Fauna Species Lists

Flora and Fauna

A1 Species Lists

The plants observed within the vegetation communities of the study area are listed in the Table A1.1 below.

Table A1.1 – Flora observations for the study area

Family Scientific name Common name Trees Mimosaceae Acacia binervia Coast Myall Mimosaceae Acacia implexa Hickory Wattle Mimosaceae Acacia parramattensis Parramatta Wattle Aceraceae Acer negundo* Box Elder Myrtaceae Acmena smithii Lillypilly Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina littoralis Black She-oak Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina torulosa Forest Oak Rhamnaceae Alphitonia excelsa Red Ash Myrtaceae Angophora bakeri Narrow-leaved Apple Myrtaceae Angophora floribunda Rough-barked Apple Myrtaceae Backhousia myrtifolia Grey Myrtle Casuarinaceae Casuarina cunninghamiana River Oak Myrtaceae Corymbia citriodora Lemon-scented Gum Myrtaceae Corymbia eximia Yellow Bloodwood Myrtaceae Corymbia gummifera Red Bloodwood Monimiaceae Doryphora sassafras Sassafras Eleocarpaceae Elaeocarpus reticulatus Blueberry Ash Fabaceae Erythrina sykesii* Coral Tree Myrtaceae Eucalyptus amplifolia Cabbage Gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus beyeriana Beyers' Ironbark Myrtaceae Eucalyptus capitellata Brown Stringybark Myrtaceae Eucalyptus crebra Narrow-leaved Ironbark Myrtaceae Eucalyptus deanei Mountain Blue Gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus eugenioides Thin-leaved Stringybark Myrtaceae Eucalyptus notabilis Blue Mountains Mahogany Myrtaceae Eucalyptus paniculata subsp. paniculata Grey Ironbark Myrtaceae Eucalyptus piperita subsp. piperita Sydney Peppermint Myrtaceae Eucalyptus punctata Grey Gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus racemosa Narrow-leaved Scribbly Gum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus resinifera subsp. resinifera Red Mahogany Myrtaceae Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum Santalaceae Exocarpos cupressiformis Native Cherry Moraceae Ficus rubiginosa Port Jackson Fig

Family Scientific name Common name Fabaceae Gleditsia triacanthos* Honey Locust Euphorbiaceae Glochidion ferdinandi Cheese Tree Proteaceae Grevillea robusta Silky Oak Sapindaceae Guioa semiglauca Guioa Myrtaceae Melaleuca decora - Myrtaceae Melaleuca linariifolia Snow in Summer Myrtaceae Melaleuca quinquenervia Broad-leaved Paperbark Myrtaceae Melaleuca styphelioides Prickly-leaved Tea Tree Meliaceae Melia azedarach var. australasica White Cedar Rutaceae Melicope micrococca White Euodia Oleaceae Notelaea longifolia Mock Olive Salicaceae Populus alba* White Poplar Salicaceae Salix babylonica* Weeping Willow Symplocaceae Symplocos thwaitesii Buff Hazelwood Myrtaceae Syncarpia glomulifera Turpentine Shrubs Mimosaceae Acacia falcata Sickle Wattle Mimosaceae Acacia floribunda Sally Wattle Mimosaceae Acacia linifolia Flax Wattle Mimosaceae Acacia ulicifolia Prickly Moses Proteaceae Banksia spinulosa Hairpin Banksia Fabaceae Bossiaea lenticularis - Euphorbiaceae Breynia oblongifolia Coffee Bush Pittosporaceae Bursaria spinosa var. spinosa Native Blackthorn Myrtaceae Callistemon salignus Willow Bottlebrush Asteraceae Cassinia uncata Bent Cassinia Solanaceae Cestrum parqui* Chilean Cestrum Lamiaceae Clerodendrum tomentosum Hairy Clerodendrum Euphorbiaceae Croton verreauxii Native Cascarilla Fabaceae Dillwynia floribunda var. floribunda Parrot Pea Fabaceae Dillwynia retorta var. retorta Eggs and Bacon Sapindaceae Dodonaea triquetra Hop Bush Solanaceae Duboisia myoporoides Corkwood Ericaceae Epacris pulchella Wallum Heath Santalaceae Exocarpos strictus Pale-fruit Ballart Fabaceae Gompholobium grandiflorum Golden Glory Pea Proteaceae Grevillea mucronulata Green Spider Flower Asteraceae Helianthus annuus Sunflower Fabaceae Jacksonia scoparia Dogwood Myrtaceae Kunzea ambigua Tick Bush Malvaceae Lagunaria patersonii Norfolk Island Hibiscus Verbenaceae Lantana camara* Lantana Sterculiaceae Lasiopetalum ferrugineum var. cordatum - Santalaceae Leptomeria acida Native Currant Myrtaceae Leptospermum polygalifolium Tantoon Myrtaceae Leptospermum trinervium Flaky-barked Tea-tree Ericaceae Leucopogon juniperinus Prickly Beard-heath Ericaceae Leucopogon lanceolatus -

Family Scientific name Common name Ericaceae Leucopogon muticus - Oleaceae Ligustrum lucidum* Large-leaved Privet Oleaceae Ligustrum sinense* Small-leaved Privet Proteaceae Lomatia silaifolia Crinkle Bush Solanaceae Lycium ferocissimum* African Boxthorn Moraceae Maclura cochinchinensis* Cockspur Thorn Celastraceae Maytenus silvestris - Violaceae Melicytus dentatus Tree Violet Euphorbiaceae Micrantheum ericoides - Ericaceae Monotoca elliptica Tree Broom-heath Myrsinaceae Myrsine howittiana Brush Muttonwood Myrsinaceae Myrsine variabilis Muttonwood Ochnaceae Ochna serrulata* Mickey Mouse Plant Oleaceae Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata* Common Olive Asteraceae Ozothamnus diosmifolius White Dogwood Proteaceae Persoonia linearis Narrow-leaved Geebung Phytolaccaceae Phytolacca octandra* Inkweed Pittosporaceae Pittosporum multiflorum Orange Thorn Pittosporaceae Pittosporum revolutum Yellow Pittosporum Apiaceae Platysace lanceolata Lance-leaf Platysace Rhamnaceae Pomaderris intermedia - Rhamnaceae Pomaderris lanigera Woolly Pomaderris Euphorbiaceae Ricinus communis* Castor Oil Plant Solanaceae Solanum mauritianum* Wild Tobacco Solanaceae Solanum pungetium Eastern Nightshade Solanaceae Solanum sisymbriifolium* - Epacridaceae Styphelia laeta subsp. latifolia Five Corners Ulmaceae Trema tomentosa var. viridis Native Peach Rutaceae Zieria smithii Sandfly Zieria Groundcovers Polygonaceae Acetosa saggitata* Turkey Rhubarb Asteraceae Actinotus helianthi Flannel Flower Adiantaceae Adiantum aethiopicum Common Maidenhair Lamiaceae Ajuga australis Austral Bugle Myrsinaceae Anagallis arvensis* Scarlet Pimpernel Papaveraceae Argemone ochroleuca* Mexican Poppy Asparagaceae Asparagus aethiopicus* Asparagus Fern Epacridaceae Astroloma humifusum Cranberry Heath Chenopodiaceae Atriplex prostrata* Saltbush Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. Restionaceae meiostachyum Plume Rush Asteraceae Bidens pilosa* Cobbler's Pegs Blechnaceae Blechnum cartilagineum Gristle Fern Asphodelaceae Bulbine bulbosa Bulbine Lily Dicksoniaceae Calochlaena dubia Rainbow Fern Gentianaceae Centaurium erythraea* Pink Stars Apiaceae Centella asiatica Indian Pennywort Sinopteridaceae Cheilanthes sieberi Rock Fern

Family Scientific name Common name Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare* Spear Thistle Commelinaceae Commelina cyanea Native Wandering Jew Asteraceae Conyza bonariensis* Flaxleaf Fleabane Asteraceae Conyza sumatrensis* Fleabane Cyperaceae Cyperus brevifolius* Mullumbimby Couch Cyperaceae Cyperus eragrostis* Umbrella Sedge Phormiaceae Dianella caerulea var. producta Blue Flax Lily Convolvulaceae Dichondra repens Kidney Weed Blechnaceae Doodia aspera Rasp Fern Blechnaceae Doodia caudata - Chenopodiaceae Einadia hastata Berry Saltbush Chenopodiaceae Einadia trigonos subsp. trigonos Fishweed Cyperaceae Gahnia aspera Saw Sedge Cyperaceae Gahnia sieberiana Red-fruit Saw-sedge Geraniaceae Geranium homeanum Northern Cranesbill Haloragaceae Gonocarpus tetragynus Poverty Raspwort Goodeniaceae Goodenia hederacea subsp. hederacea Ivy-leaved Goodenia Dilleniaceae Hibbertia diffusa - Dennstaedtiaceae Histiopteris incisa Bat’s Wing Fern Clusiaceae Hypericum gramineum Small St Johns Wort Asteraceae Hypochaeris radicata* Flatweed Juncaceae Juncus continuus - Juncaceae Juncus subsecundus Finger Rush Juncaceae Juncus usitatus Common Rush Cyperaceae Lepidosperma filiforme - Cyperaceae Lepidosperma laterale Variable Sword-sedge Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis Wattle Mat-rush Lomandraceae Lomandra filiformis subsp. coriacea Wattle Mat-rush Lomandraceae Lomandra glauca - Lomandraceae Lomandra longifolia Spiky-headed Mat-rush Lomandraceae Lomandra multiflora var. multiflora Many-flowered Mat-rush Lomandraceae Lomandra obliqua Twisted Mat-rush Malvaceae Modiola caroliniana* Red-flowered Mallow Cactaceae Opuntia sp. aurantiaca* Tiger Pear Cactaceae Opuntia stricta* Prickly Pear Oxalidaceae Oxalis perennans - Iridaceae Patersonia sericea Wild Iris Polygonaceae Persicaria hydropiper Water Pepper Thymelaeaceae Pimelea linifolia subsp. linifolia Slender Rice Flower Lamiaceae Plectranthus parviflorus Cockspur Flower Rubiaceae Pomax umbellata Pomax Lobeliaceae Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot Acanthaceae Pseuderanthemum variabile Pastel Flower Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium esculentum Bracken Cyperaceae Schoenus imberbis - Cyperaceae Schoenus melanostachys Black Bog Rush Lamiaceae Scutellaria racemosa - Asteraceae Senecio linearifolius Fireweed

Family Scientific name Common name Asteraceae Senecio madagascariensis* Fireweed Malvaceae Sida rhombifolia* Paddy's Lucerne Solanaceae Solanum nigrum* Black Nightshade Solanaceae Solanum prinophyllum Forest Nightshade Stackhousiae Stackhousia viminea - Phormiaceae Stypandra glauca Nodding Blue Lily Asteraceae Tagetes minuta* Stinking Roger Asteraceae Taraxacum officinale* Dandelion Acanthaceae Thunbergia alata* Black-eyed Susan Apiaceae Trachymene incisa subsp. incisa Native Parsnip Commelinaceae Tradescantia fluminensis* Wandering Jew Verbenaceae Verbena bonariensis* Purpletop Plantaginaceae Veronica plebeia Creeping Speedwell Violaceae Viola hederacea Ivy-leaved Violet Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia gracilis Annual Bluebell Asteraceae Xanthium occidentale* Noogoora Burr Xanthorrhoaceae Xanthorrhoea media - Xanthorrhoaceae Xanthorrhoea resinosa - Grasses Poaceae Andropogon virginicus* Whisky Grass Poaceae Aristida ramosa Wire Grass Poaceae Aristida vagans Three-awn Speargrass Poaceae Axonopus fissifolius* Narrow-leafed Carpet Grass Poaceae Cortaderia selloana* Pampas Grass Poaceae Cymbopogon refractus Barbwire Grass Poaceae Cynodon dactylon Common Couch Echinopogon caespitosus var. Poaceae caespitosus Tufted Hedgehog Grass Poaceae Entolasia marginata Bordered Panic Poaceae Entolasia stricta Wiry Panic Poaceae Eragrostis brownii Brown’s Lovegrass Poaceae Eragrostis curvula* African Lovegrass Poaceae Imperata cylindrica var. major Blady Grass Poaceae Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass Poaceae Oplismenus aemulus Basket Grass Poaceae Panicum simile Two Colour Panic Poaceae Paspalum dilatatum* Paspalum Poaceae Pennisetum clandestinum* Kikuyu Poaceae Poa labillardieri var. labillardieri Tussock Grass Poaceae Setaria parviflora* - Poaceae Sporobolus creber Slender Rat’s Tail Grass Poaceae Stipa ramosissima Stout Bamboo Grass Poaceae Themeda triandra Kangaroo Grass Epiphytes Loranthaceae Amyema cambagei Mistletoe Loranthaceae Amyema congener subsp. congener Mistletoe Vines Aphanopetalaceae Aphanopetalum resinosum Gum Vine Apocynaceae Araujia sericifera* Moth Vine

Family Scientific name Common name Pittosporaceae Billardiera scandens var. scandens Apple Dumplings Sapindaceae Cardiospermum grandiflorum* Balloon Vine, Love in a Puff Lauraceae Cassytha pubescens Common Devil’s Twine Vitaceae Cayratia clematidea Native Grape Vitaceae Cissus antarctica Native Grape Asteraceae Delairea odorata* Cape Ivy Luzuriagaceae Geitonoplesium cymosum Scrambling Lily Fabaceae Hardenbergia violacea False Sarsparilla Dilleniaceae Hibbertia scandens Climbing Guinea-flower Fabaceae Kennedia rubicunda Dusky Coral Pea Rubiaceae Morinda jasminoides - Bignoniaceae Pandorea pandorana Wonga Vine Apocynaceae Parsonsia straminea Common Silkpod Passifloraceae Passiflora edulis* Common Passionfruit Passifloraceae Passiflora herbertiana subsp. herbertiana Native Passionfruit Smilacaceae Ripogonum album White Supplejack Smilacaceae Smilax glyciphylla Sarsaparilla Menispermiaceae Stephania japonica var. discolor Snake Vine Apocynaceae Tylophora barbata Bearded Tylophora Water plants Cyperaceae Bolboschoenus caldwellii Marsh Clubrush Cyperaceae Eleocharis sphacelata Tall Spike-rush Menyanthaceae Nymphaea sp. Waterlily Polygonaceae Persicaria praetermissa - Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus mucronatus River Clubrush Cyperaceae Schoenus imberbis - Juncaginaceae Triglochin microtuberosum Water Ribbons * denotes exotic species

Fauna species observed throughout the duration of fauna surveys are listed below.

Table A1.2 – Fauna observations for the study area

Common name Scientific name Method observed Apr/May Oct 2013/ 2019/20 Birds 2001 Nov 2015 Australasian Grebe Tachybaptus novaehollandiae O W O W Australian King Parrot Alisterus scapularis O O W O W Australian Magpie Gymnorhina tibicen O O W O W Australian Owlet-nightjar Aegotheles cristatus W Australian Pelican Pelecanus conspicillatus O Australian Raven Corvus coronoides O O W O W Australian Wood Duck Chenonetta jubata O O W O W Barking Owl TS Ninox connivens CPO (Anec) Barn Owl Tyto alba W13 Bar-shouldered Dove Geopelia humeralis W O W Bell Miner Manorina melanophrys O W O W Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae O O W O W Black-fronted Dotterel Elseyornis melanops O Black-shouldered Kite Elanus axillaris O Black Swan Cygnus atratus Anecdotal O O Brown Gerygone Gerygone mouki O W W Brown Thornbill Acanthiza pulsilla O W O W Channel-billed Cuckoo Scythrops novaehollandiae W Chestnut Teal Anas castanea O O Cicadabird Coracina tenuirostris O C Common Bronzewing Phaps chalcoptera O O W O W Common Koel Eudynamys scolopacea W W Common Myna * Acridotheres tristis O O W O W Crested Pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes O O W O W Darter Anhinga melanogaster O Dollarbird Eurystomus orientalis O W O W Dusky Moorhen Gallinula tenebrosa O O W O Eastern Rosella Platycercus eximius O O W O W Eastern Spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris O O W O W Eastern Whipbird Psophodes olivaceus W O W O W Eastern Yellow Robin Eopsaltria australis O W O W Eurasian Coot Fulica atra O W O Fan-tailed Cuckoo Cacomantis flabelliformis W W Galah Cacatua roseicapilla O O W O W Gang-gang Cockatoo TS Callocephalon fimbriatum O W Glossy-black Cockatoo TS Calyptorhynchus lathami O G Golden Whistler Pachycephala pectoralis O W W O W Great Egret Ardea alba O Grey Butcherbird Cracticus torquatus O O W O W Grey Fantail Rhipidura fuliginosa O O W O W Grey Shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica O W O W Intermediate Egret Ardea intermedia O O Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii O

Common name Scientific name Method observed Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae O W O W O W Lewin’s Honeyeater Meliphaga lewinii O O W O W Little Black Cormorant Phalacrocorax sulcirostris W O O Little Corella Cacatua sanguinea O Little Eagle TS Hieraaetus morphnoides O Little Lorikeet TS Glossopsitta pusilla O W Little Pied Cormorant Phalacrocorax melanoleucos O O Little Wattlebird Anthochaera chrysoptera O W O W Long-billed Corella Cacatua tenuirostris O W O W Magpie-lark Grallina cyanoleuca O O W O W Masked Lapwing Vanellus miles O W O W O W Mistletoebird Dicaeum hirundinaceum W W Musk Lorikeet Glossopsitta concinna O W O W Nankeen Kestrel Falco cenchroides O Nankeen Night Heron Nycticorax caledonicus O Noisy Friarbird Philemon corniculatus O W Noisy Miner Manorina melanocephala O O W O W Olive-backed Oriole Oriolus sagittatus O W Pacific Black Duck Anas superciliosa O O W O W Pied Currawong Strepera graculina W O W Powerful Owl TS Ninox strenua O W Purple Swamphen Porphyrio porphyrio O O W O W Rainbow Bee-eater Merops ornatus O W Rainbow Lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus O W O W Red-browed Finch Neochmia temporalis O O W Red Wattlebird Anthochaera carunculata O Red-rumped Parrot Psephotus haematonotus O W Red-whiskered Bulbul * Pycnonotus jocosus O W W Royal Spoonbill Platalea regia O O Rose Robin Petroica rosea O W Rufous Whistler Pachycephala rufiventris O W Sacred Kingfisher Todiramphus sanctus O W Satin Bowerbird Ptilonorhynchus violaceus O O W W Scarlet Honeyeater Myzomela sanguinolenta W Southern Boobook Ninox novaeseelandiae O W W Spotted Pardalote Pardalotus punctatus O W O W Spotted Quail-thrush Cinclosoma punctatum W Striated Pardalote Pardalotus striatus O Sulphur Crested Cockatoo Cacatua galerita W O W Tawny Frogmouth Podargus strigoides O O Y Varied Sittella TS Daphoenositta chrysoptera O W Variegated Fairy-wren Malurus lamberti O W Wandering Whistling-Duck Dendrocygna arouata W Wedge-tailed Eagle Aquila audax O Welcome Swallow Hirundo neoxena O O O Whistling Kite Haliastur sphenurus O W White-bellied Sea-Eagle TS Haliaeetus leucogaster O W White-browed Scrubwren Sericornis frontalis O W

Common name Scientific name Method observed White-faced Heron Egretta novaehollandiae O W O White-necked Heron Ardea pacifica O White-throated Gerygone Gerygone olivacea W White-throated Treecreeper Cormobates leucophaeus O W Q O W White-winged Chough Corcorax melanorhhamphos O Willie Wagtail Rhipidura leucophrys O W O W Wonga Pigeon Leucosarcia melanoleuca O O W O W Yellow Thornbill Acanthiza nana O W O W Yellow-faced Honeyeater Lichenostomus chrysops O O W O W Yellow-tailed Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus funereus W Mammals Bandicoot species Isoodon or Parameles sp. F Black Rat * Rattus rattus T T Brown Antechinus Antechinus stuartii T T Bush Rat Rattus fuscipes T T Chocolate Wattled Bat Chalinolobus morio U UPO Common Brushtail Possum Trichosurus vulpecula O O O W Common Ringtail Possum Pseudocheirus peregrinus P O O W Domesticated Dog * Canis familiaris O W East-coast Freetail Bat TS Micronomus norfolkensis U Eastern Broad-nosed Bat Scotorepens orion UPR Eastern Forest Bat Vespadelus pumilus U Eastern Freetail-bat Mormopterus ridei U U U Eastern Grey Kangaroo Macropus giganteus O O O Eastern Horseshoe-bat Rhinolophus megaphyllus U U European Red Fox * Vulpes vulpes O O Feather-tailed Glider Acrobates pygmaeus O Q Freetail-bat Mormopterus sp. U Gould’s Wattled Bat Chalinolobus gouldii U U Grey-headed Flying-fox TS Pteropus poliocephalus O O W Large Bent-winged Bat TS Miniopterus orianae oceansis U T U Large Forest Bat Vespadelus darlingtoni UPR Lesser Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus geoffroyii T Little Bent-winged Bat TS Miniopterus australis U Little Forest Bat Vespadelus vulturnus U T U O Long-eared Bat Nyctophilus sp. U Rabbit * Oryctolagus cuniculus O O O Short-beaked Echidna Tachyglossus aculeatus O Southern MyotisTS Myotis macropus U O U O Sugar Glider Petaurus breviceps T O W T Q Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor O O White-striped Mastiff-bat Austronomus australis U W O W U Yellow-bellied Glider TS Petaurus australis W O W W Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat TS Saccolaimus flaviventris UPO Reptiles Bar-sided Skink Eulamprus tenius Q O Copper-tailed Skink Ctenotus taeniolatus O Cream-striped Shining Skink Cryptoblepharus virgatus O

Common name Scientific name Method observed Cunningham’s Skink Egernia cunninghami O Delicate Skink Lampropholis delicata O O Eastern Blue Tongue Lizard Tiliqua scincoides Anecdotal Eastern Long-necked Turtle Chelodina longicollis O O Eastern Stone Gecko Diplodactylus vittatus O Eastern Water Dragon Physignathus lesueurii O O Golden-crowned Snake Cacophis squamulosus O Green Tree Snake Dendrelaphis punctulata Q Lace Monitor Varanus varius F O Red-Bellied Black Snake Pseudechis porphyriacus Anecdotal H Southern Leaf-tailed Gecko Phyllurus platurus O Three-toed Skink Saiphos equalis O O Tree-base Litter-skink Carlia foliorum O O Yellow-faced Whip Snake Demansia psammophis O O Amphibians Broad-palmed Frog Litoria latopalmata W Brown Toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii O Common Eastern Froglet Crinia signifera W W W Dusky Toadlet Uperoleia fusca W Dwarf Tree Frog Litoria fallax W W Peron’s Tree Frog Litoria peronii W W W Smooth Toadlet Uperoleia laevigata W W Striped Marsh Frog Limnodynastes peronii W W Whistling Tree Frog Litoria verreauxii W W W Fish Mosquitofish * Gambusia holbrooki O Common Carp * Cyprinus carpio O Mollusc Dural Land Snail TS Pommerhelix duralensis O O

Note: * indicates introduced species TS indicates threatened species

All species listed are identified to a high level of certainty unless otherwise noted as:

PR indicates species identified to a ‘probable’ level of certainty – more likely than not PO indicates species identified to a ‘possible’ level of certainty – recorded to a moderate to high level of uncertainty usually applied to a threatened species of note.

E - Nest/roost H - Hair/feathers/skin P - Scat W - Heard call F - Tracks/scratchings K - Dead Q - Camera X - In scat FB - Burrow O - Observed T - Trapped/netted Y - Bone/teeth/shell G - Crushed cones OW - Obs & heard call U - Anabat/ultrasound Z - In raptor/owl pellet

A2 Threateend Species Habitat Assessment

Threatened & Migratory

Species Habitat Assessment

Table A2.1 provides an assessment of potential habitat within the subject site for nationally listed threatened flora species indicated to have potential habitat present within 10km on the EPBC Act Protected Matters Tool.

Table A2.1 – Threatened flora habitat assessment

Asterolasia elegans - E Erect shrub 1-3m high growing in moist sclerophyll forests on Hawkesbury sandstone slopes hillsides. Distribution limits x x - - x Maroota region. Cryptostylis V V Saprophytic orchid. Grows in swamp heath on sandy soils. hunteriana Distribution limits N-Gibraltar Range S-south of Eden. x x - - x

Darwinia biflora V V Erect or spreading shrub to 0.8m high. Grows in heath or understorey of woodland on or near shale-capped ridges x x - - x underlain by Hawkesbury sandstone. Distribution limits N- Gosford S-Cheltenham. V V Erect shrub 0.6-1m high. Grows in Woodlands and Open Dillwynia tenuifolia Low/ Forest on sandstone shale or laterite. Distribution limits N- x x  not likely marginal Howes Valley S-Cumberland Plain. Haloragis exalata V V Shrub to 1.5m high. Grows in damp places near subsp. exalata watercourses. Distribution limits N-Tweed Heads S-south of x x - - x Eden.

Hibbertia superans E1 - Small spreading shrub to 0.3m high. Grows on sandstone, usually in or near SSTF. Distribution limits N-Glenorie S- x  x   Kellyville disjunct Mt Boss. Kunzea rupestris V V Shrub to 1.5m high. Grows in cracks and fissures on Hawkesbury sandstone rock platforms. Distribution limits N- x x - - x Maroota S-Glenorie.

Melaleuca deanei V V Shrub to 3m high. Grows in heath on sandstone. Distribution limits N-Gosford S-Nowra. x x - - x

Micromyrtus blakelyi V V Low erect shrub. Grows in cracks and fissures on Hawkesbury sandstone rock platforms. Distribution limits N- x marginal   low Maroota S-Berowra. Olearia cordata V V Shrub to 2m high. Grows in dry sclerophyll forest and shrubland on Hawkesbury sandstone. Distribution limits N- x low   unlikely Wollombi S-Wiseman’s Ferry. Pelargonium sp. E1 E Herb to 90cm tall which grows in damp places especially beside streams and lakes. Occasionally in swamp forest or Striatellum x x - - x associated with disturbance. Varied distribution from SE NSW to QLD. Persoonia hirsuta E1 E Erect to decumbent shrub. Grows in dry sclerophyll forest and woodland on Hawkesbury sandstone with infrequent fire x  x   histories. Distribution limits N-Glen Davis S-Hill Top. Pimelea curviflora var. V V Woody herb or sub-shrub to 0.2-1.2m high. Grows on curviflora Hawkesbury sandstone near shale outcrops. Distribution x     Sydney.

Pimelea spicata E1 E Decumbent or erect shrub to 0.5m high. Occurs principally in woodland on soils derived from Wianamatta Shales. x x - - x Distribution limits N-Lansdowne S-Shellharbour.

Pterostylis gibbosa E1 E Terrestrial orchid which occurs near Wollongong and in Hunter Valley in sclerophyll forest, sometimes with x x - - x paperbarks. Pterostylis pulchella V V Orchid species to 15cm tall, found on cliff faces at Fitzroy Falls, Belmore Falls, upper Bundanoon Creek and x x - - x Minnamurra Falls. Flowers appear from February to May Pterostylis saxicola E1 E Terrestrial orchid. Grows in shallow sandy soil above rock shelves, usually near Wianamatta / Hawkesbury transition. x marginal x  low Distribution limits N-Hawkesbury River S-Campbelltown. Pultenaea parviflora E1 V Erect shrub. Grows in dry sclerophyll forest at the intergrade between Tertiary Alluviums and Wianamatta Shales. x x - - x Distribution limits Cumberland Plain. Syzygium paniculatum V V Small tree. Subtropical and littoral rainforest on sandy soil. Distribution limits N-Forster S-Jervis Bay. x marginal x  low

Tetratheca juncea V V Prostrate shrub to 1m high. Dry sclerophyll forest and heath. Distribution limits N-Bulahdelah S-Port Jackson. x x - - x

If not recorded on site Nearby and / or Record(s) Suitable Recorded high from Scientific name BC EPBC Growth form and habitat requirements habitat on site number recent Potential DATABASE SOURCE Act Act Distribution limit present () of years to occur () record(s) () () Notes 1,2 & 3 Notes 1,2 & 3 Zieria involucrata E1 V Tall erect shrub to 2m tall. Occurs primarily on Hawkesbury sandstone. Also occurs on Narrabeen Group sandstone and on Quaternary alluvium. Found primarily in sheltered forests on mid- to lower slopes and valleys although some populations extend upslope into drier vegetation. The x x - - x canopy typically includes Syncarpia glomulifera, Angophora costata, Eucalyptus agglomerata and Allocasuarina torulosa. Distributed throughout Baulkham Hills, Hawkesbury, Hornsby and Blue Mountains local government areas. V - Denotes vulnerable listed species under the relevant Act E or E1 - Denotes endangered listed species under the relevant Act E4a or CE- Denotes critically endangered listed species under the relevant Act 1. 1. This field is not considered if no suitable habitat is present within the subject site NOTE: 2. 2. ‘records’ refer to those provided by the Atlas of NSW Wildlife 3. 3. ‘nearby’ or ‘recent’ records are species specific accounting for home range, dispersal ability and life cycle Unlikely 4. Represents such a low margin but not enough to 100% rule it out. Not likely5. Means 0% change of occurring, despite there being potential habitat. A significance of impact test is not applied to these species.

Table A2.2 provides an assessment of potential habitat within the study area for nationally listed threatened fauna species indicated to have potential habitat present within 10km on the EPBC Act Protected Matters Tool.

Table A2.2 – Nationally threatened fauna habitat assessment

If not recorded on site

Nearby Common name Recorded and/or high Record(s) BC EPBC Preferred habitat Suitable on site number of from recent Scientific name Act Act habitat Potential to Distribution limit () record(s) years Database source present occur () () () Notes 1,2 & Notes 1,2 & 3 3 Australasian Bittern E E Found in or over water of shallow freshwater or brackish Botaurus poiciloptilus wetlands with tall reedbeds, sedges, rushes, cumbungi, lignum Sub- x x x Not likely and also in ricefields, drains in tussocky paddocks, occasionally optimal saltmarsh, brackish wetlands. Distribution limit: N-North of Lismore. S- Eden. Australian Painted Snipe E E Most numerous within the Murray-Darling basin and inland x  x x Not llikely Rostratula australis Australia within marshes and freshwater wetlands with swampy vegetation. Distribution limit: N-Tweed Heads. S-South of Eden. Curlew Sandpiper E CE Mainly coastal, but many inland feeding along tidal mudflats, Callidris ferruginea salt marsh, salt fields, fresh, brackish or saline wetlands and x marginal x x Not likely sewerage ponds. Distribution limit: N-Tweed Heads. S-South of Eden. Swift Parrot E E Inhabits eucalypt forests and woodlands with winter flowering x  x x  Lathamus discolour eucalypts. Distribution limit: N-Border Ranges National Park. S- South of Eden. Superb Parrot V V Inhabits open woodland and riverine forests of inland NSW. x  x x Not likely Polytelis swainsonii Distribution limit: N-Near Walgett. S-South of Deniliquin. Eastern Bristlebird E E Coastal woodlands, dense scrubs and heathlands, especially x marginal x x Not likely Dasyornis brachypterus where low heathland borders taller woodland or dense tall tea- tree. Distribution limit: N-Tweed Heads. S-South of Eden. Regent Honeyeater E4A CE Found in temperate eucalypt woodland and open forest x   x low Xanthomyza Phrygia including forest edges, wooded farmland and urban areas with mature eucalypts. Distribution limit: N-Urbanville. S-Eden.

If not recorded on site

Nearby Common name Recorded and/or high Record(s) BC EPBC Preferred habitat Suitable on site number of from recent Scientific name Act Act habitat Potential to Distribution limit () record(s) years Database source present occur () () () Notes 1,2 & Notes 1,2 & 3 3 Painted Honeyeater V V A nomadic bird occurring in low densities within open forest, Grantiella picta woodland and scrubland feeding on mistletoe fruits. Inhabits primarily Boree, Brigalow and Box-Gum Woodlands and Box- x   x unlikely Ironbark Forests. Distribution limit: N-Boggabilla. S-Albury with greatest occurrences on the inland slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Spotted-tailed Quoll V E Dry and moist open forests containing rock caves, hollow logs x  x   Dasyurus maculatus or trees. Distribution limit: N-Mt Warning National Park. S-South of Eden. Koala V V Inhabits both wet and dry eucalypt forest on high nutrient soils x  x  unlikely Phascolarctos cinereus containing preferred feed trees. Distribution limit: N-Tweed Heads. S-South of Eden. Greater Glider - V Favours forests with a diversity of eucalypt species, due to Petauroides volans seasonal variation in its preferred tree species. Population density is optimal at elevation levels at 845 m above sea level. Sub- x x x unlikely Prefer overstorey basal areas in old-growth tree stands. Highest optimal abundance typically in taller, montane, moist eucalypt forests, with relatively old trees and abundant hollows Distribution limit: N-Border Ranges National Park. S- South of Eden. Long-nosed Potoroo V V Coastal heath and dry and wet sclerophyll forests with a dense x  x x Not likely Potorous tridactylus understorey. Distribution Limit: N-Mt Warning National Park. S- South of Eden. Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby E V Found in rocky gorges with a vegetation of rainforest or open x  x x Not likely Petrogale penicillata forests to isolated rocky outcrops in semi-arid woodland country. Distribution limit: N-North of Tenterfield. S-Bombala.

If not recorded on site

Nearby Common name Recorded and/or high Record(s) BC EPBC Preferred habitat Suitable on site number of from recent Scientific name Act Act habitat Potential to Distribution limit () record(s) years Database source present occur () () () Notes 1,2 & Notes 1,2 & 3 3 Grey-headed Flying-fox V V Found in a variety of habitats including rainforest, mangroves, Pteropus poliocephalus paperbark swamp, wet and dry open forest and cultivated areas. Forms camps commonly found in gullies and in  - - - - vegetation with a dense canopy. Distribution limit: N-Tweed Heads. S-Eden. Large-eared Pied Bat V V Warm-temperate to subtropical dry sclerophyll forest and Chalinolobus dwyeri woodland. Roosts in caves, tunnels and tree hollows in colonies x  x   of up to 30 animals. Distribution limit: N-Border Ranges National Park. S-Wollongong. New Holland Mouse - V Occurs in heathlands, woodlands, open forest and paperbark Pseudomys swamps and on sandy, loamy or rocky soils. Coastal novaehollandiae populations have a marked preference for sandy substrates, a Sub- x x x unlikely heathy understorey of leguminous shrubs less than 1m high and optimal sparse ground litter. Recolonise of regenerating burnt areas. Distribution limit: N-Border Ranges National Park. S-South of Eden. Dural Land Snail E E Occurs on shale-sandstone transitional forest landscapes within Pommerhelix duralensis the Blue Mountains, Penrith, The Hills, Wollondilly, Hornsby and Parramatta LGA’s. Occurs in low abundance and shelters under  - - - - rocks or inside curled-up bark, beneath leaves and light woody debris. Distribution limit: St Albans to Mulgoa with most records from The Hills LGA.

If not recorded on site

Nearby Common name Recorded and/or high Record(s) BC EPBC Preferred habitat Suitable on site number of from recent Scientific name Act Act habitat Potential to Distribution limit () record(s) years Database source present occur () () () Notes 1,2 & Notes 1,2 & 3 3 Macquarie Perch V E Occurs in south east Australia at moderate to high altitudes in Macquaria australasica (FM Act rivers and reservoirs. Historical records show the species was Not within 1994) widespread and abundant in the upper reaches of the Lachlan, Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers and their tributaries. Allen x the study - - x (1989) states that introduced populations are present in Nepean area itself River and water supply dams in the Sydney area. Occurs in lakes and flowing streams, usually in deep holes. Australian Greyling Part 2, V Clear, moderate to fast flowing water in the upper reaches of Section 19 – Not within Prototroctes maraena rivers (sometimes to altitudes above 1,000m). Typically found Protected in gravel bottom pools. Often forming aggregations below x the study - - x Fish barriers to upstream movement (e.g. weirs, waterfalls). area itself FM Act V - Denotes vulnerable listed species under the relevant Act E or E1 - Denotes endangered listed species under the relevant Act E4a or CE- Denotes critically endangered listed species under the relevant Act 6. 1. This field is not considered if no suitable habitat is present within the subject site NOTE: 7. 2. ‘records’ refer to those provided by the Atlas of NSW Wildlife 8. 3. ‘nearby’ or ‘recent’ records are species specific accounting for home range, dispersal ability and life cycle Unlikely 9. Represents such a low margin but not enough to 100% rule it out. Not likely10. Means 0% change of occurring, despite there being potential habitat. A significance of impact test is not applied to these species.

Table A2.3 provides an assessment of potential habitat within the subject site for nationally protected migratory fauna species recorded within 10km on the EPBC Act Protected Matters Tool. Nationally threatened migratory species are considered in Table A2.2.

Table A2.3 – Migratory fauna habitat assessment

Suitable Recorded habitat Common name Preferred habitat on site present Comments Scientific name Migratory breeding () () Mainly inhabits forests, occurring in coniferous, deciduous and mixed forest. It - Oriental Cuckoo feeds mainly on insects and their larvae, foraging for them in trees and bushes as  x (Cuculus optatus) well as on the ground. Airspace over forests, woodlands, farmlands, plains, lakes, coasts, towns; - White-throated Needletail companies often forage along favoured hilltops and timbered ranges. Breeds  x (Hirundapus caudacutus) Siberia, Himalayas, east to Japan. Summer migrant to eastern Australia. Aerial: over open country, from semi-arid deserts to coasts, islands; sometimes - Fork-tailed Swift over forests, cities. Breeds Siberia, Himalayas, east to Japan south east Asia.  x (Apus pacificus) Summer migrant to east Australia. Mass movements associated with late summer low pressure systems into east Australia. Otherwise uncommon. Open woodlands with sandy, loamy soil; sand ridges, sandspits, riverbanks, road More than one Rainbow Bee-eater was cuttings, beaches, dunes, cliffs, mangroves, rainforest, woodlands, golf courses. recorded in the newly constructed golf Breeding resident in northern Australia. Summer breeding migrant to south east course area in the south-west of the study and south west Australia. area. These birds would call regularly and perch along the tall forest edge with consistent activity throughout the Rainbow Bee-eater   September and October field surveys (Merops ornatus) suggesting nesting by burrow along the steep hillside or riverbank was taking place. No development is proposed along this forested fringe or river frontage and therefore nesting habitat will remain for breeding over successive years. Rainforests, eucalypt woodlands; coastal scrubs; damp gullies in rainforest, - Black-faced Monarch eucalypt forest; more open woodland when migrating. Summer breeding migrant  x (Monarcha melanopsis) to coastal south east Australia, otherwise uncommon.

Suitable Recorded habitat Common name Preferred habitat on site present Comments Scientific name Migratory breeding () () Understorey of mountain / lowland rainforest, thickly wooded gullies, waterside - Spectacled Monarch vegetation, mostly well below canopy. Summer breeding migrant to south-east Qld Sub- x (Monarcha trivirgatus) and north-east NSW down to Port Stephens from Sept / Oct to May. Uncommon in optimal southern part of range. Heavily vegetated gullies in forests, taller woodlands, usually above shrub-layer; - Satin Flycatcher during migration, coastal forests, woodlands, mangroves, trees in open country, Sub- x (Myiagra cyanoleuca) gardens. Breeds mostly south-east Australia and Tasmania over warmer months, optimal winters in north east Qld. Undergrowth of rainforests / wetter eucalypt forests / gullies; monsoon forests, - paperbarks, sub-inland and coastal scrubs; mangroves, watercourses; parks, Rufous Fantail gardens. On migration, farms, streets buildings. Breeding migrant to south-east  x (Rhipidura rufifrons) Australia over warmer months. Altitudinal migrant in north-east NSW in mountain forests during warmer months. The yellow wagtail typically forages in damp grassland and on relatively bare open - Yellow Wagtail ground at edges of rivers, lakes and wetlands, but also feeds in dry grassland and  x (Motacilla flava) in fields of cereal crops. Soft wet ground or shallow water with tussocks and other green or dead growth; The Latham Snipe was observed foraging wet parts of paddocks; seepage below dams; irrigated areas; scrub or open along the fringes of the large north- woodland from sea-level to alpine bogs over 2,000m; samphire on saltmarshes; western dam during 2013 surveys. There mangrove fringes. Breeds Japan. Regular summer migrant to Australia. Some is no suitable breeding habitat for the Latham’s Snipe overwinter. Latham’s Snipe within the study area and   (Gallinago hardwickii) foraging areas will remain unchanged by the proposal. Therefore this species will not be significantly impacted by the proposal.

A3 SAII Impact Assessment - Species

SAII Impact Assessment

A3 Species

BC Reg 6.7 Principles applicable to determination of “serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values” (section 6.5 (1))

(2) An impact is to be regarded as serious and irreversible if it is likely to contribute significantly to the risk of a threatened species or ecological community becoming extinct because:

(a) it will cause a further decline of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to be in a rapid rate of decline, or (b) it will further reduce the population size of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very small population size, or (c) it is an impact on the habitat of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very limited geographic distribution, or (d) the impacted species or ecological community is unlikely to respond to measures to improve its habitat and vegetation integrity and therefore its members are not replaceable.

Measures taken to avoid the direct and indirect impact on species at risk of SAII are outlined in Section 3.9. We have consulted the Threatened Biodiversity Data Collection (TBDC) and other sources to enable the application of the four principles set out in clause 6.7 of the BC Reg. For the species considered this is summarized as follows.

Principle Common Name Justification Reference 1 2 3 4 The species is dependent on non-responding TDBC Eastern Cave Bat  attribute (cave breeding habitat only) Species dependent on non-responding TDBC Large-eared Pied Bat  attribute (maternity caves). The species is dependent on non- TDBC Large Bent-winged Bat  responding attribute (breeding habitat only) The species is dependent on non-responding TDBC Little Bent-winged Bat  attribute (breeding habitat only)

The following criteria as specified in Section 9.9.2.4 is required to be considered for candidate SAII species nominated with respect to Principles 1-3. As these do not apply to the recorded microbat species a summary is provided further below:

a. the impact on the species’ population (Principles 1 and 2) presented by: i. an estimate of the number of individuals (mature and immature) present in the subpopulation on the subject land (the site may intersect or encompass the subpopulation) and as a percentage of the total NSW population, and ii. ii. an estimate of the number of individuals (mature and immature) to be impacted by the proposal and as a percentage of the total NSW population, or iii. iii. if the species’ unit of measure is area, provide data on the number of individuals on the site, and the estimated number that will be impacted, along with the area of habitat to be impacted by the proposal b. impact on geographic range (Principles 1 and 3) presented by: i. the area of the species’ geographic range to be impacted by the proposal in hectares, and a percentage of the total AOO, or EOO within NSW ii. the impact on the subpopulation as either: all individuals will be impacted (subpopulation eliminated); OR impact will affect some individuals and habitat; OR impact will affect some habitat, but no individuals of the species will be directly impacted iii. to determine if the persisting subpopulation that is fragmented will remain viable, estimate (based on published and unpublished sources such as scientific publications, technical reports, databases or documented field observations) the habitat area required to support the remaining population, and habitat available within dispersal distance, and distance over which genetic exchange can occur (e.g. seed dispersal) and pollination distance for the species iv. to determine changes in threats affecting remaining subpopulations and habitat if the proposed impact proceeds, estimate changes in environmental factors including changes to fire regimes (frequency, severity); hydrology, pollutants; species interactions (increased competition and effects on pollinators or dispersal); fragmentation, increased edge effects, likelihood of disturbance; and disease, pathogens and parasites. Where these factors have been considered elsewhere in relation to the target species, the assessor may refer to the relevant sections of the BDAR or BCAR.

Large-eared Pied Bat - Insufficient information is available on the species’ distribution and ecology to guide effective management (DPIE – Saving Our Species Strategies). This is a species credit species. Species sensitivity to loss is indicated by the TDBC as ‘moderate’. Species sensitivity to potential gain is ‘very high’.

The Large-eared Pied Bat has not been recorded within the study area during surveys to date. Surveys are however limited in the last five years and require update to satisfy assessment requirements. The species is assumed to occur, particularly given that Travers bushfire & ecology have recorded this species within nearby adjacent lands to the north-west and other nearby records are also known in recent years to suggest the species may becoming more locally established.

The ‘Species credit’ threatened bats and their habitats – NSW survey guide for the Biodiversity Assessment Method (The BAM Bat Guide) outline how to define presence of important ‘breeding habitat’. Species polygons for offsetting calculations have also been generated in accordance with Table 1 of this guide.

Sandstone overhangs and small open caves have been recorded within the study area along escarpments adjacent to Precincts C & D. These are consistent with ‘potential breeding

habitat’ as defined by Section 3.3 of The BAM Bat Guide. All are described as overhangs given that they provide shelter opportunity which is well open to diurnal lighting, wind and activity as they are not recessed deep into a subterranean cavity. Therefore, such overhangs do not lead to an internal cave system providing a separated internal microclimatic and low light conditions as preferred by other subterranean microbat species, such as Bent-winged Bats.

All overhangs were searched for presence of roosting activity and breeding individuals during December 2020. A number of the overhangs showed evidence of microbat roosting activity by presence of scats (guano) and insect casings below recessed crevices in the overhang ceiling. These locations are all depicted as either ‘high’ or ‘low activity roosts on Figure 4 (results) and Figure 16 (species polygons) depending on the extent of guano observed. Low use may be determined from only a single scat or otherwise indication of only very infrequent (and perhaps only one) visit.

Eight of these overhangs are located within or along the edges of the proposed APZ of Precinct D. Others are close to the outside extent of the APZ of Precinct C. It should be noted here however that all overhangs are along the escarpment edge and face out to the south to west aspects and away from the development footprint. The closest overhangs / small caves to Precinct C are inaccessible without climbing down the cliff face on ropes.

Potential breeding habitat for this species is defined by The BAM Bat Guide as “The PCTs associated with the species (as per the TBDC) within 100m of rocky areas containing caves, or overhangs or crevices, cliffs or escarpments, or old mines, tunnels, culverts, derelict concrete buildings.”

All overhangs are located within 100m of the proposed development footprints, and the 50m buffer radius to apply around breeding habitat (as defined by the The BAM Bat Guide) is all predominantly contained within this 100m. The overlapping buffers is depicted on the species polygon mapping provided on Figure 16.

During detailed searches of the overhangs no microbats were recorded during the summer breeding period. Not all available holes and crevices were able to be well viewed by torchlight during these inspections. The overhangs, whilst providing potential temporary roosting opportunity for this species, are not currently expected to provide breeding habitat.

Despite this conclusion, excerpts from The BAM Bat Guide suggests the following: - Breeding habitat is cryptic and therefore roost searches should only be combined with other techniques to determine breeding habitat; - Breeding habitat is considered present if there is 1) potential breeding habitat, and 2. Breeding individuals of the target species on the subject land. Note: It does not say that breeding individuals need to be in the potential breeding habitat. - If presence is assumed, species habitat should be mapped in accordance with Table 1. If breeding habitat is assumed breeding habitat should be mapped in accordance with Table 2. - All surveys for bats where breeding habitat must be identified require an assessment of the sex, age and reproductive condition of any bats observed to identify breeding bats, unless the species is assumed to be present (development and biocertification sites only), in which case breeding habitat is also assumed, and mapped accordingly. Any bats of the target species observed (or previously recorded) that are pregnant, carrying pups, lactating, juveniles (i.e. less than six months old) should be considered positive confirmation of breeding habitat, which is to be mapped in accordance with Table 2. Note: Trapping guides the decision of breeding habitat more so than habitat searches. This reasoning is not explained in The BAM Bat Guide.

- If acoustic detectors are the only survey method used and the target species is detected, breeding must be assumed and mapped in accordance with Table 2.

In conclusion, Travers bushfire & ecology expect that the recorded overhangs (some of which are located within the proposed development footprint and the remaining are located within 100m) are not likely to contribute to breeding habitat and a SAII is not expected to occur as a result of the proposal.

Nonetheless, in accordance with The BAM Bat Guide, in the current absence of trapping effort during the advised survey / breeding period to determine actual presence of breeding individuals on site at this time, we are to assume such presence. Further trapping survey during the mid-November to end of January period is recommended to finalise the SAII assessment for this species.

Eastern Cave Bat - Very little is known about the biology of this uncommon species including its feeding or breeding requirements or behaviour (DPIE – Saving Our Species Strategies). This is a species credit species. Species sensitivity to loss is indicated by the TDBC as ‘moderate’. Species sensitivity to potential gain is ‘very high’.

The Eastern Cave Bat has not been recorded within the study area to date. It was recorded on adjacent lands to the north-west by TBE from only a limited number of infrequent passes on a single night during passive ultrasonic survey in October 2020. Therefore, the species is identified only to a ‘possible’ level of certainty from these nearby surveys. As with the Large- eared Pied Bat surveys are limited in the last five years and require update to satisfy assessment requirements. The species is therefore currently assumed to occur.

Species polygons for offsetting calculations has been generated in accordance with Table 1 of The BAM Bat Guide. The sandstone overhangs within the study area described for the Large-eared Pied Bat are also equally consistent with ‘potential breeding habitat’ as defined by Section 3.3 of The BAM Bat Guide for this species. The features and survey required to determine breeding habitat for Eastern Cave Bat is also consistent with that outlined for Large- eared Pied Bat. Therefore, the assessment outcome with respect to potential SAII also remains consistent between both species. Based on the very limited amount of ‘potential’ recorded activity, the study area certainly is less expected to be of breeding importance to Eastern Cave Bat.

In accordance with The BAM Bat Guide and the current absence of trapping effort during the advised survey / breeding period to determine actual presence of breeding individuals, we are to assume this presence. Further trapping survey during the mid-November to end of January period is therefore also recommended for this species to finalise the SAII assessment.

Little Bent-winged Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat – These species are considered together given their same criteria defined as SAII within The BAM Bat Guide. These species are allocated to species credit class for breeding habitat only. Species sensitivity to loss is indicated by the TDBC as ‘moderate’. Species sensitivity to potential gain for breeding is ‘very high’. Species sensitivity to potential gain for foraging is ‘high’.

The Little Bent-winged Bat and Large Bent-winged Bat were recorded foraging within the study area during passive ultrasonic surveys in 2013-2015 surveys and the Large Bent-winged Bat was recorded in 2019-2020 surveys. The recorded locations are shown on Figure 4.

‘Potential breeding habitat’ as defined by The BAM Bat Guide for these species includes caves, tunnels, mines or other structures known or suspected to be used”. The recorded overhangs within the study area are not considered to be suitable for breeding, therefore there will be no likely SAII on Little Bent-winged Bat or Large Bent-winged Bat.

A4 SAII Impact Assessment - Communities

SAII Impact Assessment

A4 Communities

BC Reg 6.7 Principles applicable to determination of “serious and irreversible impacts on biodiversity values” (section 6.5 (1))

(1) This clause applies for the purposes of determining whether an impact on diversity values is a serious and irreversible impact for the purposes of the biodiversity offsets scheme. (2) An impact is to be regarded as serious and irreversible if it is likely to contribute significantly to the risk of a threatened species or ecological community becoming extinct because: (a) it will cause a further decline of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to be in a rapid rate of decline, or (b) it will further reduce the population size of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very small population size, or (c) it is an impact on the habitat of the species or ecological community that is currently observed, estimated, inferred or reasonably suspected to have a very limited geographic distribution, or (d) the impacted species or ecological community is unlikely to respond to measures to improve its habitat and vegetation integrity and therefore its members are not replaceable. (3) For the purpose of this clause, a decline of a species or ecological community is a continuing or projected decline in: (a) an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon, or (b) the geographic distribution and habitat quality of the species or ecological community. (4) If the guidance published by the Environment Agency Head under section 6.5 (2) of the Act is changed, a biodiversity assessment report may, during the period of 90 days after the guidance was changed, be prepared on the basis of the guidance in force before the change, but only if the report states that it has been prepared on that basis.

The above principles have been considered for determining if the proposal is an SAII.

The additional impact assessment provisions for threatened ecological communities (TECs) to determine a Serious and Irreversible Impact (SAII) are outlined under Section 9.1.1 of the BAM (2020) and have been applied to the recorded Shale-Sandstone Transition Forest (SSTF) and Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (WSDR) as follows:

(a) The action and measures taken to avoid the direct and indirect impact on the potential entity for an SAII

WSDR

The concept masterplan avoids the majority of WSDR within the study area and allows for the retention of 9.99ha out of 10.26ha of WSDR (97.37%). The entire 9.99ha will

be conserved as part of a stewardship site. The proposed masterplan will remove approximately 0.27ha of this vegetation within Precinct C only.

SSTF

The concept masterplan avoids 28.80ha out of 53.89ha of SSTF (53.44%) within the study area. The majority will form part of a biodiversity stewardship site. The proposed masterplan will remove approximately 27.23ha of SSTF.

(b) The area (ha) and condition of the TEC to be impacted directly and indirectly by the proposed development. The condition of the TEC is to be represented by the vegetation integrity score for each vegetation zone

Impacts from development and APZ areas for SSTF and WSDR are shown in the table below:

Vegetation Management Area Current Future Change Total zone name (ha) vegetation vegetation in change integrity integrity score in score score score 877_good Development 0.08 56.9 0 -56.9 -41.3 (WSDR) APZ 0.19 56.9 22.2 -34.7 1395_good Development 15.23 60.4 0 -60.4 -51.7 (SSTF) APZ 12.00 60.4 19.7 -40.7

(c) A description of the extent to which the impact exceeds the threshold for the potential entity that is specified in the Guidance to assist a decision-maker to determine a serious and irreversible impact

Thresholds for TECs have not yet been provided by DPIE.

(d) The extent and overall condition of the potential TEC within an area of 1,000ha, and then 10,000ha, surrounding the proposed development footprint

The following figures are based on the Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain mapping (2002), Native Vegetation Northern Hawkesbury VISID 4167 (2008), Baulkham Hills Bushland Survey 1991.

WSDR:

Extant WSDR within 1,000ha and 10,000ha circles

Extant area within Extant area within Canopy cover 1,000 ha (ha) WSDR 10,000 ha (ha) WSDR

>10% cover 0 5.06 <10% cover 0 0 Unknown 0 0 Total 0 5.06

SSTF:

Extant SSTF within 1,000ha and 10,000ha circles

Extant area within Extant area within Canopy cover 1,000 ha (ha)SSTF 10,000 ha (ha) SSTF

>10% cover 356.47 1369.9 <10% cover 58.36 622.55 Unknown 0 247.14 Total 414.82 2239.58

(e) An estimate of the extant area and overall condition of the potential TEC remaining in the IBRA subregion before and after the impact of the proposed development has been taken into consideration

The following figures are based on the Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain mapping (2002), Native Vegetation Northern Hawkesbury VISID 4167 (2008), Baulkham Hills Bushland Survey 1991.

WSDR

Extant WSDR within the Yengo IBRA sub-region

Canopy cover Extant area - Yengo IBRA sub-region (ha)

>10% cover 163.8 <10% cover 0 Unknown 13.3 Total 177.1

The proposed development will remove 0.27ha of WSDR, which is 0.152% of the estimated extant WSDR within the Yengo IBRA sub-region. The proposal is unlikely to reduce the overall condition of the WSDR.

SSTF:

Extant WSDR within the Yengo IBRA sub-region

Canopy cover Extant area - Yengo IBRA sub-region (ha)

>10% cover 4,805.33 <10% cover 2,289.29 Unknown 619.77 Total 7,714.4

The proposed development will remove 27.23ha of SSTF, which is 0.33% of the estimated extant SSTF within the Yengo IBRA sub-region. The proposal is unlikely to reduce the overall condition of the WSDR or SSTF.

(f) An estimate of the area of the potential TEC that is in the reserve system within the IBRA region and the IBRA subregion

The following figures are based on the Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain mapping (2002), Native Vegetation Northern Hawkesbury VISID 4167 (2008), Baulkham Hills Bushland Survey 1991.

WSDR:

Extant WSDR within the Yengo IBRA sub-region

IBRA region / sub-region Extant area of WSDR (ha)

Yengo sub-region 89.29 Sydney basin region 103

SSTF: Extant SSTF within the Yengo IBRA sub-region

IBRA region / sub-region Extant area of SSTF (ha)

Yengo sub-region 318.84 Sydney basin region 727.34

(g) The development, clearing or biodiversity certification proposal’s impact on:

i. abiotic factors critical to the long-term survival of the potential TEC; for example, how much the impact will lead to a reduction of groundwater levels or the substantial alteration of surface water patterns

Abiotic factors will be impacted at an insignificant level and are not considered likely to be critical the survival of the TECs on site.

ii. characteristic and functionally important species through impacts such as, but not limited to, inappropriate fire/flooding regimes, removal of understorey species or harvesting of plants

WSDR

0.19ha will be managed as an APZ, which will involve slight reduction in ground layer species, 15% reduction in tree and shrub layers, and no regeneration (see Section 2.7.5). It is considered this is not likely to impact on characteristic and functionally important species.

SSTF

12.00ha will be managed as an APZ, which will involve slight reduction in ground layer species, 15% reduction in tree and shrub layers, and no regeneration (see Section 2.7.5). It is considered this is not likely to impact on characteristic and functionally important species.

iii. the quality and integrity of an occurrence of the potential TEC through threats and indirect impacts including, but not limited to, assisting invasive flora and fauna species to become established or causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants which may harm or inhibit growth of species in the potential TEC

Establishment of invasive flora and fauna is possible due to the presence of such species, but it is considered that the proposal is not likely to increase this impact. Implementation of a stewardship site agreement covering almost the entire extent of WSDR and SSTF will allow for targeted weed and pest control for the next 20 years and should significantly reduce the presence of invasive species. Similarly, the site is managed as a golf course with already high fertiliser and chemical inputs, so the proposal is not likely to lead to an increase in these inputs.

(h) Direct or indirect fragmentation and isolation of an important area of the potential TEC

The proposed masterplan has been designed to retain important connectivity across the site (see Section 3.6). The proposal will reduce the area of TEC vegetation but will not further isolate or fragment any TEC remnants within the site.

(i) The measures proposed to contribute to the recovery of the potential TEC in the IBRA subregion.

A biodiversity stewardship site report has been prepared by Travers bushfire & ecology which sets out proposed measures to protect (in perpetuity), improve and restore WSDR and SSTF within the defined stewardship site. This will involve restoration of some currently cleared land to fully-structured SSTF.

Conclusion:

It is considered that an impact on WSDR of 0.27 (0.152% in the subregion) does not constitute a SAII. The impact of 27.23ha (0.33%) on SSTF does not constitute SAII.

A5 Plot Datasheets

Plot Datasheets A5

A6 EPBC Impact Criteria

National - Significant

Impact Criteria A6

Under the EPBC Act an action will require approval from the Australian Government Environment Minister if the action has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance. The following significant impact criteria were sourced from the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 (2013):

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Significant impact criteria An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: • Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population; • Reduce the area of occupancy of the species; • Fragment an existing population into two or more populations; • Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; • Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population; • Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline; • Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat; • Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or • Interfere with the recovery of the species.

>> What is a population of a species? A ‘population of a species’ is defined under the EPBC Act as an occurrence of the species in a particular area. In relation to critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable threatened species, occurrences include but are not limited to: • a geographically distinct regional population, or collection of local populations; or • a population, or collection of local populations, that occurs within a bioregion.

>> What is habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological community? ‘Habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological community’ refers to areas that are necessary: • For activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal; • For the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological community, such as pollinators); • To maintain genetic diversity and long-term evolutionary development; or • For the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community. Such habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery plan for the species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological community; and/or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the Minister under the EPBC Act.

VULNERABLE SPECIES Significant impact criteria An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: • lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species; • reduce the area of occupancy of an important population; • fragment an existing important population into two or more populations; • adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species; • disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population; • modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline; • result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat; • introduce disease that may cause the species to decline; or • interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

>> What is an important population of a species? An ‘important population’ is a population that is necessary for a species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are: • Key source populations either for breeding or dispersal; • Populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity; and/or • Populations that are near the limit of the species range.

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED AND ENDANGERED ECOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES Significant impact criteria An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered ecological community if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: • Reduce the extent of an ecological community; • Fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines; • Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community; • Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil) necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns; • Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting; • Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including, but not limited to: – assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established; or – causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community; or • Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.

MIGRATORY SPECIES Significant impact criteria An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will: • Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species; • Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species; or • Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

>> What is important habitat for a migratory species? An area of ‘important habitat’ for a migratory species is: a) Habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species; and/or b) Habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages; and/or c) Habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range; and/or d) Habitat within an area where the species is declining.

>> What is an ecologically significant proportion? Listed migratory species cover a broad range of species with different life cycles and population sizes. Therefore, what is an ‘ecologically significant proportion’ of the population varies with the species (each circumstance will need to be evaluated). Some factors that should be considered include the species’ population status, genetic distinctiveness and species-specific behavioural patterns (for example, site fidelity and dispersal rates).

>> What is the population of a migratory species? ‘Population’, in relation to migratory species, means the entire population or any geographically separate part of the population of any species or lower taxon of wild animals, a significant proportion of whose members cyclically and predictably cross one or more national jurisdictional boundaries including Australia.

A7 - BAM CalculatorBAM Output Calculator Outputs A7

Proposal Details

Assessment Id Proposal Name BAM data last updated *

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course 22/02/2021

Assessor Name Report Created BAM Data version * Lindsay Holmes 01/03/2021 37

Assessor Number BAM Case Status Date Finalised BAAS17032 Finalised 01/03/2021

Assessment Revision Assessment Type BOS entry trigger 0 Part 4 Developments (General)

* Disclaimer: BAM data last updated may indicate either complete or partial update of the BAM calculator database. BAM calculator database may not be completely aligned with Bionet.

Ecosystem credits for plant communities types (PCT), ecological communities & threatened species habitat

Zone Vegetation TEC name Current Change in Area BC Act Listing EPBC Act Species sensitivity Biodiversity Potential Ecosystem zone name Vegetation Vegetation (ha) status listing status to gain class risk SAII credits integrity score integrity (for BRW) weighting (loss / gain)

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 1 of 4

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Credit Summary Report

Cumberland riverflat forest 1 835_good River-Flat 61.4 43.4 1.9 Endangered High Sensitivity 2.00 42 Eucalypt Forest Ecological to Potential Gain on Coastal Community Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions Subtotal 42 Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest 3 1395_good Shale Sandstone 60.4 51.7 27.2 Critically High Sensitivity 2.50 TRUE 880 Transition Forest Endangered to Potential Gain in the Sydney Ecological Basin Bioregion Community Subtotal 880 Hinterland dry rainforest 2 877_good Western Sydney 56.9 41.3 0.27 Endangered High Sensitivity 2.00 TRUE 6 Dry Rainforest in Ecological to Potential Gain the Sydney Basin Community Bioregion Subtotal 6 Total 928

Species credits for threatened species

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 2 of 4

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Credit Summary Report

Vegetation zone Habitat condition Change in Area (ha)/Count BC Act Listing EPBC Act listing Biodiversity risk Potential Species name (Vegetation Integrity) habitat condition (no. individuals) status status weighting SAII credits Callocephalon fimbriatum / Gang-gang Cockatoo ( Fauna ) 1395_good 51.7 51.7 27.2 Vulnerable Not Listed 2 False 704 Subtotal 704 Calyptorhynchus lathami / Glossy Black-Cockatoo ( Fauna ) 1395_good 51.7 51.7 27.2 Vulnerable Not Listed 2 False 704 Subtotal 704 Chalinolobus dwyeri / Large-eared Pied Bat ( Fauna ) 835_good 43.4 43.4 1.9 Vulnerable Vulnerable 3 True 63 877_good 41.3 41.3 0.27 Vulnerable Vulnerable 3 True 8 1395_good 51.7 51.7 27.2 Vulnerable Vulnerable 3 True 1056 Subtotal 1127 Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens / Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens ( Flora ) 1395_good N/A N/A 10 Vulnerable Not Listed 1.5 False 15 Subtotal 15 Myotis macropus / Southern Myotis ( Fauna ) 835_good 43.4 43.4 1.8 Vulnerable Not Listed 2 False 39 877_good 41.3 41.3 0.27 Vulnerable Not Listed 2 False 6 1395_good 51.7 51.7 13.1 Vulnerable Not Listed 2 False 339 Subtotal 384 Ninox connivens / Barking Owl ( Fauna ) 1395_good 51.7 51.7 27.2 Vulnerable Not Listed 2 False 704 Subtotal 704

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 3 of 4

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Credit Summary Report

Pommerhelix duralensis / Dural Land Snail ( Fauna ) 1395_good 51.7 51.7 27.2 Endangered Endangered 2 False 704 Subtotal 704 Vespadelus troughtoni / Eastern Cave Bat ( Fauna ) 835_good 43.4 43.4 1.9 Vulnerable Not Listed 3 True 63 877_good 41.3 41.3 0.27 Vulnerable Not Listed 3 True 8 1395_good 51.7 51.7 27.2 Vulnerable Not Listed 3 True 1056 Subtotal 1127

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 4 of 4

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Candidate Species Report

Proposal Details

Assessment Id Proposal Name BAM data last updated * 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course 22/02/2021

Assessor Name Report Created BAM Data version * Lindsay Holmes 01/03/2021 37 Assessor Number Assessment Type BAM Case Status BAAS17032 Part 4 Developments (General) Finalised

Assessment Revision Date Finalised BOS entry trigger 0 01/03/2021

* Disclaimer: BAM data last updated may indicate either complete or partial update of the BAM calculator database. BAM calculator database may not be completely aligned with Bionet.

List of Species Requiring Survey

Name Presence Survey Months

Acacia bynoeana No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Bynoe's Wattle May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Anthochaera phrygia No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Regent Honeyeater May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Callistemon linearifolius No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Netted Bottle Brush May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months?

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 1 of 6 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Candidate Species Report

Callocephalon fimbriatum Yes (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Gang-gang Cockatoo *Survey months are outside of the months ; May Jun Jul ; Aug specified in Bionet. Sep Oct Nov Dec

; Survey month outside the specified months? Calyptorhynchus lathami Yes (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar ; Apr Glossy Black-Cockatoo May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Chalinolobus dwyeri Yes (assumed present) Jan Feb Mar Apr Large-eared Pied Bat May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Epacris purpurascens var. Yes (assumed present) Jan Feb Mar Apr purpurascens Epacris purpurascens var. May Jun Jul Aug purpurascens Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Grevillea parviflora subsp. No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr supplicans Grevillea parviflora subsp. supplicans May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Haliaeetus leucogaster No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr White-bellied Sea-Eagle May Jun Jul ; Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months?

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 2 of 6 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Candidate Species Report

Hibbertia superans No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Hibbertia superans May Jun Jul Aug

Sep ; Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Hieraaetus morphnoides No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Little Eagle *Survey months are outside of the months ; May Jun Jul ; Aug specified in Bionet. Sep Oct Nov Dec

; Survey month outside the specified months? Lophoictinia isura No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Square-tailed Kite *Survey months are outside of the months ; May Jun Jul ; Aug specified in Bionet. Sep Oct Nov Dec

; Survey month outside the specified months? Myotis macropus Yes (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Southern Myotis *Survey months are outside of the months ; May Jun Jul Aug specified in Bionet. Sep Oct Nov Dec

; Survey month outside the specified months? Ninox connivens Yes (assumed present) Jan Feb Mar Apr Barking Owl May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Ninox strenua No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Powerful Owl ; May Jun Jul ; Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months?

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 3 of 6 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Candidate Species Report

Persoonia hirsuta No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Hairy Geebung May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Petaurus norfolcensis No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Squirrel Glider May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Pommerhelix duralensis Yes (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Dural Land Snail ; May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Pseudophryne australis No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Red-crowned Toadlet May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Rhodamnia rubescens No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Scrub Turpentine May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months?

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 4 of 6 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Candidate Species Report

Tetratheca glandulosa No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Tetratheca glandulosa May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct ; Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Tyto novaehollandiae No (surveyed) Jan Feb Mar Apr Masked Owl ; May Jun Jul ; Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months? Vespadelus troughtoni Yes (assumed present) Jan Feb Mar Apr Eastern Cave Bat May Jun Jul Aug

Sep Oct Nov Dec

Survey month outside the specified months?

Threatened species assessed as not on site Refer to BAR for detailed justification Common name Scientific name Justification in the BAM-C Austral Pillwort Pilularia novae-hollandiae Species is vagrant

Brown Pomaderris Pomaderris brunnea Refer to BAR

Brush-tailed Phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa Refer to BAR

Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby Petrogale penicillata Refer to BAR

Bush Stone-curlew Burhinus grallarius Species is vagrant

Cumberland Plain Land Snail Meridolum corneovirens Refer to BAR

Deane's Paperbark Melaleuca deanei Refer to BAR

Dillwynia tenuifolia Dillwynia tenuifolia Refer to BAR

Dillwynia tenuifolia Sieber ex D.C. in Dillwynia tenuifolia - Geographic limitations the Baulkham Hills local government endangered population area Downy Wattle Acacia pubescens Species is vagrant

Eastern Osprey Pandion cristatus Refer to BAR

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 5 of 6 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Candidate Species Report

Eastern Pygmy-possum Cercartetus nanus Refer to BAR

Gang-gang Cockatoo population in Callocephalon fimbriatum - Refer to BAR the Hornsby and Ku-ring-gai Local endangered population Government Areas Giant Barred Frog Mixophyes iteratus Refer to BAR

Giant Burrowing Frog Heleioporus australiacus Refer to BAR

Green and Golden Bell Frog Litoria aurea Refer to BAR

Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus Refer to BAR

Gyrostemon thesioides Gyrostemon thesioides Species is vagrant

Heath Wrinklewort Rutidosis heterogama Species is vagrant

Hibbertia puberula Hibbertia puberula Refer to BAR

Julian's Hibbertia Hibbertia spanantha Species is vagrant

Koala Phascolarctos cinereus Refer to BAR

Large Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus orianae Refer to BAR oceanensis Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. fletcheri Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. Refer to BAR fletcheri Little Bent-winged Bat Miniopterus australis Refer to BAR

Narrow-leaf Finger Fern Grammitis stenophylla Species is vagrant

Rainforest Cassia Senna acclinis Refer to BAR

Seringia denticulata in the Seringia denticulata - Refer to BAR Hawkesbury local government area endangered population Singleton Mint Bush Prostanthera cineolifera Species is vagrant

Small-flower Grevillea Grevillea parviflora subsp. Species is vagrant parviflora Square Raspwort Haloragis exalata subsp. Species is vagrant exalata Stuttering Frog Mixophyes balbus Refer to BAR

Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor Refer to BAR

Tall Knotweed Persicaria elatior Refer to BAR

Velleia perfoliata Velleia perfoliata Refer to BAR

White-flowered Wax Plant Cynanchum elegans Refer to BAR

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 6 of 6 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Predicted Species Report

Proposal Details Assessment Id Proposal Name BAM data last updated * 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course 22/02/2021

Assessor Name Report Created BAM Data version * Lindsay Holmes 01/03/2021 37

Assessor Number Assessment Type BAM Case Status BAAS17032 Part 4 Developments (General) Finalised

Assessment Revision BOS entry trigger Date Finalised 0 01/03/2021

* Disclaimer: BAM data last updated may indicate either complete or partial update of the BAM calculator database. BAM calculator database may not be completely aligned with Bionet.

Threatened species reliably predicted to utilise the site. No surveys are required for these species. Ecosystem credits apply to these species.

Common Name Scientific Name Vegetation Types(s) Barking Owl Ninox connivens 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Black-chinned Melithreptus gularis 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Honeyeater (eastern gularis 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest subspecies) Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura 835-Cumberland riverflat forest guttata 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Dusky Woodswallow Artamus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest cyanopterus 877-Hinterland dry rainforest cyanopterus 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Eastern Coastal Micronomus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Free-tailed Bat norfolkensis 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Eastern False Falsistrellus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Pipistrelle tasmaniensis 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Eastern Osprey Pandion cristatus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea 835-Cumberland riverflat forest

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 1 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Predicted Species Report

Flame Robin Petroica phoenicea 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Gang-gang Callocephalon 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Cockatoo fimbriatum 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Glossy Black- Calyptorhynchus 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Cockatoo lathami Greater Broad-nosed Scoteanax rueppellii 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Bat 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Grey-headed Flying- Pteropus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest fox poliocephalus 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Koala Phascolarctos 835-Cumberland riverflat forest cinereus 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Large Bent-winged Miniopterus orianae 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Bat oceanensis 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Little Bent-winged Miniopterus australis 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Bat 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Little Eagle Hieraaetus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest morphnoides 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Little Lorikeet Glossopsitta pusilla 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Masked Owl Tyto 835-Cumberland riverflat forest novaehollandiae 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Powerful Owl Ninox strenua 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 877-Hinterland dry rainforest

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 2 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Predicted Species Report

Regent Honeyeater Anthochaera phrygia 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Rosenberg's Goanna Varanus rosenbergi 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Scarlet Robin Petroica boodang 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Square-tailed Kite Lophoictinia isura 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Turquoise Parrot Neophema pulchella 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Varied Sittella Daphoenositta 835-Cumberland riverflat forest chrysoptera 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest White-bellied Sea- Haliaeetus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Eagle leucogaster 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Yellow-bellied Glider Petaurus australis 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Yellow-bellied Saccolaimus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Sheathtail-bat flaviventris 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest

Threatened species assessed as not within the vegetation zone(s) for the PCT(s) Common Name Scientific Name Plant Community Type(s) Australasian Bittern Botaurus 835-Cumberland riverflat forest poiciloptilus Black Bittern Ixobrychus flavicollis 835-Cumberland riverflat forest Brown Treecreeper Climacteris 835-Cumberland riverflat forest (eastern subspecies) picumnus victoriae 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Golden-tipped Bat Phoniscus papuensis 877-Hinterland dry rainforest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Hooded Robin Melanodryas 835-Cumberland riverflat forest (south-eastern form) cucullata cucullata

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 3 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Predicted Species Report

Hooded Robin Melanodryas 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest (south-eastern form) cucullata cucullata Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta 835-Cumberland riverflat forest 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Speckled Warbler Chthonicola 835-Cumberland riverflat forest sagittata 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest

Threatened species assessed as not within the vegetation zone(s) for the PCT(s) Refer to BAR for detailed justification Common Name Scientific Name Justification in the BAM-C Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus Refer to BAR Black Bittern Ixobrychus flavicollis Refer to BAR Brown Treecreeper (eastern Climacteris picumnus victoriae Refer to BAR subspecies) Golden-tipped Bat Phoniscus papuensis Refer to BAR Hooded Robin (south-eastern form) Melanodryas cucullata cucullata Refer to BAR Painted Honeyeater Grantiella picta Habitat constraints Speckled Warbler Chthonicola sagittata Refer to BAR

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 4 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Vegetation Zones Report

Proposal Details

Assessment Id Assessment name BAM data last updated * 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course 22/02/2021

Assessor Name Report Created BAM Data version * Lindsay Holmes 01/03/2021 37

Assessor Number Assessment Type BAM Case Status BAAS17032 Part 4 Developments (General) Finalised

Assessment Revision Date Finalised BOS entry trigger 0 01/03/2021

* Disclaimer: BAM data last updated may indicate either complete or partial update of the BAM calculator database. BAM calculator database may not be completely aligned with Bionet.

Vegetation Zones

# Name PCT Condition Area Minimum Management zones number of plots 1 835_good 835-Cumberland riverflat forest good 1.94 1 APZ (1.27 ha) Developmen (0.67 ha)

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 1 of 2

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Vegetation Zones Report

2 877_good 877-Hinterland dry rainforest good 0.27 1 Developmen (0.08 ha) APZ (0.19 ha) 3 1395_good 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone good 27.23 4 APZ (12 ha) Ironbark forest Developmen (15.23 ha)

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 2 of 2

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Like for like)

Proposal Details

Assessment Id Proposal Name BAM data last updated *

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course 22/02/2021

Assessor Name Assessor Number BAM Data version * Lindsay Holmes BAAS17032 37

Proponent Names Report Created BAM Case Status 01/03/2021 Finalised

Assessment Revision Assessment Type Date Finalised 0 Part 4 Developments (General) 01/03/2021

BOS entry trigger * Disclaimer: BAM data last updated may indicate either complete or partial update of the BAM calculator database. BAM calculator database may not be completely aligned with Bionet.

Potential Serious and Irreversible Impacts Name of threatened ecological community Listing status Name of Plant Community Type/ID Western Sydney Dry Rainforest in the Sydney Endangered Ecological 877-Hinterland dry rainforest Basin Bioregion Community Shale Sandstone Transition Forest in the Sydney Critically Endangered 1395-Cumberland shale - sandstone Ironbark forest Basin Bioregion Ecological Community

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 1 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Like for like)

Species Chalinolobus dwyeri / Large-eared Pied Bat Vespadelus troughtoni / Eastern Cave Bat Additional Information for Approval

PCTs With Customized Benchmarks

PCT No Changes

Predicted Threatened Species Not On Site Name Botaurus poiciloptilus / Australasian Bittern Climacteris picumnus victoriae / Brown Treecreeper (eastern subspecies) Grantiella picta / Painted Honeyeater Ixobrychus flavicollis / Black Bittern Phoniscus papuensis / Golden-tipped Bat Melanodryas cucullata cucullata / Hooded Robin (south-eastern form) Chthonicola sagittata / Speckled Warbler

Ecosystem Credit Summary (Number and class of biodiversity credits to be retired) No Ecosystem Credit Data

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 2 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Like for like)

Species Credit Summary Species Vegetation Zone/s Area / Count Credits Callocephalon fimbriatum / Gang-gang Cockatoo 1395_good 27.2 704.00 Calyptorhynchus lathami / Glossy Black-Cockatoo 1395_good 27.2 704.00 Chalinolobus dwyeri / Large-eared Pied Bat 835_good, 877_good, 29.4 1127.00 1395_good Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens / Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens 1395_good 10.0 15.00 Myotis macropus / Southern Myotis 835_good, 877_good, 15.2 384.00 1395_good Ninox connivens / Barking Owl 1395_good 27.2 704.00 Pommerhelix duralensis / Dural Land Snail 1395_good 27.2 704.00 Vespadelus troughtoni / Eastern Cave Bat 835_good, 877_good, 29.4 1127.00 1395_good

Credit Retirement Options Like-for-like credit retirement options Callocephalon fimbriatum / Spp IBRA subregion Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum / Gang-gang Cockatoo Any in NSW

Calyptorhynchus lathami / Spp IBRA subregion Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami / Glossy Black-Cockatoo Any in NSW

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 3 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Like for like)

Chalinolobus dwyeri / Spp IBRA subregion Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri / Large-eared Pied Bat Any in NSW

Epacris purpurascens var. Spp IBRA subregion purpurascens / Epacris purpurascens var. Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens / Epacris purpurascens var. Any in NSW purpurascens purpurascens Myotis macropus / Spp IBRA subregion Southern Myotis Myotis macropus / Southern Myotis Any in NSW

Ninox connivens / Spp IBRA subregion Barking Owl Ninox connivens / Barking Owl Any in NSW

Pommerhelix duralensis / Spp IBRA subregion Dural Land Snail Pommerhelix duralensis / Dural Land Snail Any in NSW

Vespadelus troughtoni / Spp IBRA subregion Eastern Cave Bat Vespadelus troughtoni / Eastern Cave Bat Any in NSW

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 4 of 4 00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

Proposal Details

Assessment Id Proposal Name BAM data last updated *

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course 22/02/2021

Assessor Name Assessor Number BAM Data version * Lindsay Holmes BAAS17032 37 Proponent Name(s) Report Created BAM Case Status 01/03/2021 Finalised Assessment Revision Assessment Type Date Finalised 0 Part 4 Developments (General) 01/03/2021 BOS entry trigger * Disclaimer: BAM data last updated may indicate either complete or partial update of the BAM calculator database. BAM calculator database may not be completely aligned with Bionet.

PCTs With Customized Benchmarks

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 1 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

PCT No Changes

Ecosystem Credit Summary (Number and class of biodiversity credits to be retired) No Ecosystem Credit Data

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 2 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

Ninox connivens / Barking Owl 1395_good 27.2 704.00 Pommerhelix duralensis / Dural Land Snail 1395_good 27.2 704.00 Vespadelus troughtoni / Eastern Cave Bat 835_good, 877_good, 29.4 1127.00 1395_good

Credit Retirement Options Like-for-like options

Callocephalon fimbriatum/ Spp IBRA region Gang-gang Cockatoo Callocephalon fimbriatum/Gang-gang Cockatoo Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing under Part 4 of the BC Act shown below Fauna Vulnerable Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Calyptorhynchus lathami/ Spp IBRA region Glossy Black-Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus lathami/Glossy Black-Cockatoo Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing under Part 4 of the BC Act

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 3 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

shown below Fauna Vulnerable Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Chalinolobus dwyeri/ Spp IBRA region Large-eared Pied Bat Chalinolobus dwyeri/Large-eared Pied Bat Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing under Part 4 of the BC Act shown below Fauna Vulnerable Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Epacris purpurascens var. Spp IBRA region purpurascens/ Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens/Epacris Any in NSW Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens var. purpurascens purpurascens

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 4 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

under Part 4 of the BC Act shown below Flora Vulnerable Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Myotis macropus/ Spp IBRA region Southern Myotis Myotis macropus/Southern Myotis Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing under Part 4 of the BC Act shown below Fauna Vulnerable Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Ninox connivens/ Spp IBRA region Barking Owl Ninox connivens/Barking Owl Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 5 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

under Part 4 of the BC Act shown below Fauna Vulnerable Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Pommerhelix duralensis/ Spp IBRA region Dural Land Snail Pommerhelix duralensis/Dural Land Snail Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing under Part 4 of the BC Act shown below Fauna Endangered Yengo, Cumberland, Hunter, Kerrabee, Pittwater, Wollemi and Wyong. or Any IBRA subregion that is within 100 kilometers of the outer edge of the impacted site. Vespadelus troughtoni/ Spp IBRA region Eastern Cave Bat Vespadelus troughtoni/Eastern Cave Bat Any in NSW

Variation options

Kingdom Any species with same or IBRA region higher category of listing

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 6 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course BAM Biodiversity Credit Report (Variations)

Assessment Id Proposal Name Page 7 of 7

00015406/BAAS17032/19/00015409 Riverside Oaks Golf Course