Callala Bay Residential Development EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637)

Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd

DOCUMENT TRACKING

Project Name Callala Bay Residential Development, Preliminary Documentation

Project Number 19SYD - 12581

Project Manager Alex Gorey

Prepared by Alex Gorey, Nial Roder

Reviewed by Robert Humphries

Approved by Robert Humphries

Status Draft

Version Number 3

Last saved on 30 November 2020

This report should be cited as ‘Eco Logical Australia 2020. Callala Bay Residential Development, EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637). Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Matt Philpott of Allen Price and Scarrats Land and Development Consultants.

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Sealark Pty Ltd. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Sealark Pty Ltd, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Template 2.8.1

Contents

Executive Summary ...... 1 1. Introduction ...... 10 1.1 Scope of this report ...... 10 1.2 Proponent ...... 12 1.3 Contact details ...... 12

1.3.1 Environmental history of the proponent ...... 12 1.4 Proposed action ...... 12 1.5 Project history ...... 14 1.6 Site description ...... 14 1.7 Development footprint ...... 14 1.8 Retention areas and off-site conservation areas ...... 14 1.9 Alternatives to taking the proposed action ...... 15 1.10 Reliability of information ...... 15

2. Legislation and assessment ...... 20 2.1 Federal legislation ...... 20

2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ...... 20 2.2 State legislation ...... 20

2.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ...... 20 2.3 Stakeholder engagement and consultation ...... 20

3. Field assessment and species habitat analysis ...... 21 3.1 Literature and data review ...... 21 3.2 Field survey effort and methods ...... 22

3.2.1 Validity of survey effort ...... 28 3.3 Survey results ...... 33

3.3.1 Native vegetation ...... 33 3.3.2 Threatened flora habitat assessment ...... 33 3.3.3 Threatened flora targeted survey ...... 34 3.3.4 Threatened fauna ...... 34 3.4 MNES relevant to the site ...... 34 3.5 Assessment of the extent of regional habitat in the context of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires ...... 40 3.6 Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) ...... 42

3.6.1 Distribution and species ecology ...... 42 3.6.2 Occurrence within the locality...... 42 3.6.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 42 3.6.4 Habitat availability in the locality and IBRA region and impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season ...... 43

3.7 Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)...... 47

3.7.1 Distribution and species ecology ...... 47 3.7.2 Occurrence within the locality ...... 47 3.7.3 Habitat availability in the site and locality ...... 47 3.7.4 Habitat availability in the IBRA Subregion and impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season ...... 48 3.8 Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) ...... 53

3.8.1 Distribution and Species ecology ...... 53 3.8.2 Occurrence within the locality ...... 53 3.8.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 53 3.8.4 Habitat availability in the IBRA Subregion and impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season ...... 54 3.9 Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider-orchid) ...... 58

3.9.1 Distribution and Species ecology ...... 58 3.9.2 Occurrence within the locality...... 58 3.9.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 59 3.10 Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid) ...... 60

3.10.1 Species ecology ...... 60 3.10.2 Occurrence within the locality...... 60 3.10.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 60 3.11 Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) ...... 61

3.11.1 Species ecology ...... 61 3.11.2 Occurrence within the locality...... 61 3.11.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 61 3.12 Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) ...... 64

3.12.1 Species ecology ...... 64 3.12.2 Occurrence within the locality ...... 64 3.12.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 64 3.13 Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) ...... 67

3.13.1 Species ecology ...... 67 3.13.2 Occurrence within the locality ...... 67 3.13.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 68 3.14 Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) ...... 71

3.14.1 Species ecology ...... 71 3.14.2 Occurrence within the locality ...... 71 3.14.3 Habitat availability in the site ...... 72

4. Assessment of impact on relevant Matters of NES ...... 75 4.1 Application of mitigation hierarchy ...... 75

4.1.1 Avoidance of direct impacts to Yellow Gnat-orchid, Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider ...... 75 4.1.2 Minimisation ...... 76 4.2 Cumulative impacts ...... 76

4.3 Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) ...... 77

4.3.1 Proposed impacts ...... 77 4.3.2 Evaluation of impacts...... 77 4.3.3 Summary of residual impact ...... 80 4.3.4 Offsetting ...... 80 4.4 Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)...... 82

4.4.1 Potential impacts ...... 82 4.4.2 Evaluation of impacts...... 82 4.4.3 Summary of residual impact ...... 85 4.4.4 Offsetting ...... 85 4.5 Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) ...... 87

4.5.1 Potential impacts ...... 87 4.5.2 Evaluation of impacts...... 87 4.5.3 Summary of residual impact ...... 90 4.5.4 Offsetting ...... 90 4.6 Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox) ...... 92

4.6.1 Potential impacts ...... 92 4.6.2 Evaluation of impacts...... 92 4.6.3 Summary of residual impact ...... 94 4.6.4 Offsetting ...... 94

5. Environmental management measures ...... 95 5.1 On-site Bushland Park Plan of Management ...... 95 5.2 Off-site Biobank Agreement ...... 95 5.3 Construction Environment Management Plan ...... 95

6. Offset strategy...... 98 6.1 Offset policy and guidance ...... 98 6.2 Required offsets...... 98 6.3 On-site mitigation area ...... 99 6.4 Off-site conservation area (Lake Wollumboola Biobank site) ...... 99 6.5 Offsets (adequacy) assessment ...... 101

6.5.1 Habitat quality scoring ...... 101 6.5.2 Quantification of impact ...... 102 6.5.3 Time till conservation gain ...... 102 6.5.4 Level of certainty of conservation gain ...... 103 6.5.5 Calculation of proportion of impact mitigated by offsets ...... 103 6.5.6 Offset adequacy summary ...... 103 6.6 Timing for implementation ...... 104 6.7 Parties responsible for implementation ...... 104 6.8 Monitoring requirements ...... 105

7. Social and economic factors ...... 106 8. Conclusion ...... 107 9. References ...... 109 Appendix A Callala Bay Residential Development EPBC Referral – Supporting documentation...... 113 Appendix B EPBC 2020/8637 Controlled Action Decision ...... 114 Appendix C Names, roles and qualifications of persons preparing PD report ...... 115 Appendix D EPBC 2020/8637 PD requirements ...... 116 Appendix E Callala Bay Biocertification Assessment Report (ELA 2019) ...... 117 Appendix F Likelihood of occurrence ...... 118 Appendix G Detailed breakdown of BES 2006 targeted flora and fauna survey effort ...... 134 Appendix H Gunninah Environmental Consultants detailed survey effort and methodology ...... 135 Appendix I Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) expert report (EcoPlanning 2017) ...... 136 Appendix J Lake Wollumboola Biobanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report (ELA 2019) ...... 137 Appendix K Biobanking Agreement Lake Wollumboola Biobank site Management Actions Template (ELA 2019) ...... 138 Appendix L EPBC Offset Calculator and justification for Genoplesium baueri ...... 139 Appendix M EPBC Offset Calculator and justification for Greater Glider ...... 141 Appendix N EPBC Offset Calculator and justification for Spot-tailed Quoll ...... 145

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of the site ...... 16 Figure 2: Development footprint ...... 17 Figure 3: Land zoning in the site ...... 18 Figure 4: Site layout ...... 19 Figure 5: Threatened flora survey effort (combined effort; BES and ELA) in the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) ...... 25 Figure 6: Previous survey effort (2001) across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) ...... 30 Figure 7: Previous survey effort (2005 – 2006) across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) ...... 31 Figure 8: Threatened fauna survey effort (2016 / 2017) in the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) ...... 32 Figure 9: Validated vegetation in the site ...... 36 Figure 10: Validated Plant Community types in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site ...... 37 Figure 11: Results of 2016 targeted Yellow Gnat-orchid survey in the study area ...... 38 Figure 12: Distribution and size of hollow bearing trees identified by BES 2006 in the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site ...... 39 Figure 13: Extent and severity of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires in the Sydney IBRA region ...... 41 Figure 14: Yellow Gnat-orchid identified within the locality (targeted surveys and previous records) .. 44 Figure 15: Yellow Gnat-orchid records in relation to the 2019 / 2020 bushfires ...... 45 Figure 16: Yellow Gnat-orchid records within a 20 km radius of the site and the impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires ...... 46 Figure 17: Greater Glider records in the locality (20 km radius of the site). Note the records within the site are not shown here ...... 49 Figure 18: Preferred Greater Glider habitat within the locality, records and habitat under conservation agreements or management ...... 50 Figure 19: Habitat for the Greater Glider available post the 2019 / 2020 bushfires at the population scale ...... 51 Figure 20: Greater Glider habitat available within the locality post the 2019 / 2020 bushfires ...... 52 Figure 21: Spot-tailed Quoll records in the locality (20km radius of the site) ...... 55 Figure 22: Spot-tailed Quoll records at the population scale, relative to the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season ...... 56 Figure 23: Spot-tailed Quoll records in the locality, relative to the 2019 / 2020 bushfire impacts and preferred habitat (shown in green)...... 57 Figure 24: Previous records for Thick-lipped Spider-orchid, Leafless Tongue-orchid and Magenta Lilly Pilly in the locality ...... 63 Figure 25: Regent Honeyeater records in the locality ...... 65 Figure 26: Preferred Regent Honeyeater habitat within the locality...... 66 Figure 27: Swift Parrot records in the locality ...... 69 Figure 28: Preferred Swift Parrot habitat in the locality ...... 70 Figure 29: Grey-headed Flying-fox records within the locality ...... 73 Figure 30: Preferred Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat in the locality ...... 74

Figure 31: Yellow Gnat-orchid to be affected, retained and conserved in the site and Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Appendix I) ...... 81 Figure 32: Greater Glider habitat to be affected, retained (indirectly affected) and conserved in the site and Lake Wollumboola Biobank site ...... 86 Figure 33: Spot-tailed Quoll habitat to be affected, retained and conserved within the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site ...... 91

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of information requested by DAWE ...... 10 Table 2: Flora survey effort over the study area ...... 22 Table 3: Targeted threatened flora survey effort in the study area ...... 24 Table 4: Summary of targeted fauna survey effort across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site ...... 29 Table 5: Results of threatened flora habitat assessment ...... 33 Table 6: Yellow Gnat-orchid habitat onsite (including areas to be affected, conserved, or otherwise retained) ...... 77 Table 7: Significant impact assessment on Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) ...... 78 Table 8: Marginal habitat to be affected and conserved for the Greater Glider ...... 82 Table 9: Significant impact assessment on Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) ...... 83 Table 10: Marginal habitat to be affected and conserved for the Spot-tailed Quoll ...... 87 Table 11: Significant impact assessment on Spot-tailed Quoll ...... 88 Table 12: Significant impact assessment on Grey-headed Flying-fox...... 92 Table 13: PCTs that provide habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider in the Lake Wollumboolla Biobank site ...... 100 Table 14: Quality scores for the areas of habitat affected by the action and Greater Glider and Spot- tailed Quoll habitat offsets ...... 102 Table 15: Timing and management actions to achieve a conservation gain ...... 102

Executive Summary

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT On 28 April 2020, a proposal to develop 382 lots adjacent to Emmett Street, Callala Bay (the site) for a residential subdivision (the action) was referred to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) for determination as to whether any significant impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (Matters of NES) were likely to occur under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

On 4 June 2020 the DAWE determined that the proposed action is a ‘Controlled Action’ requiring further assessment and approval under the EPBC Act (2020/8637). The assessment method was ‘Preliminary Documentation’.

This report is the Preliminary Documentation (PD Report) for the proposed action.

PROJECT PROPONENT The proponent for the Callala Bay residential subdivision is Sealark Pty Ltd.

SITE CONTEXT The site is fully vegetated and located within the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA), within the coastal township of Callala Bay, approximately 20 km south-east of Nowra. The site is currently zoned as a deferred matter under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014. The site is bordered by Emmett Street to the south, residential development to the east and Lake Wollumboola BioBank site (owned by Sealark Pty Ltd) to the north. Callala Beach Road runs to the west of the site with no roads running to the north of the site.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Following modifications to the footprint from the preparation of this PD report, Sealark Pty Ltd are now proposing a residential development with an indicative yield of approximately 376 lots to be delivered in numerous stages over approximately 12 years. Development of the site will deliver a broad range of lot sizes consistent with the adjacent residential area. Development of the site would use the natural features of the site and interface with surrounding roads and environmental conservation areas.

AVOIDANCE AND MITIGATION OF MNES AND CONSERVATION OUTCOMES The proposed action has avoided impacts to threatened ecological values known to occur in the site through strategically retaining native vegetation as a bushland park. The bushland park has been accommodated through a reduction in residential lots from 382 to 372, which has allowed the retention of 35 of the 36 Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) individuals within the site.

Impacts have also been mitigated through the previous strategic identification and in-perpetuity conservation and management of 127.44 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll and ten (10) Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. The establishment of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site has allowed for an extensive area of native vegetation to be protected and conserved which is continuous with the Jervis Bay National Park and the Currambene State Forest, securing connectivity of habitat throughout the broader landscape.

MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE The controlled action decision identified that the action was likely to have a significant impact on six Matters of NES protected under Section 18 and 18A (threatened species and communities) of the EPBC Act and would require further assessment in relation to potential impacts from the propose action:

• Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider-orchid) - vulnerable • Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid) – vulnerable • Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) – endangered • Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) – endangered • Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) – vulnerable • Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) - vulnerable.

The controlled action decision notes that other MNES other than those specified in Appendix D may also be impacted by the proposed action. The purpose of the PD report is to assess all MNES likely to occur and determine which may be impacted and to what extent. By assessing all MNES relevant to the site, the following species were also considered as having potential to occur:

Flora

• Melaleuca biconvexa (Biconvex Paperbark) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Persicaria elatior (Tall Knotweed) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Prostanthera densa (Villous Mintbush) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Pterostylis gibbosa (Illawarra Greenhood) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Thesium australe (Austral Toadflax) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Triplarina nowraensis (Nowra Health-myrtle) – endangered under the EPBC Act.

Fauna

• Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) – critically endangered under the EPBC Act • Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Dasyornis brachypterus (Eastern Bristlebird) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Isoodon obesulus obesulus (Southern Brown Bandicoot) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) -critically endangered under the EPBC Act. • Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Potorous tridactylus tridactylus (Long-nosed Potoroo) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Pseudomys novaehollandiae (New Holland Mouse) - vulnerable under the EPBC Act.

Of the species assessed, Greater Glider and Yellow Gnat-orchid were identified in the study area and site respectively, during survey. Spot-tailed Quoll, although not identified on site during survey, was assumed present due to its highly cryptic nature, presence of suitable habitat and some nearby (20 km radius) records. This PD report has concluded that the proposed action is unlikely to constitute a residual significant impact on Yellow Gnat-orchid and habitat for Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll.

A detailed assessment of the previous survey effort and potential habitat availability for Regent Honeyeater, Swift Parrot, Grey-headed Flying-fox, Thick-lipped Spider-orchid, Leafless Tongue-orchid and Magenta Lilly Pilly was conducted and included as part of this PD to meet the PD requirements. The assessment determined that these species, (with the exception of the Grey-headed Flying-fox) are highly

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 2 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd unlikely to occur at the site, and detailed impact assessment as part of this PD Report is not required for these species. Further assessment was conducted for the Grey-headed Flying-fox as this species is expected to utilise the site occasionally for foraging purposes, however, it would not be relied upon. The proposed action would not have a significant impact to this species.

The remaining MNES detailed above were assessed with a combination of targeted survey, habitat assessments and desktop reviews. These species were either, not identified during survey or the site did not form potential habitat. These species did not require further assessment as part of the PD.

GENOPLESIUM BAUERI (YELLOW GNAT-ORCHID) – ENDANGERED Genoplesium baueri has been recorded between Ulladulla and Port Stephens. According to the EPBC Conservation Advice for this species, it was known to occur at 13 sites in 2014 with just over 200 known plants spread across 20 to 30 populations (largely based on a pers. comm. from a member of the Australia Orchid Society in 2010). However, estimates of number of populations and population size have increased since the preparation of the conservation advice with the species now considered to be restricted between Ulladulla and Sydney, with some 500 individuals recorded at four of these sites (two in Ku-rin-gai Chase National Park, Bomaderry Creek and Callala Bay (Copeland 2008, EcoPLanning 2017 and BioNet 2020).

There are 36 known individuals in the site (as counted in 2016) and a further 126 in the adjacent Biobank site making the site and Biobank site (study area) one of (or the) most abundant sites for the species and supporting 162 of the known 250 individuals.

The proposed action would retain 35 known individuals within the site, and conserve and manage in perpetuity an additional 126 known individuals in the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank site.

The areas that have been designated for development have been chosen to avoid and minimise impacts to the Yellow Gnat-orchid. The patch of vegetation to be retained on site as a local bushland park is known to contain 35 individuals of the Yellow Gnat-orchid. The mapped population is a result of extensive field survey throughout the site and adjacent lands over an extended survey period. The development footprint has been specifically redesigned to allow retention of these 35 individuals. The following principles were used in selecting the lands for development:

• Limiting development to the area south of the east – west ridge • avoidance of the known population through strategically locating the bushland park where individuals are known to occur • minimisation of impacts through the application of a 50 m buffer around the bushland park.

The residual impact to the Yellow Gnat-orchid is to one individual in the development footprint. This impact is not considered a residual significant impact, however, offsets have been provided as a precautionary measure. Offsets have been achieved and exceeded through the conservation and in- perpetuity management of 126 Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. Of the 126 individuals in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site, ten (10) are required to offset the impacts to the Yellow Gnat-orchid. This is also consistent with the requirements of the biocertification assessment.

DASYURUS MACULATUS MACULATUS (SPOT-TAILED QUOLL) – ENDANGERED Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) inhabits a variety of habitat types including rainforest, open forest woodland, coastal heath and inland riparian forest as well as beaches, grasslands and pastoral areas adjacent to forested habitat.

The Spot-tailed Quoll is a highly cryptic species and can be difficult to detect over large areas. Targeted survey for the Spot-tailed Quoll was conducted across the site using remote camera traps for both terrestrial and arboreal mammals in December 2016 to February 2016 for a total of 280 camera nights over 61 consecutive nights. Although no individuals were identified in the site during survey, as there are recent (four records from 2000 - 2018) Spot-tailed Quoll records within 10 kms of the site, and there is contiguous suitable habitat between the site and these records, a precautionary approach has been applied and the site has been assessed as potential habitat. This species has been assumed present.

The proposed action would directly and indirectly impact 40.19 ha of potential Spot-tailed Quoll foraging habitat which contains potential den sites. Whilst the proposed action would retain 2.71 ha of potential habitat as part of the bushland park, however, this area will suffer minor fragmentation from other areas of foraging habitat and has been considered as part of the 40.19 ha of impact. Whilst these residual impacts are not considered significant to an important population, offsets for these residual impacts have been achieved and exceeded through the in-perpetuity conservation and management of 127.44 ha of habitat in the adjacent Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. A total of 1,686 SR592 biobank ecosystem credits from the Callala Bay section of the Wollumboola Biobank site, representing 127.44 ha of Spot- tailed Quoll habitat, will be retired as part of the proposal.

The EPBC Act environmental offsets policy specifies that offsets must deliver an improve and maintain outcome for the protected matter. The offsets package must be reach 100 % of the offset requirement. This can be achieved through either, 100% of the offset requirement met through direct offsets or 90% met through direct offsets and 10 % met through other means.

The proposed offset for Spot-tailed Quoll provides 200.61 %, therefore exceeding the offset requirement by 100 % and meeting all offset requirements through direct offsets.

PETAUROIDES VOLANS (GREATER GLIDER) – VULNERABLE The Greater Glider occurs in eastern Australia from sea level to 1200 m above sea level. It typically inhabits tall, montane, moist eucalypt forests with abundant tree hollows. Home ranges are typically small at approximately 1-4 ha (DoE 2016).

The Greater Glider was recorded during spotlighting surveys by Gunninah Environmental Consultants in 2001 and again by ELA in 2016 (Appendix E). The proposed action will directly and indirectly impact 40.19 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider, including hollows that could provide denning habitat for the Greater Glider. Whilst the proposed action would retain 2.71 ha of Greater Glider habitat as part of the bushland park, including habitat trees, this area will suffer minor fragmentation from other areas of foraging habitat and has been considered an indirect impact as part of the 40.19 ha of impact. Although this area would be retained and is of an appropriate size for foraging for the Greater Glider, a precautionary approach has been taken and assumed this area would not be available as habitat.

Although the proposed action is not considered to constitute a significant residual impact to an important population, it may constitute a significant impact to the local population of the Greater Glider. Hence, offsets have been provided. To offset this residual impact to 40.19 ha of Greater Glider habitat, 127.44 ha of habitat has been conserved and managed in-perpetuity as park of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. 1,686 SR592 biobank ecosystem credits from the Callala Bay section of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site, representing 127.44 ha of Greater Glider habitat, will be retired as part of the proposed offset strategy.

The proposed offset for Greater Glider provides overall 185.92 % %, therefore exceeding the offset requirement by 85.92 % and meeting all offset requirements through direct offsets.

CALADENIA TESSELLATA (THICK-LIPPED SPIDER-ORCHID) – VULNERABLE Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lip Spider-orchid) is a small geophytic terrestrial orchid that is endemic to mainland south-eastern Australia, where it occurs in New South Wales and Victoria. Previous population estimates recorded about 19 populations, containing about 450 plants (DSE 2010) however the species is currently only known from two locations in NSW (NSW Scientific Committee 2008; Stephenson pers. comm 2005). The species estimates were updated from the initially thought 19 locations to five locations; three on the Central Coast and two in the Southern Tablelands. The most recent estimates of the population size are 50 individuals (NSW Scientific Committee 2008). Targeted survey was conducted for this species in the known flowering period in November 1998 and it was not recorded. Further, a local orchid species expert (Alan Stephenson) who knows the site intimately, having monitored the Yellow Gnat-orchid and Cryptostylis hunteriana populations at the site for many years, considers the site not to be suitable habitat for the species and has not recorded the species despite consistent survey effort (Alan Stephenson pers, comm 2015). A detailed habitat assessment as part of this report was completed and determined that the site does not contain any suitable habitat for this species. This is detailed in Section 3.9. Given that the site does not contain potential habitat for this species, it was determined the species would not be present, and no further impact assessment was completed.

CRYPTOSTYLIS HUNTERIANA (LEAFLESS TONGUE-ORCHID) – VULNERABLE Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid) occurs in Victoria, NSW and QLD. In NSW, it is known from 39 sites, the largest at Bulahdelah, which consists of two populations with 104 and 359 plants (CGoA 2008). It appears to be most common in the Shoalhaven area with 25 populations generally with less than 30 individuals (CGoA 2008). Targeted survey was conducted for this species in the known flowering period; across four days in December 2000 and 2005. No individuals were identified during survey and it was concluded that the site was unlikely to provide any potential habitat for this species. Given that the species is not present in the site, no further impact assessment was completed for this species. This is discussed in detail in Section 3.10.

SYZYGIUM PANICULATUM (MAGENTA LILLY PILLY) - VULNERABLE. Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) occurs along a 400 km stretch of coastal NSW between Upper Lansdowne in the north to Conjola National Park in the south, with an estimated population size of 1,200

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 5 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd plants. The species occurs naturally in the Jervis, Sydney Cataract, Pittwater and Wyong subregions of the Sydney Basin Bioregion, and in the Karuah-Manning and Macleay-Hastings subregions of the NSW North Coast Bioregion (OEH 2012).

A habitat assessment was completed and determined that the site was unlikely to contain any potential habitat for Magenta Lilly Pilly. Despite this assessment, targeted survey was conducted for Magenta Lilly Pilly throughout the site during November 1998, July 1999, March 2000 and February 2006 by Gunninah Environmental Consultants and BES, as a precautionary approach. No individuals were identified in the site during survey, and the site is not considered to provide potential habitat for this species. Given the absence of this species, no further impact assessment is required.

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy (October 2003), the Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy (December 2012) and the Shoalhaven 2040 – Our Strategic Land-use Planning Statement (yet to be gazetted) outline the anticipated need for affordable housing in the Jervis Bay region to support a growing population. This forms part of the broader plan to:

1. Supply housing within the environmental and servicing constraints of the area 2. Ensure growth is ecologically sustainable and the growing population is accommodated within the existing infrastructure and in specified growth areas 3. Encourage growth which supports community wellbeing and quality of living 4. Improve safety and identifying social and community infrastructure needs.

It is expected that the following social and economic benefits would occur as a result of the proposed action:

• the provision of housing choice and diversity • the continued viability of existing goods and services within the Shoalhaven LGA through expenditure generated by future local residents • the generation of local employment during civil and construction works associated with the site and future employment in neighbourhood businesses • the community benefit gained from investment in local infrastructure and facilities • the protection, conservation and ongoing management of vegetation throughout the site and the establishment of corridors throughout the landscape via the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site and bushland park • the provision of open recreational space.

CONCLUSION This assessment report presents an analysis of the following:

• impacts to Greater Glider, Spot-tailed Quoll habitat and Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals • measures for avoidance and mitigation • proposed offset methodology for impacts to Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat and one Yellow Gnat-orchid individual • consideration and assessment of other matters of NES requested by the Department in Attachment A of the preliminary documentation requirements.

The planning and design objectives for the proposed development aims for a positive conservation outcome for Yellow Gnat-orchid, Greater Glider habitat and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat. Despite the removal of some habitat for these species or individuals to create a residential community, the development allows for the retention of 35 existing Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals as part of a bushland park, and a small portion of existing Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat. Residual impacts to these species have been offset through the retention of Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals and Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat in the adjoining Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. The Biobank site will be conserved and managed in-perpetuity. The proposed action has been considered with the following development objectives:

• first, avoid losses and protect biodiversity in situ • second, mitigate impacts to the greatest reasonable extent • third, offset residual impacts as a last resort.

The assessment provided in this report concludes that the proponent has suitably avoided and mitigated impacts and has proposed an offset package underpinned by sound ecological principles, which will be enduring and enforceable. The offsets package will result in meeting and exceeding offset requirements for Yellow Gnat-orchid, Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll.

Definitions

Definition Description

Action To construct a residential development with all associated infrastructure and bushland park at Emmett Street, Callala Bay NSW (Figure 1).

Site The area to be directly impacted by the proposed action (Figure 2)

Study area The site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site (Callala Bay) (Figure 1)

Locality 20 km radius of the site

Population scale Sydney Basin IBRA Region

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed threatened Species listed under Section 18 & 18A of the EPBC Act as at 4 June 2020 species and ecological Does not include migratory species, or those species listed after the controlled action decision communities date of 4 June 2020

Cumulative impacts Includes an assessment of the 2019/2020 bushfires at the population scale

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Description

BC Act NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

BioNet BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife

BVT Biometric Vegetation Type

DAWE Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment

DotEE former Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (now Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment)

DPIE NSW Department of Planning, Industry and the Environment

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

DSEWPaC former Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (now Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment)

DWELP Department of Water, Environment, Land and Planning

EES Environment, Energy and Science (division of DPIE)

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

EPBC Act Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GHFF Grey-headed Flying Fox

LGA Local Government Area

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

OEH former NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (now Department of Planning, Industry and Environment)

PCT Plant Community Type

PMST EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool

1. Introduction

On 28 April 2020, a proposal to develop 382 lots adjacent to Emmett Street, Callala Bay (the site) for a residential subdivision (Figure 1, the action) was referred to the to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) for determination under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as to whether any significant impacts to Matters of National Environmental Significance (Matters of NES) were likely to occur under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Appendix A).

On 4 June 2020 DotEE concluded that the proposed action is a ‘Controlled Action’ requiring further assessment and approval under the EPBC Act (2020/8637). The assessment method was Preliminary Documentation (Appendix B).

This report is the Preliminary Documentation for the proposed action. The names, roles and qualifications of the persons involved in preparing the report are provided at Appendix C.

1.1 Scope of this report This Preliminary Documentation has been prepared consistent with the Additional Information request (DAWE 2019). A summary of the information requested to be included in this PD report is outlined in Table 1. A copy of the requirements for the PD report are provided at Appendix D.

Table 1: Summary of information requested by DAWE

Information requested by DAWE Section

Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) – Endangered • Provide scientific reasoning for how the extent of known and potential habitat for the Yellow Gnat-orchid were calculated. Sections 3.6, • The Department requests that this option (bushland Park) be reconsidered 4.3 and 6 • If avoidance measures are viable, provide detail on your proposed approach to managing areas E of retained habitat for the species • If avoidance is not viable, provide detail on the reasons why this is the case and provide proposals to offset residual significant impacts to the species. Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) – vulnerable • The Department recommends that the proponent seek access to these data (NPWS data) to supplement earlier field survey results • Consider the impacts of the 2019-20 bushfires on the Greater Glider, including consideration of spatial analysis of extent of bushfires compared to the habitat available at local and population scale • Provide more information on the location and extent of hollow bearing trees of a suitable size Section 3.7 and for the Greater Glider across the proposed action area 4.4 • Provide a detailed assessment of impacts on the Greater Glider consistent with the significant impact criteria • Provide details on mitigation measures for impacts on Greater Glider and its habitat, particularly regarding large, hollow-bearing trees • Provide proposals to offset residual significant impacts to the Greater Glider and its habitat, including hollow-bearing trees Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) Section 3.8 and • Consider the impacts of the 2019-20 bushfires on the Spot-tailed Quoll 4.4

Information requested by DAWE Section • Provide a detailed assessment of potential impacts on the Spot-tailed Quoll consistent with the significant impact criteria • If necessary, provide details on mitigation measures for impacts on Spot-tailed Quoll and its habitat, particularly regarding potential den sites. • If necessary, provide proposals to offset any residual significant impacts to the Spot-tailed Quoll and its habitat Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider-orchid) – Vulnerable, Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue- orchid) – Vulnerable and Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly) – Vulnerable • provide the following survey information for each species, at a minimum: month and year of survey efforts, survey methods used, location of surveys (i.e. in the proposed action area or the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank site) and any individuals and/or habitat identified • Provide additional justification for the validity of the field survey results given the length of time that has passed since they were undertaken Section 3.9, • Consider the impacts of the 2019-20 bushfires on the Thick-lipped Spider-orchid, Leafless 3.10 and 3.11 Tongue-orchid and Magenta Lilly Pilly • Provide a detailed assessment of these species consistent with the significant impact criteria • If necessary, provide details on mitigation measures for impacts on the species and their habitats. • If necessary, provide proposals to offset any residual significant impacts to the species and their habitats Avoidance and mitigation measures • measures must be discussed in terms of their expected effectiveness and cost • Management commitments by the person proposing to take the action must be clearly Section 3.12 distinguished from recommendations or statements of best practice made by the author or other technical expert Offsets Significant residual impacts (i.e. after any avoidance and mitigation measures have been considered) on Section 6 any listed threatened species or community must be offset in accordance with the Department’s EPBC Environmental Offsets Policy 2012 and offset assessment guide, or other endorsed offset framework Bushfire impacts • Assessment on the impacts1 of bushfire on the proposed action area and the surrounding area (minimum 5 km buffer). • Assessment of the impacts of bushfire in the proposed action area and surrounding area on Section 3 the habitat of the listed threatened species discussed above. • Likelihood of recovery of bushfire impacted areas in and around the proposed action area. • The likely importance of the proposed action area to the recovery of bushfire affected species. • As required, re-assess the impact of the proposed action based on the above information. Economic and social matters • consideration of both costs (e.g. disruption to existing community infrastructure or environmental features) and benefits (e.g. increased housing or employment) Section 7 • consideration of different scales of impact where relevant (e.g. local versus national) • specific dollar or other numerical values where relevant Environmental history of the person proposing to take the action • provide details of any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment, or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources, Section 1.3.1 against the person proposing to take the action • if the person proposing to take the action is a corporation, details of the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework must be provided.

1.2 Proponent The proponent for the Callala Bay residential subdivision is Sealark Pty Ltd.

1.3 Contact details The contact person for the environmental assessment of the proposed action is:

Sealark Pty Ltd

Lee Kenny

Company Secretary

GPO Box 2678, Sydney NSW 2000

[email protected]

(02) 9283 3399

1.3.1 Environmental history of the proponent Sealark has an exemplary record of environmental management and sustainability at a state level. Sealark has worked closely with the community as well as local and state authorities to ensure site- responsive outcomes on its projects. In recent years, Sealark has BioBanked over 2,000 ha of its land in the Shoalhaven LGA for long term preservation and management of biodiversity values.

1.4 Proposed action Sealark are proposing a residential development with an indicative yield of approximately 367 lots to be delivered in stages over approximately 12 years. Development of the site will deliver a broad range of lot sizes consistent with the adjacent residential area. Development of the site would use the natural features of the site and interface with surrounding roads and environmental conservation areas (Figure 2). The key concepts of the residential development are to: • incorporate the existing landscape and topographical characteristics of the site that slopes towards Jervis Bay • restrict residential development from the Hawley Creek Wetland Catchment • establish a Bushland Park along Emmett Street to retain Yellow Gnat-orchid • protect and enhance biodiversity in the adjoining Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site • retain existing native vegetation where possible along Callala Beach Road • provide a linear park along the northern side of the development as a bushfire buffer and open space linkage • protect visually prominent features such as ridgelines • protect water quality and ensure no urban run-off north of the site • provide appropriate bushfire protection • provide visual links to open space • encourage passive surveillance and increase safety • facilitate suitable transport access • maximise solar access for future lots and sustainable design outcomes • provide a walkable neighbourhood

• increase the supply of housing within the Shoalhaven LGA in accordance with the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy, Shoalhaven Growth Management Strategy, Shoalhaven Local Planning Statement and the Illawarra Shoalhaven Regional Plan.

To facilitate the residential development, extensions and upgrades of associated supporting infrastructure and services will be required. More specifically, the proposed action will involve:

• new housing in proximity to the existing township to support commercial services • water, sewer, electricity and communication infrastructure upgrades • stormwater treatment devices for the existing township and water quality ponds • community facility improvements • recreational facilities including a 3 m wide walking track and picnic tables in the bushland park • increased bushfire protection for the existing township.

Details of the anticipated outcomes of the residential development area included below: General residential: The Shoalhaven LGA will be able to accommodate future population growth of around 876 people in the proposed dwellings. This population supply will assist growing and enhancing surrounding residential services.

Recreation and active open space areas: The proposed action will provide an opportunity to improve both passive and active recreation opportunities to the township and provide additional public open space and walk / cycling opportunities. This will include the retention of 2.71 ha of native vegetation containing 35 Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) individuals. The bushland park will contain a concreted 3.5 m wide path to allow for passive recreation. Some picnic tables and bench seats would also be erected adjacent to the park.

Services: The proposed action will be serviced by the required infrastructure, including water, sewer and electricity. Subsequent rehabilitation works will be carried out in accordance with a site specific management plan.

Stormwater quality: The proposed action will be designed with detention basins/swales and treatment trains to improve runoff water for the surrounding urban area. The stormwater will be initially be captured by a network of kerb and guttering along all roads and will be appropriately treated to improve water quality.

Roads, access ways, and parking: The street network within the site is to be consistent with Shoalhaven Councils Engineering Design Specification and street network principles including the establishment of a permeable network which encourages walking and cycling.

Asset Protection Zones (APZs): The proposed action will be carried out in a way to ensure prevention of loss of life and property due to bushfires. The lot layout shows that perimeter roads are located along most bushland and landscaped interfaces. APZ’s have been calculated in accordance with Planning for Bushfire Protection 2019 (ELA 2020). Further, none of the required APZs extend into proposed conservation/offset areas (Lake Wollumboola Biobank site).

Off-site Offset site: The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site has been established to offset the impacts of the proposed development on biodiversity values. The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site includes signage

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 13 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd and perimeter fencing (along sections that don’t adjoin Jervis Bay National Park) that allow for the movement of fauna, while preventing the entry of people and unauthorised vehicles. The Callala Bay site will be actively managed for conservation in-perpetuity via a dedicated management fund and subject to plans of management in accordance with the BioBanking Agreement (BA364) registered in February 2019 between Sealark Pty Ltd and the NSW Minister for the Environment.

1.5 Project history The Callala Bay site is part of an original larger Jervis Bay site, which incorporated lands from the Halloran Trust Planning Proposal for Culburra Beach, Callala Bay and Kinghorn Point (Allen Price and Associates 2014). An application for Biodiversity Certification of the site was submitted to the NSW Minister for the Environment in 2019 (ELA 2019 and Appendix E). The application will be exhibited along with a planning proposal to rezone the site to residential zoning in 2021.

The purpose of applying for biodiversity certification was to enable the strategic planning of large portions of Halloran Trust lands to determine their future land use, whilst aiming to achieve improve or maintain outcomes for biodiversity. The intent of the planning process was to fully offset impacts from proposed development with the provision of lands for in perpetuity conservation purposes. Most notably, it was envisioned that over 1,000 ha of land adjacent to Jervis Bay National Park would be transferred and dedicated to the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS). This would ultimately provide a significant extension to the existing Jervis Bay National Park and by doing so, areas of high biodiversity value would be guaranteed to be secured for conservation in-perpetuity. As an interim step, the lands identified for conservation have been registered as biobank sites to be progressively transferred to NPWS with each stage of development.

The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Agreement (BA364) was registered in February 2019 (Appendix F).

1.6 Site description The site is fully vegetated and located within the Shoalhaven Local Government Area (LGA), within the coastal township of Callala Bay, approximately 20 km south-east of Nowra (Figure 1). The site is currently zoned as a deferred matter under the Shoalhaven Local Environmental Plan 2014 (Figure 3). The site is bordered by Emmett Street to the south, residential development and Lake Wollumboola BioBank site. Callala Beach Road runs to the west of the site with no roads running to the north of the site.

1.7 Development footprint The development is 40.19 ha in size and incorporates a residential subdivision of 367 lots and all associated infrastructure, including bushfire Asset Protection Zones and a local bushland park (4).

1.8 Retention areas and off-site conservation areas The proposed action will retain 2.71 ha of native vegetation as part of a local bushland park. The location of the park has been chosen to allow for the retention of a significant proportion of Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) records within the site boundary.

An additional 312.16 ha of native vegetation immediately to the north of the site has been registered as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site and will be conserved and managed in-perpetuity. The biobank site has been proposed for future transfer to the adjacent Jervis Bay National Park (Figure1).

1.9 Alternatives to taking the proposed action There are no alternatives to taking the proposed action. The proposed action has formed part of a broader strategic planning process for the Jervis Bay region. It has been determined through a thorough strategic landscape scale planning process consistent with ecological sustainable development principles. The process has appropriately determined which of the proponent’s land to develop and which to retain and conserve, including Biobank sites as an offset to mitigate any significant residual impact.

The internal lot layout has undergone several modifications to allow for the retention of a substantial proportion of Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals in the site. The initial lot layout would have resulted in the removal of all Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals. Reducing the lot yield by 15 lots and relocating the bushland park, the impacts have been substantially reduced. Following the changes to the development footprint, impacts have been reduced from 36 to one Yellow Gnat-orchid as being removed.

1.10 Reliability of information All information provided in this report comes from reliable sources. The information used in the preparation of this report has been based on reports written by industry experts that have gone through reviews by Council and DPIE and have been publicly exhibited. These reports also rely on information from close consultation with experts in specific fields (i.e. local orchid experts) with specific knowledge of the south coast region. This information has been coupled with information from a range of publicly available government publications and other reports that have been specifically provided to ELA by DAWE.

Figure 1: Location of the site

Figure 2: Development footprint

Figure 3: Land zoning in the site

Figure 4: Site layout

2. Legislation and assessment

2.1 Federal legislation

2.1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The EPBC Act aims to protect Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) including wetlands of international importance, threatened species and communities and listed migratory species. An action that may or is likely to have a significant impact on MNES should be referred to the Commonwealth to determine whether it is a Controlled Action that requires approval from the Commonwealth.

MNES have been identified on the site. This report has been prepared consistent with the requirements of the EPBC Act and assesses potential impacts to MNES in the site.

2.2 State legislation

2.2.1 Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 The NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) is the principal planning legislation that relates to the site. It provides a framework for the overall environmental planning and assessment of the proposed action. Various legislative instruments such as the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (BC Act) (replacing the now repealed Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act)), Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act) and Rural Fires Act 1997 are integrated with EP&A Act and have been reviewed separately.

Other legislation, policies and guidelines apply to the site, are listed below;

• Local Government Act 1993 (LG Act) • Local Government Amendment (Ecologically Sustainable Development) Act 1997 • National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act) • Rural Fires Act 1997 (RF Act) • Water Management Act 2000 (WM Act).

2.3 Stakeholder engagement and consultation The Biodiversity Certification Strategy has been lodged with DPIE and will then progress to the public exhibition stage. Once the public exhibition stage has been completed a Submissions Report will be prepared, addressing comments received.

3. Field assessment and species habitat analysis

3.1 Literature and data review A search of the Protected Matters Search Tool was conducted to identify any MNES either known or predicted to occur within a 20 km radius of the site (Appendix A). This list was used to inform which species would be likely to occur and which may require targeted survey or further habitat assessments. This was determined by assessing each species against the habitat available in the site, recent records, previous survey effort and the most up to date information on the population (where available). The following species were considered as having potential to occur:

Flora

• Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider Orchid) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue Orchid) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Cynanchum elegans (White-flowered Wax Plant) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat Orchid) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Melaleuca biconvexa (Biconvex Paperbark) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Persicaria elatior (Tall Knotweed) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Prostanthera densa (Villous Mintbush) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Pterostylis gibbosa (Illawarra Greenhood) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lily Pilly) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act. • Thesium australe (Austral Toadflax) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Triplarina nowraensis (Nowra Health-myrtle) – endangered under the EPBC Act.

Fauna:

• Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) – critically endangered under the EPBC Act • Chalinolobus dwyeri (Large-eared Pied Bat) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Dasyornis brachypterus (Eastern Bristlebird) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) - endangered under the EPBC Act • Isoodon obesulus obesulus (Southern Brown Bandicoot) – endangered under the EPBC Act • Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) -critically endangered under the EPBC Act • Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) - vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Phascolarctos cinereus (Koala) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Potorous tridactylus tridactylus (Long-nosed Potoroo) – vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Pseudomys novaehollandiae (New Holland Mouse) - vulnerable under the EPBC Act • Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox).

Of these species, habitat assessments were conducted for Pterostylis gibbosa, Persicaria elatior, Cynanchum elegans, Triplarina nowraensis, Caladenia tessellata, Regent Honeyeater and Swift Parrot. Targeted survey was conducted for the remaining species listed above. The survey effort and methodology for both habitat assessments and targeted survey is described below in section 3.2 and in detail in Appendix G, Appendix H and Appendix E.

Targeted survey or a habitat assessment was not considered a requirement for Grey-headed Flying-fox given its highly mobile nature and it’s preference for foraging on Eucalyptus sp. This species was assumed as present for foraging purposes only.

3.2 Field survey effort and methods The following section provides a summary of field survey and effort and a detailed description of the survey methodology. Field survey was conducted across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site simultaneously over numerous years, from 1998 to 2016. This has included:

• Gunninah Environmental Consultants 2001 Callala ecological report • BES 2006a Survey Effort and Results GIS Data • BES 2006b Targeted Survey Methods Presentation • Alan Stephenson (Shoalhaven orchid expert) orchid habitat assessment 2015 • Callala Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment report prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd (ELA 2019 / Appendix E) • Expert Report for Genoplesium baueri (Eco Planning 2017 / Appendix H).

The targeted surveys conducted across the site have met the EPBC Act survey guidelines for threatened flora, including specific requirements for orchids (CoA 2013), mammals (DEWHA 2011), bats (DEWHA 2010a) and birds (DEWHA 2010b). A comparison of the survey completed and the relevant EPBC Act survey guideline is provided in Table 4.

Threatened flora

The initial surveys in 1998 - 2001 conducted by Gunninah Environmental Consultants and in 2006 by BES provided an overall assessment of the vegetation types present, potential threatened species habitat assessment for the species listed in Table 2. More recently, extensive field surveys were undertaken by ELA and Eco Planning which focused on identifying Yellow Gnat-orchid and obtaining accurate mapping of potential habitat across the study area (2016 and 2017 respectively; Table 2 and Figure 8).

Table 3 has been provided to specifically address the PD requirement (page 5; Appendix D) for further information on survey effort for Thick-lipped Spider Orchid, Leafless Tongue-orchid, Magenta Lilly Pilly and Yellow Gnat-orchid.

Table 2: Flora survey effort over the study area

Consultant Species Method Dates Effort

Melaleuca biconvexa, Caladenia tessellata, 24 Nov 1998 Gunninah Cynanchum elegans, Random meander and 21 July 1999 TOTAL 94 person Environmental Triplarina nowraensis, mapping of vegetation hours Consultants Persicaria elatior, Pterostylis communities 18-30 March gibbosa, Prostanthera densa 2000 and Syzygium paniculatum

Gunninah Targeted surveys in potential Environmental Cryptostylis hunteriana habitat which was located 21 Dec 2000 Unknown hours Consultants outside of the BCAA

Consultant Species Method Dates Effort

Melaleuca biconvexa, Cynanchum elegans, 8 person hours Triplarina nowraensis, 23 Jan 2006 Random meander and 8 person hours BES Persicaria elatior, Pterostylis 2 Feb 2006 vegetation plots 8.5 person hours gibbosa, Thesium australe, 16 Feb 2006 Prostanthera densa and TOTAL 24.5 hrs Syzygium paniculatum

40 person hours 23 Dec 2005 35 person hours BES Cryptostylis hunteriana Targeted orchid survey 29 Dec 2005 35 person hours 30 Dec 2005 TOTAL 110 hrs

22 person hours 22 Feb 2006 26 person hours 23 Feb 2006 30 person hours 6 Mar 2006 34 person hours BES Genoplesium baueri Targeted orchid survey 9 Mar 2006 34 person hours 17 Mar 2006 32 person hours 21 Mar 2006 32 person hours TOTAL 210

ELA Genoplesium baueri Target orchid survey 16 - 18 Feb 2016 66 person hours

Habitat assessment for Eco Planning Genoplesium baueri 7 July 2017 Not specified Genoplesium baueri

GRAND TOTAL 505.5 person hrs

Table 3: Targeted threatened flora survey effort in the study area

Consultant Dates Location Method and effort Consistency with EPBC Guidelines

Habitat assessment Survey consistent with the EPBC Act Threatened Orchid survey guidelines Gunninah Environmental Study area (site and Lake 24 Nov 1998 Random meander (CoA 2013). Habitat assessment conducted to determine species likely Consultants Wollumboola Biobank site) 20 person hours presence by experience personnel

Yes. Conducted during NSW flowering period (Dec – Jan) in areas Gunninah Environmental Targeted survey previously identified as potential habitat identified through a random 21 Dec 2000 Study area (site and Lake Consultants Unknown meander 23, 29 and 30 Dec 2005 Wollumboola Biobank site) BES 110 person hours Systematic, targeted parallel transects were then completed in areas of potential habitat

G. baueri is not listed in the draft Orchid survey guidelines, however the Targeted survey general orchid survey methodology can be applied to this species. Survey 22 - 23 Feb 2006 BES 210 person hours was consistent with EPBC Act guidelines. Conducted during NSW 6, 9, 17 and 21 Mar Study area (site and Lake flowering period (Dec – Mar in areas previously identified as potential 2006 Wollumboola Biobank site) ELA 66 person hours habitat identified through a random meander 16 – 18 Feb 2016 Eco Planning Unknown Systematic, targeted parallel transects were then completed in areas of 7 July 2017 potential habitat

24 Nov 1998, 21 July Targeted survey and Gunninah Environmental 1999 and 18-30 March There are no EPBC Act survey guidelines for Syzygium paniculatum. habitat assessment Survey was conducted consistent with the NSW Guide to Surveying Consultants 2000 Study area (site and Lake 94 person hours threatened Plants (OEH 2016 and involved random meander to complete Wollumboola Biobank site) a habitat assessment and systematic parallel transects for targeted BES 23 Jan, 2 Feb and 16 24.5 person hours searches Feb 2006

Figure 5: Threatened flora survey effort (combined effort; BES and ELA) in the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay)

Threatened fauna

Surveys were conducted by Gunninah, BES Environmental Consultants and ELA over the following dates:

• 1 – 9 December 1998 (Gunninah) • 21 – 22 July 1999 (Gunninah) • 2 – 22 March 2000 (Gunninah) • 13 – 22 January 2001 (Gunninah) • January to March 2006 (BES) • 7 December 2016 to 10 February 2017 (ELA).

It should be noted that when targeted fauna surveys were initially conducted, the surveys were conducted across the study area. Since the completion of the targeted surveys, the development footprint has changed so that the site has reduced and the BioBank site has increased in area. Although this means a greater conservation area, the changes have affected the targeted survey effort within the site. The following survey includes the targeted fauna survey effort conducted across the study area.

Pitfall traps

One 200 m transect of 15 traps each (5 clusters / groups of 3 traps, each cluster spaced 50 m apart) were set throughout the study area. Trapping was conducted over 3 sessions (11 nights total; a total of 165 pitfall trapping nights):

• 12 - 16 December 2016 (4 nights), • 10 -14 January 2017 (4 nights), • 6 - 10 February 2017 (4 nights)*.

During trapping, pitfalls contained a thin layer of leaf litter to provide shelter to trapped fauna. Pitfalls contained a small block of foam to ensure fauna could float in the event of rain. A small hole was drilled in the base of each pitfall trap to allow water to drain out in the event of rain. Each cluster of pitfalls included a drift fence approximately 30 – 40 cm high, dug into a trench, which passed over each pitfall trap. Drift-fences were maintained throughout the survey, as some were infrequently impacted by weather and cattle. Pitfall traps were closed between trapping sessions.

*Traps were closed on 7 February 2017 due to heavy rainfall. Elliot A traps

A combination of Elliot A traps and hair tubes (see next section below) were used in addition to pitfall trapping to target terrestrial mammals.

Two (2) sites of 15 Elliot A traps were set within potential habitat for the target species (a total of 30 traps). Each trap site was set in a grid formation (4x5), with traps approximately 10 m apart. Elliot A traps were deployed from 12 to 16 December 2016 (4 nights; total of 120 Elliot A trapping nights). Traps were set on flat ground adjacent to fallen logs, large tree trunks, or beneath dense vegetation. Traps were baited with a mixture of peanut butter, honey, oats, and sardines, and included insulation. Traps were covered with a plastic bag in the event of rain.

Hair tubes

The 2001 Gunninah survey involved both vegetarian and meat baits to target a variety of species, with tubes set across the study area (Gunninah 2001; Figure 6)

Two (2) sites of 15 hair tubes were set across the study area (a total of 30 hair tubes). Each hair tube was placed within 5 m of an Elliot A trap (Figure 7, Figure 8). Hair tubes were deployed from 9 December 2016 to 8 February 2017 (62 nights; total of 1860 hair tube trapping nights). The hair samples were analysed by Georgiana Storey (‘Scats About’, ANU).

Elliot B traps (arboreal)

Three (3) sites with 8 Elliot B traps were set within potential habitat for the target species in the study area. Each trap site was set in a line, with traps spaced approximately 20 m apart. Elliot B traps were deployed from 12 to 16 December 2016 (4 nights; total of 96 Elliot B trapping nights; Figure 8). Traps were set approximately 2 - 3 m up a tree, attached to a wooden stage drilled to the tree trunk. Traps were baited with a mixture of peanut butter, honey, oats, and sardines, and included insulation (wood shavings and newspaper). Traps were covered with a plastic bag in the event of rain.

Remote camera traps (arboreal)

Infrared remote cameras were used in conjunction with bait stations to identify arboreal fauna species, namely the Spot-tailed Quoll and the Koala. Remote camera traps were set in the site and Biobank site. Eighteen (18) cameras were placed approximately 1 - 2 m off the ground and secured to a tree. Bait stations (relevant for the Spot-tailed Quoll) were secured to an opposing tree at an approximate height of 1.5 – 2 m. Bait consisted of honey, peanut butter, oats, and sardines. Cameras were dispersed throughout potential habitat for target species. Remote cameras were left in-situ from 9 December 2016 to 8 February 2017 (58 nights), equating to a total of 1,008 camera nights.

Remote camera traps (terrestrial)

Infrared remote cameras were used in conjunction with bait stations to identify terrestrial fauna species (namely the Spot-tailed Quoll). Remote camera traps were set in the site and Biobank site. Five (5) cameras were secured approximately 1 m up a tree and angled towards the ground, where a bait station was deployed, secured by a tent peg. Bait consisted of honey, peanut butter, oats, and sardines. Cameras were dispersed throughout potential habitat for target species. Remote cameras were left in- situ from 9 December 2016 to 8 February 2017 (56 nights), equating to a total of 280 camera nights.

Spotlight survey

Spotlighting was initially conducted in 2001 both driving and walking through the study area (Gunninah 2001). Spotlighting survey was conducted within the site on 7 December 2016 and 10 January 2017 in the site (Figure 8). Additional surveys were conducted within the adjacent Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site on 10 January and 12 February 2017 for approximately 2 person hours. A total of approximately 8 person hours were spent spotlighting. Handheld spotlights and head torches were used during the survey.

Songmeters and diurnal bird surveys

A total of three (3) songmeters were deployed from 9 to 23 December 2016 within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. No songmeters were set in the site. Songmeters were set to record between dawn and dusk. Two songmeters were located within potential habitat for heath-specific bird species (i.e. Dasyornis brachypterus Eastern Bristlebird). Three (3) hours were selected at random and analysed to identify heath bird calls. One songmeter was located in the BioBank site boundary near a waterway and was used to record possible migratory wetland bird species. Two (2) hours were selected at random from the wetland/migratory species to identify bird calls. The songmeters were also deployed during the suitable season to aurally detect the Regent Honeyeater.

Diurnal bird surveys involved visual and aural detection and identification species (Gunninah 2001). Opportunistic bird observations were also recorded when conducting fieldwork. Birds were identified based on either direct observation or knowledge of calls.

Ultrasonic recordings

Surveys for microchiropteran bats was undertaken using both direct and indirect survey techniques. A number of small Anabat II ultrasonic detectors were placed within flyways across the site and carried during nocturnal surveys to record the echolocation calls of bats. Calls were analysed and bast species identified, where possible. Harp traps were also erected across obvious flyways prior to dusk to capture and identify individual bats using the site (Figure 6).

3.2.1 Validity of survey effort Survey effort across the site has been conducted across numerous years since 1998. Although some of the survey effort is > 5 years old, the results are still considered valid for the following reasons:

• The condition of the site has remained intact since the initial surveys. There has been no substantial change in structure or function or abundance of weeds such that the potential for species to occur would have been affected • The surrounding landscape has undergone little to no change, with no large-scale clearing, rezoning or development that would have reduced the availability of surrounding habitat such that the importance of the site has increased • The survey effort and methodology has been consistent with relevant state guidelines for each survey conducted and the methodology has been repeated • The results of all surveys have generally been consistent across years • If considered as one long term survey effort, the methodology could be considered more robust as data has been collected over numerous years.

Table 4: Summary of targeted fauna survey effort across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site

Target species as per Other species Consultant Dates Methodology and effort Consistency EPBC Act survey guidelines PD surveyed requirements

Spotlighting 2001 Gunninah Habitat assessment

Elliot traps

Southern Brown Habitat assessment (diurnal) Yes. See section 3.3.10 (traps), section 3.3.6 (camera Bandicoot, Long- Jan – Mar 2006 BES Spotlighting traps) and section 3.3.3 (spotlighting). These sections Greater Glider nosed Potooroo, detail appropriate methodologies for flying mammals Koala, New Holland Elliot traps (DEWHA 2011) Mouse 12 to 16 December 2016 Elliot B traps 96 trap nights 9 December 2016 to 8 February ELA Remote camera traps (arboreal) 2017 1,008 camera nights 10-12 February 2017 Spotlighting 8 person hours

2001 Scat and track traverses Gunninah Southern Brown Hair tubes Yes. See section 3.3.7 (hair sampling devices) and page Bandicoot, Long- Jan – Mar 2006 Habitat assessment (diurnal) Spot-tailed BES 2006 238 which specifies remote cameras and hair tubes as nosed Potooroo, Remote camera traps 280 camera Quoll the most suitable survey method for this species Koala, New Holland nights (DEWHA 2011) Mouse 9 December 2016 to 8 February Hair tubes – 1,860 hair tube trap ELA 2017 nights

Echolocation surveys Large-eared Pied- 94.9 hours 2 December 1998, 22 Yes. See page 5 – recommended survey approach - Gunninah 2001 bat July 1999, 3 and 11 March 2000, (DEWHA 2010) 15-20 January 2001.

Figure 6: Previous survey effort (2001) across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) Note that the survey effort map does not include Gunninah 2001 which involved random meanders across the site

Figure 7: Previous survey effort (2005 – 2006) across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay)

Figure 8: Threatened fauna survey effort (2016 / 2017) in the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay)

3.3 Survey results

3.3.1 Native vegetation One biometric vegetation type SR592 – Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt – Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills was identified in the site during survey. No threatened ecological communities listed under the EPBC Act were identified on site during surveys (Figure 9 and Figure 10).

The canopy of SR592 was typically comprised of Eucalyptus botryoides (Bangalay), Corymbia gummifera (Red Bloodwood), Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple), Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark), Eucalyptus sclerophylla (Hard-leaved Stringybark) and Eucalyptus paniculata (Grey Ironbark). The vegetation was in good condition and showed minimal signs of disturbance.

3.3.2 Threatened flora habitat assessment The habitat assessment did not identify any potential habitat for the species listed in Table 5. These species are highly unlikely to occur in the site and do not require further assessment.

Table 5: Results of threatened flora habitat assessment

Scientific name Common name Habitat requirements Presence / absence

Associated with open woodlands the site contains a and heath, typically occurring in consistent canopy, does not treeless areas or very open areas, form an open woodland or Thick-lipped Spider- which are often rocky and where heath and does not contain Caladenia tessellata orchid there are only skeletal soils. It rocky areas or areas with does not occur in forested skeletal soils. This is habitats. discussed in detail in Section 3.7.

occurs at ecotone between no ecotone between sclerophyll forest and subtropical subtropical rainforest and White-flowered Wax rainforest sclerophyll forest present Cynanchum elegans Plant occurs on steep slopes not associated with PCT in site no steep slopes present

occurs along coastal swampy no swamps, watercourses, areas, along watercourses, streams, lakes or swamp Persicaria elatior Tall Knotweed streams and lakes or in swamp forest present forest species is not associated with PCT present

in Nowra, typically known from site does not contain open open woodlands dominated by woodland Corymbia maculata, Eucalyptus site contains a shrubby wet paniculata and Exocarpos sclerophyll forest cupressiformis with abundant leaf soil profile of the site is not litter Pterostylis gibbosa Illawarra Greenhood Permian sediments. Forms occur on soils derived from the part of Greenwell point Berry formation, a Permian landscape sediment composed of does not contain currently undifferentiated siltstone, shale known canopy species and sandstone

Scientific name Common name Habitat requirements Presence / absence occurs on flat or gently sloping topography

found on moist soils or poorly is not a poorly draining site drained sites such as water does not contain correct courses and bedrock surfaces vegetation community with impeded drainage species not associated with occur in forest and woodland the PCT present communities that are dominated Triplarina nowraensis Nowra Health-myrtle does not contain any by Eucalyptus racemosa, E. watercourses punctata, Corymbia gummifera. Other tree species occasionally occurring include E. pilularis, C. maculata, E. piperita, E. globoidea and E. paniculata

3.3.3 Threatened flora targeted survey Genoplesium baueri was identified in the site during targeted survey. No other threatened flora species were identified in the site during survey. A total of 36 individuals were identified in the site during the 2016 survey. Field survey included a detailed habitat assessment to identify habitat niches within the site. Additional areas of potential habitat for this species was also mapped (Figure 11).

No Cryptostylis hunteriana, Thesium australe, Melaleuca biconvexa or Syzygium paniculatum was identified in the site during targeted survey. No areas of potential habitat for Syzygium paniculatum or Cryptostylis hunteriana was identified. This is discussed in detail in Section 3.10 and 3.11 respectively.

3.3.4 Threatened fauna Greater Glider was identified in the study area during targeted survey in 2006 (BES) and again in 2016 (ELA). No other species that were subject to targeted survey were identified. Numerous hollow bearing trees were identified which may form potential dens sites or breeding habitat for these species (Figure 12). This is discussed in detail in section 3.8.

3.4 MNES relevant to the site Following the completion of targeted surveys and detailed habitat assessments, the following MNES were determined to require further assessment in this report:

• Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater) • Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) • Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) • Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot) • Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) • Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox).

Additional information on the following species was also requested by DAWE (Appendix D):

• Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider-orchid) • Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid)

• Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly).

Although these species were determined as highly unlikely to occur in the site and highly unlikely to be affected, an assessment has been included for completeness and to meet the PD requirements.

Figure 9: Validated vegetation in the site

Figure 10: Validated Plant Community types in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site

Figure 11: Results of 2016 targeted Yellow Gnat-orchid survey in the study area

Figure 12: Distribution and size of hollow bearing trees identified by BES 2006 in the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site Black dots – stags; Green – large hollows; blue – medium hollows; yellow – small hollows

3.5 Assessment of the extent of regional habitat in the context of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires To determine the implications of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires on habitat availability for the relevant Matters of NES (Genoplesium baueri and Greater Glider) at a regional level, a broad assessment of the likely extent of potential habitat within the Sydney Basin IBRA region before and after bushfires was completed. The habitat assessment was completed for the IBRA region based on advice from DAWE. This regional assessment area has been utilised throughout the report for consistency. Magenta Lilly Pilly, Thick-lipped Spider-orchid and Leafless Tongue-orchid were not assessed because they are not present in the study area, nor are they considered likely to occur in the site. This approach has been confirmed as appropriate with DAWE.

The Yellow Gnat-orchid has very specific habitat requirements and the application of potential habitat relating to plant community types was considered overstating potential areas of habitat. Instead, the known populations of Yellow Gnat-orchid were mapped and these areas were considered the habitat available within the IBRA region (Figure 15 and Figure 16).

To determine potential habitat availability throughout the IBRA region for the Greater Glider and Spot- tailed Quoll, vegetation communities within the IBRA region (using publicly available data sets) that were likely to represent potential habitat for the species were mapped and considered habitat (Figure 13). This was cross referenced with previous records (where available) to determine whether the area has historically been utilised by the species.

To evaluate the impacts of the bushfires on this availability, publicly available data of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires (Google Earth 2020) was overlayed with the potential habitat layer (Figure 13). The data contained four burn categories:

• Category 1: little change • Category 2: canopy unburnt • Category 3: canopy partially affected • Category 4: canopy fully affected.

The habitat considered as still available was based on each species habitat requirements, known range and recent records for each species. Recent studies into the presence of threatened fauna species in burnt National Parks on the south coast was also utilised (Craven & Daly 2020). This was compared with the characteristics of the vegetation communities within the IBRA region and the burn category.

Categories 1 and 2 were considered as still providing habitat for the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll because a majority of the resources required for the species to forage and roost (relatively intact vegetation, denning sites and hollow bearing trees) would still be available (Figure 19). With respect to the Greater Glider, recent evidence suggests that in areas of high fire intensity, Greater Gliders are no longer present with the species still detected in unburnt low burn fire category areas (Craven & Daly 2020).

Figure 13: Extent and severity of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires in the Sydney IBRA region

3.6 Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid)

3.6.1 Distribution and species ecology Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) is known to occur between Ulladulla and Port Stephens. The species inhabits heathland to shrubby woodland or open forest, or shrubby/heathy forest on sands, sandy loams or gravelly soils. The species persists on a tuber-like perennial root with flowering fluctuating year to year. Plants may remain dormant throughout favourable flowering conditions (DoE 2014).

Based on publicly available records the population does not extend north of the Hawkesbury River. Copeland (2008) states that records from north of the Hawkesbury area are now considered inaccurate. Across its known range (Ulladulla to Sydney), this species has a patchy distribution and is currently known from a small number of sites, including Ku-ring-gai Chase National Park, Ku-ring-gai Wildflower Garden, Bomaderry Creek and Callala (SOS no date; Figure 14).

3.6.2 Occurrence within the locality For the purposes of this assessment, the locality is defined as a 20 km radius around the site and the population scale is defined as the Sydney Basin IBRA region. Publicly available records have mapped 20 clusters of records, containing 287 individuals (BioNet 2020;Figure 16).The conservation listing advice states there are thought to be < 250 mature individuals (CoA 2014) However, Copeland (2008) considers that estimating the total number of individuals is difficult to quantify given their cryptic nature and inconsistent flowering, particularly in areas that have not been recently burnt. Estimates of the population size range from 210 – 488 individuals (Stephenson 2011 and Copeland 2008, respectively). More recent analysis of the number of populations and abundance is discussed in EcoPlanning (2017) as part of the biocertification assessment,, which estimates the population size at > 600 individuals (Eco Planning). This is higher than the number of estimated individuals listed in the conservation advice.

The closest clusters of records to the site are immediately north of the site in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site, which contains 126 individuals in four clusters. There are also another three clusters of records within a 20 km radius of the site (Bomaderry Creek, Parma Creek Nature Reserve and Old Erowal Bay) which contain approximately 41 individuals collectively. Other clusters of individuals in the locality are scattered along the coast (Figure 14).

3.6.3 Habitat availability in the site There were 36 known individuals within the site and 126 individuals in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site in 2016 (Figure 11). EcoPLanning (2017) provides a detailed assessment of habitat availability within both the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (G). Extensive survey was completed by orchid expert Brian Towle across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site. The survey aimed at identifying individuals and determining the extent of potential habitat niches where the species was most likely to be present (Figure 14).

Estimating population size is incredibly difficult given the cryptic nature of the species and the fluctuations in flowering due to changing environmental conditions (EcoPlanning 2017). The population size across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site is estimated to be > 162 individuals (based on the 2016 count; Eco Planning 2017). Areas of potential habitat were mapped based on locations of individuals in the site and adjacent Biobank site and their associated habitat features and habitat

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 42 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd features of other known populations in the Shoalhaven region. The expert report summarises the key habitat features as (EcoPlanning 2017):

• a relatively low position in the landscape (all records are below 20 m AHD) • sufficiently impeded drainage to promote a reasonably high sedge cover but not so wet as to support swamp forest or swamp heath • a canopy dominated by Eucalyptus sclerophylla and to a lesser extent Corymbia gummifera • a patchy to often dense sub-canopy of Allocasuarina littoralis • a patchy understorey that includes species such as Lambertia formosa, Banksia spinulosa and Banksia paludosa • a dense and diverse groundcover dominated by graminoids.

Within the Callala Bay site, the habitat for Yellow Gnat-orchid correlates with those areas mapped as 'Red Bloodwood - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Silvertop Ash heathy open forest on sandstone plateaux of the lower Shoalhaven Valley, Sydney Basin Bioregion' (SR594) and the ecotone between SR594 and both the adjoining 'Hairpin Banksia - Slender Tea-tree heath on coastal sandstone plateaux, Sydney Basin Bioregion' (SR557) and 'Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion' (SR592) biometric vegetation types (Eco Planning 2017; Appendix I).

The Yellow Gnat-orchid habitat has been identified as typically corresponding with the transition between SR592 and the swamp forests (SR648 and SR669) that occurs in the most poorly drained parts of the Callala Bay site, and adjoining land to the south (south of Emmett Street). Within the Callala Bay site this transition is generally very gradual, given the lack of relief, and consequently there is typically a relatively broad and subtle ecotone. This ecotone is typified by a canopy dominated by Eucalyptus sclerophylla and to a lesser extent Corymbia gummifera with a patchy to often dense sub-canopy of Allocasuarina littoralis, and an understorey and groundcover of heathy shrubs, forbs and graminoids, often with a substantial cover of sedges (including Tetraria capillaris, Lepidosperma neesii, Ptilothrix deusta, Cyathochaeta diandra and Lepyrodia scariosa) and the grass Entolasia stricta. Where most pronounced, this transitional community was mapped as SR594. However, the Yellow Gnat-orchid habitat also included the ecotone between SR594 and adjoining communities, particularly slightly better drained areas that were included in SR592 (Eco Planning 2017; Appendix I).

Across the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site, about 80.03 ha of habitat for this species was identified based on habitat niches identified. Of this 80.0 ha, 3.48 ha was within the site and due to the extensive survey effort throughout the site, the habitat polygon was limited to areas where there were known individuals (Eco Planning 2017 and Figure 31). No additional areas of habitat outside of the known individuals was identified within the site.

3.6.4 Habitat availability in the locality and IBRA region and impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season The assessment of known populations in relation to the extent of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires within the Sydney Basin IBRA region has shown that no known populations have been affected (Figure 15 and Figure 16). The 500 m buffer around the known populations has also not been affected. Yellow Gnat- orchid has not been listed as a priority species requiring urgent intervention following the bushfire season (DAWE 2020b; Figure 15, Figure 16).

Figure 14: Yellow Gnat-orchid identified within the locality (targeted surveys and previous records)

Note: Locations of BioNet records have been denatured

Figure 15: Yellow Gnat-orchid records in relation to the 2019 / 2020 bushfires

Figure 16: Yellow Gnat-orchid records within a 20 km radius of the site and the impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfires

3.7 Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)

3.7.1 Distribution and species ecology The Greater Glider is restricted to eastern Australia, from the Windsor Tableland in north Queensland down to central Victoria in areas 1,200 m above sea level, excluding alpine areas (CoA 2016). The Greater Glider typically inhabits tall, montane, moist eucalypt forests with abundant tree hollows. Home ranges are typically small at approximately 1-4 ha but can be larger in areas of lower productivity forest (CoA 2016). This species uses large hollows in large, old trees for denning and breeding habitat, and prefers areas where there are a diversity of Eucalyptus sp. in the canopy (CoA 2016). Greater Gliders are particularly sensitive to forest clearing, fragmentation, intensive logging and wildfire. They typically do not disperse well across non-native vegetation and require native forest patches of at least 160 km 2 (16,000 ha) to maintain viable populations (CoA 2016).

Greater gilders may be sensitive to fragmentation due to their small home ranges and low dispersal ability (CoA 2016). This species has relatively low persistence in small forest fragments.

3.7.2 Occurrence within the locality There are 3,714 records for the Greater Glider within the Sydney Basin IBRA region, with a majority of records occurring within dense vegetation areas along major creek lines or gullies (EES 2020a). Portions of the IBRA region that have been mostly cleared, including the greater Sydney region contain a very low proportion of records for this species. There are 21 records within 20 km of the site with the most recent record from 2017 approximately 2km to the north of the site. The nearest record is located approximately 200m south of the site and was recorded in 2015 (Figure 17, Figure 18).

3.7.3 Habitat availability in the site and locality The Greater Glider was recorded, together with Yellow-bellied Gliders during spotlighting surveys by BES in 2006 and ELA in 2016. Recording the species in the site twice in a period of 10 years shows that the Greater Glider has some level of site fidelity. The vegetation present is tall, eucalypt dominated forest with abundant hollows, several of which were mapped as stags and large hollows, which is suitable habitat for Greater Gliders to use as denning resources. Of this, 2.71 ha is within the bushland park which also contains hollow bearing trees. The hollow bearing tree data was collected by BES and is shown in Figure 12. The site would be considered a lower productivity forest as it is not located in a tall, montane, moist eucalypt forest. The site is likely to provide habitat for 3 to 4 adults rather than 1-4 / ha as is expected in high productivity areas (Figure 18).

There is an abundance of habitat available within the locality. The site is directly connected to extensive areas of suitable habitat to the north (Lake Wollumboola Biobank site) and is separated from Jervis Bay National Park and Currambene State Forest by small breaks in canopy only (10-20m for minor roads). These small breaks would not prevent the Greater Glider from accessing these areas, as they are known to glide up to 100 m. Jervis Bay National Park, Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site and Currambene State Forest are known foraging habitat for the Greater Glider (OEH 2020) and are likely to provide in excess of 8,000 ha of denning and breeding habitat where suitable hollow bearing trees are present. The known habitat within these areas are also protected by conservation measures, either through Biobank agreements, land zoning and legislation. These areas are also directly connected to extensive patches

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 47 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd of native vegetation that occur on private lands which have previously recorded Greater Glider (OEH 2020).

3.7.4 Habitat availability in the IBRA Subregion and impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season The Greater Glider is listed as a priority species by DAWE because it is considered to have been affected by the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season (DAWE 2020b; Craven & Daly 2020). A total of 2,278,250 ha of foraging habitat was available to the Greater Glider in the Sydney Basin region prior to the bushfire season. It is estimated 1,830,455 ha of potential habitat is available within the IBRA region and remains intact foraging habitat post the 2019 / 2020 fires for the Greater Glider. A list of actions for management response have been detailed (DAWE 2020b; Figure 19, Figure 20):

• protecting unburnt areas within or adjacent to recently burnt ground that provide refuges

The Lake Wollumboola Biobank site will conserve and manage in-perpetuity 308.14 ha of Greater Glider habitat which contains a high number of hollow bearing trees. The biobank site is immediately adjacent to the proposed action area and the Jervis Bay National Park. The establishment of this biobank site and the Culburra Beach and Kinghorn Point portions of the biobank site have formed an extensive area of continuous, conserved habitat that is known to provide habitat for the Greater Glider. This is in proximity to Sussex Inlet which was heavily burnt by the fires.

• rapid on-ground assessment for species and communities of concern (survey to establish extent of pop loss, and establish baseline for ongoing monitoring).

This is outside the scope of this assessment.

• feral predator and herbivore control to reduce the pressure on native species where appropriate.

As part of the Biobank agreement, feral animals will be controlled in-perpetuity.

• supplementary shelter, food, and water for animals where appropriate

Providing supplementary shelter is not required as part of this assessment.

• emergency salvage of plant and animal species for ex-situ conservation or wild-to-wild translocation.

This is outside the scope of this assessment.

Figure 17: Greater Glider records in the locality (20 km radius of the site). Note the records within the site are not shown here

Figure 18: Preferred Greater Glider habitat within the locality, records and habitat under conservation agreements or management

Figure 19: Habitat for the Greater Glider available post the 2019 / 2020 bushfires at the population scale

Figure 20: Greater Glider habitat available within the locality post the 2019 / 2020 bushfires

3.8 Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll)

3.8.1 Distribution and Species ecology The Spot-tailed Quoll inhabits a variety of habitat types including rainforest, open forest woodland, coastal heath and inland riparian forest as well as beaches, grasslands and pastoral areas adjacent to forested habitat (DELWP 2016). The Spot-tailed Quoll typically occurs at low densities. Adults are solitary and occupy large home ranges while female home ranges generally don’t overlap and are 88–1,515 ha in size (DELWP 2016). Male home ranges are 359 – 5,512 ha in size and overlap and encompass multiple female home ranges (DELWP 2016). The Spot-tailed Quoll can cover large distances in a short period of time, with animals recorded moving at least 8 km in a day and 19 km in a week (DELWP 2016). This species is carnivorous and hunts on the ground and in trees, feeding on a wide variety of prey including mammals, birds, reptiles and invertebrates.

Spot-tailed Quolls establish den sites in rock crevices, hollow logs, hollow-bearing trees, tree buttresses, windrows, clumps of vegetation, caves, boulder piles, under buildings and in burrows. They establish multiple den sites and move between them every 1-4 days, with preferred landscapes related to prey densities and den availability (DELWP 2016).

Habitat critical to the survival of the Spot-tailed Quoll includes large patches of forest with adequate denning resources and relatively high densities of medium-sized mammalian prey.

3.8.2 Occurrence within the locality There are 1,509 records for the Spot-tailed Quoll within the Sydney Basin IBRA region, with a majority of records clustered around the northern portion of the IBRA region (EES 2020a). There are large clusters of records in the Central Coast, Hunter region, Blue Mountains and Eastern Grounds Nature Reserve with scattered records in the Sussex Inlet to Ulladulla area. There are four records for this species within a 20 km radius of the site (BioNet 2020; Figure 21).

3.8.3 Habitat availability in the site The Spot-tailed Quoll is listed as a species that is known to occur in PCT 1079, which is present throughout the entire site (EES 2020a). The site also contains hollow bearing trees and hollow logs that could provide potential den sites for this species. Targeted survey was conducted across the site on multiple occasions between 1999 and 2017 and did not record any Spot-tailed Quoll individuals. However, this species is known to be highly cryptic and is difficult to detect during targeted survey.

The site has potential to form part of habitat critical to the survival of the species as it forms a patch of continuous native vegetation >7,000 ha in size. However, given the cryptic nature of the Spot-tailed Quoll and lack of historical records for this species within the adjacent Jervis Bay National Park, Currambene State Forest and Nowra State Forest, it is extremely difficult to determine how often the site would be relied upon and how many individuals it could support.

The extent of denning resources through the broader locality has not been surveyed, except for the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site, where potential denning resources have been identified (ELA 2019). It is estimated that the site could form habitat for one individual, male adult, based on their solitary nature and large foraging range (359 – 5,512 ha; DELWP 2016; Figure 21).

3.8.4 Habitat availability in the IBRA Subregion and impacts of the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season The Spot-tailed Quoll is listed as a priority species by DAWE because it is considered to have been affected by the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season (DAWE 2020b). A total of 2,278,250 ha of foraging habitat was available to the Spot-tailed Quoll in the Sydney Basin IBRA region prior to the bushfire season. It is estimated 1,830,455 ha of potential habitat is available within the IBRA region and remains intact foraging habitat post the 2019 / 2020 fires for the Spot-tailed Quoll. A list of actions for management response have been detailed (DAWE 2020b; Figure 22, Figure 23):

• protecting unburnt areas within or adjacent to recently burnt ground that provide refuges

The Lake Wollumboola Biobank site will conserve and manage in-perpetuity 311 ha of Spot-tailed Quoll habitat, which has not been burnt and contains a high number of hollow bearing trees. The biobank site is immediately adjacent to the proposed action area and the Jervis Bay National Park. The establishment of this biobank site and the Culburra Beach and Kinghorn Point portions of the biobank site have formed an extensive area of continuous, conserved habitat that is known to provide habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll. This is in proximity to Sussex Inlet which was heavily burnt by the fires.

• rapid on-ground assessment for species and communities of concern (survey to establish extent of pop loss, and establish baseline for ongoing monitoring).

This is outside the scope of this assessment.

• feral predator and herbivore control to reduce the pressure on native species where appropriate.

As part of the Biobank agreement, feral animals will be controlled in-perpetuity.

• supplementary shelter, food, and water for animals where appropriate

Providing supplementary shelter is not required as part of this assessment.

• emergency salvage of plant and animal species for ex-situ conservation or wild-to-wild translocation.

This is outside the scope of this assessment.

Figure 21: Spot-tailed Quoll records in the locality (20km radius of the site)

Figure 22: Spot-tailed Quoll records at the population scale, relative to the 2019 / 2020 bushfire season

Figure 23: Spot-tailed Quoll records in the locality, relative to the 2019 / 2020 bushfire impacts and preferred habitat (shown in green)

3.9 Caladenia tessellata (Thick-lipped Spider-orchid)

3.9.1 Distribution and Species ecology The Thick-lip Spider-orchid is endemic to mainland south-eastern Australia, where it is distributed from the central coast of New South Wales to the Western port region of southern Victoria, in the South East Coastal Plain, South East Corner, and Sydney Basin bioregions (DSE 2010). The species usually occurs on or near the coast, but in southern New South Wales, extends inland to Braidwood.

In New South Wales, the species is generally found in grassy dry sclerophyll woodland on clay loam or sandy soils, less commonly in heathland on sandy loam soils with only two populations known in NSW; Wyong and Braidwood. The Braidwood population occurs in low woodland, with stony soil (DSE 2010, EES 2020b). The species does not generally occur in forested wetlands or wet sclerophyll forests. There are no reliable estimates of the population size within the species range.

The species is dormant during summer and dies back to an underground tuber. The summer dormancy period is generally broken during heavy rains in Autumn and flowers during September to early November and is detectable during this season. This species grows in a complex relationship with a mycorrhizal fungus that is necessary for seed germination and provides nutrients. The degree of dependence on mycorrhizal fungi, particularly of mature plants, is unknown (DSE 2010). Thick-lipped Spider Orchid responds well to fire and also prefers areas with minimal midstorey density and shade (NSW Scientific Committee 2008).

3.9.2 Occurrence within the locality For the purposes of this assessment, the locality is defined as the Sydney Basin IBRA region. Within NSW there are six previously mapped locations:

• Morton National Park - approximately 60 - 80 plants, however there is no updated information on recent sightings or population estimates since 2010 • Munmorah State Recreation Area – not seen since 1999 • Braidwood - approximately 10 plants, however no updated sightings information is available • South Pacific Headland Reserve – not seen since 2001 • Wyrrabalong National Park – not seen since 1997 • Porter Creek Wetland Reserve – not seen since 1999 (DSE 2010).

Since the issuing of the conservation advice (DSE 2010) for this species in 2010, the population is considered to be comprised of three clusters of individuals in the Wyong, Morton National Park and Braidwood areas. This is supported by the publicly available records which map 10 records for the species within the past 30 years, clustered around these areas (OEH 2020). The populations that have been historically recorded on the south coast (with the exception of Morton National Park and Braidwood) are considered to be extinct, most likely a result of prolonged periods of drought and forestry practices (NSW Scientific Committee 2008). There is also some doubt over the numbers of individuals in the Wyong population due to shrubby overgrowth and weed invasion (Pers. Comms). The closest record to the site is to the south in Huskisson. This record is from 1931, with no other recent records or information collected by local experts indicating that this record could represent a current population (Figure 24).

3.9.3 Habitat availability in the site The Thick-lipped Spider Orchid is known to occur in grassy, dry sclerophyll woodland, often occurring in treeless or very open areas on rocky or skeletal soils. The species is not known to occur in forested habitats. The site does not contain any potential habitat for this species. The species is currently only known from two locations in NSW (NSW Scientific Committee 2008; Stephenson pers. comm 2005), three on the Central Coast and two in the southern Tablelands. The most recent estimates of the population size are 50 individuals (NSW Scientific Committee 2008). Targeted survey was conducted for this species in the known flowering period in November 1998 and it was not recorded. Further, a local orchid species expert (Alan Stephensen) who knows the site intimately, having monitored the Yellow Gnat-orchid and Cryptostylis hunteriana populations at the site for many years, considers the site not to be suitable habitat for the species and has not recorded the species despite consistent survey effort (pers, comm 2015).

The site contains PCT 1079 - Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion. This PCT is part of the Wet Sclerophyll Forest (grassy sub- formation) vegetation formation and the Southern Lowland Wet Sclerophyll Forests vegetation class (EES 2020a). This community is not a grassy dry sclerophyll woodland. The Thick-lipped Spider Orchid is not listed as a threatened entity that is associated with this PCT (EES 2020a) . The absence of potential habitat for this species was confirmed during field survey. Field survey confirmed that the site was low lying, contained a sparse to moderate midstorey, a dense canopy and a mixed groundcover of grasses, ferns and herbs.

The benchmarks for this community list 71 % for tree cover, 30 % for shrub cover and 45% ground cover which shows that generally, it does not form a highly open or treeless area (EES 2020a). This was confirmed with biometric plot data which shows canopy cover ranging between 40 – 45 %, midstorey cover ranging between 4 – 26.5 % and groundcover ranging between 45 – 162 % (ELA 2016).

Despite this, a survey was undertaken in November 1998 (Gunninah 2001) involving a random meander and full floristics plots across the site for 94 person hours. Additional opportunistic surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2016 however these were not all conducted during the known flowering period. The species was not recorded during survey across the site. Local Orchid expert Alan Stephenson was also consulted when the species was not recorded, plus consultations with local orchid experts, who have not seen species in the locality in the past decade and don’t consider the site to provide suitable habitat (Alan Stephenson, Pers. Comms).

Given that there is no habitat for the species within the site, it has not been historically recorded and is not predicted to occur by local experts, no further assessment is required.

3.10 Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid)

3.10.1 Species ecology The Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid) occurs in Victoria, NSW, and Queensland with most records in NSW, mainly on coastal and near coastal ranges north to near Forster, with two isolated occurrences inland north-west of Grafton.

The Leafless Tongue-orchid is known from a range of vegetation communities including coastal heathlands, margins of coastal swamps and sedgelands, coastal forest, dry woodland, and lowland forest, preferring open areas in the understorey of forested communities (DECC, 2005a). The soils include moist sands, moist to dry clay loam and occasionally in accumulated eucalypt leaves. The larger populations typically occur in woodland dominated by Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus sclerophylla), Silvertop Ash (E. sieberi), Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) and Black Sheoak (Allocasuarina littoralis); where it appears to prefer open areas in the understorey of this community and is often found in association with the Cryptostylis subulata and the Cryptostylis erecta (OEH 2020b).

3.10.2 Occurrence within the locality Within the Sydney Basin IBRA region the species is most common in the Shoalhaven area with 25 populations generally with less than 30 individuals (CoA 2008). These populations are scattered from Sussex Inlet to Ulladulla (EES 2020a). Targeted survey across the study area by Gunninah and ELA (1998 and 2016 respectively) identified the species in adjacent lands and in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Figure 24).

3.10.3 Habitat availability in the site The site contains PCT 1079 - Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion. This PCT is part of the Wet Sclerophyll Forest (grassy sub- formation) vegetation formation and the Southern Lowland Wet Sclerophyll Forests vegetation class (EES 2020a). The Leafless Tongue-orchid is listed as a threatened species associated with this PCT. The site contained a dense canopy and midstorey layer which would limit the amount of open and sunny areas available for this species (as discussed previously for Thick-lipped Spider Orchid).

Based on the PCT associations the site was considered marginal habitat (ELA 2019). However, following the completion of targeted surveys, the species was not identified and the conclusion was revised, stating no individuals were present in the site and it was highly unlikely to occur.

No further assessment is required for this species.

3.11 Syzygium paniculatum (Magenta Lilly Pilly)

3.11.1 Species ecology The Magenta Lilly Pilly occurs along a 400 km stretch of the NSW coastline, between Upper Lansdowne to Conjola National Park. This species occurs naturally in the Jervis, Sydney Cataract, Pittwater and Wyong subregions of the Sydney Basin Bioregion, and in the Karuah-Manning and Macleay-Hastings subregions of the NSW North Coast Bioregion (OEH 2012).

Magenta Lilly Pilly occurs on sandy soil or stabilised sand dunes in coastal areas , in littoral rainforest on sand or subtropical rainforest on sandy soil derived from sandstone, in littoral or subtropical rainforest on sandy soils or stabilised Quaternary sand dunes, or in subtropical and littoral rainforest on sandy soils or stabilized dunes near the sea. The species has been recorded growing mainly on flat to gently sloping sites on floodplains, creek banks, perched sand dunes, in swales of hind dunes, and on old dunal ridges. It has also been less commonly recorded on steep sites in gullies, such as in Bouddi National Park and at Green Point Foreshore Reserve (OEH 2012).

Only a few records describe a non-sandy soil type, including the Green Point Foreshore Reserve subpopulation at Gosford as present on a deep medium-clay. Each meta population has a slightly varied associated vegetation type. The Jervis Bay subpopulations occur in littoral rainforest or depauperate subtropical rainforest. The Coalcliff metapopulation occurs in riverine subtropical rainforest, and some of the Central Coast subpopulations occur in littoral rainforest remnants, which sometimes grade into swamp sclerophyll forest where drainage is impeded or warm temperate gullies (OEH 2012).

3.11.2 Occurrence within the locality There are 639 records for the Magenta Lilly Pilly within the Sydney Basin IBRA region (BioNet 2020). Within the Sydney Basin IBRA region, there are three known metapopulations containing 26 known subpopulations (as reported in the OEH 2012 Recovery Plan for this species). The central coast metapopulation supports the largest number of individuals within the IBRA region. These individuals are spread across both private and public lands. The Coalcliff metapopulation is thought to contain 10 individuals and the Botany Bay metapopulation contains a small number of individuals, however the specific number is not listed (OEH 2012).

The Jervis Bay metapopulation technically forms part of the Jervis Bay IBRA subregion, however it is immediately east of the site. This metapopulation contains a high number of individuals, with 12 subpopulations at Cabbage Tree bay, Duck Creek, Currarong Creek, St Georges Basin, Tomerong and Huskisson (OEH 2012). The species has not been previously recorded within the site. The closest record is along the coastline at Callala Beach (Figure 24).

3.11.3 Habitat availability in the site The site contains PCT 1079 - Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion. This PCT is part of the Wet Sclerophyll Forest (grassy sub- formation) vegetation formation and the Southern Lowland Wet Sclerophyll Forests vegetation class (EES 2020a). This PCT occurs on coastal lowlands on sandstone and shales below 100 m ASL (Tozer et al. 2010).

The site is on the Greenwell Point soil landscape which is characterised by mid grey to dark grey pebbly siltstone to poorly sorted pebbly lithic sandstone geology. The soil profile contains a silt loam topsoil, sandy clay subsoil and a medium clay subsoil (eSpade).

Given that there is no habitat for the species within the site, no further assessment is required.

Figure 24: Previous records for Thick-lipped Spider-orchid, Leafless Tongue-orchid and Magenta Lilly Pilly in the locality

3.12 Anthochaera phrygia (Regent Honeyeater)

3.12.1 Species ecology The Regent Honeyeater has a patchy distribution from north-east Victoria to south-east Queensland, having a decreased range as it was formerly found from Adelaide to the Central Coast of Queensland. There a currently four known regular breeding sites: Bundarra-Barraba, Capertee Valley and Hunter Valley districts in New South Wales, and the Chiltern area in north-east Victoria. Breeding has also been recorded in the Cement Mills-Durakai area west of Warwick, southern Queensland and in the Australian Capital Territory several times. Breeding occurs over spring and summer and nests are built in the canopy of mature rough-barked species such as ironbarks, Casuarina spp. and Angophora floribunda (Rough-barked Apple) (DotEE 2019).

Movement of Regent Honeyeaters is highly variable, with individuals sometimes returning to the same breeding sites in successive years whilst others have been found to move between breeding sites. Seasonal movement of Regent Honeyeaters is often related to the flowering of key food species. In low lying coastal areas, forests dominated by Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) are an important foraging resource (DotEE 2019). Other flowering trees are also used opportunistically when required.

Habitat critical to the survival of the Regent Honeyeater includes:

• any breeding or foraging habitat in areas where the species is likely to occur; and • any newly discovered breeding or foraging locations.

3.12.2 Occurrence within the locality There are 703 records for this species within the Sydney Basin IBRA region over the past 30 years. A majority of the records are located in the north western corner of the IBRA region, with records decreasing in the southern portion of the IBRA Region (OEH 2020). The closest record is at Callala Beach from 2002 and other scattered records to the west of the site in Morton National Park (Figure 25).

3.12.3 Habitat availability in the site The Regent Honeyeater was not identified in the site during survey. The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species, given the absence of preferred feed trees in the site. In the Southern Rivers region, this species prefers the following canopy species:

• Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany) • Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) (Bird Life 2011).

The site is dominated by Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark), Eucalyptus longifolia (Woollybutt), Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum) and Eucalyptus sclerophylla (Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum) (based on plot data in the site). C. maculata and E. robusta were not recorded in the floristic plots undertaken in the site and if present would occur at low densities. Furthermore, this species has been recorded previously only four times within a 20 km radius of the site suggesting that the locality could be infrequently used by this species (OEH 2020; Figure 26).

Given that the site is highly unlikely to form preferred habitat for this species, the species is highly unlikely to occur and as such, the significant impact criteria was not applied.

Figure 25: Regent Honeyeater records in the locality

Figure 26: Preferred Regent Honeyeater habitat within the locality

3.13 Lathamus discolor (Swift Parrot)

3.13.1 Species ecology The Swift Parrot breeds in Tasmania during the Australian summer and migrates north as a single population to mainland Australia (NSW, ACT and VIC) during winter. In NSW, the Swift Parrot typically forages in forests and woodlands and tends to prefer mature trees. When on mainland Australia, this species feeds on flowers and lerps in Eucalyptus spp. and will often forage widely. Habitat critical to the survival of this species includes areas of priority habitat where the species has shown site fidelity, areas likely to be important to the Swift Parrot, areas that are frequently used by large numbers of Swift Parrots or areas identified by the recovery team (DotEE 2011).

Priority habitats for the Swift Parrot are areas used for nesting, by large populations, repeatedly between seasons and for prolonged periods of time with some site fidelity shown to breeding and foraging sites. This species would utilise a wide range of habitats within the Sydney Basin. Records indicate that the species continues to utilise fragmented or smaller areas of native vegetation in urban areas (OEH 2020).

Swift Parrots tend to feed on the largest, most mature trees available, when in flower. Their distribution fluctuates in response to food availability. The Swift Parrot Recovery Plan (Saunders and Tzaros 2011) defines habitat critical to the survival of the species as: those areas of priority habitat for which the Swift Parrot has a level of site fidelity or possess phenological characteristics likely to be of importance to the Swift Parrot, or are otherwise identified by the recovery team (DotEE (Bird Life Australia) 2011).

Priority habitat includes areas:

• used for nesting • used by large proportions of the Swift Parrot population, • used repeatedly between seasons (site fidelity), or • used for prolonged periods of time (site persistence).

3.13.2 Occurrence within the locality There are two records for the Swift Parrot within a 10 km radius of the site (noting that the Swift Parrot is a sensitive species and these records have been denatured by approximately 1 km) (Figure 27). There are 125 records for this species within a 50 km radius of the site within the past 30 years. The closest record for the Swift Parrot is approximately 3 km to the north-west of the site, within Currambene State Forest recorded in 2002 (Figure 28). A more recent record (2014) is located on the Beecroft Peninsula approximately 11 km to the east. The location of the surrounding records suggests that the Swift Parrot does move through habitat within close proximity to the site at least infrequently, however, would not utilise the site nor rely on the site (Figure 27).

The Swift Parrot was not identified in the site during survey. The site does not provide suitable habitat for this species, given the absence of preferred feed trees. In the Southern Rivers region, this species prefers the following canopy species:

• Eucalyptus robusta (Swamp Mahogany)

• Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) • Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum).

3.13.3 Habitat availability in the site The site is dominated by Eucalyptus globoidea (White Stringybark), Eucalyptus longifolia (Woollybutt), Eucalyptus punctata (Grey Gum) and Eucalyptus sclerophylla (Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum) (based on plot data in the site). C. maculata and E. robusta were not recorded in the floristic plots undertaken in the site and if present would occur at low densities. In addition, this species has been recorded previously three times within a 10 km radius of the site suggesting that the locality is infrequently used by this species (OEH 2020, Figure 28).

Given that the site is highly unlikely to form habitat for this species, the species is highly unlikely to occur and as such, the significant impact criteria was not applied.

Figure 27: Swift Parrot records in the locality

Figure 28: Preferred Swift Parrot habitat in the locality

3.14 Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox)

3.14.1 Species ecology The Grey-headed Flying-fox was not been detected during targeted survey utilising the site. The Grey- headed Flying-fox is typically medium to dark grey with many light-tipped hairs with fur extending to the feet. Its defining feature is an orange or russet-coloured collar which encircles the neck. This species occupies the coastal lowlands and slopes of south-eastern Australia from Bundaberg to Geelong and inland NSW to the tablelands and western slopes. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a highly mobile, partially migratory species with a distribution that is highly varied between seasons and years. The Grey- headed Flying-fox forms part of one single, interbreeding population. The species breeds once a year between October and December (DotEE 2017).

Grey-headed Flying-foxes typically roost in camps which are used as a daytime refuge. Camps are generally stable sites, however numbers and occupation can vary over time, depending on the availability of foraging resources within the locality (DotEE 2017).

This species primarily feeds on blossom and fruit in the canopy and will occasionally supplement this with leaves. This species tends to favour Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora, Melaleuca, Banksia and Ficus species and will migrate in response to flowering events and the availability of food. This species will forage between 20 km and 40 km in a feeding foray from a camp site, with most distances <20 km. Up to 20 km is considered the average foraging distance and has been used in this assessment.

Threats to the Grey-headed Flying-fox include loss of foraging and roosting habitat, competition with Black Flying-foxes, negative public attitude and conflict with humans, electrocution, entanglement in netting and on barbed-wire, climate change and disease (DotEE 2017). The draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox defines habitat critical to the survival of the species as natural habitat that is (DotEE 2017):

• productive foraging habitats linked by migration corridors or stopover habitats and camps within a nightly commuting distance of the foraging resources. • during winter and spring when food bottlenecks have been identified.

The plan also notes that foraging resources which provide resources in times of food shortage may also be critical to the survival of the species (DotEE 2017).

3.14.2 Occurrence within the locality There are 22 records for this species within a 10 km radius of the site (OEH 2020;Figure 29). There are three camps within 20 km of the site (DAWE 2020c; Figure 29):

• Bomaderry Creek – approximately 19 km north west of the site containing 2,500 – 9,999 individuals (last recorded 2016) • Nowra – approximately 18 km north-west of the site containing 500 – 2,499 individuals (last counted August 2019) • Wandandian– approximately 18 km south-west of the site last estimated to contain 500-2,499 individuals (May 2018) (DAWE 2020c).

3.14.3 Habitat availability in the site The site contains potential foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox. There are no known camps in the site. The proposed action will directly impact 40.19 ha of potential foraging habitat, which is unlikely to form critical habitat for this species (Figure 30). This foraging habitat is most likely utilised by the individuals in the Nowra and Wandandian camps on an occasional basis only, given the distance of the site from the camp and large quantity of potential foraging habitat in the locality. The Significant Impact Criteria has been applied to the Grey-headed Flying-fox and concluded that the proposed action would be unlikely to constitute a significant impact on this species (Table 12).

Figure 29: Grey-headed Flying-fox records within the locality

Figure 30: Preferred Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat in the locality

4. Assessment of impact on relevant Matters of NES

The following is a detailed assessment of the extent and significance of potential impact from the action on the identified relevant Matters of NES. The following section only includes MNES that were either identified in the site during survey, or, have been assumed as present. This includes the following species:

• Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) – identified in the site • Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) – identified in the study area • Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) – assumed as present.

No other species require assessment at this level.

4.1 Application of mitigation hierarchy The Commonwealth Government Offsets Policy states impacts to Matters of NES should be avoided where possible. Where complete avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented to prevent or minimise direct and indirect impacts of the action on Matters of NES. This section includes a discussion of the broader Jervis Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Area as it is relevant to understand how impacts have been avoided and minimised.

The site forms part of an original larger Jervis Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Area (BCAA), which incorporated lands from the Halloran Trust Planning Proposal for Culburra Beach, Callala Bay and Kinghorn Point (Allen Price and Associates 2014). The intention of the original planning proposal was to strategically assess the site as part of the broader Jervis Bay area and conserve the areas of highest ecological value across the proposed BCAA and identify areas of lower ecological value for potential development, balanced with good town planning outcomes for the existing urban areas.

The strategic assessment included the proposed conservation and in-perpetuity management of 1,081 ha in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site which includes 312.16ha of native vegetation in the Callala Bay section. The Callala Bay section of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains a population of 126 individuals of the Yellow Gnat-orchid in areas where SR592 and swamp forests (SR648 and SR669) were present and foraging and denning habitat for the Greater Glider, Spot-tailed Quoll and several NSW listed threatened species. This land is protected in-perpetuity as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank agreement (BA364) which involves fully funded, in perpetuity conservation management aimed at maintaining and improving the condition of the vegetation, reducing feral animals, establishing an ecological burning regime and annual monitoring, reporting and compliance.

4.1.1 Avoidance of direct impacts to Yellow Gnat-orchid, Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider The areas that have been designated as development lands have been chosen to, where possible, avoid and minimise impacts to potential habitat for Yellow Gnat-orchid, Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider. The development footprint has been considered at a strategic level and aims at protecting areas that contain threatened ecological values and providing connectivity throughout the broader landscape, whilst also consolidating sound town planning outcomes for Callala Bay. The avoidance measures are summarised below:

• strategic location of a local bushland park within the development area to avoid impacts to 35 of the 36 Yellow Gnat-orchid in the site • retention and management of an approximate 50 m buffer around the known Yellow Gnat- orchid individuals as part of the bushland park • in perpetuity conservation of 312.16 ha of native vegetation that is known to contain 126 Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals and forms potential habitat for the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll • management of the conservation area as a Biobank site, which will be protected and managed in-perpetuity • conservation of habitat trees within the bushland park.

4.1.2 Minimisation The proposed action has minimised potential impacts to MNES by locating the development lands adjacent to an existing residential area and between two existing roads; Emmett Street and Callala Beach Road that fragment this habitat from other, larger, contiguous areas. The positioning of the development lands in this area is allowing the proponent to utilise existing roads to service the future development. It has also minimised fragmentation throughout the landscape by securing a substantial vegetated corridor which will be managed in-perpetuity as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. This is connected to the Jervis Bay National Park.

A Plan of Management will also be prepared for the Bushland Park under the Local Government Act 1993. The Plan of Management will be prepared by the proponent on behalf of Shoalhaven City Council and will include:

• local community education and participation (bush regeneration) • mitigation measures for urban runoff and other edge effects (fully kerbed and guttered surrounding roads) • boundary management, including weed management • controls for recreation and access (signage, fencing) • fire management, including maintenance requirements for the Asset Protection Zone • Yellow Gnat-orchid monitoring program.

4.2 Cumulative impacts The proposed action is not part of a larger action in Callala Bay or the locality. There are no other known proposed residential subdivision or other large scale projects planned for the Callala Bay area. There are plans for another residential subdivision at Culburra, approximately 20 km north of the site.

4.3 Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid)

4.3.1 Proposed impacts The proposed action would directly impact one (1) Yellow Gnat-orchid individual and its habitat. There would be no other direct impacts to the Yellow Gnat-orchid on site (Figure 31).

Indirect impacts associated with the proposed action include:

• selective thinning of the outer 10 m of the 50 m habitat buffer in the bushland park as part of Asset Protection Zone maintenance • establishment of a 3 m wide walking track through the bushland park, noting no individuals will be affected • potential increase in edge effects to the retained individuals in the bushland park.

The extent and implications of the direct and indirect impacts are evaluated in Section 4.3.2.

Table 6: Yellow Gnat-orchid habitat onsite (including areas to be affected, conserved, or otherwise retained)

Total number of individuals Individuals retained on- Individuals conserved in Lake Individuals affected in the site site Wollumboola Biobank site

36 1 35 126

Total affected 1

Total retained and conserved 127

4.3.2 Evaluation of impacts Impacts to Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals have been avoided through the strategic location of a local bushland park around the main cluster of individuals in the site. This has retained 35 of the 36 individuals present, including a 50 m buffer.

The impacts are limited to the removal of one individual and its habitat within the site and the conservation of 97% of the population within the site and over 99% of the known individuals in the local area. Impacts will be minimised through the preparation and implementation of a Plan of Management for the bushland park which will include controls for the following:

The extent of indirect impacts are considered negligible given the application of the 50 m buffer to all retained individuals, any indirect impacts would likely only affect the buffer area which will also be managed to mitigate these edge effects. Indirect impacts are likely to result from the implementation of the bushfire Asset Protection Zone (APZ) and use of the access track that will run through the bushland park. The outer 10 m of the 50 m buffer would, in some sections, function as part of the APZ.

Management of this zone would be limited to selective thinning of the canopy and midstorey to reduce bushfire hazard. The groundcover would be left intact. The selective thinning could improve some areas of potential habitat for this species as it is known to respond well to low levels of disturbance and an open canopy allowing sunlight to reach the groundcover layer.

The access track would not impact any individuals and would be located entirely in the 50 m buffer. The access track would be 3 m wide. Access would be limited to foot traffic and bicycles only.

Table 7: Significant impact assessment on Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid)

Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility of the following:

1) will the action lead to a long- The known local population of Genoplesium baueri is 162 individuals, term decrease in the size of a including 36 in the site and 126 in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. Of population the 36 in the site, one would be removed, with 35 protected within a bushland park, and an additional 126 protected within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site, which is located directly to the north of the site. The estimated size of the local population is based on intensive surveys undertaken within the site and targeted surveys within the BioBank site where the species had been previously detected (BES 2006, Gunninah 2006, Appendix I). It must be noted that intensive surveys were not undertaken across the entire BioBank site, and therefore the population size is predicted to be larger than the known 126 individuals within the BioBank site. The known habitat within the site and BioBank site is 20.95 ha, however, the total area of known and predicted habitat is 80.03 ha. It is predicted that the species would be also present within the adjacent Jervis Bay National Park, which also contains potential habitat based on similar vegetation types and landform, however, targeted surveys and habitat mapping have not been undertaken within the National Park. Therefore, it is estimated that the population would be larger than 162 individuals within the locality and that the proposed action would result in a reduction of the population of 0.62 %. Given that more than 99% of the population would be retained, the proposed action is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on the Yellow Gnat-orchid.

2) will the action reduce the area The proposed action will reduce the area of occupancy of Genoplesium of occupancy of the species baueri by 0.005 ha (< 0.01 %). Although the proposed action would reduce the area of occupancy of this species, > 99 % of the known habitat within the development footprint would be retained, including a 50 m buffer around 35 individuals. Extensive and detailed surveys and habitat assessments were completed across the site, and no other habitat for this species was identified. The reduction in area of occupancy is unlikely to be significant.

3) will the action fragment an No. The mapped extent of individuals includes a cluster of 35 and one existing population into two or outlier on the eastern side of the site. The nearest records are within Lake more populations Wollumboola Biobank site directly to the north. There are no areas of mapped potential habitat between the existing known records in the study area. The proposed action would therefore not fragment the known population into two or more populations.

Question Response

4) will the action adversely affect The one individual to be removed constitutes <0.01 % of the known habitat critical to the survival population in the local area. The development footprint has been of a species specifically designed to retain a substantial proportion (>99 %) of the Habitat critical to the survival known individuals and habitat in the site. The removal of one individual is of a species refers to areas considered highly unlikely to significantly affect habitat critical to the that are necessary: survival of Yellow Gnat-orchid. 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.

5) will the action disrupt the The proposed action will remove < 0.01 % of individuals of the local breeding cycle of a population population, however, it is unlikely that the breeding cycle of the remaining individuals of the population will be affected by the development given their retention in the bushland park.

6) i will the action modify, destroy, The proposed action will remove one known individual and < 0.01 % of the remove, isolate or decrease habitat within the site. The mapped extent of individuals includes a cluster the availability or quality of of 35 and one outlier on the eastern side of the site. The nearest records habitat to the extent that the are within Lake Wollumboola Biobank site directly to the north. There are species is likely to decline no areas of mapped potential habitat between the existing known records in the study area. Therefore, no individuals or areas of habitat would be isolated as part of the proposed action. The habitat and individuals to be retained are unlikely to decrease in condition as a 50 m buffer around all known individuals has been retained to manage indirect impacts that may occur. The proposed action is unlikely to result in a decline of the species.

6) ii will the action result in No. The 35 individuals to be retained are located in a future bushland park invasive species that are which will be managed as part of a VMP. The VMP is expected to manage harmful to a critically any impacts (weed invasion) that could affect the retained individuals. endangered or endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat

7) will the action introduce The proposed action is unlikely to introduce a disease that would cause the disease that may cause the species to decline. The remaining individuals of the known population will species to decline be protected by management actions in the bushland park.

Question Response

8) will the action interfere with No recovery plans have been prepared for this species under the EPBC Act. the recovery of the species The proposed action will remove one individual. A total of 35 individuals will be retained within the site. <0.06 % of known individuals will be removed from this population as a result of the proposed action, which is considered to interfere with the recovery of the species.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a The proposed development will result in the removal of 0.62 % of the significant impact? known local population of this species. 35 individuals, or > 99% of the individuals in the site would be retained. Impacts to one individuals are highly unlikely to constitute a significant impact to this species

4.3.3 Summary of residual impact It has been determined that the residual direct impact of the proposed action is marginal and would not be significant given the retention of 35 from 36 individuals present, including a 50 m buffer. However, ELA acknowledges that the conservation advice for this species states that ‘loss of any individual is an unacceptable impact” (DoE 2014). As such, ELA has taken a precautionary approach and determined the residual impact to be significant. Therefore, impacts require further mitigation through offsetting.

4.3.4 Offsetting The proposed offset for impacts to one (1) Yellow Gnat-orchid are provided for in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site immediately north of the site. The Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains 126 individuals of Yellow Gnat-orchid and 76.54 ha of habitat for the species. Some of the individuals present are located within the area of habitat. In some areas habitat mapping extended beyond the range of known individuals. This reflects the presence of suitable, high quality habitat niches which the species is known to inhabit (Appendix I).

The known individuals and habitat polygons in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site will be conserved and managed in-perpetuity as part of an existing Biobank Agreement. An evaluation of the suitability of land secured and to be managed and secured for conservation as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site has been undertaken. This evaluation was undertaken through application of the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy, Offsets Assessment Guide and associated offset calculator. This evaluation has found that Lake Wollumboola Biobank site directly mitigates the residual impact on one Yellow Gnat-orchid individual by 118.16 % through the in-perpetuity conservation and management of 10 (ten) individuals (Figure 31). The impact is therefore considered fully mitigated by the offsets package proposed for this action.

Figure 31: Yellow Gnat-orchid to be affected, retained and conserved in the site and Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Appendix I)

4.4 Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)

4.4.1 Potential impacts The proposed action would directly impact 37.48 ha of Greater Glider habitat. An additional 2.71 ha would be retained as part of the bushland park, however the proposed subdivision will fragment this portion of habitat from the surrounding landscape. A precautionary approach has been applied and assumed the entire 40.19 ha of habitat for this species would be removed or not be available for foraging purposes.

Indirect impacts likely to occur include:

• increased predation by large forest owls • potential for increase in noise and light spill to adjacent bushland areas.

Table 8: Marginal habitat to be affected and conserved for the Greater Glider

Retained onsite (ha) Total affected (ha) Conserved in Lake Affected (ha) (considered indirectly Wollumboola affected) Biobank site (ha)

37.48 2.71 40.19 127.44

4.4.2 Evaluation of impacts The Greater Glider was identified foraging in the study area during targeted spotlight surveys in 2006 and 2016 (BES 2006; ELA 2016). Targeted survey did not confirm whether the species is breeding on site, however there are an abundance of habitat trees with suitable sized hollows that could be used for breeding purposes and it is therefore likely that suitable trees may be used for denning and /or breeding purposes.

The location of the proposed development footprint has been strategically assessed as part of the Jervis Bay biocertification and was chosen by Shoalhaven City Council as part of the Jervis Bay Settlement Strategy to avoid impacts and minimise fragmentation and isolation of habitat throughout the broader locality. The impacts to 40.19 ha of Greater Glider habitat cannot be further reduced as the location of the development footprint has allowed the in-perpetuity conservation and management of 127.44 ha of Greater Glider habitat in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. This 127.44 ha is continuous with Jervis Bay National Park and the remaining portions of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site to the north (Figure 18).

The extent of increase predation by forest owls is highly unlikely to be exacerbated by the proposed action. Increased predation generally occurs where there is a significant loss of hollows, which represents the risk of predation while the Greater Glider moves between trees (CoA 2016). The removal of foraging habitat for Ninox strenua (Powerful Owl) and Tyto tenebricosa (Sooty Owl) such that their foraging home range is significantly reduced may lead to over predation of the Greater Glider in certain areas (CoA 2016). These potential indirect impacts are likely to be limited with respect to the proposed action. Although the proposed action would remove 40.19 ha of potential habitat for the Greater Glider, 308.14 ha would be conserved and managed in-perpetuity in the adjacent Lake Wollumboola Biobank site which is directly connected to other areas of in-perpetuity conserved habitat including Jervis Bay National Park and other secure areas such as Currambene State Forest. Given the availability of

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 82 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd continuous habitat throughout the locality, the foraging range of large Forest Owls is unlikely to be reduced such that predation would substantially increase.

Survey effort across the Lake Wollumboola Biobank has identified a high number of hollow bearing trees spread across the conserved habitat in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. A high number of hollow bearing trees would be conserved which would provide roosting habitat for the Greater Glider, and the reduction of hollows within the site is unlikely to result in substantial exposure such that owl predation would increase.

Indirect impacts associated with noise and light spill would be limited as three of the four site boundaries are bordered by existing roads and an existing residential subdivision, which would act as buffers to any noise and light spill. The conserved habitat for the Greater Glider forms part of a large, continuous patch that extends throughout the locality which would minimise any indirect impacts cause by noise and light spill. These indirect impacts are considered negligible.

Table 9: Significant impact assessment on Petauroides volans (Greater Glider)

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

1) lead to a long-term decrease in The population within the site is unlikely to form part of an important the size of an important population, given that the site is not at the edge of the species range, is population of a species unlikely to be a key source population for breeding or dispersal and is unlikely to be necessary for maintaining genetic diversity. The size and range of the population in the site is not known. The species is widespread locally, with 22 records within a 20 km radius of the site. The most recent record is from 2017 approximately 2km to the north of the site and the nearest is located approximately 200 m south of the site from 2015. The entire site provides potential habitat and is likely to be utilised by the Greater Glider. The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential habitat for Greater Glider. The size of the local population is unknown, however, there is an estimated 12,218.46 ha of suitable connected habitat within 20 km of the site. The loss of 40.19 ha (0.19%) of potential habitat within the locality is unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of the local population.

2) reduce the area of occupancy of The proposed development will marginally reduce the area of an important population occupancy by 40.19 ha of the local population of Greater Gliders, however, large areas of habitat for the local population are to be retained (12,718.27 ha) within 20 km of the site. This includes large areas of habitat to be retained in perpetuity within the adjacent Biobank site and Jervis Bay National Park.

3) fragment an existing important The proposed action will result in a minor reduction of connectivity of population into two or more habitat for Greater Glider south of the site, however, connectivity will populations still be maintained moving to the west and north. The proposal will result in a minor increase the fragmentation of the habitat available for the Greater Glider. The action would have minor impacts the movement of the local population, and is unlikely to split the population into two or more.

4) adversely affect habitat critical to A recovery plan has not been prepared for the Greater Glider, hence the survival of a species there is not listed habitat critical to the survival of this species and therefore the general definition must be used.

Criterion Question Response Where no critical habitat has Greater Glider has been recorded during targeted surveys, this species been declared, habitat critical to was also recorded approximately 200m south of the referral in 2015 and the survival of a species refers to 2 km to the north in 2017 (BioNet). It is likely that this species would areas that are necessary: utilise foraging habitat within the site and has the potential to breed - for activities such as foraging, within the site given the abundance of hollows. Given the records to the breeding, roosting, or dispersal north and south it is also considered likely that this species may utilise the site as dispersal habitat. It is therefore considered that the site - for the long-term maintenance would constitute habitat critical the survival of the species. of the species or ecological community (including the The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential maintenance of species essential foraging, breeding and dispersal habitat that is considered habitat to the survival of the species or critical to the survival of the species (as per DotEE definition). However, ecological community, such as it is noted that large areas of similar habitat are abundant within the pollinators) local area in the Biobank sites, state forests and Jervis Bay National Park to the north. An estimated 12,718.27 ha of potential habitat is available - to maintain genetic diversity and within 20 km of the site. long-term evolutionary development, or - for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

5) disrupt the breeding cycle of an The proposed action would removal of 40.19 ha of potential habitat for important population Greater Gilder which contains hollow-bearing trees. These hollow bearing trees may be utilised for breeding and denning by the Greater Glider. Therefore, the development has the potential to disrupt the breeding cycle of the Greater Glider. However, there is an abundance of suitable hollow bearing trees and stags with hollows within the surrounding landscape that could be utilised by this mobile species. It is unlikely, given the extensive habitat adjacent to the site, that the Greater Glider would rely solely on the hollow bearing trees in the site. Therefore, the disruption is expected to be temporary and the abundance of hollow bearing trees in the surrounding landscape could also be utilised by this species.

6) modify, destroy, remove or The proposed action would remove 40.19 ha of habitat for the Greater isolate or decrease the availability Glider. No additional habitat outside of the 40.19 ha removed will be or quality of habitat to the extent modified. Approximately 12,718.27 ha of connected suitable habitat is that the species is likely to decline available within 20 km of the site. Considering the extensive habitat available in the locality, the removal of 40.19 ha of habitat is unlikely to cause the species to decline.

7) result in invasive species that are The proposed action is unlikely to result in the establishment of an harmful to a vulnerable species invasive species within Greater Glider habitat. becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

8) introduce disease that may cause The proposed action is unlikely to result in the introduction of a disease the species to decline, or that would cause the Greater Glider population to decline.

9) interfere substantially with the The proposed action would remove 40.19 ha of potential habitat for recovery of the species. Greater Glider. However, considering large areas of suitable habitat available within the Biobank sites, state forests and Jervis Bay National Park it is unlikely that the proposed action would interfere substantially with the recovery of the Greater Glider. Approximately 12,718.27 ha of suitable connected habitat will remain available within 20 km of the site.

Criterion Question Response

Conclusion Is there likely to be a significant The proposed action would result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential impact? foraging, roosting and dispersal habitat for the Greater Glider. Substantial areas of suitable habitat are available in the directly adjacent Biobank site at Lake Wollumboola, Jervis Bay National Park and state forests. It is considered that the retained areas within the locality are of sufficient size to maintain a viable population of Greater Gliders and the proposed action would not lead to a significant impact.

4.4.3 Summary of residual impact After the application of the avoid and minimise principles, there is no residual significant impact to the Greater Glider. Although no further mitigation through offsetting is required, it has been provided for as part of this PD.

4.4.4 Offsetting The proposed offset for impacts to Greater Glider habitat are provided for in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site immediately north of the site. The Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains 308.14 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider and numerous hollows which may provide roosting and breeding habitat for this species. Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains six PCTs which would provide habitat for the Greater Glider. Of these PCTs, PCT 1079 - Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion is forming the offset for impacts to the Greater Glider. This PCT is the same PCT as what is proposed for removal in the site. (PCT 1082 is consistent with SR592).

127 ha of habitat in the form of PCT 1082 (SR592) in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site will be conserved and managed in-perpetuity as part of a biocertification commitment (Figure 32). An evaluation of the suitability of land to be managed and secured for conservation as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site has been undertaken. This evaluation was undertaken through application of the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy, Offsets Assessment Guide and associated offset calculator. This evaluation has found that 127 ha of suitable habitat within the Callala Bay section of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site directly mitigates the residual impact on 40.19 ha of Greater Glider habitat at 186 %. The impact is therefore considered fully mitigated by the offsets package proposed to be used for this action.

Figure 32: Greater Glider habitat to be affected, retained (indirectly affected) and conserved in the site and Lake Wollumboola Biobank site

4.5 Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll)

4.5.1 Potential impacts The proposed action would directly impact 37.48 ha of potential habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll. An additional 2.71 ha would be retained as part of the bushland park, however the proposed subdivision will fragment this portion of habitat from the surrounding landscape. A precautionary approach has been applied and assumed the entire 40.19 ha of habitat for this species would be removed.

Indirect impacts likely to occur, although expected to be minimal, include:

• increased road mortality associated with increased road traffic • likely increased predation by domestic cats.

Table 10: Marginal habitat to be affected and conserved for the Spot-tailed Quoll

Directly affected Retained onsite (ha) (considered Total affected (ha) Conserved in Lake Wollumboola (ha) indirectly affected) Biobank site (ha)

37.48 2.71 40.19 127.44

4.5.2 Evaluation of impacts The Spot-tailed Quoll was not identified in the site during targeted survey. The Spot-tailed Quoll is known to inhabit very large home ranges and can be cryptic, making it difficult to detect during survey. A precautionary approach has been taken and assumed that the site forms part of a larger foraging home range for this species. The tree hollows, hollow tree buttresses, hollow logs and clumps of vegetation may provide den sites for this species. Given the social behaviour of Quolls, the development this could represents part (approximately 50%) of the home range of an individual male (home ranges varies from 59 to over 5,000 ha) or female (home range varies from 88-1,500 ha) quoll, and given the extent of suitable habitat in the locality, is not considered significant.

The location of the proposed development footprint has been strategically assessed as part of the Jervis Bay biocertification and was chosen to avoid impacts and minimise fragmentation and isolation of remaining habitat throughout the broader locality. Despite not been considered significant, the impacts to 40.19 ha of Spot-tailed Quoll habitat will be offset by the in-perpetuity conservation and management of 127 ha of protected habitat within 311.2 ha of Spot-tailed Quoll habitat in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. This 311.2 ha is continuous with Jervis Bay National Park and the remaining portions of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site to the north (Figure 21).

Mortality associated with road traffic typically occurs while the Spot-tailed Quoll is foraging on the carcases of other roadkill, or due to the frequent foraging behaviours of juvenile individuals (DELWP 2016). The proposed action is bordered by two existing roads, Emmett Street to the south and Callala Beach Road to the west. The proposed action will increase the internal road network and create a new internal boundary road to the north that will have a 50kph urban speed limit and be subject to an Environmental Management Plan that will mitigate potential road mortality issues by the use of traffic calming devices and the maintenance of roadside vegetation to increase visibility of wildlife at night time. Traffic on the existing south and west roads would increase to service future residents which may increase the risk of vehicle strike. Although the risk would increase, the risk is predicted to be low because the proposed action would not result in substantial fragmentation of habitat or introduction of

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 87 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd new roads that contain vegetation on either side. There have been no records of mortality from vehicle strike on the roads surrounding the site (EES 2020a) with the closest recorded roadkill mortality along Huskisson Road, about 20 km south of the site.

Mortality associated with increased predation by feral cats has been recorded however there is little information available to determine the frequency or impact on Spot-tailed Quoll populations (DEWLP 2016). Evidence shows that there are many areas where feral cats and Spot-tailed Quolls are both present, with numbers of Quolls high in some areas. The proposed action may increase the presence of feral cats. If possible, cats should be banned.

Table 11: Significant impact assessment on Spot-tailed Quoll

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

1) lead to a long-term decrease in Spot-tailed Quolls have a large home range (up to several hundred ha for the size of an important females and several thousand ha for males). The proposed action would population of a species result in the loss of 40.19 ha of potential habitat for this species. While no Spot-tailed Quolls were recorded during the survey, there are recent BioNet records within 20 km of the site (including a 2018 record approximately 9 km from the site), and considering the suitable foraging resources available within the site, the site may form part of a larger home range. Large areas of suitable habitat area available within the adjacent Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park that are considered large enough to sustain the local population of Spot-tailed Quolls. There is an estimated 13,536.02 ha of potential habitat within 20 km of the site. The removal of 40.19 ha is therefore considered unlikely to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population.

2) reduce the area of occupancy of The proposed action would remove 40.19 ha of potential habitat for the an important population Spot-tailed Quoll. This species was not recorded during targeted surveys (spotlighting, hair tubes and remote cameras), however, they have large home ranges of several hundred to several thousand km in size. Spot- tailed Quoll has been recorded approximately 20 km from the site in the last 2 years and it is assumed that this species may use the site as part of a larger home range. Therefore, the proposed action would reduce the potential area of occupancy of the local population by 40.19 ha. However, relative to the large areas of continuous potential habitat within the adjacent Biobank sites and Jervis Bay National Park, the loss of 40.19 ha of potential habitat is not considered to be a significant loss of habitat.

3) fragment an existing important The proposed action would not result in fragmentation of habitat that population into two or more would result in the fragmentation of the local population into two or more populations populations.

4) adversely affect habitat critical No habitat critical to the survival of the Spot-tailed Quoll has been to the survival of a species mapped, however, is described in the National Recovery Plan for the Spot- Where no critical habitat has tailed Quoll (DotE, 2016) as “large patches of forest with adequate been declared, habitat critical denning resources and relatively high densities of medium-sized to the survival of a species mammalian prey”. The site is continuous with extensive areas of intact refers to areas that are vegetation within the adjacent Biobank sites (Callala Bay) and Jervis Bay necessary: National Park that contains denning resources and assumed high densities of suitable mammalian prey. Therefore, the site would be considered - for activities such as foraging, habitat critical to the survival of the species. There is an estimated breeding, roosting, or dispersal 13,536.02 ha of potential habitat within 20 km of the site. The loss of

Criterion Question Response - for the long-term 40.19 ha is likely to constitute a marginal impact to this species, given this maintenance of the species or would likely represent 50% of the home range of one female individual. ecological community There is a substantial patch of habitat for this species that is >8,000 ha (including the maintenance of which is managed under some form of conservation agreement (biobank species essential to the survival site, national park) or legislation. This connected habitat throughout the of the species or ecological locality would still provide a sufficient home range for any individuals, such community, such as pollinators) that critical habitat would be significantly affected. - to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or - for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological community.

5) disrupt the breeding cycle of an This species was not recorded during targeted survey, and therefore, the important population species is not known to be breeding within the site. However, the Spot- tailed Quoll is known to use hollow-bearing trees as maternity dens and considering the numerous large tree hollows within the site, there is potential for this species to breed within the site. The removal of 40.19 ha of habitat containing potential breeding habitat may result in disturbance to the breeding cycle of the local population. The disturbance to the breeding cycle, if any, would be limited to a single individual, as female quoll home-ranges do not overlap. The proposed action is unlikely to significantly disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population that would lead to a long-term decline of the local population.

6) modify, destroy, remove or The site would likely form part of a large home range of a local population isolate or decrease the of the Spot-tailed Quoll. The removal of 40.19 ha of potential habitat availability or quality of habitat would result in the loss of a proportion of foraging and potential breeding to the extent that the species is habitat. Individuals have large home ranges and there is abundant habitat likely to decline resources in adjacent vegetation within the Biobank site and Jervis Bay National Park, with at least 8,000 ha managed for conservation and at least an additional 5,500 ha on private land that is continuous with areas of conservation. Some of these areas also contain Spot-tailed Quoll records from 2000 – 2018.

7) result in invasive species that The proposed action is unlikely to result in the establishment of an are harmful to a vulnerable invasive species in the habitat to be retained outside of the site. species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

8) introduce disease that may The proposed action is unlikely to introduce a disease that would cause cause the species to decline, or the species to decline.

9) interfere substantially with the The recovery objectives relative to the proposed action are: recovery of the species. 3. Reduce the rate of habitat loss and fragmentation on private land – the proposed action will conflict with this recovery objective as it will result in the loss of 40.19 ha of potential habitat. Relative to the abundant areas of high quality habitat available within the Jervis Bay National Park, the increase rate of habitat loss resulting from the proposed action is considered unlikely to substantially interfere with the recovery of the Spot-tailed Quoll. 8. Reduce the frequency of Spot-tailed Quoll road mortality – the proposed action would result in more vehicles present adjacent to Spot-tailed Quoll

Criterion Question Response habitat which has the potential to result in road mortality. The risk of potential impacts associated with vehicle mortality are not likely to be substantial.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a significant The proposed action would result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential impact? habitat for Spot-tailed Quolls which would form part of a larger home range. Substantial areas of suitable habitat will be retained adjacent to the site and within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank site (Callala Bay). The proposed action is unlikely to constitute a significant impact on this species.

4.5.3 Summary of residual impact The Spot-tailed Quoll was not identified in the site during targeted survey. However, given the cryptic nature of this species, previous nearby records and the presence of potential habitat and den sites, a precautionary approach has been taken and assumed that the site could provide habitat for this species. After the application of the avoid and minimise principles, there is a residual impact of 40.19 ha to the Spot-tailed Quoll which is not considered a significant impact and therefore does not require an offset. However, an offset comprising 127.44 ha of suitable habitat will be provided consistent with the Statement of Commitments in the Callala Bay Biocertification application (ELA 2019) (i.e. the retirement of 1,686 SR592 ecosystem credits which is equivalent to 127.44 ha of habitat.

4.5.4 Offsetting The proposed offset for impacts to Spot-tailed Quoll habitat are provided for in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site immediately north of the site. The Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains 311.2 ha of habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll and numerous hollow bearing features (logs, buttresses or trees) which may provide den sites for this species of which 127 ha will be dedicated as a Spot-tailed Quoll offset. Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains seven PCTs which provide habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll. Of these, the proposed offset is comprised of PCT 1079 - Red Bloodwood - Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open forest on coastal foothills, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion (SR592) which is the same PCT that would be removed in the site.

127 ha of habitat in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site will be conserved and managed in-perpetuity as part of a biocertification commitment (Figure 33). An evaluation of the suitability of land to be managed and secured for conservation as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site has been undertaken. This evaluation was undertaken through application of the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy, Offsets Assessment Guide and associated offset calculator. This evaluation has found that 127 ha of suitable habitat within the Callala Bay section of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site directly mitigates the residual impact on 40.19 ha of Spot-tailed Quoll habitat at 201 %. The impact is therefore considered fully mitigated by the offsets package proposed to be used for this action.

Figure 33: Spot-tailed Quoll habitat to be affected, retained and conserved within the site and the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site

4.6 Pteropus poliocephalus (Grey-headed Flying-fox)

4.6.1 Potential impacts The proposed action will impact 37.48 ha of potential foraging habitat for the Grey-headed Flying-fox with 2.71 ha retained in the site as part of a pocket park. No camps would be affected. No indirect impacts are expected to occur. One indirect impact; electrocution on powerlines was considered, however all powerlines will be underground.

4.6.2 Evaluation of impacts The Grey-headed Flying-fox has not been previously identified in the site (OEH 2020). The proposed action would remove 37.48 ha of potential foraging habitat for this species, and no camps would be affected. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a highly mobile species and is known to utilise foraging resources within a 20 km radius of a camp in one night. It is therefore highly likely that other resources currently available within the locality, including, Jervis Bay National Park, Currambene State Forest (comprising around 8,000 ha of habitat) remains available for this species.

Table 12: Significant impact assessment on Grey-headed Flying-fox

Criterion Question Response

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

1) lead to a long-term The proposed action would remove of 37.48 ha of foraging habitat for Grey- decrease in the size of an headed Flying-fox. The amount of habitat to be affected is relatively small important population of compared to the amount of vegetation available in the average foraging range a species for this species, with 8,000 ha available in national parks or conserved land, and an additional 5,500 ha of foraging habitat on private lands. No individuals or camps of Grey-headed Flying-fox were recorded in the site however there are records adjacent to the site. The site would be used on occasion as foraging habitat and would form part of a mosaic of foraging resources within this species foraging range. The proposed action will not impact on any part of a known camp. Given that foraging habitat exists in the surrounding landscape and that this species is wide-ranging (traveling an average of 20 km per night), the proposed action is unlikely to affect any populations of this species that would lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of this species.

2) reduce the area of Individuals of this species are known to move approximately 20 km from a camp occupancy of an to forage. This species is highly mobile and populations at each camp may important population change during seasonal fluctuations. The removal of 37.48 foraging habitat is unlikely to reduce the area of occupancy of this species given their large foraging range and availability of several larger patches of foraging habitat within a 20 km radius of the site. A majority of this habitat is conserved through formal conservation management including National Parks and established BioBank sites. There is an estimated 12,088.27 ha of potential habitat which would be available within the locality. In addition, this species is known to utilise a range of foraging resources within a region. This species would not rely solely on the vegetation within the site for foraging purposes.

3) fragment an existing The Grey-headed Flying-fox population across camps is highly dynamic and important population individuals move between permanent camps to utilise foraging resources. They

Criterion Question Response into two or more will return to permanent camps to rear offspring. Individuals are highly mobile, populations and populations are not static. It is unlikely that any known camp or an important population would be fragmented under the proposed action. The proposed action will result in the removal of 40.19 ha of potential foraging habitat. Large amounts of similar habitat are available adjacent to the study area and in the wider locality within the BioBank sites and Jervis Bay National Park. Therefore, the proposed action is unlikely to fragment the existing important population into two or more populations.

4) adversely affect habitat The draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox (DotEE 2017) critical to the survival of a defines habitat critical to the survival of the species as natural habitat that is: species arbitrary • productive foraging habitats linked by migration corridors or stopover habitats and camps within a nightly commuting distance of the foraging resources. • during winter and spring when food bottlenecks have been identified. The study area is approximately 18 km north east of a camp at Wandandian, which had recorded numbers of Grey-headed Flying-foxes of 16,000 to 49,999 in November 2011, however, has since had lower numbers recorded. Considering that numbers of individuals fluctuate within camps, a population of >30,000 individuals may occur within 20km of the site. The site is surrounded by large areas of foraging resources that would from part of the foraging habitat for this camp. However, 37.48 ha is not considered substantial relative to the surrounding resources and is therefore not considered critical to the survival of this species. A majority of this habitat is conserved through formal conservation management including National Parks and established BioBank sites.

5) disrupt the breeding As no breeding habitat would be removed or disturbed, it is unlikely the cycle of an important proposed action would disrupt the breeding cycle of the important population population of this species. The removal of 37.48 ha of foraging habitat would not remove all of, or fragment the foraging habitat within the locality or foraging habitat from a known camp. There are large patches of foraging habitat that could be used by any individuals breeding in nearby camps.

6) modify, destroy, remove No known camps would be removed or disturbed, and extensive areas of or isolate or decrease the foraging habitat will remain immediately adjacent to the site within the Lake availability or quality of Wollumboola BioBank site and Jervis Bay National Park. The proposed action habitat to the extent that would therefore be unlikely to modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the the species is likely to availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline. decline

7) result in invasive species The proposed action is unlikely result in invasive species such as weeds or that are harmful to a predatory species that would be harmful to Grey-headed Flying Fox. vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

8) introduce disease that Grey-headed Flying-foxes are reservoirs for the Australian bat lyssavirus (ABL) may cause the species to and can cause clinical disease and mortality in GHFF (DotEE 2017). The proposed decline, or action is unlikely to present a significant ecological stress on any camps or on individuals that may utilise the site and therefore the works are unlikely to

Criterion Question Response introduce or exacerbate this virus or any other disease that may cause this species to decline.

9) interfere substantially A Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox was developed in with the recovery of the 2017. As no maternity camps would be removed, the proposed action would species. remove 40.19 ha of potential foraging habitat. Large amounts of habitat are available adjacent to the site and in the wider locality and form part of BioBank Agreement sites and Jervis Bay National Park. It is therefore unlikely the proposed action would interfere with the recovery of this species.

Conclusion Is there likely to be a The action would not affect breeding habitat and would impact 0.33% of significant impact? potential foraging habitat available within the locality (10 km radius of the site) for this species. No important populations would be isolated or fragmented and the life cycle of this species is unlikely to be affected. Therefore, the action is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.

4.6.3 Summary of residual impact Impacts to 37.48 ha of potential foraging habitat and no impacts on known camps is not considered a significant impact to the Grey-headed Flying-fox. There are no residual significant impacts resulting from the proposed action.

4.6.4 Offsetting No offsets are proposed, as the application of the significant impact criteria has concluded that a residual significant impact is unlikely to result from the proposed action.

5. Environmental management measures

5.1 On-site Bushland Park Plan of Management Impacts will be minimised through the preparation and implementation of a Plan of Management under the Local Government Act 1993 for the bushland park which will include controls for the following:

• community education and participation regarding the surrounding environment and banning of domestic cats • encourage the creation of a local Bushland group to assist with the management of the park • mitigation measures for urban runoff and other edge effects • boundary management, including weed management • controls for recreation and access • fire management, including maintenance requirements for the Asset Protection Zone • Yellow Gnat-orchid monitoring program.

5.2 Off-site Biobank Agreement The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site has been established to offset the impacts of the proposed action on biodiversity values. The Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site includes signage and perimeter fencing (along sections that don’t adjoin Jervis Bay National Park) that allow for the movement of fauna, however prevent the entry of people and unauthorised vehicles. The site will be actively managed for conservation in-perpetuity via a dedicated management fund and subject to plans of management in accordance with the BioBanking Agreement between The Halloran Trust and the NSW Minister for the Environment. The Biobank site was registered in 2019.

5.3 Construction Environment Management Plan Sealark Pty Limited (or any future developer/developers who becomes subject to the Biodiversity Certification Agreement) will prepare and implement a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) to guide the development of the certified land and ensure that all direct and indirect impacts (e.g. APZs, utilities, access, stormwater run-off) are contained within the development footprint and appropriate mitigation measures are used to minimise indirect impacts to the adjoining Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. Additional measures, including pre-clearance surveys, minimising road mortalities and hygiene controls are detailed below.

The CEMP will include the following standard measures:

• Planning requirements • Environmental site plan • Environmental management plan • Complaints recording template • Sediment and erosion control measure • Pre-start measures • Weekly environmental inspection checklist • Implementation and operation.

Additional measures that will form part of the CEMP include:

Fencing retention areas (bushland park) Fencing will be installed along the perimeter of the conserved and retained vegetation with the objectives of controlling entry to the area and to protect the community. This will prevent rubbish dumping and unauthorised access by vehicles, machinery or humans into the vegetation to be retained.

Fencing will surround the areas of conserved land allowing only access for parkland managers and emergency vehicles, with signage to provide community awareness of the importance of the conserved vegetation. Gates will be included within the fence-lines to allow operational/management access and emergency services access. The fencing design is dependent on its location within the final design of development and as such, the specific fence will depend on the position. At a minimum, the fencing will consist of a rural style fence and gate. The rural fencing is expected to consist of treated timber posts set into concrete flooring and star picket steel posts spaced typically 3 m apart with 4 strands of strained galvanised fencing wire running between.

Weed and pest management Detailed weed and pest management plans will be developed prior to construction for the development footprint as key components of the CEMP. These plans will detail management requirement prior to and during construction for the development footprint. All weed management in conserved lands will be completed as part of the Biobank Agreement.

Soil and water management A Soil and Water Management Plan will be designed and implemented for the proposed works consistent with appropriate guidelines for managing urban stormwater, for example, Soils and Construction: Managing Urban Stormwater 4th Edition (Landcom 2004). Stormwater runoff will be controlled within the development to minimise nutrient and contaminant escape to surrounding lands. Details of soil and water management measures will be detailed in the CEMP.

Lighting controls The potential for added light impacts will be addressed through a range of control measures on the lighting to be used within the residential area, including;

• ensuring the development complies with the Australian Standard 4282-1997 – Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting, which provides recommended limits for lighting. • incorporating a lighting strategy which prescribes limits on lights for various areas, such as; o prioritising low level lighting bollards – down facing light type to minimise light spill, and reduce potential impacts on fauna movements. o post top overhead street lighting to be used facing down with minimal spill into adjacent areas. o building lighting to be shielded and facing down, or only upon areas that require illumination. o lighting to be set on timers where appropriate, and/or set on sensor switches. o lighting to be located as far as possible from retention areas

o position and directional lighting to be located near the retention area where deemed necessary but oriented away from the retention area and back into the development where suitable. o utilise features such as signs and walls to hide light sources from view. Fauna clearance surveys and retention of dead timber and hollow bearing trees Fauna clearance surveys should be undertaken for:

• hollow dwelling mammals, including arboreal mammals and microbats • any fauna known to make nests in the canopy of trees (if nests are present).

All hollow bearing trees requiring removal will be marked visually on site, using high visibility spray paint or similar, prior to construction commencing. The felling of hollow bearing trees should be supervised by a suitably qualified ecologist and where appropriate, sectionally lopped and lowered by a suitably qualified tree climber and crane (crane where required, i.e. dangerous tree, close to hazard such as power lines) to minimise impacts to any hollow dwelling fauna. Hollows should be salvaged for future use in the Biobank site where possible. It is recommended that a suitably trained ecologist be present for all removal of native vegetation.

Measures to limit mortality associated with vehicle strike The following measures should be implemented along all interfaces between bushland and roads within the residential subdivision:

• speed limits appropriate for minimising the possibility of vehicle strike on Spot-tailed Quoll where possible • traffic calming devices such as speed humps, rumble bars, separation kerbs or speed cushions • vegetation management on roadsides to discourage Spot-tailed Quolls.

6. Offset strategy

6.1 Offset policy and guidance The EPBC Act Offsets Policy outlines the offsetting framework for residual significant impacts to a Matter of NES. Offsets are required when the avoidance and mitigation strategies have not removed the need for offsets, i.e. when a residual significant impact is still likely to occur. Offsets are defined as measures that compensate for the residual adverse impacts of an action on an MNES. The aim of the policy is to ensure that an overall conservation outcome is achieved that improves or maintains the affected MNES.

Offsets can be provided through direct or indirect offsetting. Direct offsets provide for a measurable conservation gain for the affected MNES and must reach a minimum of 90 % when applying the offsets calculator. A direct offset must:

• be additional to what is already required • include transparent governance arrangements such that it can be measured, monitored, audited and enforced • be informed by scientifically robust information • be equal in quality to that of the impact site • provide some form of legal security over the offset for at least the duration of the impact • be proportionate to the level of statutory protection that applies to the protected matter • be suitable in size and scale proportionate to the impacts to the Matter of NES • account for the risk of the offset not succeeding • improve habitat for the affected Matter of NES • avert some level of loss for the affected Matter of NES.

The offset policy also outlines provisions for advanced offsets which can involve the conservation of a protected matter before the action commences. The delivery of an advanced offset must be consistent with the offsets policy.

6.2 Required offsets The EPBC Act Offsets Policy requires residual significant impacts to MNES to be offset. This PD report has concluded that none of the residual impacts to MNES would be significant. However, the Callala Bay Biocertification assessment requires an offset of 1,686 SR592 ecosystem credits for impacts to 40.19 ha of this vegetation type (not a MNES), equivalent to approximately 127.44 ha of SR592. These credits will be retired from the already registered Lake Wollumboola Biobank site which is also owned by Sealark Pty Ltd. As such, this PD will be provide the same 127 ha of the vegetation type SR592 as offsets for Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll. SR592 is a habitat for both of these species. The habitat to be conserved will be managed in-perpetuity as part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site.

In addition to the 127.44 ha of SR592, the Callala Bay Biocertification assessment requires 13 Genoplesium baueri species credits for the loss of one individual plant of Genoplesium baueri. The EPBC offset requirement will be met by the retirement of seventy-one (71) Genoplesium baueri species credits (equivalent to ten (10) individuals) from the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. Further, the proposed offset strategy for Genoplesium baueri includes the conservation and management of 2.71 ha of native

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 98 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd vegetation containing 35 Genoplesium baueri individuals in a local bushland park protected under the Local Government Act 1993. Although this is a avoidance/impact minimisation measure, it does not form part of the formal offset.

The offset strategy is consistent with the principles in the Commonwealth Offsets Policy. The proponent proposes to:

• deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the aspect of the environment that is protected by the EPBC Act and affected by the proposed action. • offset at a size and scale proportionate to the residual impacts on the protected matter. • be efficient, effective, timely, transparent, scientifically robust and reasonable with their offsets. • have transparent governance arrangements including being able to be readily measured, monitored, audited and enforced. • Offsets are required for direct impacts to 40.19 ha of habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider, noting that 3.78 ha would be retained as part of the bushland park. This, although retained, has still been considered an impact as the proposed action would fragment this area from the surrounding habitat • offsets are required for direct impacts to one Genoplesium baueri.

6.3 On-site mitigation area The proposed action would retain 2.71 ha of native vegetation in the site as a bushland park. The location for the bushland park was strategically chosen to allow the retention of 35 Genoplesium baueri individuals and an approximate 50 m buffer around all individuals. The bushland park was redesigned following a request from DAWE to reconsider the former development footprint (Appendix D). The bushland park will be managed under a Plan of Management which would indicatively include controls for the following:

• community education and participation • mitigation measures for urban runoff and other edge effects • boundary management, including weed management • controls for recreation and access • fire management, including maintenance requirements for the Asset Protection Zone • Yellow Gnat-orchid monitoring program.

The onsite retention area also contains numerous hollow bearing trees and 2.71 ha of native vegetation that form habitat for the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll. A precautionary approach has been applied with respect to the Spot-tailed Quoll and assumed that the proposed action would fragment the bushland park from other areas of suitable habitat therefore making it unviable for these species.

The proponent would be responsible for the preparation and initial implementation of the Plan of Management. After a designated period of time, the land would be handed over to Council.

6.4 Off-site conservation area (Lake Wollumboola Biobank site) The Lake Wollumboola Biobank site contains 126 individuals of Yellow Gnat-orchid, 311.20 ha of habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll and 308.14 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider. Within the Callala Bay section

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 99 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd of the Biobank site there are eight PCTs. Where a PCT is known to provide habitat for the Greater Glider or the Spot-tailed Quoll it was considered available to form part of the offset (EES 2020b, Table 13).

Table 13: PCTs that provide habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider in the Lake Wollumboolla Biobank site

Plant Community Type (and associated Available offset Greater Glider Spot-tailed Quoll Proportion to be BVT) area (ha) habitat habitat used as an offset (ha)

1079 (SR592) - Red Bloodwood - 181.67 Blackbutt - Spotted Gum shrubby open (including 1.61 Yes Yes 127.44 forest on coastal foothills, southern cleared to be Sydney Basin Bioregion revegetated)

1082 (SR513) - Red Bloodwood - Hard- 42.04 leaved Scribbly Gum - Silvertop Ash heathy open forest on sandstone Yes Yes 0 plateaux of the lower Shoalhaven Valley, Sydney Basin Bioregion

1126 (SR614) - Saltmarsh in estuaries of 0.89 the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South No No 0 East Corner Bioregion

1231 (SR648)- Swamp Mahogany 21.15 swamp sclerophyll forest on coastal Yes Yes 0 lowlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion

1234 (SR650)- Swamp Oak swamp forest 3.05 fringing estuaries, Sydney Basin No Yes 0 Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion

1326 (SR669)- Woollybutt - White 36.06 Stringybark - Forest Red Gum grassy woodland on coastal lowlands, southern Yes Yes 0 Sydney Basin Bioregion and South East Corner Bioregion

694 – Blackbutt - Turpentine - Bangalay 6.16 moist open forest on sheltered slopes Yes Yes 0 and gullies, southern Sydney Basin Bioregion

882 - Hairpin Banksia - Slender Tea-tree 19.53 heath on coastal sandstone plateaux, Yes Yes 0 Sydney Basin Bioregion

Total 312.16ha - - 127.44

The Biobank site also contains a substantial proportion of hollow bearing trees which would provide potential roosting and breeding habitat for the Greater Glider and denning sites for the Spot-tailed Quoll. The total number of hollow bearing trees has not been quantified but is displayed in Figure 12.

Conservation measures have been secured within the registered Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site (BA364), which will be actively managed in accordance with the BioBank Agreement.

The BioBanking Agreement that has been entered into by Sealark Pty Limited (the current land owners) and the Minister and is proposed to be transferred by Sealark Pty Limited to NPWS within a timeframe of approximately five to seven years.

A BioBank Agreement is registered on title and enforceable against the owner of the land (i.e. Sealark Pty Limited). The BioBank plans for the BioBank site include the standard mandatory suite of BioBanking actions to improve biodiversity values by the implementation of the following management actions:

• the erection and maintenance of boundary fencing to prevent inappropriate access • the active management and reduction of weeds • the application of fire, where appropriate • replanting or supplementary planting where natural regeneration is insufficient to bring back to benchmark condition within a reasonable timeframe • control of rabbits and foxes (as required) • the retention of regrowth/native vegetation, dead timber, and rocks.

The BioBank site is subject to the terms of the BioBank Agreement which includes annual conservation management in-perpetuity, submission of an annual report to BCT regarding these management obligations and audit by BCT. The in-perpetuity costs of these management actions have been estimated using the BioBanking in-perpetuity cost spreadsheet and in-principle agreement that has been reached with NPWS regarding the transfer of these lands, once initial management has been undertaken by the current land owners to reach maintenance management. Sealark Pty Limited is responsible for the BioBank Site in accordance with the Agreement

6.5 Offsets (adequacy) assessment

6.5.1 Habitat quality scoring The offset calculator for the Spot-tailed Quoll and Greater Glider relies on the use of scores for ‘habitat quality’ for both the impact and offset areas. These scores are determined through the consideration of ‘site condition’,’ site context’ and ‘species stocking rates’.

Site condition is broadly an understanding of the condition of a site in relation to the ecological requirements of the specific ecological community. This includes considerations such as vegetation health and structure, the diversity of characteristic species present, and the number of the relevant habitat features present for each MNES.

Site context is the relative importance of a site in terms of its position in the landscape, considering the connectivity needs of the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll. This includes considerations such as the proximity of the site in relation to other areas of suitable habitat, threats that may occur nearby, increase of threats as a result of the proposed action and the role of the site in relation to the overall population or extent of habitat available. Habitat quality needs to be assessed consistently on both the impact and offset calculators and a score out of ten is required for each area as input in the Offset Calculator.

One quality score has been calculated for the 40.19 ha of habitat to be removed and the 127.44 ha of habitat to be conserved in the Biobank site. This is because the condition of the vegetation is consistent across the study area (Appendix M, Appendix N).

Table 14: Quality scores for the areas of habitat affected by the action and Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat offsets

Species Affected Conserve (Lake Wollumboola) Impact Quality score (bushland park)

Greater Glider 36.41 3.78 127.44 8

Spot-tailed Quoll 36.41 3.78 127.44 7 *Appendix L contains a justification of the scores used above

6.5.2 Quantification of impact The Offsets calculator moderates the area of impact based on the quality of habitat or number of individuals. The ‘quantum of impac’t, on which the assessment of offset adequacy is based, decreases with decreasing quality.

The scores generated in Appendix M and Appendix N were used for the habitat scores entered into the calculator for the Spot-tailed Quoll and the Greater Glider. The good quality habitat to be affected for Greater Glider is 8/10 and 7/10 for Spot-tailed Quoll (Appendix M, Appendix N). These scores were attributed to the habitat to be affected because:

The number of individuals affected (one) was entered into the tool for Yellow Gnat-orchid.

6.5.3 Time till conservation gain Conservation gains will be achieved over the short term and long term. The most significant gains are estimated to be made in the first 3 – 5 years of the biobank management plan actions being implemented as part of the Biobank agreement (i.e. active commencement of week control and feral animals control programs from Year 1 of implementation that historically have not existed for the biobank area). The ecological benefits of management are expected to continue throughout the life of the Biobank agreement until the full ecological benefit is realised. The habitat to be conserved is already in good condition. A majority of the management actions are focused on maintaining the current condition of the habitat and ensuring that illegal access is controlled. The management actions will be implemented as part of the Biobank Agreement (Appendix K).

Table 15: Timing and management actions to achieve a conservation gain

Timing Management actions

Fencing, exclusion zones and signage established Weed control of primary target weeds within first four years

Management of waste and human disturbance Short term (3-5 years)

Retention of dead timber and rocks

Control of feral and overabundant herbivores

6.5.4 Level of certainty of conservation gain Offsets that involve the restoration or regeneration of habitat are subject to uncertainty when considering the gains that can be achieved (Gibbons and Lindenmayer 2007). However, when consideration is given to the likelihood of degradation to a site that is placed under restricted use and a management regime, the introduction of funded management will result in a conservation gain. To increase the gain, the management prescription for the offsets should be based on best practice assisted regeneration as advocated by (DECCS 2005). This is based on tested conservation techniques with high levels of certainty (DECCS 2005).

Assisted regeneration is successful when continued over extended periods of time, often over five to ten years. The security of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site as part of a Biobank Agreement will ensure ‘maintain and improvement’ outcomes are achieved and that management of the site is continued in- perpetuity (Appendix J and Appendix K). In addition, the offsets will be monitored as part of the Biobank Agreement to ensure that the predicted gains are being achieved on site. This will also allow the management actions to be adaptive to ensure that the best ecological and conservation outcome is achieved.

6.5.5 Calculation of proportion of impact mitigated by offsets The application of the EPBC Act offsets calculator was used to calculate the proportion of residual significant impact to the Yellow Gnat-orchid, Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll that is offset through the conservation of habitat in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Appendix L, Appendix M, Appendix N).

With respect to the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll, offsets are required for impacts to 40.19 ha of habitat for these species. A total of 127.44 ha of habitat for these species forms part of the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay) and will be retired to offset the impacts to these species.

With respect to the Yellow Gnat-orchid, offsets are required for residual impacts to one Yellow Gnat- orchid individual. A total of 35 individuals will be retained in the bushland park. The retained individuals do not form part of the offset as this is considered an impact avoidance measure. Offsets have been provided for in the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site, with the in-perpetuity conservation of 126 individuals. Of these 126 individuals, ten (10) are required to fully offset the impacts to Yellow Gnat- orchid.

6.5.6 Offset adequacy summary 6.5.6.1 Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll The offset requirement for residual impacts to 40.19 ha of Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat has exceeded 100 % and as such, the residual impacts are over mitigated. This offsets package presented in this PD exceeds the offset requirement as described below:

• conservation of 127.44 ha of good condition Greater Glider habitat, equivalent to the retirement of 1,686 ecosystem credits for SR592 at the offsite Lake Wollumboola Biobank site – 185.92 % of offset requirement met • conservation of 127.44 ha of good condition Spot-tailed Quoll habitat, equivalent to the retirement of 1,686 ecosystem credits for SR592 at the offsite Lake Wollumboola Biobank site – 200.61 % of offset requirement met.

Through the offsite conservation of habitat for these species, the offset requirement is met and exceeded with 185.92 % and 200.61 % of the offset requirement achieved. As such, no further offsets are required. As the Biobank site has already been established, the offsets have been fully provided for all impacts, and staged retirement or securing of offsets is not required.

6.5.6.2 Yellow Gnat-orchid The offset requirement for residual significant impacts to one Yellow Gnat-orchid individual has exceeded 100 % and as such, the residual impacts are substantially over mitigated. This offsets package presented in this PD exceeds the offset requirement as described below:

• Conservation of ten (10) Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals offsite at the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site – 118.16 % of the offset requirement met. As the Biobank site has already been established, the offsets have been fully provided for all impacts, and staged retirement or securing of offsets is not required.

6.6 Timing for implementation An indicative staging plan has been prepared by the proponent for the proposed action. It is proposed that active management of the Callala Bay Precinct within the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site (BA364), commence from the issue of the first construction certificate in Year 1 with annual management undertaken by Sealark Pty Limited. All ecosystem and species credits required will be “retired” by the end of Year 5, regardless of the progress of the development of stages 1-5. It is proposed that the first 5 years of active management for the Callala Bay area, be funded according to the TFD amounts listed in the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Agreement ($420,653). It is planned that these funds will be provided in addition to the total TFD amount for the Callala Bay area ($992,018), less the once-off establishment costs ($134,285). Therefore, the complete TFD for the Callala Bay area of the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site will be met by the end of Year 5 and have included an additional $286,368 in funding for the site, totalling $1,278,386.

No clearing will occur in each stage of stages 1-5 until Sealark Pty Limited provide proof of the provision of funds necessary to undertake the active management of the Callala Bay area for the corresponding year (i.e. provision of funds for Year 1 to begin stage 1 works). Upon the end of Year 5, no clearing of any subsequent stages will occur until Sealark Pty Limited provides proof of the retirement of the required quantum of ecosystem and species credits as per the biocertification assessment.

6.7 Parties responsible for implementation Sealark Pty Limited will be responsible for actively managing the Callala Bay area of the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site for the first five years until the land is transferred to the NSW NPWS, or until such time that National Parks and Wildlife Service is satisfied that the ongoing management is at a maintenance level, expected to be by 2025. The current land owners will be responsible for the initial establishment works including installation of new boundary fencing and gates, rubbish removal, initial weed and feral animal control, and revegetation/supplementary planting.

Sealark Pty Limited will provide $420,653 in funding to undertake active management of the Callala Bay area for the first five years. after Year 5, a sum of $857,733 will be paid into the TFD. Upon the transfer of land to NPWS, the remaining TFD will also be transferred to NPWS for the in-perpetuity management

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 104 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd of the Callala Bay area of the Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. From the date that the land is transferred to NPWS, NPWS will be responsible for the on-going maintenance of the Callala Bay area of Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site in-perpetuity, in accordance with the management actions stated in the BioBank Agreement.

The preparation of the Plan of Management for the bushland park and initial stages of implementation will be the responsibility of the proponent. Ownership and the responsibility of ongoing management of the bushland park will, after a specified amount of time, be handed over to Council.

6.8 Monitoring requirements Monitoring is to be undertaken as part of the implementation of the Biobank Agreement. Annual implementation reports will be prepared which will report on the progress of the implementation of the management plan. This will be the responsibility of the proponent until such time that the site is handed to NPWS.

Sealark Pty Ltd will complete, or cause to be completed, an annual report for the Biobanking Agreement and the Plan of Management using an annual reporting template. The report will detail all management actions undertaken, any incidents or events that have adversely affected the biodiversity values at the retention and conservation areas, include all required photographs, results of inspections, and results on monitoring.

Monitoring and reporting associated with the CEMP would ensure that indirect impacts to retained areas through runoff and sedimentation, access, rubbish dumping and spread of weeds is not occurring.

7. Social and economic factors

The proposed action will generate positive social and economic impacts through:

• the provision of housing choice and diversity; • the continued viability of existing goods and services within Shoalhaven City Council through expenditure generated by future local residents; • the generation of local employment during civil and construction works associated with the site and future employment in neighbourhood businesses; • the community benefit gained from investment in local infrastructure and facilities • the protection, conservation and ongoing management of vegetation throughout the site and the establishment of corridors throughout the landscape via the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site and bushland park • the provision of open recreational space.

The proposed action is unlikely to disrupt local services such as energy, water and telecommunications. There may be increased heavy vehicle traffic throughout the area during the construction phase, however the staged approach to the proposed action would reduce the impacts of traffic. Construction hours would be limited to standard work hours of 7 am – 6 pm Monday to Friday, 8 am – 1 pm Saturday and no work on Sunday, to limit the disruption of noise to neighbouring residents.

8. Conclusion

This assessment report has presented an analysis of the following:

• impacts to Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat • impacts to one (1) Yellow Gnat-orchid • measures for avoidance and mitigation • proposed offset methodology for impacts to 40.19 ha of Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll habitat and one (1) Yellow Gnat-orchid • consideration and assessment of other matters of NES requested by the Department in Attachment A of the preliminary documentation requirements.

This PD report has consequently assessed potential impacts to the Greater Glider, Spot-tailed Quoll, Yellow Gnat-orchid, Thick-lipped Spider-orchid, Leafless Tongue-orchid and Magenta Lilly Pilly. Extensive assessment throughout the site has been conducted from 1998 – 2017 by BES, Gunninah Environmental Consultants and ELA, including the preparation of an expert report for Yellow Gnat-orchid by EcoPlanning. Yellow Gnat-orchid and Greater Glider were identified in the site during survey. The Spot- tailed Quoll was not identified in the site during targeted survey but was assumed to be present due to its highly cryptic nature and the availability of potential habitat in the site. A detailed habitat assessment confirmed that the site does not contain any habitat for Magenta Lilly Pilly, Leafless Tongue-orchid and Thick-lipped Spider Orchid and they are not likely to occur. No further assessment was completed for these species.

The proposed action will impact 40.19 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll and one (1) Yellow Gnat-orchid individual. After the implementation of avoidance and minimisation strategies, the proposed action was considered likely to have a residual significant impact on the Greater Glider, Spot-tailed Quoll and Yellow Gnat-orchid. As such, an offsets package has been proposed consisting of offsite offsets provided in the established Lake Wollumboola Biobank site. The biobank site is an in- perpetuity conservation agreement that will conserve and manage 127.44 ha of habitat for the Greater Glider and Spot-tailed Quoll and 126 Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals (of which only ten (10) are required to offset the individual being removed). In addition to the conservation of 126 Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals, the proposed action has been specifically redesigned to allow for the retention of 35 Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals, therefore retaining 97% of the onsite population.

Offsets have been met and exceeded with the conservation area:

• conservation of ten (10) Yellow Gnat-orchid individuals offsite at the Lake Wollumboola Biobank site – 118.16 % of the offset requirement met. • conservation of 127.44 ha of good condition Greater Glider habitat, equivalent to the retirement of 1,686 ecosystem credits for SR592 at the offsite Lake Wollumboola Biobank site – 185.92 % of offset requirement met • conservation of 127.44 ha of good condition Spot-tailed Quoll habitat, equivalent to the retirement of 1,686 ecosystem credits for SR592 at the offsite Lake Wollumboola Biobank site – 200.61 % of offset requirement met.

The planning and design objectives for the proposed development aims for a positive conservation outcome for the affected MNES. The proposed action was assessed through a broader strategic planning process by the then NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (now Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) for the rezoning of the Jervis Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Area. This process identified the most suitable areas for development and for conservation. Despite the removal of some habitat or known individuals for these species to create a residential community, the development has conserved, in-perpetuity, habitat and individuals of the MNES that will be significantly affected. The development objectives considered were:

• first, avoid losses and protect biodiversity in situ • second, mitigate impacts to the greatest reasonable extent • third, offset residual impacts as a last resort.

9. References

Allen, Price & Associates, 2014. Planning Proposed action – Sealark Pty Ltd - Culburra, Callala Bay, Kinghorne Point.

BES 2006a Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment Emmett St, Callala Bay, Presentation for Coolangatta. Powerpoint Presentation.

BES 2006b GIS targeted flora species survey effort and results.

Birdlife. 2011. National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor, Birds Australia, Melbourne.

Bureau of Meteorology (2020). Past data and graphs. Available at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml?bookmark=136&zoom=3&lat=- 32.5355&lon=147.74&layers=B00000TFFFFFFFTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFTTT&dp=IDC10002-d

Commonwealth Government of Australia (CGoA) 2008. Approved Conservation Advice for Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/19533-conservation- advice.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia (CoA) 2008. Approved Conservation Advice for Cryptostylis hunteriana (Leafless Tongue-orchid). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=19533

Commonwealth of Australia (CoA) 2016. Conservation Advice Petauroides volans greater glider. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/254-conservation- advice-20160525.pdf

Commonwealth of Australia 2013. Survey Guidelines for Australia’s Threatened Orchids, Guidelines for Detecting Orchids listed as ‘Threatened’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/e160f3e7-7142-4485- 9211-2d1eb5e1cf31/files/draft-guidelines-threatened-orchids.pdf

Copeland 2008 Genoplesium

Craven & Daly (2020). Post-fire fauna surveys in coastal national parks of the Shoalhaven Area, NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service South Coast Branch. Prepared for National Parks and Wildlife Service, South Coast Branch.

DAWE 2020a. EPBC Online Protected Matters Database Search. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/erin/ert/epbc/imap/map.html

DAWE 2020b. Technical Report. Rapid analysis of impacts of the 2019-20 fires on animal species, and prioritisation of species for management response. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/ef3f5ebd-faec-4c0c-9ea9- b7dfd9446cb1/files/assessments-species-vulnerability-fire-impacts-14032020.pdf

DAWE 2020c. Interactive Flying Fox Web Viewer. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis- framework/apps/ffc-wide/ffc-wide.jsfDepartment of Environment (DoE) 2016. National Recovery Plan for the Spot-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2343110b-d2b4-4a1f-b66e- ddfae63c4aa6/files/national-recovery-plan-spotted-tailed-quoll.pdf

DEC 2004. Threatened Biodiversity Survey and Assessment: Guidelines for Developments and Activities.Working Draft Sydney. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/TBSAGuidelinesDraft.pdf

DECC 2005, Threatened species, populations and ecological communities of NSW. Available at http://threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au

DECCW 2009, Threatened species survey and assessment guidelines: field survey methods for fauna- Amphibians. NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (DECCW), Sydney. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/09213amphibians.pdf

DECH 2006. EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1: Significant impact guidelines - matters of national environmental significance. Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), Canberra. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/significant-impact- guidelines-11-matters-national-environmental-significance

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) 2016. National Recovery Plan for the Spot-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2343110b-d2b4-4a1f-b66e- ddfae63c4aa6/files/national-recovery-plan-spotted-tailed-quoll.pdf

Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources 2003. Jervis bay Settlement Strategy. Available at http://dnn.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/LepRegisterDocuments/Msc/218/JervisBaySettlementStrategy.pdf

Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Thick-lip Spider-orchid Caladenia tessellata. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/f9bc9c67-5a06-4fc6-a39d- 3d1571de142b/files/caladenia-tessellata.pdf

Department of the Environment, 2016. National Recovery Plan for the Regent Honeyeater (Anthochaera phrygia). Commonwealth of Australia 2016.

DEWHA (2010a). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened bats. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/2f420bf1-d9e4-44ec-a69c- 07316cb81086/files/survey-guidelines-bats.pdf

DEWHA (2010b). Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened birds. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/107052eb-2041-45b9-9296- b5f514493ae0/files/survey-guidelines-birds-april-2017.pdf

DEWHA (2011) Survey guidelines for Australia’s threatened mammals. Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/b1c6b237-12d9-4071-a26e- ee816caa2b39/files/survey-guidelines-mammals.pdf

DotE 2012a Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/epbc-act-environmental-offsets-policy

DotE 2014b. Environmental Management Guidelines. Available at https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/21b0925f-ea74-4b9e-942e- a097391a77fd/files/environmental-management-plan-guidelines.pdf

DPIE 2020. NSW BioNetET: Atlas of NSW Wildlife online search tool. Available: (http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/

DSE 2010. National recovery plan for the Thick-lip Spider-orchid (Caladenia tessellata). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans/national-recovery-plan- thick-lip-spider-orchid-caladenia-tessellata

Ecoplanning 2017. Expert Report for Genoplesium baueri, Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. Prepared for Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd.’ Eco Logical Australia (ELA) 2019. BioBanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report – Lake Wollumboola BioBank Site. Report prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd, February 2019.

EES 2020cEES 2020a. Vegetation Information Classification. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/NSWVCA20PRapp/search/pctsearch.aspx

EES 2020dEES 2020b. Threatened Biodiversity Profiles. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/

ELA 20179a. Biobanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report: - Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site. Prepared for The Halloran Trust.

ELA 2019b. Callala Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report and Biodiversity Strategy. Prepared for The Halloran Trust, July 2019.

Gunninah Environmental Consultants 2001. Callala Environmental report.

Jones, D.L. A complete guide to Native orchids of Australia including the Island Territories. Reed New Holland, Sydney.

NSW Scientific Committee 2008. Caladenia tessellata Fitzg. (Orchidaceae) Review of Current Information in NSW. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/-/media/OEH/Corporate- Site/Documents/Animals-and-plants/Scientific-Committee/sc-caladenia-tessellata-fitzg-review- report.pdf?la=en&hash=1F5167A9C4E836913A2057F51F15F66C46CC59C8

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2012. National Recovery Plan, Magenta Lilly Pilly Syzygium paniculatum. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/35fce028-9329- 4eb2-a336-75f6b6cc6d58/files/syzygium-paniculatum.pdf

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) 2014. BioBanking Assessment Methodology. Available at https://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/biobanking/140661BBAM.pdf

Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH), 2020. NSW BioNet Atlas of NSW Wildlife – search tool. Available at http://www.bionet.nsw.gov.au/

Saunders, D.L. and Tzaros, C.L. (2011) National Recovery Plan for the Swift Parrot Lathamus discolour. Birds Australia, Melbourne.

Shoalhaven City Council 2012. Growth Management Strategy. Available at http://sccmobile.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/LepRegisterDocuments/Msc/115/DraftGrowthManagementS trategy_Version1.pdf

Shoalhaven City Council 2020. Shoalhaven Local Strategic Planning Statement (Shoalhaven 2040) Exhibition Report September 2020. Available at https://getinvolved.shoalhaven.nsw.gov.au/47804/widgets/254103/documents/180990

Stephenson, A. W., 2015. Orchid Letter dated 20 November 2015.

Appendix A Callala Bay Residential Development EPBC Referral – Supporting documentation

Provided as a separate attachment.

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 114 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd Appendix C Names, roles and qualifications of persons preparing PD report

Provided as a separate attachment.

© ECO LOGICAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD 116 EPBC Preliminary Documentation Assessment Report (EPBC 2020/8637) | Prepared for Sealark Pty Ltd Appendix E Callala Bay Biocertification Assessment Report (ELA 2019)

Provided as a separate attachment.

The table below lists the threatened species known or considered likely to occur within the site based on previous surveys, Atlas, EPBC Act Protected Matters Search, Biodiversity certification credit calculator tool and/or expert opinion. Threatened species which are not listed under the EPBC have been excluded from the table. Species listed as ‘Marine’ only under the EPBC Act have also been excluded as the proposed action will not impact on Commonwealth marine land. A BioNet Atlas search was undertaken by ELA on 19 November 2019 to identify any additional species to be added to the table.

Five categories for likelihood of occurrence of species are used in this report and are defined below. Assessment of likelihood was based on species’ locality records, presence or absence of suitable habitat features within the BCAA, results of previous studies, on site field surveys and professional judgement.

• known/yes - the species is known to occur within suitable habitat within the BCAA. • likely - a medium to high probability that a species occupies or uses habitat within the BCAA. • potential - suitable habitat for a species occurs within the BCAA, but there is insufficient information to categorise the species as likely to occur, or unlikely to occur. • unlikely - a very low to low probability that a species occupies or uses habitat within the BCAA. • no - habitat within the BCAA and in the immediate vicinity is unsuitable for the species, or, in the case of plants, the species was not located during searches of the BCAA. BC/EPBC Act Status:

• CE = Critically Endangered species, population or ecological community. • E = Endangered species, population (E2) or ecological community (E3). • V = Vulnerable species, population or ecological community.

Threatened ecological communities

Likelihood of Significance BC EPBC Data Targeted survey Recorded on Name Habitat association occurrence and Assessment Act Act source undertaken site justification Required

The ecological community occurs in sub-tropical, sub- humid and temperate climatic zones from Curtis Island, north of Gladstone, in Queensland to Bermagui in southern New South Wales. The ecological community occurs in coastal catchments, mostly at elevations of less than 20 m above sea-level (ASL) that are typically found within 30 km of the coast. Coastal Swamp Oak Forest typically occurs on unconsolidated sediments, including Coastal Swamp Oak alluvium deposits, and where soils formed during the No. not (Casuarina glauca) Forest of Quaternary period as a result of sea-level rise during the Vegetation previously NSW and South east E PMST Holocene period. The ecological community is typically validation and No No mapped in the Queensland ecological found where groundwater is saline or brackish, but can BBAM plots site. community occur in areas where groundwater is relatively fresh. It is typically found on coastal flats, floodplains, drainage lines, lake margins, wetlands and estuarine fringes where soils are at least occasionally saturated, water- logged or inundated. These are typically associated with low-lying coastal alluvial floodplains and alluvial flats (Keith and Scott, 2005). Minor occurrences can be found on coastal dune swales or flats, particularly deflated dunes and dune soaks

Illawarra coastal plain and escarpment foothills. Recorded from the LGAs of Wollongong, Shellharbour No. not Illawarra and South Coast Vegetation and Kiama, and Shoalhaven. Occurs in near coastal areas previously Lowland Forest and CE PSMT validation and No No below about 200 metres on gently undulating terrain. mapped in the Woodland BBAM plots Occurs on Berry Siltstone, Budgong Sandstone and site. Quaternary Alluvium."

Likelihood of Significance BC EPBC Data Targeted survey Recorded on Name Habitat association occurrence and Assessment Act Act source undertaken site justification Required

Within a relatively narrow margin of the Australian coastline, within the subtropical and temperate climatic No. not zones south of the South-east Queensland IBRA Vegetation Subtropical and Temperate previously V PMST bioregion. Typically restricted to the upper intertidal validation and No No Coastal Saltmarsh mapped in the environment; mainly associated with the soft substrate BBAM plots site. shores of estuaries and embayments (sandy and/or muddy) and on some open, low wave energy coasts).

Threatened flora

Likelihood of Significance Scientific Common BC EPBC Data Targeted survey Recorded Habitat association occurrence and Assessment name name Act Act source undertaken on site justification Required

Associated with open woodlands and heath, typically Considered highly occurring in treeless areas or very open areas, which unlikely to occur are often rocky and where there are only skeletal soils. due to extremely It does not occur in forested habitats. Plants may lay limited known dormant for 10-20 years, only flowering for one to two range ad Habitat years following a mid-late summer fire. Outside this populations and assessment Thick-lipped period it is highly unlikely that any plants will flower lack of suitable Caladenia completed by Spider E V PMST and thus that there will be any above ground biomass Potential. No habitat. tessellata BES 2006, orchid of the species. Although no habitat Gunninah and is present this ELA species has been included for completeness to meet PD requirements

Cryptostylis hunteriana is known from a range of Considered highly vegetation communities including swamp-heath and Targeted survey unlikely to occur woodland. The larger populations typically occur in by BES 2006. given absence woodland dominated by Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus Site assessment during targeted sclerophylla), Silvertop Ash (E. sieberi), Red Bloodwood and survey and advice Leafless (Corymbia gummifera) and Black Sheoak Cryptostylis BioNet, Potential. One correspondence from orchid expert Tongue V V (Allocasuarina littoralis); where it appears to prefer No hunteriana PMST nearby record from Alan that no habitat is Orchid open areas in the understorey of this community and Stephenson did present. Although is often found in association with the Large Tongue not identify no habitat is Orchid (C. subulata) and the Tartan Tongue Orchid (C. habitat in the present this species erecta). Coastal Plains Scribbly Gum Woodland and site. has been included Coastal Plains Smoothed-barked Apple Woodland is for completeness to potential habitat on the Central Coast. Flowers

Cynanchum elegans is a climber or twiner with a variable form, and flowers between August and May, peaking in November (DECC 2007). It occurs in dry rainforest gullies, scrub and scree slopes, and prefers Habitat Potential. PCT the ecotone between dry subtropical rainforest and Assessment. White- can contain No. No Cynanchum sclerophyll woodland/forest (NPWS 1997). The species Vegetation flowered E E PMST canopy species habitat No. elegans has also been found in littoral rainforest; present not Wax Plant associated with present Leptospermum laevigatum – Banksia integrifolia subsp. suitable for this species. integrifolia coastal scrub; Eucalyptus tereticornis open species. forest/ woodland; Corymbia maculata open forest/woodland; and Melaleuca armillaris scrub to open scrub

Known from coastal areas from northern Sydney south to the Nowra district. Previous records from the Targeted Genoplesium Yellow Gnat- BioNet, E E Hunter Valley and Nelson Bay are now thought to be Yes surveys 2006 - Yes Yes baueri orchid PMST erroneous. Grows in shrubby woodland in open forest 2016 on shallow sandy soils (OEH 2015).

Unlikely. Not associated with vegetation This species is known from a narrow distribution in dry community sclerophyll forest and woodlands from south of Genoplesium East Lynne present and V V PMST Batemans Bay to north of Ulladulla. Grows in shrubby No. No No vernale Midge-orchid distribution does forests on well drained clay-loam between 30-100m not overlap with altitude (Jones 2006). site. No BioNet records for this species within a

Habitat assessment and targeted survey Melaleuca biconvexa occurs in coastal districts and in 2006 and Melaleuca Biconvex BCAM, adjacent tablelands from Jervis Bay north to the Port V V Potential 2016. No No No biconvexa Paperbark PMST Macquarie district. It grows in damp places often near potential streams habitat present and not recorded

Unlikely. This species has been recorded 1.7 km east of the site. This species is known from three sites – Kinghorn Point, However, the Prasophyllum Jervis Bay BioNet, Wowly Gully near Callala Bay and near Vincentia E E vegetation within No No No affine Leek Orchid PMST township. Grows on poorly drained clay soils that the site does not support low heathland and sedgeland communities. support suitable habitat (heathy/swampy) for this species.

Habitat Potential. assessment and BCAM, Generally grows in sclerophyll forest and shrubland on Associated with Prostanthera Villous Mint- targeted survey V V BioNet, coastal headlands and near coastal ranges, chiefly on PCT previously No No densa bush in 2006 and PMST sandstone, and rocky slopes near the sea. mapped in the 2016. Not site. recorded

Likelihood of Significance Scientific Common BC EPBC Data Targeted survey Recorded Habitat association occurrence and Assessment name name Act Act source undertaken on site justification Required

Habitat assessment. Vegetation Potential. present is not Near Nowra, open forest of Spotted Gum, Forest Red Associated with Pterostylis Illawarra BCAM, suitable for this E E Gum and Grey Ironbark i.e. a transition forest between PCT previously No No gibbosa Greenhood PMST species. Highly grassy woodlands and lowland sclerophyll woodlands. mapped in the unlikely to site. occur due to habitat restrictions.

Unlikely. This species is highly cryptic and difficult to detect. Survey for this species may actually damage any The habitat requirements of this species are poorly living individuals Eastern understood. It may occur in variable habitats forests and are Rhizanthella Australian BCAM, V E and woodlands. This species completes its entire life therefore, not No No No slateri Underground PMST cycle underground. It is known from ten locations in recommended. Orchid NSW, closest is a population recorded near Nowra. Generally, habitat is available, however, the site is located outside of the Nowra population. Additionally there are no

Likelihood of Significance Scientific Common BC EPBC Data Targeted survey Recorded Habitat association occurrence and Assessment name name Act Act source undertaken on site justification Required BioNet records for this species within a 5km radius of the site. It is considered unlikely that this species occurs within the site

The vegetation description for this species Considered highly does not fit the unlikely to occur vegetation due to absence of associated with suitable habitat and Potential. Can be the site, nor is was not identified associated with it associated BCAM, Magenta Lilly Pilly occurs on grey soils over during targeted Syzygium Magenta the PCT with the PCT in E V BioNet, sandstone, restricted mainly to remnant stands of No survey. Although no paniculatum Lilly Pilly originally the site. PMST littoral (coastal) rainforest. habitat is present mapped in the Targeted survey this species has site in 2006 and been included for 2016. This completeness to species is highly meet PD conspicuous requirements and has not been recorded within the site.

Targeted survey Occurs in grassland or grassy woodland. Often found in Potential. Can be in 2006 and Thesium Austral V V PMST damp sites in association with Themeda australis associated with 2016. This No No australe Toadflax (Kangaroo Grass). the PCT originally species is highly conspicuous

Likelihood of Significance Scientific Common BC EPBC Data Targeted survey Recorded Habitat association occurrence and Assessment name name Act Act source undertaken on site justification Required mapped in the and has not site been recorded within the site despite previous targeted flora surveys. The vegetation description for this species does not fit the vegetation associated with the site. There are no BioNet records for this species recorded within a 5km radius of the site.

Habitat assessment. No habitat present Potential. Can be for this species. Poorly drained, gently sloping sandstone shelves or associated with The vegetation Triplarina Nowra E along creek lines underlain by Nowra Sandstone. The E PMST the PCT originally description for No No nowraensis Heath-myrtle sites are often either treeless or have a very open tree mapped in the this species canopy due to the impeded drainage. site does not fit the vegetation associated with the site.

E = ENDANGERED V = VULNERABLE. CE = CRITICALLY ENDANGERED Threatened Fauna

Scientific name Common name BC EPBC Data Habitat association Likelihood of Targeted survey Recorded on Significance Act Act source occurrence and undertaken site Assessment justification Required

Amphibians

Amongst emergent aquatic or riparian Unlikely. The site vegetation and amongst vegetation, does not contain Green and fallen timber adjacent to and within waterbodies or is Litoria aurea Golden Bell E V BioNet No No No 500m of breeding habitat, including adjacent to Frog grassland, cropland and modified suitable habitat pastures. for this species.

Forages in woodlands, wet heath, dry Unlikely. The site and wet sclerophyll forest. Associated does not contain Heleioporus Giant with semi-permanent to ephemeral sand waterbodies or is V V PMST No No No australiacus Burrowing Frog or rock based streams, where the soil is adjacent to soft and sandy so that burrows can be suitable habitat constructed. for this species.

Littlejohn's Tree Frog occurs along permanent rocky streams with thick No. The site does fringing vegetation associated with not contain Littlejohn’s eucalypt woodlands and heaths among waterbodies or is Litoria littlejohnii V V PMST No No No Tree Frog sandstone outcrops. It appears to be adjacent to restricted to sandstone woodland and suitable habitat heath communities at mid to high for this species. altitude (OEH 2019b).

Diurnal Birds

Associated with temperate eucalypt Potential. Habitat Anthochaera Regent BCAM, woodland and open forest including previously assessment. E E & M No. No. phrygia Honeyeater PMST forest edges, wooded farmland and mapped PCT Primary habitat not urban areas with mature eucalypts, and contains present within the

Scientific name Common name BC EPBC Data Habitat association Likelihood of Targeted survey Recorded on Significance Act Act source occurrence and undertaken site Assessment justification Required riparian forests of River Oak (Casuarina preferred feed site due to lack of cunninghamiana). Areas containing tree species associated feed Swamp Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta) trees or breeding in coastal areas have been observed to habitat. Species be utilised. The Regent Honeyeater may utilise primarily feeds on nectar from box and secondary foraging ironbark eucalypts and occasionally from habitat within the banksias and mistletoes. As such it is site on an reliant on locally abundant nectar occasional basis. sources with different flowering times to No nearby records provide reliable supply of nectar (OEH 2019b.

No,. The site does not contain Terrestrial wetlands with tall dense suitable habitat Botaurus Australasian vegetation, occasionally estuarine V E PMST for this species No No No poiciloptilus Bittern habitats. Reedbeds, swamps, streams, due to the estuaries (OEH 2019b). absence of waterbodies.

Red Knots are widespread around the Australian coast, less in the south and with few inland records. Small numbers visit Tasmania and off-shore islands. It is No. Marine Calidris canutus Red Knot - E; M PMST widespread but scattered in New habitat not No No No Zealand. They breed in North America, present. Russia, Greenland and Spitsbergen. Red Knots are a non-breeding visitor to most continents.

Curlew Intertidal mudflats of estuaries, lagoons, No. Habitat not Calidris ferruginea E CE; M PMST No No No Sandpiper mangrove channels; around lakes, dams, present due to

Habitat is characterised by dense, low vegetation and includes sedgeland, heathland, swampland, shrubland, sclerophyll forest and woodland, and rainforest, as well as open woodland with a heathy understorey. In northern NSW occurs in open forest with tussocky grass understorey. All of these No suitable habitat vegetation types are fire prone, aside recorded within the from the rainforest habitat as utilised by site. Species not Unlikely. Not the northern population as fire refuge. recorded during Dasyornis Eastern PMST, associated with E E Age of habitat since fires (fire-age) is of targeted surveys No No brachypterus Bristlebird BioNet PCTs previously paramount importance to this species; conducted by ELA mapped in site. Illawarra and southern populations reach within the adjacent maximum densities in habitat that has Lake Wollumboola not been burnt for at least 15 years; BioBank site however, in the northern NSW population a lack of fire in grassy forest may be detrimental as grassy tussock nesting habitat becomes unsuitable after long periods without fire; northern NSW birds are usually found in habitats burnt five to 10 years previously (OEH 2019b).

Breeds in Tasmania between September and January. Migrates to mainland in Potential. PCT Habitat BCAM, autumn, where it forages on profuse previously assessment. Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot E CE BioNet, No No flowering Eucalypts. Hence, in this mapped in site Preferred foraging PMST region, autumn and winter flowering may contain habitat limited in eucalypts are important for this species.

Scientific name Common name BC EPBC Data Habitat association Likelihood of Targeted survey Recorded on Significance Act Act source occurrence and undertaken site Assessment justification Required Favoured feed trees include winter preferred feed site and no nearby flowering species such as Swamp trees records. Mahogany (Eucalyptus robusta), Spotted Gum (Corymbia maculata), Red Bloodwood (C. gummifera), Mugga Ironbark (E. sideroxylon), and White Box (E. albens) (OEH 2019b).

Estuaries, bays, harbours, inlets and coastal lagoons, intertidal mudflats or Numenius sandflats, ocean beaches, coral reefs, No. No habitat Eastern Curlew - CE; M BioNet No No No madagascariensis rock platforms, saltmarsh, mangroves, present. freshwater/brackish lakes, saltworks and sewage farms.

The breeding sites of Gould’s Petrel are restricted to two islands at the entrance to Port Stephens on the mid-North Coast No. Marine Pterodroma Gould's Petrel V E BioNet of New South Wales. Non-breeding habitat not No No No leucoptera habitat includes sub-Antarctic waters present. between Macquarie Island and Tasmania.

Mammals

The Spot-tailed Quoll inhabits a range of forest communities including wet and Potential. Recent Spot-tailed Yes – dry sclerophyll forests, coastal records (2000, Targeted surveys Quoll precautionary Dasyurus heathlands and rainforests, more 2009, 2013, 1998 – 2006. Cage Spot-tailed BCAM, approach due maculatus V E frequently recorded near the ecotones 2018) within 20 traps, hair tubes No Quoll (SE PMST to cryptic maculatus of closed and open forest. Individual km of the site. and remote mainland nature of animals use hollow-bearing trees, fallen Suitable habitat cameras population) species logs, small caves, rock crevices, boulder available. fields and rocky-cliff faces as den sites.

No. thought to This species is associated with heath, Targeted surveys be extinct coastal scrub, heathy forests, shrubland Southern Potential. 1998 – 2006. Cage from local and woodland on well drained soils. This Isoodon obesulus Brown E E PMST Records within 20 traps, hair tubes area, records No species is thought to display a preference Bandicoot km of site. and remote were not from for newly regenerating heathland and cameras a reliable other areas prone to fire (OEH 2019b). source.

Species previously This species is restricted to eucalypt recorded within Petauroides BioNet, forests and woodlands where it forages Greater Glider - V Yes the site (BES 2006) Yes. Yes volans PMST on eucalyptus leaves and flowers. It and adjacent to the prefers areas of un-logged vegetation. site (Bionet).

Habitat Rocky areas in a variety of habitats, assessment. Petrogale Brush-tailed typically north facing sites with Suitable rocky E V PMST Unlikely. No. No penicillata Rock-wallaby numerous ledges, caves and crevices habitat/escarpment (OEH 2019b). not present within or adjacent to site.

Associated with both wet and dry Eucalypt forest and woodland that Potential Targeted surveys contains a canopy cover of foraging/dispersal were conducted by BCAM, Phascolarctos approximately 10 to 70%, with habitat, one BES in 2006 and Koala V V BioNet, No No cinereus acceptable Eucalypt food trees. Some record within 20 ELA in 2016 and did PMST preferred Eucalyptus species are: km radius of the not record this Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. punctata, E. site species. cypellocarpa, E. viminalis (OEH 2019b)

Scientific name Common name BC EPBC Data Habitat association Likelihood of Targeted survey Recorded on Significance Act Act source occurrence and undertaken site Assessment justification Required

This species can be found in wet eucalypt Targeted survey forests to coastal heaths and scrubs. The Unlikely. conducted from Potorous Long-nosed BCAM, main factors would appear to be access V V Preferred habitat 1998 – 2016. Not No No tridactylus Potoroo PMST to some form of dense vegetation for not present. recorded in the shelter and the presence of an abundant site. supply of fungi for food.

A small burrowing native rodent with a fragmented distribution across Tasmania, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. Inhabits open heathlands, open woodlands with a Targeted survey heathland understorey and vegetated Unlikely. Suitable conducted from Pseudomys New Holland sand dunes. A social animal, living - V PMST habitat not 1998 – 2016. Not No No novaehollandiae Mouse predominantly in burrows shared with present. recorded in the other individuals. The home range of the site. New Holland Mouse ranges from 0.44 ha to 1.4 ha and the species peaks in abundance during early to mid-stages of vegetation succession typically induced by fire (OEH 2019b).

Mammal (flying)

The Large-eared Pied Bat has been Unlikely. There recorded in a variety of habitats, are no habitat including dry sclerophyll forests, breeding features woodland, sub-alpine woodland, edges recorded within Targeted Chalinolobus Large-eared V V PMST of rainforests and wet sclerophyll forests. or nearby the site echolocation No No dwyeri Pied Bat This species roosts in caves, rock due to the surveys conducted overhangs and disused mine shafts and absence of as such is usually associated with rock nearby cave and outcrops and cliff faces. Found in well- cliff features.

Inhabits a wide range of habitats including rainforest, mangroves, Likely. Suitable BCAM, paperbark forests, wet and dry foraging habitat Targeted survey Pteropus Grey-headed V V BioNet, sclerophyll forests and cultivated areas. present. No conducted from No Yes poliocephalus Flying-Fox PMST Camps are often located in gullies, breeding camps 1998 – 2016. typically close to water, in vegetation present. with a dense canopy (OEH 2019b).

Appendix G Detailed breakdown of BES 2006 targeted flora and fauna survey effort

Provided as a separate attachment.

Appendix H Gunninah Environmental Consultants detailed survey effort and methodology

Provided as a separate attachment.

Appendix I Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) expert report (EcoPlanning 2017)

Provided as a separate attachment.

Appendix J Lake Wollumboola Biobanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report (ELA 2019)

Provided as a separate attachment.

Appendix K Biobanking Agreement Lake Wollumboola Biobank site Management Actions Template (ELA 2019)

Provided as a separate attachment.

Appendix L EPBC Offset Calculator and justification for Genoplesium baueri

**Please note that the EPBC Act Calculators have been provided as a separate attachment. The information presented below are the justifications.

EPBC Act Offsets Assessment Guide – Number of Individuals/Features

Threatened species Listing status

Genoplesium baueri (Yellow Gnat-orchid) Endangered

Impact – Number of Individuals/Features

Impact 1 (one) individual plant in 0.005 ha suitable habitat as shown in Figure 31 of PD report

Source Section 3.6, section 4.3

Offset – Number of Individuals/Features

Description The proposed offset area of about 312 ha includes 126 recorded individuals and 80 ha of suitable habitat (Section 3.6, section 4.3 and Figure 31 of PD report). Of the 126 individuals, ten (10) are required to offset the impacts to one individual.

Guide Assessed Discussion component value Time horizon 20 The ten (10) Genoplesium baueri in the offset area have been conserved in-perpetuity as part of a Biobank agreement (Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site (Callala Bay)). The agreement has been signed and is in force.

Start value 10 Identify the number of individuals / features on the offset site at present, if any.

Future value 8 In the absence of an offset, it is expected that the ten plants proposed to be used as an without offset offset will persist to some extent. Some decline is expected given there would be no formal management or land use restrictions in place. This declined is expected to be by two individuals.

Future value 12 The in-perpetuity conservation agreement, associated management actions and with offset restrictions on use of the land is expected to enable an increase in the current population size. Management of the offset area as a Biobank site will include weed and herbivore control (deer, rabbits) and the introduction of an appropriate ecological burning regime that will promote natural regeneration. Under these conditions it is expected that there will be a population of 12 + adults plants. Section 6 of PD report

Confidence 50% Genoplesium baueri is a cryptic species that requires highly specific habitat niches. Although the individuals have been conserved in-perpetuity as part of a Biobank site, 50% confidence level has been assigned to account for the cryptic nature of the species.

Summary

Final % of Based on the above scores, the % of impact offset score is calculated as 118.16 %. impact offset

Cost of offset ($) To fund the ongoing management of the Biobank site, Sealark Pty Ltd has paid $992,018. These funds will be allocated to the proponent each year, to complete specific management actions that form part of the Biobank Agreement.

Other None. compensatory measures (if proposed)

References

Commonwealth of Australia (2013). Genoplesium baueri (brittle midge orchid) Approved Conservation Advice.

Eco Logical Australia 2017. ‘Biobanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report: - Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site. Prepared for The Halloran Trust.

ELA 2019. Callala Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report and Biodiversity Strategy. Prepared for The Halloran Trust, July 2019.

Appendix M EPBC Offset Calculator and justification for Greater Glider

EPBC Act Offsets Assessment Guide – Area of Community or Area of Habitat

Threatened species or ecological community Listing status

Petauroides volans (Greater Glider) Vulnerable

Impact Site - Area of Habitat or Area of Community

Size (ha) The Greater Glider has been identified in the study area (the site and Lake Wollumboola Biobank site) in 2006 (BES) and 2016 (ELA). The 40.19 ha of habitat in the site (BVT SR592) is considered potential Greater Glider habitat based on their presence, availability of suitable habitat, their foraging range and records over the past 20 years in the locality.

Description 40.19 ha of potential habitat would be affected (Figure 2, Figure 4). This includes 37.48 ha to be directly affected through removal, and 3.48 ha to form a pocket park. Within the pocket park, 2.71 ha of habitat would still be available for this species, however, it would persist as a smaller, isolated patch and would be unlikely to be used by the Greater Glider. As such, the entire 3.48 ha of vegetation in the pocket park is considered affected. Based on the above, impact calculations were based on impacts to 40.19 ha of potential habitat

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Quality 8 The Biobank site contains 308 ha of potential habitat for the Greater Glider. Of this, 127.44 ha comprised of SR592 will be used to offset impacts to the Greater Glider. See section 6 of the PD. A quality score of 8/10 has been assigned. This is based on the presence of the species during targeted survey, records in the locality, presence of suitable hollow bearing trees, connectivity throughout the landscape and presence of SR592 which is considered habitat for Greater Glider.

Offset Site - Area of Habitat or Area of Community

Size (ha): 127.44 ha off-site conservation area (forming part of Lake Wollumboola Biobank site)

Description The proposed offset area comprises 127.44 ha of SR592 which is habitat for Greater Glider.

This habitat is immediately to the north of the site and forms part of Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay). The area also contains hollow bearing trees that could be used by this species. The site is continuous with other areas of conserved habitat throughout the locality, including Jervis Bay National Park and two other portions of the Biobank site – Kinghorn Point and Culburra. Condition 50% (8/10), Context 25% (8/10) and Stocking Rate 25% (6/10). Overall Quality Score = 4+2+1 = 8/10

Averted loss Component

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Time over 20 years The proposed offset will be a registered Biobank site as per the conditions of biocertification – which loss is (max) i.e. in perpetuity protection on title and fully funded active conservation management. averted Refer Appendix H of the Final PD report

Risk of loss 5% The proposed offset land was zoned a deferred matter and was intended for residential without offset: development. The risk of loss without offset was assigned 70 % to reflect the potential loss of (0 – 100%) land through residential development. If the land was not developed, there are no management actions associated with a deferred matter zoning which would leave the area susceptible to weed infestation, unauthorised use and feral animals, decreasing the quality and condition of the habitat. Refer Figure 3 in PD report.

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Risk of loss 5% The site has been registered as a Biobank site. Regardless of the underlying zoning, only with offset activities consistent with the objectives of conservation will be permitted within the Biobank (0 – 100%) area. The risk of loss with an offset is accordingly set at a low 5%.

Confidence 95% The registration of a Biobank Agreement has a high degree of legal protection on title which (Risk related) only the NSW Minister for the Environment can remove or terminate (and if a site is terminated and alternative offset of equivalent value most be secured). The audit and compliance requirements of a Biobanking Agreement also require an annual site inspection and reporting with provision to legally enforce any rectification necessary. The confidence around the risk of loss is accordingly set at a high 95%.

Quality Improvement Component

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Time until 5 years The proposed offset areas are required to be actively managed for conservation from the ecological commencement of the project (Refer to Biocertification report Appendix H of PD report). benefit The biobank agreement site has already been established, however active management has not commenced. Given the agreement is in place and the management actions will commence the time until ecological benefit is expected to be relatively short. Further as the management obligations of a Biobanking Agreement are fully funded and required to be implemented in perpetuity and subject to satisfactory annual reporting, the benefit is expected to be maintained. Active conservation management, fencing, weed control, rubbish removal and feral animal control commenced in January 2019.

The time to ecological benefit is accordingly set at a relatively short 5 years to increase the current start quality from an initial high 8/10 to a small increase of 9/10

Start quality 8 The proposed offset area comprises 127.44 ha of forested vegetation (SR592) which is listed (0 – 10) as potential habitat for Greater Glider. This habitat forms part of a Biobank agreement site and is adjacent to the proposed development footprint. The offset area does not include any areas that are subject to any current use, such as cattle grazing or farming. It’s start habitat quality (7/10) is regarded as being the same as the intact impact areas (7/10) due to similar site context in terms of size and connectivity (8/10) and the same current stocking rate (4/10) , with a weighted mean as Condition 50% (8/10), Context 25% (8/10) and Stocking Rate 25% (4/10). Overall Quality Score = 4+2+1 = 7/10

Future quality 7 Whilst the current Start quality is regarded as being 8/10, the proposed offset land is not without offset required to be actively managed to enhance and maintain ecological values and is thus (0 – 10) subject to incremental degradation by weeds and feral animals. Infestations of Blackberry, Lantana, feral deer as well as rabbits and foxes are currently contributing to this degradation.

Without the legal requirement to actively manage the site to improve and maintain ecological values, the site will degrade and is accordingly given a small reduction for ‘future quality without offset’ score of 7/10.

Future quality 9 As the proposed offset area will be registered as Biobank sites and will legally be required to with offset be actively managed for conservation, in perpetuity, from the commencement of the project (0 – 10) (Refer to Biocertification report, Appendix H of PD report), it is expected that the future quality of the site as an offset will increase moderately as weeds are controlled and

maintained and feral animal populations are reduced allow natural regeneration and replacement of canopy species over time, thus maintaining habitat values. A small increase in quality to 9/10 over the 5 years to ecological benefit is provided. Refer to Biobank site management plan and performance indicators.

Confidence 90% The registration of a Biobank Agreement and associated Management Plans includes annual (Quality audit and compliance requirements that include site inspections and annual reporting. related) If the owner of a BioBank site is deemed not to be satisfactory fulfilling their obligations under the Agreement, there are provisions for the NSW Land and Environment Court to legally enforce requirements, order any rectification necessary and/or make payments to a third party to undertake the required management. The confidence around the increase in quality is accordingly set at a high 95%. Refer to Biobank site management plan and performance indicators

Summary

Final % of impact Based on the above scores, the % of impact offset score is calculated as 185.92 % for the 127.44 ha of of-site offset offset.

Other None compensatory measures (if proposed)

References

Commonwealth of Australia 2016. Petauroides volans (greater glider) Conservation Advice.

Eco Logical Australia 2017. ‘Biobanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report: - Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site. Prepared for The Halloran Trust.

ELA 2019. Callala Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report and Biodiversity Strategy. Prepared for The Halloran Trust, July 2019.

Appendix N EPBC Offset Calculator and justification for Spot-tailed Quoll

EPBC Act Offsets Assessment Guide – Area of Community or Area of Habitat

Threatened species or ecological community Listing status

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (Spot-tailed Quoll) Endangered

Impact Site - Area of Habitat or Area of Community

Size (ha) The Spot-tailed Quoll is a highly cryptic species which has been infrequently recorded within the locality, with 21 records within a 20 km radius of the site (OEH 2020). The species has not been recorded in the site. Taking a precautionary approach, the 40.19 ha of habitat in the site (BVT SR592) is considered potential Spot- tailed Quoll foraging habitat based on the availability of suitable habitat, their large foraging range and records over the past 20 years in the locality.

Description 40.19 ha of potential habitat would be affected (Figure 2Figure 4). This includes 37.48 ha to be directly affected through removal, and 3.48 ha to form a pocket park. Within the pocket park, 2.71 ha of habitat would still be available for this species, however, it would persist as a smaller, isolated patch and would be unlikely to be used by the Spot-tailed Quoll. As such, the entire 3.48 ha of vegetation in the pocket park is considered affected. Based on the above, impact calculations were based on impacts to 40.19 ha of potential habitat. See section 6 of the PD.

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Quality 7 The Biobank site contains 311 ha of potential habitat for the Spot-tailed Quoll. Of this, 127.44 ha comprised of SR592 will be used to offset impacts to the Spot-tailed Quoll. A quality score of 7/10 has been assigned. This is based on the absence of the species during targeted survey and no previous records, presence of some denning sites, connectivity throughout the landscape and presence of SR592 which is considered potential habitat for Spot-tailed Quoll.

Offset Site - Area of Habitat or Area of Community

Size (ha): 127.44 ha off-site conservation area (forming part of Lake Wollumboola Biobank site)

Description The proposed offset area comprises 127.44 ha of SR592 which is listed as potential habitat for Spot-tailed Quoll. This habitat is immediately to the north of the site and forms part of Lake Wollumboola Biobank site (Callala Bay). The area also contains hollow bearing trees that could be used as den sites and is continuous with other areas of conserved habitat throughout the locality, including Jervis Bay National Park and two other portions of the Biobank site – Kinghorn Point and Culburra. Condition 50% (8/10), Context 25% (8/10) and Stocking Rate 25% (4/10). Overall Quality Score = 4+2+1 = 7/10

Averted loss Component

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Quality Improvement Component

Guide Assessed Discussion component value

Time until 5 years The proposed offset areas are required to be actively managed for conservation from the ecological commencement of the project (Refer to Biocertification approval conditions Appendix H of PD benefit report). The biobank agreement site has already been established, however active management has not commenced. Given the agreement is in place and the management actions will commence the time until ecological benefit is expected to be relatively short. Further as the management obligations of a Biobanking Agreement are fully funded and required to be implemented in perpetuity and subject to satisfactory annual reporting, the benefit is expected to be maintained. Active conservation management, fencing, weed control, rubbish removal and feral animal control commenced in January 2019.

The time to ecological benefit is accordingly set at a relatively short 5 years to increase the current start quality from an initial high 7/10 to a small increase of 8/10

Start quality 7 The proposed offset area comprises 127.44 ha of forested vegetation (SR592) which is listed (0 – 10) as potential habitat for Spot-tailed Quoll. This habitat forms part of a Biobank agreement site and is adjacent to the proposed development footprint. The offset area does not include any areas that are subject to any current use, such as cattle grazing or farming. It’s start habitat quality (7/10) is regarded as being the same as the intact impact areas (7/10) due to similar site context in terms of size and connectivity (8/10) and the same current stocking rate (4/10) , with a weighted mean as Condition 50% (8/10), Context 25% (8/10) and Stocking Rate 25% (4/10). Overall Quality Score = 4+2+1 = 7/10

Future quality 6 Whilst the current Start quality is regarded as being 7/10, the proposed offset land is not without offset required to be actively managed to enhance and maintain ecological values and is thus (0 – 10) subject to incremental degradation by weeds and feral animals. Infestations of Blackberry, Lantana, feral deer as well as rabbits and foxes are currently contributing to this degradation.

Future quality 8 As the proposed offset area will be registered as Biobank sites and will legally be required to with offset be actively managed for conservation, in perpetuity, from the commencement of the project (0 – 10) (Refer to Biocertification approval conditions Appendix Hof PD report), it is expected that the future quality of the site as an offset will increase moderately as weeds are controlled and

maintained and feral animal populations are reduced allow natural regeneration and replacement of canopy species over time, thus maintaining habitat values. A small increase in quality to 8/10 over the 5 years to ecological benefit is provided. Refer to Biobank site management plan and performance indicators.

Summary

Final % of impact Based on the above scores, the % of impact offset score is calculated as 200 % for the 127.44 ha of of-site offset offset.

Other None compensatory measures (if proposed)

References

Eco Logical Australia 2017. ‘Biobanking Agreement Credit Assessment Report: - Lake Wollumboola Biobank Site. Prepared for The Halloran Trust.

ELA 2019. Callala Bay Biodiversity Certification Assessment Report and Biodiversity Strategy. Prepared for The Halloran Trust, July 2019.

DWELP 2016. National Recovery Plan for the Spotted-tailed Quoll Dasyurus maculatus.