Department of Defenceenvironment.gov.au/system/files/pages/02e85d31-caba-4ad9... · GHD | Report...

Department of Defence 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW

Ecological Impact Assessment of Remediation May 2015

GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492 | i

Abbreviations Abbreviation Details CEEC critically endangered ecological community DP Deposit plan DPE Department of Planning and Environment (NSW) DotE Department of the Environment (Commonwealth) DSI Detailed site investigation EEC endangered ecological community EIS environmental impact statement EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(Commonwealth) FM Act Fisheries Management Act 1994 (NSW) DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (NSW) DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW) DNSDC Defence National Storage and Distribution Centre EPA Environmental Protection Authority (NSW) OEH Office of Environment &Heritage (NSW) MNES Matter of national environmental significance NW Act Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW) PB Parsons Brinckerhoff TEC threatened ecological community TSC Act Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) UXO Unexploded ordnance VEC vulnerable ecological community

GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492 | i i

Table of contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 General .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Objective ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Scope of work...................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 2

2. Description of the project ................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Phase 1 - UXO remediation ................................................................................... 1 2.3 Phase 2 – Excavation of stockpiles ......................................................................... 3 2.4 Phase 3 – Emu pick of asbestos fragments .............................................................. 4

3. Legislative context......................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)................. 7 3.2 NSW Legislation .................................................................................................. 7

4. Methods ...................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Database searches and literature review ................................................................. 9 4.2 Field survey....................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Likelihood of occurrence...................................................................................... 12 4.4 Survey Limitations .............................................................................................. 13

5. Existing environment ................................................................................................... 15 5.1 Site location and setting ...................................................................................... 15 5.2 Results of desktop review .................................................................................... 17 5.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 18 5.4 Fauna and habitats............................................................................................. 29 5.5 Habitat connectivity ............................................................................................ 33 5.6 Conservation significance .................................................................................... 34

6. Impact assessment ..................................................................................................... 39 6.1 Direct impacts.................................................................................................... 39 6.2 Indirect impacts ................................................................................................. 48

7. Impact mitigation ......................................................................................................... 51 7.1 Overview .......................................................................................................... 51 7.2 Avoidance of impacts.......................................................................................... 51 7.3 Mitigation measures ........................................................................................... 52

8. Assessment of Significance .......................................................................................... 57 8.1 Threatened biota................................................................................................ 57 8.2 Migratory species ............................................................................................... 59 8.3 The environment ................................................................................................ 60

GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492 | i i i

8.4 Biodiversity values ............................................................................................. 63

9. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 64

10. Limitations ................................................................................................................. 66

11. References ................................................................................................................ 67

Table index Table 1 Description of likelihood of occurrence classes.............................................................. 13

Table 2 Areas of potential environmental concern (Figure 1)....................................................... 15

Table 3 Geology of the site (Jones and Clark, 1991).................................................................. 16

Table 4 Vegetation zones within the Boot Land ........................................................................ 20

Table 5 Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest ...................................... 22

Table 6 Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in high condition ......... 23

Table 7 Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in poor condition ........................................................................................................... 24

Table 8 Parramatta Red Gum swamp woodland in high condition................................................ 26

Table 9 Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora grassy open forest on clay/gravel .................... 27

Table 10 Noxious weeds and WoNS recorded in the site ........................................................... 28

Table 11 Area of vegetation zones within UXO management areas ............................................. 45

Table 12 Plant species recorded at the Boot Land site ............................................................... 71

Table 13 BioBanking Plot/transect data ................................................................................... 78

Table 14 Opportunistic fauna observations .............................................................................. 79

Table 15 Assessment of likelihood of occurrence of threatened biota ........................................... 81

Figure index Figure 1 Site location and layout .............................................................................................. 5

Figure 2 Area requiring remediation .......................................................................................... 6

Figure 3 Vegetation zones..................................................................................................... 21

Figure 4 Threatened biota ..................................................................................................... 38

Figure 5 Threatened plants and UXO management areas .......................................................... 44

GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492 | iv

Appendices Appendix A – Field Survey Data

Appendix B – Threatened Biota Assessment

Appendix C – EPBC Act Assessments of Significance

GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492 | 1

1. Introduction 1.1 General

GHD has been engaged by the Department of Defence (Defence) to undertake site assessments to enable the preparation of a remedial action plan (RAP) for Part of Lot 3001 in DP1125930, Moorebank (hereafter referred to as the ‘Boot Land site’). Defence is seeking to remediate or mitigate exposure to contamination at the Boot Land site and the risk associated with unexploded ordinance (UXO). Site contamination investigations undertaken to date have identified specific areas of environmental concern, which are identified as Areas A to F based on the type of contaminated materials present (GHD, 2015a). The remediation that would be undertaken by the Commonwealth is referred to as ‘the project’. The project would be undertaken at the locations of identified soil contaminants that require remediation as defined in the remedial options assessment and remedial action plan for the site (GHD, 2015a). After remediation the site and the rest of the Boot Land is intended for use as a biodiversity offset for a proposed development on land in the vicinity. The site location is shown on Figure 1.

The contamination and ecology assessments completed to date have revealed considerable ecological constraints to the project, most notably extensive populations of threatened plants at the site. This supplementary ‘Ecological Impact Assessment of Remediation’ report has been prepared in consultation with G-Tek, who would undertake the UXO removal at the site. This report draws upon the desktop review, field survey and ecological assessment results for the Boot Land that were included in the ‘Boot Land’, Moorebank, NSW Ecology Assessment (GHD, 2014). Supplementary field surveys and assessments have been undertaken to identify the least impact approach for the project.

1.2 Objective

The aim of this report is to identify and describe the biodiversity values of the site, to help design the project to avoid or mitigate potential impacts of remediation on biodiversity values as far as possible and to determine the likely significance of residual impacts in accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

The EPBC Act requires assessment of potential impacts of a proposed action on biodiversity values and on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) such as threatened species and communities. This assessment will assist Defence to determine what level of approval under the EPBC Act is required for any residual impacts from the proposed remediation. If these assessments conclude that the project is not likely to have a significant impact on any MNES then the results would be used by Defence to prepare an application for a Threatened Species Permit under Section 200 of the EPBC Act. The assessment of biodiversity values also considers threatened species and communities listed under the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act) and the NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act).

1.3 Scope of work

The scope of this report is to:

Summarise the results of previous desktop assessment and field surveys included in the 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW Ecology Assessment (GHD, 2015b) to describe the biodiversity values of the site, including native vegetation types, flora and fauna species and their habitats.


Complete a desktop assessment, field survey, research and consultation to determine the likely effect of remediation on biodiversity values at the site.

Assess the value and conservation significance of native vegetation and habitats at the site, the extent of threatened plant populations and the potential for any additional threatened or migratory biota listed under the EPBC Act and any other threatened biota listed under the TSC Act to occur at the site and/or to be affected by the project.

Prepare a joint assessment (with G-Tek) of the least impact approach to UXO removal in Area C as part of remediation activities at the site based on the density of threatened plants or other ecological constraints and practicalities.

Outline measures to avoid or mitigate impacts on biodiversity values as developed in consultation with G-Tek and GHD remediation specialists.

Complete impact assessments pursuant to:

– The ‘Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999’ (DotE, 2013a) for impacts on threatened biota and other MNES.

– The ‘Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land and Actions by Commonwealth Agencies’ (DotE, 2013b) for impacts on the natural environment .

1.4 Definitions

For the purposes of this report the following definitions apply:

The ‘Boot Land’ is the parcel of land owned by Defence at Moorebank, NSW comprising part of Lot 3001 in DP1125930 as shown on Figure 1.

The ‘area requiring remedation’ is the area within the Boot Land site that requires characterisation and management of contaminants and that is the main focus of this report as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2.

The ‘project’ is the proposed remediation of UXO and soil contamination at the site.

The ‘study area’ is the Boot Land (defined above) and any nearby areas that could potentially be affected by the project.

The ‘locality’ is the area within 10 kilometres of the site.

The ‘region’ is a bioregion defined in a national system of bio-regionalisation. For this study this is the Sydney Basin Bioregion as defined in the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia (Thackway and Cresswell, 1995).

‘Threatened biota’ are threatened species, populations or communities listed under the EPBC Act and/or the TSC Act.

Migratory species are those listed under the EPBC Act


2. Description of the project 2.1 Overview

A detailed description of the project is provided in the RAP (GHD, 2015a). The site has been split into six areas of concern (AoC). The AoCs are shown on Figure 1 and are identified as follows:

Area A: Additional small arms ammunition (SAA) and stockpiles (north eastern portion of the site).

Area B: Disturbed vegetation and soil, stockpiles and surface scrapes (south eastern portion of the site).

Area C: Former grenade range (southern central portion of the site).

Area D: Rail sidings corridor (southern central portion of the site, west of Area C).

Area E: Stockpiles (south western portion of site, adjacent to Moorebank Avenue).

Area F: Various stockpiles along the services easement (orientated approximately north-south in the centre of the site).

GHD have considered four broad remedial options for the site and in consultation with the Commonwealth have selected ‘Option 1 Excavate and disposal (off site), emu pick of surface asbestos fragments and remediation of UXO’ (GHD, 2015a). The project will comprise:

Excavate contaminated soil and stockpiles and dispose off site to landfill.

Emu pick of surface asbestos fragments.

Remediation of UXO in Area C.

Post remediation surface water monitoring.

Revegetation of portions of the site where natural regeneration is unlikely to be sufficient to restore native vegetation cover.

Post remediation biodiversity monitoring.

The specific areas that are proposed for remediation are shown on Figure 2.

The areas requiring remediation have been split into source types and proposed remediation techniques as follows:

Phase 1: UXO removal & validation in Area C

Phase 2.1: Excavation of contaminated soil and stockpiles at the road of bullets (Area A)

Phase 2.2: Excavation contaminated soil and stockpiles in Areas B, C, D, E and F

Phase 2.3: Removal of contaminated railway ballast, natural and fill soils at locations in Areas C and D

Phase 3: Emu pick of surface asbestos fragments at 11 locations across the site.

2.2 Phase 1 - UXO remediation

The project is for the detection and removal of UXO material at the site. Investigations have indicated that the site previously contained a hand grenade range which has resulted in relatively extensive areas of explosive ordnance waste (EOW) at the site as well as one item of


UXO (GHD, 2014a). Based on this previous use as a hand grenade range and the possibility of further UXO at the site, remediation of UXO material is required to allow the site and the rest of the Boot Land to be safely used as a biodiversity offset.

Hand grenades are generally thrown or projected from rifles and fragmentation, waste components and UXO tend to remain on or near the surface of a hand grenade range. The proposed UXO remediation will be conducted by systematically searching the range area using Minelab F3 Metal detectors which will detect both ferrous and non-ferrous grenade components in the sub surface. The detector is generally swung left-right, right-left, while proceeding forward along a defined search lane/transect. Each aural cue presented by the detector in the presence of metal is intrusively investigated and the outcomes recorded. This process is continued until 100% of a required area is searched.

There are areas of fill at the site that are likely to comprise mounded surface soil and as such may contain UXO. Mounded fill must be spread to create thin layers that can be searched with a hand-held detector.

In order to swing the detector, vegetation cover that may disrupt the process is generally reduced in the search area; where vegetation cover cannot be reduced, search confidence can be affected. The project will include biomass reduction techniques appropriate to the current vegetation cover and conservation significance of the search area.

UXO management areas were developed in consultation with Greg Guthrie (GTEK) and comprise areas of:

Core biomass reduction.

Partial biomass reduction.

Minimal biomass reduction.

No biomass reduction.

In ‘core biomass reduction’ areas, all vegetation will be removed with a slasher and mounds of fill will be spread to create a clear level surface. Trees with a DBH of >100mm will be retained if practicable. Fill material will be spread with a mini-excavator or backhoe as required to create flat, thin layers that can be searched effectively. Once the natural ground level is reached below the mounds, that level will be searched. Layered soil, once searching is completed, will be re-contoured to natural levels.

In ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas, mid-storey and groundcover vegetation will be reduced with a slasher set to 100mm. Slash residues will be left in place. Trees with >100mm DBH will be retained. Identified threatened plants will be retained by not operating a slasher within 2m of flagged individuals. Supplementary reduction of vegetation cover will be performed with mechanical hand tools as required.

In ‘minimal biomass reduction’ areas, the removal of the minimum amount of mid-storey and groundcover vegetation required to achieve access for UXO remediation will be performed using mechanical tools.

In ‘no biomass reduction’ areas, UXO remediation will be undertaken around vegetation. These areas contain high numbers of threatened plants and sufficiently low vegetation cover for successful UXO remediation.

Depending on the density of metallic material, existing vegetation cover and the extent of biomass reduction, a two person search team with one metal detector is generally able to clear between 0.1 and 0.25 ha/day.


After the UXO remediation activities are completed, Defence would coordinate monitoring of vegetation and threatened plant populations and any corrective actions such as weed control as required. The site is intended to be set aside as a biodiversity offset under a BioBanking agreement or similar conservation covenant. The site will be managed according to the specific post-remediation phase requirements of the project for a period of five years after completion of the UXO remediation activities. After that, the site would be managed along with the rest of the Boot Land under a BioBanking agreement or equivalent offset site management plan.

2.3 Phase 2 – Excavation of stockpiles

2.3.1 Overview

Phase 2 of the project would involve excavation of contaminated sediments and offsite disposal within Areas A, B, C, D, E and F at the Boot Land site. The volume of soils proposed to be excavated from the road of bullets or the relevant stockpiles is detailed in Section 4.3 of the RAP (GHD, 2015a) and is based on the areas shown on Figure 2. The estimated volumes do not include any allowance for over-excavation, bulking factors or the identification of additional contaminated soils.

The excavation work will be undertaken as follows:

Sequencing of the work is to be agreed with the Department of Defence and the Phase 1 Site Manager and Phase 2 and 3 Site Manager prior to commencement of the works.

Pre-remediation surveys will be undertaken by the Site Ecologist along with the Environmental Consultant including:

– Targeted surveys for threatened plants, important habitat resources or signs of fauna occupancy within the areas requiring remediation and any other potential disturbance areas such as stockpiles and temporary access tracks.

– Selection of locations for stockpiles and temporary access tracks away from identified biodiversity values in order to minimise impacts as far as possible and clear marking of these locations and communication to the Phase 2 and 3 Site Manager.

– Clear marking of threatened plants, important habitat resources or other biodiversity values in the vicinity of remediation areas.

All necessary environmental control and occupational health and safety (OH&S) would be implemented prior to the commencement of any excavation work and properly implemented and maintained throughout the work period. This includes taking the appropriate measures to avoid damage to vegetation, dust generation and any migration of potential contaminants.

All excavation works and on site stockpiling of material (prior to removing off site) would be carried out to prevent cross-contamination of unexcavated and/or uncontaminated areas of the site; and stockpiling should be undertaken in an area agreed with Defence and the Environmental Consultant prior to completion. Stockpiles would be placed within the area requiring remediation or in areas of ‘Low’ Ecological Constraints Class as mapped on Figure 3b of the RAP (GHD, 2015a).

All materials removed from site would be disposed of at an appropriately licence facility.

Further details of the proposed works within each AoC/phase are provided below.

2.3.2 Phase 2.1

The proposed excavation of the road of bullets would remove fill soils and approximately 0.1 metres of the underlying natural soils. The excavation and stockpile removal works would be


maintained within the boundary of the existing road feature. No excavation works would be completed in areas of intact native vegetation.

The road of bullets excavation would be reinstated as soon as it is demonstrated that validation samples from the excavations have concentrations less than the acceptance criteria. The Remediation Contractor would reinstate the excavation in 0.3 m layers (as a minimum) using appropriately validated material suitable to support vehicle access and minimise future maintenance (e.g. as a result of erosion) along the fire trail.

2.3.3 Phase 2.2

The proposed excavation of stockpiles would remove fill material to a depth of 0.1 metres below ground level. All stockpile removal works would use equipment and techniques that will protect from damage all surrounding environment. Plants should not be broken or damaged, other than bending branches. As far as reasonably practicable, during stockpile removal works; vegetation surrounding each stockpile should not be excavated

2.3.4 Phase 2.3

Removal of ballast along the railway line would be completed by hand (or similar) so as not to damage the track. All soil removal works are to use equipment and techniques that will maintain the surrounding biodiversity values or features of the natural environment. Mature trees should not be removed or damaged, other than bending branches. As far as reasonably practicable, during stockpile removal works; vegetation surrounding each stockpile should not be excavated.

2.4 Phase 3 – Emu pick of asbestos fragments

A suitably qualified Remediation Contractor would conduct a walk over of the identified work areas, inspecting the ground surface for asbestos cement fragments. Any identified asbestos cement fragments would be placed into an asbestos waste bag and sealed using a swan-neck technique for off site disposal at an appropriately licenced facility.

All disposable materials such as plastic sheeting, wet wipes, and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would be placed into 200 µm clear plastic bags labelled as containing asbestos at the completion of the works, and removed from the site and disposed by the Remediation Contractor as asbestos waste.

The Remediation Contractor would be responsible for the off site disposal of the material collected during the emu pick.

MOOR

EBAN

KAV

E

Anzac Creek

Area F

EASTHILLS RAILWAY

DISUSED SPURLINE

Area C

Area B

Area D

Area A

Area E

N :\AU\Syd ney\Pro jec ts\21\23492\GIS\Ma ps\Delivera b les\Ec o lo gy\21_23492_Z 014_MOOREBAN K_Ec o lo gy_SiteLo c a tio n_La yo ut_Fig1.mxd

LEGEN D

0 50 100 150 200

MetresMa p Pro jec tio n: Tra nsverse Merc a to r

Ho rizo nta l Da tum: Geo c entric Da tum o f Austra lia (GDA)Grid : Ma p Grid o f Austra lia 1994, Z o ne 56 o

© 2010. While GHD ha s ta ken c a re to ensure the a c c ura c y o f this pro d uc t, GHD a nd DATA CUSTODIAN , ma ke no representa tio ns o r wa rra nties a b o ut its a c c ura c y, c o mpleteness o r suita b ility fo r a ny pa rticula r purpo se. GHD a nd DATA CUSTODIAN , c a nno t a c c ept lia b ility o f a ny kind (whether in c o ntra c t, to rt o r o therwise) fo r a ny expenses, lo sses, d a ma ges a nd /o r c o sts (inc lud ing ind irec t o r c o nsequentia l d a ma ge) whic h a re o r ma y b e inc urred a s a result o f the pro d uct b eing ina c c ura te, inc o mplete o r unsuita b le in a ny wa y a nd fo r a ny rea so n.

Depa rtment o f Defenc e‘Bo o t La nd ’, Mo o reb a nkEc o lo gic a l Impa c t Assessment o f Remed ia tio n

Figure 1

Jo b N umb erRevisio n A

21-23492

22 Ma y 2015

Site lo c a tio n a nd la yo utDa te

Da ta So urc e: Ima gery - Go o gle Ea rth Pro 2012 (Retrieved 15-05-2014). Crea ted b y: qjc hung

Level 15, 133 Ca stlerea gh Street Syd ney N SW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E syd ma il@ghd .c o m.a u W www.ghd .c o m.a u

Regio na l Lo c a lity Ma p

Site Location

New DNSDC

Existing DNSDC

Wattle Grove

Site Bo und a ry (Appro xima te)Area s o f Po tentia l Enviro nmenta l Co nc ern (Appro xima te)Overhea d Po werline Ea sement (Appro xima te)

Ra ilwa y Line (Appro xima te)Creeklines (Appro xima te)

MOOR

EBAN

KAV

E

Anzac Creek

"Road of Bullets"(~1,500 m2)

Stockpile ~6m3

(TP202)

Stockpile ~2m3

(TP202)

Stockpile ~20m3

(HA309)Stockpile ~1m3

(HA307)Stockpile ~3m3

(HA308)

Surface Asbestos(ACM1) ~74m2

Stockpile ~1m3

(TP246)

Stockpile ~12m3

(TP247)

Stockpile ~2m3

(TP248)

Stockpile ~5m3

(TP250)

Stockpile ~5m3

(TP251)

Stockpile ~8m3

(TP252)

Stockpile ~2m3

(HA310)

Stockpile ~15m3

(HA311)

Surface asbestos(ACM2) ~400m2

Stockpile ~2m3

(HA312)

Stockpile ~7m3

(TP254)

Stockpile ~8m3

(TP253)


Stockpile ~1m3

(TP207)

Stockpile ~1m3

(TP218)

Stockpile ~1m3

(TP209)

PHASE 1(~100,000m2)


Approx. 45 stockpiles~ 435 m3



Stockpile ~2m3

(TP233)

Surface asbestos(TP234) ~85m2

Railway ballast(HA302) ~4m3

Railway ballast(HA301) ~4m3

Surface asbestos(ACM6) ~850m2 Surface asbestos

(TP235) ~85m3




Surface asbestos(TP231) ~55m2


Stockpile ~13m3

(TP225)

Stockpile ~150m3

(TP222, TP223, TP224)

Area C

Area B

Area D

Area A

Area E

N:\AU\Syd ney\Pro jec ts\21\23492\GIS\M a ps\Delivera b les\Ec o lo gy\21_23492_Z 048_M OOREBANK_RAP_Area s_Requiring_Rem ed ia tio n_Fig2.m xd

LEGEND

0 50 100 150 200

M etresM a p Pro jec tio n: Tra nsverse M erc a to r

Ho rizo nta l Da tum : Geo c entric Da tum o f Austra lia (GDA)Grid : M a p Grid o f Austra lia 1994, Z o ne 56 o

© 2010. W hile GHD ha s ta ken c a re to ensure the a c c ura c y o f this pro d uc t, GHD a nd DATA CUSTODIAN, m a ke no representa tio ns o r wa rra nties a b o ut its a c c ura c y, c o m pleteness o r suita b ility fo r a ny pa rticula r purpo se. GHD a nd DATA CUSTODIAN, c a nno t a c c ept lia b ility o f a ny kind (whether in c o ntra c t, to rt o r o therwise) fo r a ny expenses, lo sses, d a m a ges a nd /o r c o sts (inc lud ing ind irec t o r c o nsequentia l d a m a ge) whic h a re o r m a y b e inc urred a s a result o f the pro d uct b eing ina c c ura te, inc o m plete o r unsuita b le in a ny wa y a nd fo r a ny rea so n.

Depa rtm ent o f Defenc e‘Bo o t La nd ’, M o o reb a nkEc o lo gic a l Im pa c t Assessm ent o f Rem ed ia tio n

Figure 2

Jo b Num b erRevisio n A

21-23492

22 M a y 2015

Area requiring rem ed ia tio nDa te

Da ta So urc e: Im a gery - Go o gle Ea rth Pro 2012 (Retrieved 15-05-2014). Crea ted b y: qjc hung

Level 15, 133 Ca stlerea gh Street Syd ney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E syd m a il@ghd .c o m .a u W www.ghd .c o m .a u

Existing DNSDC

Wattle Grove

Site Bo und a ry (Appro xim a te)Area s o f Po tentia l Enviro nm enta l Co nc ern (Appro xim a te)Creeklines (Appro xim a te)Ra ilwa y Line (Appro xim a te)

Remediation PhasesPha se 1Pha se 2.1Pha se 2.2Pha se 2.3Pha se 3

7 | GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492

3. Legislative context 3.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 (EPBC Act)

The objects of the EPBC Act include to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance (MNES) and to promote the conservation of biodiversity. Under the EPBC Act, an action includes a project, undertaking or activity.

An action that ‘has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on a MNES may not be undertaken without prior approval from the Australian Government Minister for the Environment. The EPBC Act identifies MNES as:

World heritage properties.

National heritage places.

Wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands).

Threatened species and ecological communities.

Migratory species.

Commonwealth marine areas.

Nuclear actions (including uranium mining).

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development.

The Department of Defence is a Commonwealth agency. Section 28 of the EPBC Act states that a Commonwealth agency must not take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

The EPBC Act has been addressed in this assessment through:

Desktop review to determine the threatened or migratory species or threatened ecological communities that have been previously recorded within the locality and hence could occur at the site, subject to the habitats present.

Desktop assessment and field surveys to describe the environment of the site, including biodiversity values and threatened biota listed under the Act or under NSW legislation (see below).

Targeted field surveys for threatened ecological communities and threatened and migratory species.

Assessment of potential impacts on the environment and on specific MNES that could arise from the project.

3.2 NSW Legislation

The site is Commonwealth land and so the project would not require environmental assessment or approvals under NSW environmental planning and assessment laws. However, it is appropriate to consider threatened biota that are listed under NSW legislation (the TSC Act and FM Act) as part of the consideration of impacts on the environment and conservation of biodiversity on Commonwealth land that is required under the EPBC Act.


The TSC Act also provides for the assessment of impacts on biodiversity values, the offsetting of impacts and the conservation of offset sites through BioBanking. It is likely that that the site would be managed as a biodiversity offset within the framework of BioBanking or at least that the offset package for the development would be prepared with reference to the BioBanking methodology as discussed below.

3.2.1 Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act)

The TSC Act provides legal status for biota of conservation significance in NSW. The Act aims to, inter alia, ‘conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable project’. It contains schedules that list endangered, critically endangered and vulnerable species, populations, ecological communities, and key threatening processes in NSW.

The TSC Act has been considered in this assessment through:

Desktop assessment and field survey to identify threatened biota listed under the TSC Act that may be present at the site or affected by the project.

Consideration of impacts on threatened biota listed under the TSC Act and measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts.

Part 7A of the TSC Act establishes the NSW Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme (BioBanking), which was enabled by the Threatened Species Conservation Amendment (Biodiversity Banking) Bill 2006. BioBanking includes a methodology for assessing biodiversity values, establishing rules for calculating biodiversity offsets and provides a framework for managing biodiversity offset sites.

It is likely that that the site would be managed as a biodiversity offset within the framework of BioBanking or at least that the offset package for the development would be prepared with reference to the BioBanking methodology. Accordingly, this Ecology Assessment has been prepared with reference to the BioBanking methodology and operational manual (DECC, 2009), including description and sampling of vegetation types in accordance with the methodology.

3.2.2 Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act)

The FM Act contains schedules that list endangered, critically endangered and vulnerable aquatic species, populations, ecological communities, and key threatening processes of relevance to aquatic environments in NSW.

The FM Act has been considered in this assessment through:

Desktop assessment and field survey to identify threatened biota listed under the FM Act that may be present at the site or affected by the project.

Consideration of impacts on threatened biota listed under the FM Act and measures to avoid or mitigate potential impacts.

3.2.3 Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NW Act)

The NW Act provides for the declaration of noxious weeds by the Minister for Primary Industries. Noxious weeds may be considered noxious on a National, State, Regional or Local scale. If present, noxious weeds should be assessed and controlled in order to help avoid economic or environmental impacts.

There are at least seven noxious weed species present at the site (see Section 5.3.3).


4. Methods 4.1 Database searches and literature review

4.1.1 Database searches

A desktop assessment was undertaken to identify threatened flora and fauna species, populations and ecological communities listed under the TSC Act and FM Act, and MNES listed under the EPBC Act that may be affected by the project. Database records pertaining to the site and locality (i.e. within a 10 km radius of the site) were reviewed in conjunction with the field investigations and included:

The Commonwealth Department of the Environment (DotE) Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST), for all MNES known or predicted to occur within the locality (DotE, 2014a), database queried on 9 May 2014.

DotE online species profiles and threats database (DotE 2014b).

NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) Wildlife Atlas database (licensed) for records of threatened species, populations and threatened ecological communities listed under the TSC Act that have been recorded within the locality (OEH 2014a), data downloaded 9 May 2014.

NSW OEH threatened biota profiles for descriptions of the distribution and habitat requirements of threatened biota (OEH 2014b).

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) online protected species viewer for records of threatened aquatic species in the locality (DPI, 2014a), database queried 9 May 2014.

The NSW DPI ‘Threatened Fish and Marine Vegetation – Find a Species by Geographic Region’ online search tool for the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA) (DPI 2014b), queried 9 May 2014.

Following collation of database records and species and community profiles, a ‘likelihood of occurrence’ assessment was prepared with reference to the broad habitats contained within the study area. This was further refined following field surveys and assessment of habitat present (see Section 5). The results of this assessment are presented in Appendix B.

4.1.2 Literature review

A literature review was undertaken to help describe the existing environment of the site and refine the threatened biota database searches and the assessment of the likelihood of threatened biota occurring in the study area and/or being affected by the project. Literature resources reviewed as part of this assessment include:

GHD (2014) Moorebank Boot Land Site Ecological Assessment

Tozer et al. (2006) Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands.

OEH (2014a) NSW Vegetation Types Database.

OEH (2014b) Threatened Species Profile Database.

NPWS (2006) Native Vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney.

Aerial photographs and satellite imagery of the study area.

URS (2004) Flora Survey and Assessment, Moorebank Defence Site, Moorebank NSW.


Hyder (2013a) Flora and Fauna Assessment: Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance.

4.1.3 Consultation

Consultation was undertaken with relevant technical specialists to help define the least impact approach to UXO remediation at the site and to assess the likely significance of residual impacts on biodiversity values and especially threatened plants. Specific consultation was undertaken with:

Bob Makinson, a botanist at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney who is a recognised expert in the ecology of the Proteaceae, which is the family of plants that includes the majority of the threatened plants at the site.

Greg Guthrie, a UXO remediation specialist with G-Tek who is familiar with the safety requirements and practicalities of UXO removal. Greg was present for the pre-remediation field survey of the site and will oversee UXO removal activities.

4.2 Field survey

4.2.1 Overview

An initial three-day field survey was conducted by two GHD ecologists, on 2, 8 and 9 May 2014 as part of the ecological assessment of the Boot Land site.

Survey techniques and effort were conducted with reference to the BioBanking assessment methodology and operational manual (DECC, 2008). The locations of survey plot/transects are shown on Figure 3.

The main focus of the field surveys was to verify the extent and condition of vegetation types and TECs at the site. The survey did not include any targeted fauna survey techniques and included only broad estimates of threatened plant populations rather than detailed counts. As a one-off survey in late Autumn it may also have been subject to seasonal limitations.

A supplementary pre-remediation survey of the site was conducted on 11 and 15 December 2014 in conjunction with a UXO removal specialist. The aim of this survey was to undertake a more detailed survey of populations of threatened plants at the site and to help define the least impact approach to UXO removal.

4.2.2 Initial ecological survey

Terrestrial flora survey

The flora survey involved the following techniques, which are described in detail below:

Flora sampling through BioBanking plot/transects, area searches and systematic traverses.

Vegetation mapping.

Targeted threatened flora surveys.

The locations of plot/transects sampled during the flora survey are displayed in Figure 3.

Vegetation mapping

Vegetation within the project site was mapped based on observed species composition and vegetation structure according to the classification of Specht (1970). Native vegetation types were defined according to the NSW Vegetation types database (OEH, 2014b). Native vegetation types were further split into vegetation zones based on broad condition classes as follows:


• Moderate/good – high: near intact vegetation structure and low (<10%) exotic plant cover.

• Moderate/good – poor: modified or regrowth native vegetation with one or more native plant strata completely absent (i.e. a derived grassland or over-storey vegetation with no native understorey) and moderate (10-50%) exotic plant cover.

‘Cleared’ land was also mapped in the study area and comprises vegetation with no native over-storey cover and high (>50%) exotic plant cover or >90% bare earth (DECC, 2008).

All vegetation zones were then mapped using aerial photographic interpretation within a geographical information system (GIS) as guided by the field survey results.

The site was systematically traversed on foot in order to observe and document the distribution of vegetation and habitat types and was sampled by 10 plot/transects.

Flora sampling

A total of ten 50 x 20 metre plot/transects were sampled within identified vegetation zones (see Figure 2) to compile a flora species list for each zone within the study area, to measure vegetation condition and to assist with identification of TECs. Survey effort was targeted using air photo interpretation and field habitat assessment. Additional opportunistic observations of plant species were also undertaken, noting any species not detected in other surveys.

All vascular plants (ie not mosses, lichens or fungi) observed were recorded on pro forma field data sheets. Each species list was accompanied by a biophysical description, including vegetation structure, soils, geology and geomorphology, habitat and disturbance history. Plant specimens that could not be identified rapidly in the field were collected and subsequently identified using standard botanical texts and PlantNet (RBGT, 2014). Plant identifications were made according to nomenclature in PlantNet (RBGT, 2014). Plant specimens that could not be identified (either insufficient sample collected or buds/fruiting bodies were not available at the time of the survey) were identified to genus level.

Native vegetation at the site was assessed against identification criteria for State and Commonwealth listed threatened ecological communities (critically endangered ecological communities (CEECs), endangered ecological communities (EECs) and vulnerable ecological communities (VECs)). Vegetation and habitats was compared with descriptions provided in DEC (2005) and DotE (2014b) profiles and policy statements.

Targeted threatened flora surveys

Targeted surveys were undertaken for threatened flora species which could potentially occur within the study area given known distributions, URS (2004) observations at the site, other previous records in the locality and habitat requirements for each species. Random meander transects, according to the methods of Cropper (1993), were focused in potential remediation areas and in areas of potentially suitable habitat. Given the size of the site and the survey effort employed the entire site could not be systematically searched for threatened plants. The initial threatened plant survey results presented in GHD (2014) were presented as an indication of the numbers of threatened plants in potential remediation areas and the general distribution of threatened plants within vegetation types rather than a census of the local population.

Terrestrial fauna survey

General fauna habitat assessments were undertaken throughout the study area, including active searches for potential shelter, basking, roosting, nesting and/or foraging sites. Specific habitat features and resources such as water bodies, food trees, the density of understorey


vegetation, the composition of ground cover, the soil type, presence of hollow-bearing trees, leaf litter and ground debris were noted.

Habitat quality was assessed, based on the level of breeding, nesting, feeding and roosting resources available. Good quality habitat was considered to have high densities of habitat resources present, while low quality habitat was considered to have low densities of habitat resources.

Indicative habitat criteria for targeted threatened species (ie those determined as having the potential to occur within the study area following the desktop review) were identified prior to fieldwork. Habitat criteria were based on information provided in OEH and DotE threatened species profiles, field guides, and the knowledge and experience of GHD field ecologists. Habitat assessment assists in the compilation of a comprehensive list of fauna that are predicted within the vicinity of the study area, rather than relying solely on single event surveys that are subject to seasonal limitations and may only represent a snapshot of assemblages present.

Habitat assessments included active searches for the following:

Trees with bird nests or other potential fauna roosts.

Rock outcrops or overhangs providing potential shelter sites for fauna.

Burrows, dens and warrens.

Distinctive scats or latrine sites, owl white wash and regurgitated pellets under roost sites.

Tracks or animal remains.

Evidence of activity such as feeding scars, scratches and diggings.

Specific food trees and evidence of foraging.

Opportunistic and incidental observations of fauna species were recorded at all times during field surveys. Survey effort was concentrated on suitable areas of habitat throughout the course of the flora survey, for instance fallen timber was scanned and/or turned for reptiles and mature trees and dams were scanned for roosting birds.

4.2.3 Supplementary survey

GHD and G-Tek completed a two-day supplementary site survey on 11 and 15 December 2014. The survey comprised:

Systematic walked transects at approximately 10 m wide spacing across Area C of the site.

Joint assessment (with G-Tek) of the least impact approach to UXO removal in each portion of Area C and mapping of ‘UXO management areas’ based on the density of threatened plants or other ecological constraints and practicalities such as vegetation cover, visibility, access etc.

GPS-mapping of threatened plant locations and UXO management areas.

Physical demarcation of UXO management areas and/or the locations of threatened plants with coloured flagging tape.

4.3 Likelihood of occurrence

A ‘likelihood of occurrence’ assessment was completed for the threatened and migratory species and ecological communities identified in the desktop assessment based on the habitat assessments conducted during field surveys. A likelihood of occurrence ranking was attributed


to these threatened and migratory biota based on the framework outlined in Table 1. The results of this assessment are included in Appendix B.

Table 1 Description of likelihood of occurrence classes

Likelihood of occurrence Definition Known Biota confirmed as present within the study area either from previous

records or field survey results. Likely Species previously recorded within the locality and/or; suitable habitat

occurs within the study area. These species are likely to occur in the study area and the project may result in direct or indirect impacts on these species, including through the removal of habitat resources that may be relied upon by local populations of these species.

Possible Species known or predicted to occur within the locality and potentially suitable habitat occurs within the study area. These species may occur in the study area on a transitory, seasonal or opportunistic basis. The project is unlikely to result in direct or indirect impacts on these species or remove any habitat resources that are relied upon by local populations of these species.

Unlikely Species not previously recorded within the locality; study area is outside of the biota’s known distribution and/or; suitable habitat not present within the study area. The project would not result in any direct or indirect impacts on these species or their habitats.

Absent TECs confirmed as absent from the study area by site surveys or; threatened species that could not occur in the study area even on an occasional basis (such as species that are geographically isolated or which depend on specific resources such as aquatic habitats that are absent and would never be present in the study area). The project would not result in any direct or indirect impacts on these species or their habitats.

4.4 Survey Limitations

Field survey effort was stratified across the entire Boot Land site in the initial ecological survey. Some of the vegetation zones at the site were not directly sampled by plot/transects and were described based on data from plot/transects sampled in other portions of the Boot Land site (see Figure 3).

Given the duration and timing of the field surveys (i.e. late-Autumn and early Summer) it is likely that some flora species that occur were not detected during the field survey. These species may include those that flower at other times of year as well as annual, ephemeral or cryptic species. Similarly, many fauna species that utilise the study area (permanently, seasonally or transiently) may not have been detected during the survey. These species may include frogs and reptiles which are active or that call at other times of year, nocturnal species and fauna species that are mobile and transient in their use of resources and may not have been present during the survey. As such, it is likely that not all species were recorded during the survey period.

The desktop assessment provided a list of the native flora and fauna and especially threatened biota previously recorded or that could potentially occur in the study area or be affected by the project (including seasonal, transient or cryptic species). The habitat assessment conducted allows for identification of habitat resources for those species known or predicted to occur in the locality, to assist in determining their likelihood of occurrence in the study area (see Section 4.3). As such, the survey was not designed to detect all species, rather to provide an overall


assessment of the biodiversity values at the site, with particular emphasis on threatened biota and their habitats.

A GPS unit malfunctioned during the first day of the supplementary survey (11 December 2014) which led to the loss of GIS point data associated with several hours of threatened plant survey effort. The data which was lost included the locations of several individual threatened plants and points which were captured to assist with the mapping of UXO management areas. The GPS could not be repaired and the data could not be retrieved. This report has been prepared without re-surveying the area in question because:

Threatened plant survey results from the initial survey were available within this area.

Hard copy field notes showing the general location of threatened plants and field mapping of UXO management areas were collected.

The locations of individual threatened plants were marked with flagging tape and so they could be detected and avoided during actual UXO removal activities.

The loss of this data would reduce the accuracy of threatened plant mapping presented in this report and the estimates of threatened plant populations used in impact assessments. The level of inaccuracy is not sufficient to affect the conclusions of the impact assessments which were also based on the author’s personal observations in the area in question. Further, because the locations of individual threatened plants were marked with flagging tape, the slight inaccuracy of mapping would also not unduly increase the risk of harm to individual threatened plants.


5. Existing environment 5.1 Site location and setting

5.1.1 Site location

The Boot Land site comprises Lot 4 in DP1197707, formerly Part Lot 3001 in DP 125930. The Boot Land site is located in Moorebank, south-west Sydney, on land to the south and east of the Defence National Storage and Distribution Centre (DNSDC) off Moorebank Avenue (refer Figure 1). The following land uses surround the Boot Land site:

North: Defence land, including the development site and for the new DNSDC and the existing DNSDC;

East: Anzac Creek, beyond which is the suburb of Wattle Grove which contains residential housing;

South: East Hills railway line, beyond which is further Defence land which contains predominantly native vegetation; and

West: Moorebank Avenue, beyond which is further Defence land, including the School of Military Engineering (SME) and a golf course.

The Boot Land site is generally undeveloped native vegetation and is in an approximate reverse L shape. The Boot Land site is surrounded on all sides by security fencing. The eastern portion of the Boot Land site (north of the main access road from Moorebank Avenue) is located within the southern portion of the existing DNSDC.

5.1.2 Site layout and land uses

The Boot Land site is around 100 hectares in area and contains mainly native vegetation. The site has been used by Defence for various training activities such as walking or driving bush tracks and camping and use of a former grenade range located in the northern portion of the site for this assessment. Discrete portions of the native vegetation have undergone periodic clearance and disturbance for Defence training activities as well as construction of access tracks, a rail corridor and an electricity line easement. There has also been dumping of building refuse and fill in some portions of the Boot Land site.

The main areas of potential environmental concern (AoPEC) that have been subject to disturbance and/or contamination are mapped and described in GHD (2014) and are summarised in Table 2 below. These AoPECs are the areas that may be subject to remediation activities.

Table 2 Areas of potential environmental concern (Figure 1)

Areas of potential environmental concern

Contaminant source

Area A (the ‘road of bullets’) Road constructed in the 1970s with materials which have been noted to contain small arms ammunition (SAA) waste comprising spent projectile casings and lead projectile material. Stockpiles and fly tips / fill.

Area B (disturbed vegetation and soil, stockpiles and surface scraps)

Stockpiles and surface scrapes.

Area C (former grenade range) A former grenade range containing stockpiles, a cleared area, a ponded area with impeded drainage and dumped fill. The area was used for hand grenade training; and there is potential for


Areas of potential environmental concern

Contaminant source

unexploded grenades to be present (G–Tek Australia Pty Ltd 2014).

Area D (rail corridor) A disused railway spur constructed in circa 1987. Stockpiles adjacent to the railway spur, hydrocarbon staining on rail ballast and fill soils.

Area E (stockpiles) Stockpiles covering an area of approximately 2,500 m2 Area F (various stockpiles) Stockpiles along the service corridor and at various isolated

locations in native vegetation in the vicinity of the service corridor.

The Boot Land site is likely to be set aside as a biodiversity offset for the development of the proposed Moorebank Intermodal Terminal project. Further details about the likely biodiversity offsetting requirements for the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal project and the potential suitability of the site as a biodiversity offset are provided in Section 5.3.1 of GHD (2015b).

5.1.3 Topography and hydrology

The site has an elevation of between 10 and 20 m AHD. There is a gentle rise in the northwest of the site. The remainder of the site is flat and low.

Anzac Creek flows through the centre of the site from the southwest to the northeast of the site and then along the eastern boundary. An unnamed first order tributary of Anzac Creek flows from south to north along the eastern boundary of the site. Anzac Creek is a tributary of the Georges River.

The topography of the site appears to form a slight gradient towards Anzac Creek in the centre and east of the site. Surface water flow is expected to follow local topography on site and generally flow into Anzac Creek.

There are a number of natural and artificial depressions that would carry ponded surface water after rainfall and would only overflow and drain to Anzac Creek during larger flood events. These include the former grenade range in Area C and natural depressions in areas of swamp woodland in the south and northeast of the site. The road of bullets through Area A in the north of the site is built up and would alter surface water flows in the vicinity, causing localised ponding.

5.1.4 Geology and soils

According to the Penrith 1:100,000 Geological Series Sheet 9030 (Jones and Clark, 1991), the Boot Land is underlain by the geological units summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 Geology of the site (Jones and Clark, 1991)

Formation / Group Period Description Tertiary fluvial deposit Tertiary Clayey quartzose sand and clay. Ashfield Shale Triassic Dark grey to black claystone-siltstone and

fine sandstone-siltstone laminate. Mittagong Formation Triassic Interbedded shale, laminate, and medium-

grained quartz sandstone. Hawkesbury Sandstone Triassic Medium to very coarse-grained quartz

sandstone, minor laminated mudstone and siltstone lenses.

Based on the site survey results the entire site comprises a Tertiary fluvial deposit of varying thickness above either sandstone or shale bedrock.


The Department of Conservation and Land Management 1:100,000 Soil Landscape Series Sheet, 9030, Penrith, classifies the soil as Berkshire Park, the characteristics of which are detailed below.

Landscape: dissected, gently undulating low rises on the Tertiary terraces of the Hawkesbury/Nepean river system.

Soils: weakly pedal orange heavy clays and clayey sands, often mottled. Ironstone nodules common. Large (up to 20 cm) silcrete boulders occur in sand/clay matrix Solods, yellow podzolic soils where drainage conditions are poor; red podzolic soils, chocolate soils on flats and in small drainage lines; unstructured plastic clays and krasnozems in drainage lines or on crests.

Limitations: very high wind erosion hazard if cleared. Gully, sheet and rill erosion on dissected areas. Waterlogging, impermeable subsoils, low fertility.

The 1:25,000 Liverpool Acid Sulphate Soil Risk Map (Department of Land and Water Conservation, 1997), indicates that the site has no known occurrence of acid sulphate soils. The project and future land management activities are not likely to be affected by acid sulphate soil materials.

5.2 Results of desktop review

5.2.1 Database review

The database searches identified eight threatened ecological communities (TECs), 27 threatened flora species, 20 threatened fauna species and 20 migratory species listed under the EPBC Act as potentially occurring in the locality. These MNES are listed in Appendix B along with an assessment of the likelihood of their occurring in the study area. Of these threatened biota, three threatened flora species (all of which are also listed under the TSC Act) were recorded at the site. A TEC and one additional threatened flora species were recorded elsewhere at the Boot Land site. No other MNES, such as World Heritage Properties or Ramsar sites were revealed by the database searches (DotE 2014a) or are otherwise relevant to this assessment.

Database searches identified 41 threatened ecological communities, 37 threatened flora species and 51 threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act as having been previously recorded or having the potential to occur in the locality of the study area. Additionally, two species of dragonfly listed under the FM Act are known to occur within the Sydney Metro Catchment Management Authority region (DPI, 2014).

The presence or absence of TECs within the study area has been determined based on assessment of vegetation in the study area during field surveys. The TECs that are present at the site are described in Section 5.6.1. There is no habitat for any of the other TECs known or predicted to occur in the locality at the site or in the surrounding study area. These additional TECs are not considered further in this assessment.

The likelihood of occurrence of threatened species listed under the EPBC Act, TSC Act and FM Act within the study area has been assessed in Appendix B and is discussed in Section 5.6.

5.2.2 Literature review

Flora and fauna surveys were conducted by URS at the site in 2001. The following threatened biota was recorded (URS 2004):

Shale-Gravel Transition Forest, which is listed under the EPBC Act as the critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and


Shale-Gravel Transition Forest. A total of 74.7 hectares of this community was mapped in the study area.

Downy Wattle (Acacia pubescens), listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act. Four subpopulations of this species were recorded, including two in Shale-Gravel Transition Forest to the east of DNSDC, one in the vicinity of the southern boundary of the study area, and one to the south of the study area.

Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora), which is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act. One individual was recorded adjacent to the Confidence Range on the western side of the main access road. URS failed to record this individual on a subsequent visit.

Nodding Geebung (Persoonia nutans), which is listed as an endangered species under the EPBC Act. About nine individuals were recorded in the study area, including one along the central eastern boundary within the former Armaments Depot, two on track edges in relatively undisturbed vegetation to the north of the East Hills rail line, and about six individuals along a track immediately to the east of Moorebank Avenue opposite the Engineers Golf Course.

A flora and fauna impact assessment has been prepared for a proposed development site immediately to the north of the Boot Land (Hyder 2013). This assessment included field surveys within the Boot Land. The following threatened biota was recorded:

Small-flower Grevillea, recorded in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland south of Anzac Creek.

Nodding Geebung, recorded in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland north of Anzac Creek.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), which is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act, recorded foraging in native vegetation adjoining the site (Hyder, 2013).

5.3 Vegetation

5.3.1 Flora species

A total of 150 species from 45 Families were recorded from the study area, including 130 native species and 20 exotic species. The Poaceae (grasses, 26 species, including 10 exotics) was the most diverse Family recorded, followed by the Myrtaceae (flowering trees and shrubs such as Eucalyptus and Melaleuca, 17 native species).

This is relatively high species richness and confirms that the vegetation at the site is near-intact and in good condition. The plant species richness at the site is also likely to be considerably greater than revealed by this sample given the seasonal limitations of the initial ecological survey (GHD, 2014b). Based on the vegetation associations and habitats observed there is likely to be a considerably greater diversity of native grasses, orchids, pea-flowers and sedges in particular.

The suite of plant species at the site is representative of wetlands, alluvial soils and transitional shale-gravel soils. The site does not contain any sandstone outcrops or sandstone-derived soils or any shale-sandstone transition soils and would not contain any plant species that have habitat requirements specific to these soil types. Many of the threatened plant species known or predicted to occur in the locality have these specific habitat requirements and would not occur at the site (see Appendix B).


5.3.2 Vegetation zones

Field surveys confirmed the presence and distribution of four NSW vegetation types within the site. Stands of these vegetation types include near-intact vegetation in ‘moderate/good – high’ condition, partially cleared vegetation in ‘moderate/good – poor’ condition and extensively modified areas in ‘cleared’ condition (according to the BBAM, DECC, 2008). Accordingly six vegetation types and broad condition classes were identified and mapped in the site as shown on Figure 3. Key attributes of these vegetation types are summarised in Table 4 and described in Table 5 to Table 9 below.

There are local occurrences of three TECs listed under the EPBC Act at the site:

‘Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest’ (Shale-Gravel Transition Forest), which is listed as a critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) under the EPBC Act.

‘Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ (Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest) which is listed as a CEEC under the EPBC Act.

‘Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ (Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland), which is listed as an endangered ecological community (EEC) under the EPBC Act.

All of the native vegetation in the site comprises local occurrences of TECs listed under the NSW TSC Act (see Table 4).

The distribution of vegetation types in the site is closely tied to soil type, underlying geology and drainage all of which are correlated with geomorphic position. The entire site contains alluvial deposits of varying soil texture and thickness above shale or sandstone substrate. The majority of the site contains a comparatively flat alluvial deposit, dissected by Anzac Creek and its tributaries which flow in a general southwest to northeast direction through the site. Areas with heavier clay soils and moderate drainage support vegetation zone 1 – Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest. Areas with comparatively sandy, well drained soils support vegetation zone 2 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in high condition and vegetation zone 3 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in poor condition. The condition of this vegetation type varies with disturbance. The poor condition stands occur on areas which have been previously cleared. Poorly drained portions of the site, such as the channel and banks of Anzac Creek, support vegetation zone 4: Parramatta Red Gum Woodland on moist alluvium. The site rises to the northeast. The gravel content and drainage of the soil increases with elevation and it is likely that the thickness of the alluvial soil mantle above shale bedrock decreases. With this change in topography and soil type there is a transition to vegetation zone 5 – Broad-leaved Ironbark – Grey Box – Melaleuca decora grassy open forest.

Vegetation zone 6 is cleared land and exotic vegetation. These areas contain very few native plants representative of the vegetation zones described above and occur on imported fill or railway ballast.

There are occasional patches of noxious weeds such as Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus spp. agg.) and environmental weeds such as African Love Grass (Eragrostis curvula). These weeds are most prevalent in cleared land, in moderate/good – poor condition vegetation in the centre of the site; and adjacent to roads and electricity easements. The majority of the site has very little exotic vegetation cover and features only very occasional wind borne exotic herbs. There are mature hollow-bearing trees in moderate densities throughout the site with the greatest numbers in vegetation zones 2 and 4.


There has been a relatively recent fire in the northwest of the site and an older, but more extensive fire in the south of the site. These fires appear to have influenced the structure and species composition of the vegetation in the site. Specifically, vegetation in the northwest of the site is relatively open and is regenerating post-fire; there are patches of dense Acacia species or Native Blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa spinosa) that probably reflect regrowth after a fire three to five years ago; there are areas of comparatively open, grassy understorey in the south of the site that probably reflect relatively frequent fire over multiple decades. Fire is recognised as an important part of the ecology of the ecological communities in the site and an appropriate fire regime is generally considered to promote structural diversity, regeneration and increased species richness (OEH, 2014b).

There are a number of small, informal, dirt tracks that have been included in surrounding vegetation zones because they do not comprise a gap in over storey vegetation and they contain partial cover of native understorey vegetation. There are some areas within the electricity line easement and adjoining main access tracks at the site that contain some native plants and may meet the DECC (2009) condition criteria for native vegetation. These areas are frequently slashed as part of their maintenance for these purposes. These areas could not be practically included as part of an offset site and allowed to regenerate into better condition native vegetation. Therefore they have all been mapped as ‘cleared’ land.

Table 4 Vegetation zones within the Boot Land

Vegetation Zone Veg Type

ID (OEH, 2014c)

Condition Area (ha) TSC Act Status EPBC Act Status

1 - Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest

HN513 Moderate/good – high

11.27 EEC (Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest)

CEEC (Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest)

2 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland in high condition


39.11 VEC (Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland)

EEC (Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland)

3 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland in poor condition

HN542 Moderate/good – poor

8.89 VEC (Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland)

Not listed

4 - Parramatta Red Gum w oodland


24.57 EEC (Castlereagh Sw amp Woodland)

Not listed

5 - Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora grassy open forest on clay/gravel


11.53 EEC (Shale Gravel Transition Forest)

CEEC (Cumberland Plain Woodland and Shale gravel Transition Forest)

6 – Cleared land and exotic vegetation

- Cleared 4.64 Not listed Not listed

Total area 100.01

VEC – vulnerable ecological community; EEC – endangered ecological community; CEEC – critically endangered ecological community

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

MOOR

EBAN

K AVE

Anzac Creek

4

9

8

7

6

5

321

10

N :\AU\Syd ney\Pro jec ts\21\23492\GIS\Ma ps\Delivera b les\Ec o lo gy\21_23492_Z 015_MOOREBAN K_Ec o lo gy_VegZ o nes_SurveyEffo rt_Fig3.mxd

LEGEN D

0 50 100 150 200

MetresMa p Pro jec tio n: Tra nsverse Merc a to r

Ho rizo nta l Da tum: Geo c entric Da tum o f Austra lia (GDA)Grid : Ma p Grid o f Austra lia 1994, Z o ne 56 o

© 2010. W hile GHD ha s ta ken c a re to ensure the a c c ura c y o f this pro d uc t, GHD a nd DATA CUSTODIAN , ma ke no representa tio ns o r wa rra nties a b o ut its a c c ura c y, c o mpleteness o r suita b ility fo r a ny pa rticula r purpo se. GHD a nd DATA CUSTODIAN , c a nno t a c c ept lia b ility o f a ny kind (whether in c o ntra c t, to rt o r o therwise) fo r a ny expenses, lo sses, d a ma ges a nd /o r c o sts (inc lud ing ind irec t o r c o nsequentia l d a ma ge) whic h a re o r ma y b e inc urred a s a result o f the pro d uct b eing ina c c ura te, inc o mplete o r unsuita b le in a ny wa y a nd fo r a ny rea so n.

Depa rtment o f Defenc e‘Bo o t La nd ’, Mo o reb a nkEc o lo gic a l Impa c t Assessment o f Remed ia tio n

Figure 3

Jo b N umb erRevisio n A

21-23492

22 Ma y 2015

Vegeta tio n zo nes a nd survey effo rtDa te

Da ta So urc e: Ima gery - Go o gle Ea rth Pro 2012 (Retrieved 15-05-2014). Crea ted b y: qjc hung

Level 15, 133 Ca stlerea gh Street Syd ney N SW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E syd ma il@ghd .c o m.a u W www.ghd .c o m.a u

New DNSDC

Existing DNSDC

Wattle Grove

Site Bo und a ry (Appro xima te)Area requiring remed ia tio n fo r pha ses 2 a nd 3Creeklines (Appro xima te)

1 - Bro a d -lea ved Iro nb a rk – Melaleuca decora shrub b y o pen fo rest2 - Ha rd -lea ved Scrib b ly Gum - Pa rra ma tta Red Gum hea thy wo o d la nd in high c o nd itio n3 - Ha rd -lea ved Scrib b ly Gum - Pa rra ma tta Red Gum hea thy wo o d la nd in po o r c o nd itio n4 - Pa rra ma tta Red Gum wo o d la nd5 - Bro a d -lea ved Iro nb a rk –Melaleuca decora gra ssy o pen fo rest o n c la y/gra vel6 - Clea red la nd a nd exo tic vegeta tio n

!( Plo t/tra nsec t

NOTE:The mapped area requiring remediation is indicative only. The area disturbed for remediation activities would be smallerthan the mapped polygons


Table 5 Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest

Zone 1 - Broad-leaved Ironbark – M elaleuca decora shrubby open forest Vegetation Type (OEH, 2013a

HN513 - Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest on clay soils of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin (Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest)

Survey effort Plot/transects 6, 7 and 10 Condition (DECC, 2008)

Moderate/good – high. Near-intact, remnant or regrow th native vegetation. Species richness and most native vegetation cover attributes in most plot/transects w ere at benchmark values for this vegetation type. All canopy species w ere observed regenerating. There are few hollow -bearing trees but good quantities of fallen w oody debris.

Conservation significance

Comprises a local occurrence of Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest w hich is listed as a CEEC under the EPBC Act and an EEC under the TSC Act.

Landscape position

Occurs on free draining clay or sandy clay soils derived from alluvium on low er slopes and f lats, mainly in the south of the site.

Structure Open forest w ith a variable, moderate to dense, structurally complex mid storey and a sparse shrub/grass understorey.

Over storey Continuous, around 15-25 metres tall and 15 to 30% cover. Dominated by Broad-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus fibrosa) w ith occasional Mugga Ironbark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon), Woolybutt (E. longifolia) and Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum (E. sclerophylla).

Mid storey Variable and structurally complex, including mature Melaleuca decora to 10 metres tall and up to 35% cover throughout; occasional very dense patches of Melaleuca species, Native Blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa spinosa) or Acacia species to three metres tall and locally up to 70 % cover; and tall shrubs such as Round Honey Myrtle (Melaleuca nodosa), Native Blackthorn and Daviesia ulicifolia to tw o metres tall and around 10% cover throughout.

Groundcover Sparse but structurally complex and variable including: grasses such as Threeaw n Speargrass (Aristida vagans), Bushy Hedgehog-grass (Echinopogon caespitosus) and Wiry Panic (Entolasia stricta); grass-like plants such as Variable Sw ord-sedge (Lepidosperma laterale), Blueberry Lily (Dianella revoluta)and Lomandra filiformis filiformis; shrubs such as Native Cranberry (Astroloma humifusum), Hairy Bush-pea (Pultenaea villosa) and Peach Heath (Lissanthe strigosa); and scramblers such as Variable Glycine (Glycine tabacina) and False Sarsaparilla (Hardenbergia violacea). There are extensive areas of leaf litter and occasional patches of bare earth.

Exotic species There is generally very low exotic plant cover including close to 0% cover along the majority of transects sampled. Exotic plant species recorded in plots include African Love Grass and w ind-borne environmental w eeds such as Firew eed (Senecio madagascariensis) and Fleabane (Conyza species).


Table 6 Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in high condition

Zone 2 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in high condition Vegetation Type (OEH, 2013a

HN542 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin (Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland)

Survey effort Plot/transects 1 and 4 Condition (DECC, 2008)

Moderate/good – high. Near-intact, remnant or regrow th native vegetation. Species richness and most native vegetation cover attributes in most plot/transects w ere at benchmark values for this vegetation type. Shrub cover w as substantially above benchmark values, potentially reflecting low er frequency of f ire. All canopy species w ere observed regenerating. There w ere good quantities of hollow -bearing trees, including tw o in each plot/transect sampled, but below benchmark quantities of fallen w oody debris.


Comprises a local occurrence of an EEC listed under the EPBC Act ‘Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland’ w hich is also a vulnerable ecological community (VEC) listed under the TSC Act: ‘Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland in the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ (also abbreviated to Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland).

Landscape position

Occurs on free draining sand or loamy sand soils derived from alluvium on low er slopes and f lats, throughout the site.

Structure Woodland or low w oodland w ith a variable, moderate to dense, structurally complex mid storey and dense, highly variable understorey of shrubs, grasses, sedges and herbs.

Over storey Continuous, around 5-20 metres tall and 10-25% cover. Dominated by Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum (Eucalyptus sclerophylla) and Thin-leaved Apple (Angophora bakeri) w ith occasional Parramatta Red Gum (E. parramattensis parramattensis), Woolybutt and Broad-leaved Ironbark.

Mid storey Variable and structurally complex, including mature Melaleuca decora to 10 metres tall and up to 40% cover throughout; occasional very dense patches of Melaleuca species, Three-veined Ti Tree (Leptospermum trinervium) or Acacia species to tw o metres tall and up to 70 % cover.

Groundcover Dense, structurally complex and variable. Dominated by shrubs such as Narrow -leaved Bottlebrush (Callistemon linearis); Hairpin Banksia (Banksia spinulosa), Needlebush (Hakea sericea) and the threatened Small-f low er Grevillea. Also includes: grasses such as Wiry panic, Brow n's Lovegrass (Eragrostis brownii) and Tw o-colour Panic (Panicum simile), sedges such as Fluke Bogrush (Schoenus apogon) and Baumea teretifolia; grass like plants such as Xanthorrea concavum and Lomandra species; herbs such as Poverty Raspw ort (Gonocarpus tetragynus), Grass Triggerplant (Stylidium graminifolium) and Variable Stinkw eed (Opercularia varia); and scramblers such as Glycine microphylla and Cassytha glabella.

Exotic species There is generally very low exotic plant cover including close to 0% cover along the majority of transects sampled. Exotic plant species recorded in plots include African Love Grass and w ind-borne environmental w eeds such as Dandelion (Taraxacum officianale).


Table 7 Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in poor condition

Zone 3 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in poor condition Vegetation Type (OEH, 2013a

HN542 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin (Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland)

Survey effort Plot/transects 2, 3 and 5 Condition (DECC, 2008)

Moderate/good – poor. Regrow th native vegetation on disturbed land w ith moderate to severe w eed infestation. Native over storey cover w as close to zero and many other native vegetation cover attributes w ere below benchmark values. Grass cover w as higher than in undisturbed examples of the community. On average greater than 50% of the groundcover present w as native.Three out of f ive overstorey species w ere observed regenerating. No hollow -bearing trees and very little fallen w oody debris w as recorded.


Comprises a local occurrence of an EEC listed under the EPBC Act ‘Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland’ as it meets the minimum condition criteria for the EEC of ‘>30% of the perennial understorey vegetation cover* is made up of native species’ (Dote, 2015). Also comprises a local occurrence of a VEC listed under the TSC Act: Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland.

Landscape position

Occurs on free draining sand or loamy sand soils derived from alluvium on low er slopes and f lats, in areas that have been cleared or otherw ise disturbed throughout the site. Includes some areas w here the topsoil has been scraped to expose heavy, clay subsoil and some areas of imported f ill.

Structure Open w oodland or low w oodland w ith a sparse patchy over storey, variable, moderate to dense, structurally complex mid storey and patchy understorey of shrubs, grasses, sedges and herbs. Includes an area of derived w etland dominated by w etland and aquatic herbs w ith occasional f lood-tolerant shrubs.

Over storey Patchy, around 5-10 metres tall and less than 5% cover, comprising sub mature regrow th or occasional isolated remnant Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum, Thin-leaved Apple or Woolybutt.

Mid storey Variable and structurally complex, including mature Melaleuca decora to 10 metres tall and up to 30% cover throughout; and occasional very dense patches of Melaleuca species, Black She-oak (Allocasuarina littoralis), Tickbush (Kunzea ambigua) or Acacia species to three metres tall and up to 50 % cover.

Groundcover Patchy and variable. Comparatively sparse cover of shrubs such as Native Cranberry (Astroloma humifusum) and Needlebush. Native groundcover, w here present, is dominated by grasses such as Threeaw n Speargrass (Aristida vagans), Aristida warburgii and Common Couch (Cynodon dactylon) along w ith: occasional sedges such as Common Fringe-sedge (Fimbristylis dichotoma), Rough Saw -sedge (Gahnia aspera) and Variable Sw ord-sedge (Lepidosperma laterale); herbs such as Poverty Raspw ort (Gonocarpus tetragynus), Grass Triggerplant and Variable Stinkw eed (Opercularia varia); and scramblers such as Glycine microphylla and Cassytha glabella. Occasional extensive areas of bare earth associated w ith top soil removal or dumped fill.

Exotic species Moderate to very high exotic plant cover including patches of very dense African Love Grass, Bamboo (Phylostacha species), Khaki Weed (Alternanthera pungens) or Blackberry (Rubus fruticosus species aggregrate) infestations and mixed patches of environmental w eeds such as Dandelion, Rhodes Grass (Chloris gayana), Stinkgrass (Eragrostis cilianensis) and Lamb's Tongues (Plantago lanceolata).


Zone 3 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland in poor condition


Table 8 Parramatta Red Gum swamp woodland in high condition

Zone 4 – Parramatta Red Gum woodland on moist alluvium in high condition Vegetation Type (OEH, 2013a

HN562 - Parramatta Red Gum w oodland on moist alluvium of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin (Parramatta Red Gum sw amp w oodland).

Survey effort Systematic traverse and general observations. Not sampled by plot/transects because it does not coincide w ith any likely remediation areas and because of diff icult access.

Condition (DECC, 2008)

Moderate/good – high. Near-intact, remnant native vegetation throughout the majority of the site. Structure and species composition has probably been affected by changes to the drainage of the site, including creation of near-permanently inundated sedgelands upstream of culverts. These changes fall w ithin the natural range of variation of the community.


Not listed under the EPBC Act. Comprises a local occurrence of an EEC: ‘Castlereagh Sw amp Woodland Community’ (Castlereagh Sw amp Woodland).

Landscape position Occurs on frequently inundated soils derived from alluvium on low er f lats, depressions and drainage lines throughout the site. Vegetation structure appears to vary w ith inundation frequency and depth but probably also f ire history.

Structure Woodland or low w oodland w ith a variable, moderate to dense, structurally complex mid storey and dense, highly variable understorey of shrubs, grasses, sedges , rushes and herbs. Includes some treeless areas.

Over storey Patchy, around 5-15 metres tall and 0-30% cover. Dominated by Parramatta Red Gum, Melaleuca decora, Flax-leaved Paperbark (Melaleuca linarifolia) and Angophora subvelutina w ith occasional Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum and Woolybutt

Mid storey Variable and structurally complex, including occasional very dense patches of Melaleuca species or Tantoon (Leptospermum polygalifolium) to tw o metres tall and up to 70 % cover.

Groundcover Dense, structurally complex and variable. Includes patches dominated by : f lood-tolerant shrubs such as Melaleuca nodosa and Tantoon; grasses such as Blady Grass and Cooch mixed w ith sedges such as Schoenus apogon, Juncus usitasis and Lepidosperma species; ferns such as Coral Fern s(Gleichenia species) and Common Maidenhair (Adiantum aethipicum) w ith shade and moisture loving herbs such as Purpleroot (Pratia purpurascens), Centella asiatica and Sw amp Goodenia (Goodenia paniculata); and rushland, including species such as Common Reed (Phragmites australis), Spike Rush (Eleocharis sphacelata), Chorizandra cymbaria and Lepyrodia anarthria.

Exotic species There is generally very low exotic plant cover. There are occasional patches of African Love Grass on higher ground and w ind-borne environmental w eeds such as Fleabane throughout. There is a localised severe infestation of Alligator Weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) in the w estern portion of the site, in the main channel of Anzac Creek upstream of the railw ay line.


Table 9 Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora grassy open forest on clay/gravel

Zone 5- Broad-leaved Ironbark –Melaleuca decora grassy open forest on clay/gravel Vegetation Type (OEH, 2013a

HN513 - Broad-leaved Ironbark – Grey Box - Melaleuca decora grassy open forest on clay/gravel soils of the Cumberland Plain, Sydney Basin (Broad-leaved Ironbark - Melaleuca decora grassy open forest on clay/gravel).

Survey effort Plot/transects 8 and 9 Condition (DECC, 2008)

Moderate/good – high. Near-intact, remnant or regrow th native vegetation. Species richness and most native vegetation cover attributes w ere at benchmark values for this vegetation type. One plot featured below benchmark values for over storey and mid storey vegetation cover but this w as clearly as a result of a recent f ire and this patch exhibited good post-f ire regeneration. All canopy species w ere observed regenerating. There w ere good quantities of hollow -bearing trees, including one in each plot/transect sampled and large quantities of fallen w oody debris.


Comprises a local occurrence of ‘Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest’ (Shale-Gravel Transition Forest) w hich is listed as a CEEC under the EPBC Act. Also comprises a local occurrence of the related community Shale-Gravel Transition Forest w hich is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act.

Landscape position Occurs on free draining, gravelly clay or sandy clay soils derived from alluvium on mid and upper slopes in the northw est of the site.

Structure Open forest w ith a variable, moderate to dense, structurally complex mid storey and a sparse shrub/grass understorey.

Over storey Continuous, around 15-25 metres tall and around 25% cover. Features a mixed canopy of Broad-leaved Ironbark (Eucalyptus fibrosa) and Forest Red Gum (E. tereticornis) w ith occasional Thin-leaved Stringybark (E. eugenioides).

Mid storey Variable and structurally complex, including mature Melaleuca decora to 10 metres tall and up to 40% cover throughout; occasional very dense patches of Native Blackthorn (Bursaria spinosa spinosa), Black Wattle (Acacia decurrens) or Parramatta Wattle (Acacia parramattensis) to f ive metres tall and 50 % cover.

Groundcover Dense and dominated by grasses and grass like plants such as Threeaw n Speargrass, Wiry Panic, Kangaroo Grass (Themeda australis), Weeping Grass (Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides), Tw o-colour Panic Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis, Many-flow ered Mat-rush (Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora). Other understorey species include occasional: shrubs such as Rough Guinea Flow er (Hibbertia aspera) and Peach heath; herbs such as Pomax (Pomax umbellata) and Hairy Stinkw eed; and scramblers such as False Sarsparilla and Glycine species. There are occasional patches of leaf litter, gravel and bare earth.

Exotic species There is generally very low exotic plant cover, including close to 0% cover along the majority of transects sampled. Exotic plant species recorded in plots include African Love Grass and w ind-borne environmental w eeds such as Dandelion and Fleabane.


5.3.3 Weeds

The Australian Weeds Strategy (AWS) provides a framework to establish consistent guidelines for all parties, identifying priorities for weed management across the nation with the aim of minimising the impact of weeds on Australia's environmental, economic and social assets (Australian Weeds Committee, 2014). The AWS includes the identification of ‘weeds of national significance’ (WoNS) which are recognised as Australia’s worst invasive plants. These weeds cause negative impacts to many of Australia’s natural and productive landscapes.

A total of five WoNs were observed in the site. These weeds are listed in Table 10 along with their legal status and a summary of their abundance and distribution in the site. Each of these WoNS are also listed as noxious weeds under the NW Act in the Liverpool LGA control area along with three further species. The NW Act Control Category and control requirements for these species are included Table 10. These control requirements are not a legal requirement on Commonwealth land however have been included as a guide to the comparative seriousness of each weed species.

Table 10 Noxious weeds and WoNS recorded in the site

Scientific Name Common Name

WoNS ? NW Act Control Category

Control Requirements

Asparagus asparagoides

Bridal Creeper Yes 4 The plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

Rubus fruticosus species aggregate

Blackberry Yes 4 The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread and the plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed This is an All of NSW declaration.

Lantana camara Lantana Yes 4 The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that reduces its numbers spread and incidence and continuously inhibits its reproduction and the plant must not be sold propagated or knowingly distributed.

Alternanthera philoxeroides

Alligator Weed Yes 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed

Senecio madagascariensis

Fireweed Yes 4 The plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

Olea europa subsp. cuspidata

African Olive No 4 The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread and the plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

Cortaderia species Pampas Grass No 3 The plant must be fully and continuously suppressed and destroyed and the plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/weeds/noxweed/noxious-app-application?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZ3ZWVkcy5kcGkubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRndlZWRzUHVibGljJTJGQ291bmNpbCUyRkRldGFpbHMlMkYwJmFsbD0x


Scientific Name Common Name

WoNS ? NW Act Control Category

Control Requirements

Phylostacca species Rhizomatous bamboo

No 4 The growth of the plant must be managed in a manner that continuously inhibits the ability of the plant to spread and the plant must not be sold, propagated or knowingly distributed

The distribution of these noxious weeds is closely tied to disturbance. The majority of the site is relatively intact and is free of these weeds other than a few isolated individuals of bird-spread species such as Bridal Creeper, Lantana and African Olive.

There is a localised, severe infestation of many of these noxious weeds in the west of the site, adjacent to the access trail where there has been dumping of building refuse fill material. The reach of Anzac Creek immediately to the north of this dumping area and eastward to the rail corridor is severely infested with the aquatic WoNS Alligator Weed.

There is a patchy, moderate infestation of these noxious weed species and environmental weeds such as African Love Grass in the regrowth vegetation in the southwest of the site.

There are patchy, generally minor infestations of wind and vehicle-spread environmental weeds along track edges and clearings in native vegetation throughout the site. These localised infestations include African Love Grass and herbs such as Dandelion, Fleabane and the WoNs Fireweed.

5.4 Fauna and habitats

5.4.1 Fauna species

A total of 39 fauna species were recorded in the study area, comprising 37 native species and two exotic species. The list of species recorded comprised 30 birds, three reptiles (including one exotic species), three mammals (one exotic species) and three frogs.

A moderate diversity and relatively high abundance of fauna species were recorded during the field surveys, despite limited targeted survey effort, which suggests that the site contains habitat with considerable value for native fauna.

A total of 27 native bird species were recorded including:

Large, generalist bird species common in urban areas, including the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo (Cacatua galerita), Australian Magpie (Cracticus tibicen), Pied Currawong (Strepera graculina) and Rainbow Lorikeets (Trichoglossus haematodus).

Small woodland bird species, including the Red-browed Finch (Neochmia temporalis), Grey Fantail (Rhipidura albiscapa), and Eastern Yellow Robin (Eopsaltria australis).

Birds of heath and scrub such as the White-eared Honeyeater (Lichenostomus leucotis) and Red Wattlebird (Anthochaera carunculata)

Birds of taller woodland and forest such as the Spotted Pardalote (Pardalotus punctatus), Yellow-faced honeyeater (Lichenostomus chrysops) and Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike (Coracina novaehollandiae)

Birds of moist forest understorey, including the Eastern Whipbird (Psophodes olivaceus), and White-browed Scrubwren (Sericornis frontalis)


Bird species of wetland and aquatic habitat, including the Pacific Black Duck (Anas superciliosa), White-faced Heron (Egretta novaehollandiae) and Chestnut Teal (Anas castanea).

The study area contains habitat resources for these species and a diverse range of other bird species of forests, woodlands and wetlands.

Red-bellied Black Snakes (Pseudechis porphyriacus) and Eastern Brown Snakes (Pseudonaja textilis) were observed by the GHD contamination specialists during site walkovers. No reptile species were observed during the ecology survey, probably because of the cool late-Autumn weather rather than a lack of suitable habitat. Other native reptile species that are likely to be present at the site include the Eastern Water Dragon (Physignathus lesueurii), Eastern Water-skinks (Eulamprus quoyii), Pale- and Dark-flecked Garden Sunskinks (Lampropholis delicata and L. guichenoti). A nest of the exotic turtle, the Red-eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans), was uncovered during test-pitting. This species would be present and potentially abundant in wetland and aquatic habitat throughout the site.

Two native terrestrial mammal species were recorded in the study area, the Swamp Wallaby (Wallabia bicolor) and Eastern Grey kangaroo (Macropus giganteus). The site would contain a range of other mammals of forest and scrub habitats such as the Red-necked Wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus), Long-nosed Bandicoot (Perameles nasuta) and Short-beaked Echidna (Tachyglossus aculeatus). The site would also contain arboreal mammal species such as the Common Ringtail Possum (Pseudocheirus peregrinus), Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) and Sugar Glider (Petaurus breviceps) and potentially also Yellow-bellied Gliders (Petaurus australis) or Eastern Pygmy-possums (Cercartetus nanus).

Bibron's Toadlet (Pseudophryne bibronii), Common Eastern Froglets (Crinia signifera) and Eastern Dwarf Tree Frogs (Litoria fallax) were heard calling at the site. The site would contain a number of additional species of tree frogs and marsh frogs, potentially including the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) and Littlejohn's Tree Frog (Litoria littlejohni).

5.4.2 Fauna habitats

There are three broad fauna habitat types within the study area:

Native woodland, scrub and forest.

Exotic scrub and cleared areas.

Aquatic and riparian habitat.

The study area is dominated by native woodland, scrub and forest in moderate to good condition. Overall the study area contains habitat with considerable value for native fauna in terms of: the diversity of habitat types; the quality and quantity of resources; and the extent and connectivity of habitat.

The suitability of these habitats for native fauna is discussed below, with particular emphasis on habitat resources of relevance to threatened fauna.

Woodland, scrub and forest

The study area contains a near-continuous patch of native woodland, scrub and forest. This habitat type provides shelter and resources for a wide range of native fauna of coastal forest environments. Habitat resources include: structurally diverse vegetation, including patches of dense mid storey and understorey shrubs; a range of fruiting and flowering trees and shrubs; abundant woody debris and leaf litter; and hollow-bearing trees. As discussed in Section 4.1.55 this vegetation also has relatively good connectivity with partially cleared native vegetation to the north, north-west and west (see Figure 1).


Woodland, scrub and forest in the study area is dense and structurally complex with vegetation strata, including: tall emergent Eucalyptus trees; open forest and woodland canopies; dense dry mid storey trees; dense, moist scrub canopy; dense dry, shrubby groundcover; and dense, moist patches of ferns, herbs and sedges. This range of vegetation structural forms provides shelter and foraging substrates for a diverse range of native mammals, reptiles, frogs and birds of dry sclerophyll forest, woodland, swamp forest, wetland and heathland.

There are a range of nectar and pollen-bearing plant species in the study area, including Eucalyptus, Angophora, Banksia, Acacia, Melaleuca and Leptospermum species, which would provide foraging resources for nectar-feeding fauna species, including honeyeaters, parrots, bats and arboreal mammals. These plant species are often present as a dense mid storey or shrub layer and would provide a relatively extensive and abundant source of foraging resources compared to other more open vegetation types. These nectar-bearing plants may provide foraging resources for a number of threatened species such as the Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus), Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla), Swift Parrot (Lathamus discolor) and Eastern Pygmy-possum (Cercartetus nanus). The study area contains winter-flowering species such as Red Bloodwood (Corymbia gummifera) which may provide seasonally important foraging resources for the Swift Parrot.

The site contains moderate amounts of She Oaks (Allocasuarina and Casuarina species) which are preferred feed trees for the Glossy Black-Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami)

The majority of the site features a dense, shrubby understorey. There are patches of open forest and grassy woodland at the site that would provide habitat for birds and mammals of these environments, especially as an adjunct to the partially cleared Defence land to the north and west. These portions of the site would comprise habitat for threatened woodland bird species such as the Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera), Scarlet Robin (Petroica boodang) and Flame Robin (Petroica phoenicea).

There are over 100 records of the Koala in the locality (OEH, 2014a) and the site contains preferred food tree species. Recognised food tree species comprise: Parramatta Red Gum and Forest Red Gum (primary food trees), Woolybutt (a secondary food tree) and Thin-leaved Stringybark (a supplementary food tree) (OEH, 2014e).

The draft referral guidelines for the Koala (DotE, 2013c), include a scoring system to identify habitat considered critical to the survival of Koalas. The habitat assessment tool included within the DotE (2013b) draft referral guidelines for the Koala scores habitats on five habitat attributes, and defines habitat critical to the survival of the Koala as habitats which score 5 or greater. Habitat at the site that may be affected by the project score 3 and would therefore not qualify as habitat critical to the survival of the Koala. The scores and descriptions for each habitat attribute are summarised below:

Koala occurrence (Score = 1): Koalas have been recorded within 5 km of the edge of the impact area within the last 5 years (OEH, 2014a).

Vegetation composition (Score = 2): Has forest or woodland with >2 known koala food tree species in the canopy (Woolybutt and Thin-leaved Stringybark).

Habitat connectivity (Score = 0): Area is part of a contiguous landscape <500 ha because the site is isolated by Moorebank Avenue, Wattle Grove, the DNSDC and the railway.

Key existing threats (Score = 0): Area has a significant vehicle threat present (Mooorebank Avenue, the suburb of Wattle Grove and the railway line).

Recovery value (Score = 0): habitat is unlikely to be important for achieving the interim recovery objectives for the relevant context. Habitat at the site is unlikely to be important in this context because of the area of alternative habitat south of the railway line in the


Holsworthy Military which is much more extensive and has direct connectivity with Heathcote National Park and the Woronora Special Area.

Woodland, scrub and forest at the site contains good quantities of leaf litter and woody debris, including large, often hollow fallen trees. Along with understorey vegetation this would provide shelter and/or foraging substrate for a range of native invertebrates, birds, terrestrial mammals, frogs and reptiles.

Habitat within the study area is close to a relatively large and continuous patch of habitat however is isolated by man made barriers such as roads and railway lines. This would reduce its value for less mobile threatened species such as the Koala, Spotted-tailed Quoll (Dasyurus maculatus) and Rosenberg's Goanna (Varanus rosenbergi).

There are hollow-bearing trees throughout the study area, particularly in the Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy woodland. These trees include hollows with a range of sizes, orientations and landscape positions and both living and dead trees. These hollows provide potential roosts and breeding sites for arboreal mammals, bats and birds potentially including threatened species such as the Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis), Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua), Eastern Pygmy Possum and Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus). There are numerous records of these threatened fauna species in the locality including within National Parks Sydney Catchment Authority land and Defence land (see Appendix B). Many of the hollow-bearing trees in the study area are close to permanent water which is the preferred context for species such as the Powerful Owl and Southern Myotis.

The entire site is underlain by alluvium or fill. There are no sandstone rock outcrops at the site or associated habitat resources such as rock fragments, overhangs, caves or fissures. The site does not provide shelter, foraging substrate or roost sites for any of the reptiles, frogs or microbats of sandstone country in the locality. Threatened species such as the Large-eared Pied-bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri), Little Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis), Broad-headed Snake (Hoplocephalus bungaroides) and Red-crowned Toadlet (Pseudophryne australis) have been recorded in the locality but would not occur at the site because of the absence of these sandstone country habitat resources.

Aquatic habitat

Anzac Creek flows through the centre of the site from the southwest to the northeast of the site and then along the eastern boundary. An unnamed first order tributary of Anzac Creek flows from south to north along the eastern boundary of the site. Anzac Creek is a tributary of the Georges River.

The entire mapped area of Parramatta Red Gum woodland comprises the EEC Castlereagh Swamp Woodland. This area would feature near-permanently wet soil and would be periodically inundated. There are a number of natural and artificial depressions that would carry ponded surface water after rainfall and would only overflow and drain to Anzac Creek during larger flood events. These include the former grenade range in Area C and natural depressions in areas of swamp woodland in the south and northeast of the site. The road of bullets through Area A in the north of the site (see Figure 1) is built up and would alter surface water flows in the vicinity, causing localised ponding.

Anzac Creek and associated drainage lines feature intact riparian vegetation, including many mature trees, high native plant species richness and high native vegetation cover. There is localised severe weed infestation in sections of the riparian corridor, particularly in the west of the site. The remainder of the in-stream and fringing vegetation is in good condition and dominated by native plant species. Water quality appeared moderate based on the observed presence of native frogs, fish and aquatic invertebrates.


Anzac Creek would provide breeding habitat for a number of stream-breeding frogs, such as Lesueur’s Frog (Litoria lesueuri). Intermittent flooded depressions throughout the Castlereagh Swamp Woodland may provide breeding habitat for the Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus) and Littlejohn's Tree Frog (Litoria littlejohni).

Anzac Creek provides suitable habitat for a wide range of aquatic invertebrates potentially including the threatened Giant Dragonfly (Petalura gigantea) which lives and breeds in permanent swamps and bogs with some free water and open vegetation. Adams Emerald Dragonfly (Archaeophya adamsi), is known from small creeks with gravel or sandy bottoms, in narrow, shaded riffle zones with moss and rich riparian vegetation (DPI 2014a) and would not occur at the site. The study area also contains broadly suitable habitat for at least two species of threatened fish however no threatened freshwater fish are known to occur in the Georges River catchment (DPI 2014a). The site contains relatively extensive freshwater wetlands and reed beds that could provide habitat for threatened species such as the Green and Golden Bell Frog (Litoria aurea), Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) or Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis).

There are no extensive open water habitats for species such as the Freckled Duck (Stictonetta naevosa). There is no estuarine habitat for species such as the Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus) or saltmarsh habitat for the White-fronted Chat (Epthianura albifrons) or wading birds. There are numerous records of each of these species in the locality however these are associated with the lower reaches of the Georges River. Habitat for these species is many kilometres from the site and would not be affected by the project.

Cleared land and exotic vegetation

Exotic grassland or scrub and cleared areas occur as small pockets and linear strips throughout the study area, including many areas that are too small to have been mapped as separate vegetation communities on Figure 2. Many species of fauna would use this habitat type as an adjunct to native vegetation in the study area but would not rely on it for any specific resources.

These areas have limited habitat value for native fauna. They do not contain any mature trees and associated hollows, nest sites or foraging resources. Small trees and shrubs would provide some foraging resources for native birds such as Superb Fairy Wrens and the Australian Magpie which were observed in these areas during the survey. Dense understorey vegetation such as Blackberry or Lantana clumps would provide shelter and foraging substrate for small terrestrial fauna, potentially including threatened species such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot. Native vegetation in the site provides equivalent or superior habitat resources. Most individuals of these species would use these areas as an adjunct to the higher quality, more extensive areas of intact native vegetation in the locality. It is unlikely that any species or individuals of native fauna would be reliant on these habitats for their survival.

These areas contain no other habitat features of relevance to threatened fauna.

5.5 Habitat connectivity

The site comprises a continuous patch of habitat of around 100 hectares. The majority of this area is intact native vegetation and it has a low edge to area ratio. This area would be large enough to comprise viable habitat for many patch size dependant fauna species such as woodland and heath birds. It immediately adjoins extensive areas of moderate quality habitat to the north, north-west and west within the DNSDC and Defence golf course. These areas feature derived open woodland or grassland vegetation with remnant mature trees. These areas would have little value for small shelter-dependant bird species, frogs, reptiles or small mammal species. They would provide habitat for kangaroos and wallabies as well as larger, open country


birds and more fauna more resilient to habitat modification such as the Common Brushtail Possum.

There are many thousands of hectares of habitat south of the East Hills railway line in the Holsworthy Military area. This habitat has direct connectivity with Heathcote National Park, the vegetated upper reaches of the Georges River and the Woronora Special Area. This area collectively comprises a very extensive patch of forest, woodland, heath and riparian habitat and based on numerous recorded observations (OEH, 2014a) contains local populations of many threatened fauna species. Notwithstanding the close proximity of this habitat the site is relatively isolated by man-made barriers, including high, continuous security fencing around the perimeter, Moorebank Avenue to the west and the railway line to the south. Birds, microbats and the Grey-headed Flying-fox would easily traverse these barriers. Some smaller species of fauna such as frogs, reptiles and smaller terrestrial mammals may be able to traverse these gaps via drains and culverts. Many terrestrial and arboreal mammals and larger reptile species would not be able to cross these gaps without a significant increase in the risk or energy cost of travelling (if at all). This context limits the value of the habitat resources at the site for large terrestrial or arboreal fauna species, including threatened species such as the Koala, Spotted-tailed Quoll and Rosenberg's Goanna.

5.6 Conservation significance

Threatened biota that were recorded at the site are mapped on Figure 4These threatened biota are discussed below along with additional species that may occur based on the desktop assessment results and the habitats present at the site.

5.6.1 Threatened ecological communities

There are local occurrences of three TECs listed under the EPBC Act at the site:

‘Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest’ (Shale-Gravel Transition Forest), which is listed as a critically endangered ecological community (CEEC) under the EPBC Act.

‘Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ (Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest) which is listed as a CEEC under the EPBC Act.

‘Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion’ (Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland), which is listed as an endangered ecological community (EEC) under the EPBC Act.

The local occurrences of these communities are shown on Figure 4. See Table 5, to Table 9 for detailed descriptions.

The local occurrence of Shale-Gravel Transition Forest is located in the northwest of the Boot Land site and is around 11.6 hectares in area (see Figure 4). A much larger area of this CEEC was mapped in the study area by URS (2004) including some patches at the site for this assessment. The difference in area between this former study and the current mapping is because the majority of this area has been reclassified as Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest. See Section 5.3.2 for a description of the vegetation zones that comprise these communities and the plant species and landscape attributes that set them apart. The reclassification and mapping of areas previously mapped as Shale-Gravel Transition Forest as Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest in the current assessment was based on the following evidence:

Comparison of the plant species lists from Plot/transects 6, 7 and 10 with diagnostic species lists included in Tozer et al. (2010) Native vegetation of southeast NSW: a


revised classification and map for the coast and eastern tablelands which showed a higher proportion of positive diagnostic species for Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest.

The comparatively open understorey vegetation, which featured a mix of shrubs and grasses as distinct from the dense, grassy understorey associated with Shale-Gravel Transition Forest (OEH, 2014b).

The clay soil, with relatively low gravel content, that appeared to be composed of Tertiary alluvium with little influence of Shale.

The absence of Shale woodland canopy species such as Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and Grey Box (Eucalyptus moluccana).

All native vegetation at the site comprises local occurrences of TECs listed under the TSC Act. The Castlereagh Swamp Woodland Community, which is listed as an EEC, is the only TEC that is not also listed under the EPBC Act.

The mapped distribution of Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland and Castlereagh Swamp Woodland Community at the site is similar to the vegetation mapping previously prepared by URS (2004).

5.6.2 Threatened flora species

Populations of four threatened plant species were recorded at the site (refer Figure 4), comprising:

At least 263 individuals of the Downy Wattle (Acacia pubescens), which is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act and TSC Act. The individuals recorded in the local population occur in Shale-Gravel Transition Forest and Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and are likely to occur in broader areas in these communities. The population of this species would be likely to fluctuate in response to fire (OEH, 2014b). Downy Wattle was very abundant in some areas that had been burnt five to ten years ago, including two dense patches with estimated counts of around 50 and 100 individuals each.

At least 1564 stems of the Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora), which is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act and TSC Act. The individuals recorded in the local population occur in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland and Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest throughout the site with the greatest numbers along the disturbed edges of vegetation patches and in natural clearings. The majority of the Small-flower Grevilleas that were recorded are in Area C of the site (at least 1110 stems). The population of this species would be likely to fluctuate in response to fire and other disturbance (OEH, 2014b).

At least 41 individuals of the Nodding Geebung (Persoonia nutans), which is listed as an endangered species under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act. The individuals recorded in the local population occur in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland and Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest throughout the site with the greatest numbers along the disturbed edges of vegetation patches and in natural clearings. The population of this species would be likely to fluctuate in response to fire and other disturbance (OEH, 2014b).

At least five individuals of Bynoe’s Wattle (Acacia bynoeana), which is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act and an endangered species under the TSC Act. Area C is the only location in the Boot land where this species has been observed to


date. The individuals recorded in the local population occur in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland in the southwest of the site.

The local populations of these threatened plants are likely to be greater than these counts as the survey of the site was intended as a sample and not a systematic census of the populations. The survey may also have been subject to seasonal limitations with the Small-flower Grevillea in particular likely to be easier to detect when flowering.

Based on the desktop assessment and habitat assessments there is potential habitat for a further six threatened flora species at the site comprising:

Allocasuarina glareicola (endangered species under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act)

Pultenaea parviflora (vulnerable species under the EPBC Act and endangered under the TSC Act)

Brown Pomaderris (Pomaderris brunnea vulnerable species under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act)

Matted Bush-pea (Pultenaea pedunculata endangered species under the TSC Act)

Netted Bottle Brush (Callistemon linearifolius vulnerable species under the TSC Act)

White-flowered Wax Plant (Cynanchum elegans endangered species under the EPBC Act and the TSC Act).

These species may occur at the site in low numbers, or may be cryptic when not flowering or fruiting and may not have been detected in this one off survey. These species may also occur as dormant individuals in the soil seed bank or may colonise the site from nearby areas of native vegetation in the future.

5.6.3 Threatened fauna species

No threatened fauna species listed under the EPBC Act were recorded at the site. The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) has been recently recorded in land adjoining the site (Hyder, 2013). The Grey-headed Flying-fox is listed as a vulnerable species under the EPBC Act and under the TSC Act).

One threatened fauna species listed under the TSC Act was recorded: the Little Eagle (Hieratus morphnoides), which is listed as a vulnerable species.

Based on the desktop assessment and habitat assessments undertaken a further 14 threatened fauna species are likely to occur as local populations at the site or use habitat resources at the site on at least a transitory or seasonal basis, comprising:

Black-chinned Honeyeater (eastern subspecies) (Melithreptus gularis gularis, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Eastern Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Eastern False Pipistrelle (Falsistrellus tasmaniensis, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Eastern Freetail-bat (Mormopterus norfolkensis, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Eastern Pygmy-possum (Cercartetus nanus, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Gang-gang Cockatoo (Callocephalon fimbriatum, vulnerable species listed)


Giant Burrowing Frog (Heleioporus australiacus, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act and under the EPBC Act)

Greater Broad-nosed Bat (Scoteanax rueppellii, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Little Bentwing-bat (Miniopterus australis, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Little Lorikeet (Glossopsitta pusilla, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Powerful Owl (Ninox strenua, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Southern Myotis (Myotis macropus, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Varied Sittella (Daphoenositta chrysoptera, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act)

Yellow-bellied Sheathtail-bat (Saccolaimus flaviventris, vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act).

A further 19 threatened fauna species may possibly occur at the site based on the presence of marginal habitat resources or broadly suitable habitat outside of the species recently recorded range, and are listed in Appendix B.

5.6.4 Migratory species

No migratory bird species were observed during field surveys. Terrestrial migratory species predicted by the Protected Matters Search Tool (DotE, 2014) such as the Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis), Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) and Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus) and a range of other seasonally migratory or nomadic species would be likely to utilise habitats at the site on occasion.

Wetland vegetation at the site may provide resources for some migratory wetland bird species such as Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) or Eastern Great Egrets (Ardea modesta). No roost sites, nesting colonies or other evidence that wetlands at the site support large numbers of migratory species was noted.

There are no mudflats, saltmarsh or estuarine habitats for migratory bird species at the site.

An area of ‘important habitat’ for a migratory species is: habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species, and/or; habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages, and/or; habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range, and/or; habitat within an area where the species is declining (DotE, 2013a). Given the size and quality of habitat for migratory species contained at the site it would not comprise important habitat.

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!( !(!( !(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!( !(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

MOOR

EBAN

KAV

E

Anzac Creek

20

620 50+100

21 1

+-20

-+20

12

206

16100

20

1 14

4

1

710

164 18151230 105

11

35

20604020

1

10

8 51

4

2810

33

57

1

1111

11 1

11

51 1

13

111

11

1

1

1 1

1

32

6

2

1

37

1512

3114

8

1

1

2061854160

3

611

34

2

2

2

13

3

38

1

N:\AU \S ydney\Projects\21\23492\GIS \Maps\Deliverables\Ecology\21_ 23492_ Z 036_ MOOREBANK _ Ecology_ T hreatened_ Biota_ U X O_ Fig4.mxd

LEGEND

0 50 100 150 200

MetresMap Projection: T ransverse Mercator

Horiz ontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA)Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Z one 56 o

© 2010. W hile GHD has tak en care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and DAT A CU S T ODIAN, mak e no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DAT A CU S T ODIAN, cannot accept liability of any k ind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Department of Defence‘Boot Land’, MoorebankEcological Impact Assessment of Remediation

Figure 4

Job NumberRevision A

21-23492

22 May 2015

T hreatened biotaDate

Data S ource: Imagery - Google Earth Pro 2012 (Retrieved 15-05-2014). Created by: qjchung

Level 15, 133 Castlereagh S treet S ydney NS W 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(

6

50102010

20+100

New DNSDC

Existing DNSDC

Wattle Grove

S ite Boundary (Approximate)Area requiring remediation for phases 2 and 3Creek lines (Approximate)

Threatened Ecological CommunitiesCastlereagh S cribbly Gum W oodland (EEC under the EPBC Act and VEC under the T S C Act)Castlereagh S wamp W oodland (EEC under the T S C Act)Cook s River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CEEC under the EPBC Act, EEC under the T S C Act)S hale/Gravel T ransition Forest (CEEC under the EPBC Act and T S C Act)

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

4

4

32 4

7

1

1

617

1210

303013

12 153418

421012

!(

!(!(!( !( !( !(!(

!(!( !(!(

!( !( !(111

31

3111

11111

5

NOTE:The mapped area requiring remediation is indicative only. The area disturbed for remediation activities would be smallerthan the mapped polygons

Threatened Plants!( Bynoe's W attle (vulnerable under the EPBC Act and endangered under the T S C Act)!( Downy W attle (vulnerable under the EPBC Act and T S C Act)!( Nodding Geebung (endangered under the EPBC Act and T S C Act)!( S mall-flower Grevillea (vulnerable under the EPBC Act and T S C Act)


6. Impact assessment 6.1 Direct impacts

6.1.1 Overview

The proposed remediation would be conducted in phases as follows:

Phase 1: UXO removal & validation in Area C

Phase 2.1: Excavation of contaminated soil and stockpiles at the road of bullets (Area A)

Phase 2.2: Excavation of contaminated soil and stockpiles in Areas B, C, D, E and F

Phase 2.3: Removal of contaminated railway ballast, natural and fill soils at locations in Areas C and D

Phase 3: Emu pick of surface asbestos fragments at 11 locations across the site.

Areas requiring remediation and remediation phases are shown on Figure 2. A description of the proposed works associated with each phase is provided in Section 2 and impacts are assessed below.

Phase 1

The proposed UXO remediation requires biomass reduction to ensure that contractors have clear access to the soil surface to detect and remove UXO material. Contractors must be able to swing a metal detector arm freely and to visually inspect the soil surface. Vegetation with a dense shrubby understorey must have vegetation cover reduced. Mounded fill material must be spread to create flat, thin layers that can be searched. Phase 1 would include direct impacts on up to 11 hectares of native vegetation and habitat as summarised in Table 11.

Biomass reduction would only be conducted in areas where UXO remediation is required. UXO material is likely to be concentrated around the site of the former grenade range in the north of Area C (see Figure 1) and reduce farther away from this area (Guthrie, G.; G-Tek, pers. comm.). Biomass reduction is unlikely to be required across the whole of the site. UXO detection and remediation would begin around the site of the former grenade range and progressively clear portions of the site. Biomass reduction would cease once the contractor is satisfied that there is minimal risk of additional UXO material. The concentration of UXO material is likely to drop off within a smaller area than the maximum UXO management areas shown on Figure 5 and is likely to include less biomass reduction than is presented in Table 11.

Phase 2

Phase 2 of the project will comprise excavation and removal off site of contaminated soil and stockpiles. The mapped areas of contaminated soil and stockpiles requiring remediation for phase 2 that are shown on Figure 2 are indicative only. The area disturbed for remediation activities would be smaller than the mapped polygons. The point labels on Figure 2 provide the estimated areas and volumes that would be remediated at each location. It is not possible to calculate the extent of direct impacts because the areas in question are too small and/or loosely defined to be accurately mapped using GIS. Further, phase 2 of the project will include temporary access tracks and stockpiles at locations that will be defined after pre-remediation surveys. The final location of these features will be selected to minimise impacts on biodiversity values.


Overall phase 2 would include localised and temporary impacts on native vegetation and habitat, which would be largely concentrated in tracks, stockpiles or other highly disturbed environments.

Phase 3

Phase 3 of the project will comprise contractors walking through the site and collecting asbestos fragments by hand using an ‘emu pick’ technique. The mapped areas of asbestos fragments requiring remediation for phase 3 that are shown on Figure 2 are indicative only. The area disturbed for remediation activities would be smaller than the mapped polygons. The point labels on Figure 2 provide the estimated areas of asbestos fragments that would be remediated at each location.

Overall phase 3 would include localised, temporary and very minor impacts on native vegetation and habitat.

6.1.2 Removal of vegetation and habitat

Native vegetation

Biomass reduction for UXO remediation would result in the temporary modification of a maximum of 11.82 hectares of vegetation, including 10.67 hectares of relatively intact native vegetation in good condition out of the 100 hectares of similar native vegetation in the Boot Land site. The extent of biomass reduction would vary significantly between UXO management areas. The overall maximum 11.8 hectare project disturbance footprint would comprise:

Up to 0.99 hectares of vegetation removal in ‘core biomass reduction’ areas. All vegetation will be removed with a slasher to create a clear level surface. Fill material will be spread with an excavator or equivalent. This entire area has been subject to concentrated activity associated with the former grenade range and/or earthworks and features relatively immature vegetation. 1.15 hectares of these areas comprise moderate/good-poor condition native vegetation or cleared land and there are no threatened plants. Native trees >100mm diameter at breast height (DBH) will be retained if practicable. The area will be revegated after remediation.

Up to 9.06 hectares of vegetation removal in ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas. Mid storey and groundcover vegetation cover will be reduced with a slasher set to a height of 100mm. Trees with >100mm DBH will be retained. Identified threatened plants will be retained by not operating a slasher within two metres of flagged specimens. Supplementary reduction of vegetation cover with mechanical hand tools will be performed as required. These areas contain native vegetation in moderate-good condition with very occasional threatened plants. There would also be the removal of individual plants and disturbance of soil to remove individual UXO as required.

Up to 0.70 hectares of vegetation modification in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ areas. The minimum amount of mid-storey and groundcover vegetation required to achieve access for UXO remediation will be removed with mechanical tools. These areas contain moderate numbers of threatened plants but feature relatively high vegetation cover (mainly of non-threatened plants) that would be need to be reduced to detect UXO. There would also be the removal of individual plants and disturbance of soil to remove individual UXO as required.

Minimal impacts on vegetation in 1.05 hectares of ‘no biomass reduction’ areas. UXO remediation will be undertaken around mid-storey and groundcover vegetation. These areas contain high numbers of threatened plants, but sufficiently low vegetation cover for successful UXO remediation. Some individual plants may need to be trimmed with


secateurs (or equivalent) to allow UXO detection. There would also be the removal of individual plants and disturbance of soil to remove individual UXO as required.

The majority of the proposed excavation areas are associated with disturbed cleared land or dumped fill with minimal native vegetation cover (see phases 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 on Figure 2). Excavation and disposal of contaminated soil at the road of bullets would be restricted to fill material associated with the road itself. The majority of the stockpiles to be removed are within or immediately adjoining cleared access tracks or easements. Fill material is only likely to contain exotic weeds and opportunistic native understorey plants. The proposed excavation would occur in these areas with minimal removal of native vegetation.

Some of the stockpiles included in phase 2.2 are within patches of native vegetation (see Figure 2). Some native vegetation would need to be trimmed and/or traversed by vehicles to access the stockpiles via temporary access tracks and/or to excavate the contaminated material. Use of temporary access tracks would entail rubber tyred vehicles traversing the natural soil surface to access stockpiles. No excavation or grading is proposed. Based on observations during the ecology and contamination assessments it should be possible to access the stockpiles using this method. Test pits were excavated at the site using an equivalent approach without any substantial impacts on vegetation or landforms (pers. obs.). The project includes specific measures to minimise vegetation removal as far as is practicable. Pre-remediation surveys would be conducted to ensure clear marking of threatened plants, important habitat resources or other biodiversity values in the vicinity of remediation areas and placement of temporary access tracks away from these features. Vegetation removal, movement of vehicles and excavation would be restricted to gaps between mature trees.

All of the stockpiles that are surrounded by native vegetation are less than 20 metres2 in area and could be accessed via temporary access tracks that are less than 100 metres in length. Only a small proportion of the native vegetation at the Boot Land site would need to be trimmed or removed. These localised and temporary impacts would have a minimal effect on the viability of plant populations and ecological communities at the site.

Land clearance is listed as a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act. Land clearance consists of the destruction of the above ground biomass of native vegetation and its substantial replacement by non-local species or by human artefacts. Substantial replacement by non-local species or human artefacts is defined as the achievement of more than 70% of the total cover by species or human artefacts that did not occur previously on the site (Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2001). The project would include the temporary removal or modification of native vegetation through slashing and spreading of fill material. Native vegetation would be allowed to regenerate in natural soil profiles after the proposed remediation and active revegetation would be undertaken on areas of spread fill. Fill material would only be spread on areas of previously exposed subsoil or highly modified soil covered by poor condition vegetation. The project does not comprise land clearance as defined under the EPBC Act because all vegetation at the site would be allowed to regenerate or would be revegetated after the proposed remediation has been completed. The majority of mature trees and topsoil and a large proportion of mid storey and groundcover plants would be left undisturbed across the site. Mechanical slashers used in ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas would be set to around 100 mm height. Many native groundcover plants such as herbs and scramblers are smaller than this height and would escape damage. The majority of native grasses and sedges have a dense, low and/or creeping rhizome and can resprout after slashing. There is a risk that slash residues may inhibit the regeneration of some species from seed or rhizomes. Many of the native shrubs and taller forbs at the site have a lignotuber or a similar store of energy in their lower trunk and rootstock that allows them to resprout after slashing (often referred to as ‘suckering’). Overall, given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants outside of areas requiring


remediation and in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ and ‘no biomass reduction’ areas, vegetation at the site it is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as weed infestations or erosion (see Section 7.3.4).

The biomass reduction described above would remove habitat resources for native fauna including shelter, food and foraging substrate. Impacts would be largely restricted to habitat resources associated with mid storey shrubs. No hollow-bearing trees would be removed. Only a small number of mature trees with DBH >100mm would be removed, comprising only those trees growing in or immediately adjacent to mounded fill in up to 0.9 hectares of core vegetation removal areas or immediately adjacent to stockpiles that would be exacavated. Large woody debris would be left undisturbed because UXO material would not occur under these features (Guthrie, G.; G-Tek, pers. comm.). Impacts associated with modification of fauna habitat would be minor, localised and temporary and are unlikely to remove a significant proportion of the habitat resources that are relied upon by local fauna populations.

There would also be vegetation removal and soil disturbance at the location of individual UXO or fragments of asbestos and other contaminated material. UXO would be excavated carefully using hand tools and the extent of vegetation removal and soil disturbance would be minimised as far as is practicable. Less than 0.5 m2 of habitat would be disturbed at the location of each UXO. Fragments of asbestos and other contaminated material would be removed by hand using ‘emu pick’ techniques. No vegetation would be removed.

A small proportion of UXO may be live and would require controlled detonation with a small explosive charge. All such impacts would be localised and temporary. In the context of at least 100 hectares of similar vegetation in the study area, the removal or detonation of UXO would affect a very minor proportion of plants and habitat.

All of the native vegetation that would be affected comprises occurrences of TECs listed under the EPBC Act and/or the TSC Act. Temporary removal or modification of these small areas of vegetation would not threaten the viability or persistence of these TECs within the locality.

As described above the site contains substantial populations of at least four species of threatened plants. The project would not permanently remove or modify any habitat for threatened plants.

A pre-remediation survey would be undertaken within the remediation areas at the site prior to any vegetation removal or soil disturbance. Any threatened plants within or near remediation areas would be marked. Based on the results of the initial ecological survey, the Phase 2 remediation areas would contain few if any threatened plants (see Figure 4). The project would be undertaken in accordance with the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) (GHD, 2015c). Contractors would be trained to recognise threatened plant species and would pay due attention to flagging tape, GPS points and plans indicating threatened plants. The proposed removal of contaminated material could be undertaken with direct impacts on very few, if any threatened plants.

A targeted survey has already been undertaken across Area C of the site to identify and mark threatened plants. UXO remediation contractors would be trained to recognise threatened plant species and would pay due attention to flagging tape, GPS points and plans indicating threatened plants and UXO management areas. The densest populations of threatened plants are in areas with comparatively open mid storey and groundcover vegetation that could be investigated for UXO without mechanical biomass reduction (see areas of ‘No biomass reduction’ on Figure 5). The risk of harm or mortality of threatened plants in these areas is very low. Conversely areas of the site with dense mid storey vegetation, that would require


mechanical slashing to achieve UXO remediation, tend to have few or no threatened plants. Further, UXO remediation would only be required in areas where evidence of UXO contamination is identified.

Phase 1, the proposed UXO removal in Area C, may result in harm to a small number of threatened plants as described in detail for individual species below.

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(!( !(!( !(!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

2

20

106

20 10

50

+10020

6

16100

20

4 4

1

1

4

74

6

112

10

42

21

1

1

7

10

16

4

18

341512

133030

10

5

11

3

5

20

60

40

20

10

8

1

1 11 1 1 1 1

1

1

3 1

31 1

1

1

3223

32

6

62

4

3

92

11

3

1

36

6

3815

1515

97

8

55

81

1515

610

1556

15

12

12

17

47

10

3

611

4

12

17

44

8

1

1

6

20640

185

1

41 60

3

1

23

6

7

16

11

26

8

34

1

1

1

4

46

2

1

1 15

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

3

4

3

3

8

5

1

N:\AU\Sydney\Projects\21\23492\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\Ecology\21_23492_Z016_MOOREBANK_Ecology_Threatened_PlantsUXO_Fig5.mxd

LEGEND

0 20 40 60 80

Metres

Map Projection: Transverse MercatorHorizontal Datum: Geocentric Datum of Australia (GDA)

Grid: Map Grid of Australia 1994, Zone 56 o© 2010. While GHD has taken care to ensure the accuracy of this product, GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN, make no representations or warranties about its accuracy, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose. GHD and DATA CUSTODIAN, cannot accept liability of any kind (whether in contract, tort or otherwise) for any expenses, losses, damages and/or costs (including indirect or consequential damage) which are or may be incurred as a result of the product being inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable in any way and for any reason.

Department of DefenceMoorebank "Boot Land Site" Ecological Impact Assessment of UXO Removal

Figure 5

Job NumberRevision 0

21-23492

22 May 2015

Threatened plants and UXO management areas

Date

Data Source: Imagery - Google Earth Pro 2012 (Retrieved 15-05-2014). Created by: qjchung

Level 15, 133 Castlereagh Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 61 2 9239 7100 F 61 2 9239 7199 E [email protected] W www.ghd.com.au

New DNSDC

Site Boundary (Approximate)

Area requiring remediation for phases 2 and 3

Creeklines (Approximate)

Incomplete Data

Threatened Plants!( Bynoe's Wattle (vulnerable under the EPBC Act and endangered under the TSC Act)

!( Downy Wattle (vulnerable under the EPBC Act and TSC Act)

!( Nodding Geebung (endangered under the EPBC Act and TSC Act)

!( Small-flower Grevillea (vulnerable under the EPBC Act and TSC Act)

UXO Management Areas1- core biomass reduction

2 - partial biomass reduction

3 - minimal biomass reduction

4 - no biomass reduction

NOTE:1) Point labels indicate the number of individuals observed at each location.2) UXO remediation would only be required in areas where evidence of UXO contamination is identified. Vegetation reduction would only be conducted in areas where UXO remediation is required. 3) Incomplete data is due to equipment failure. The mapped area includes additional Small-flower Grevillea points.


Table 11 Area of vegetation zones within UXO management areas

Vegetation type Condition TSC Act status

EPBC Act status

Core biomass reduction

area (hectares)

Partial biomass reduction

area (hectares)

Minimal biomass reduction

area (hectares)

No biomass reduction

area (hectares)

Total area at the site (hectares)

1 - Broad-leaved Ironbark – Melaleuca decora shrubby open forest

Moderate/good – high

EEC CEEC 0.00 2.98 0.25 0.34 3.57

2 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland in high condition


VEC EEC 0.39 4.06 0.42 0.68 5.55

3 - Hard-leaved Scribbly Gum - Parramatta Red Gum heathy w oodland in poor condition

Moderate/good – poor

VEC - 0.60 0.21 0.02 0.02 0.85

4 - Parramatta Red Gum w oodland Moderate/good – high

EEC - 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.55

5 - Bro a d -lea ved Iro nb a rk –Mela leuc a d ec o ra gra ssy o pen fo rest o n c la y/gra vel


CEEC CEEC 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6 – Cleared land and exotic vegetation Cleared 0.00 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.30

Total 0.99 9.06 0.71 1.06 11.82


Small-flower Grevillea

The biomass reduction for UXO removal in Area C is likely to result in direct impacts on the local population of Small-flower Grevillea, including:

Slashing of a maximum of 78 Small-flower Grevillea stems in ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas in patches of mid storey vegetation that is too dense to clear with mechanical hand tools.

Slashing of plants that were not detected in the survey of ‘core biomass reduction’ and ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas.

Accidental damage to plants in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ or ‘no biomass reduction areas’.

Damage to plants that are immediately next to UXO that require excavation or detonation.

Small-flower Grevillea plants are capable of suckering from a rhizome and most populations demonstrate a degree of vegetative spread, particularly after disturbance such as fire (OEH, 2015). Small-flower Grevillea plants at the site are likely to regenerate after slashing or mechanical biomass reduction provided that the rhizome is not uprooted or otherwise disturbed and the topsoil is not removed (Makinson, B. RBG, pers. comm.). Biomass reduction would be to a height of around 100 mm and would leave the rhizomes of Small-flower Grevillea and other shrubs relatively undisturbed and capable of vegetative regeneration. Overall the project would injure or remove a very small proportion of the population of at least 1564 stems of Small-flower Grevillea in the study area. Plants in the local population that are likely to escape harm include:

Around 468 stems recorded in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ which are likely to escape harm.

Around 564 stems recorded in ‘no biomass reduction areas’ which are at very little risk of harm.

At least 464 stems in the local population that are outside the site and at no risk of harm from the project.

It should be noted that the number of stems of Small-flower Grevillea in portions of the Boot Land outside of the site is likely to be far greater than 464 because these areas have been surveyed with much less intensity than the site.

Small-flower Grevillea often occurs in open, slightly disturbed sites such as along tracks (OEH, 2015) and the majority of the stems at the site were in open areas (pers. obs.). The short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for the species and may have positive effects.

Nodding Geebung

All Nodding Geebung individuals observed at the site have been marked with flagging tape and occur in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ or ‘no biomass reduction areas’. There may be accidental damage to these plants or additional plants that were not detected and/or damage to plants that are immediately next to UXO that require excavation or detonation. Overall the project would injure or remove a very small proportion of the population of at least 40 Nodding Geebung individuals in the study area, including at least 38 that are outside the site and at no risk of harm from the project.

Nodding Geebung seed germination is promoted by fire and also by physical disturbance with disturbed sites having the greatest abundance of the species (OEH, 2015). A significant majority of the individuals of these species at the site were in open areas (pers. obs.) with most Nodding Geebung individuals located along the edges of tracks (see Figure 4). The physical disturbance


and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for these species and may have positive effects.

Bynoe’s Wattle

All of the five stems of Bynoe’s Wattle recorded in the study are located inside the site and so extra attention would be paid to avoiding impacts on these individuals. All five stems are located in ‘no biomass reduction areas’ and have been marked with flagging tape and so there is minimal risk of accidental damage to these plants. There is a risk of impacts to additional plants that were not detected and/or damage to plants that may occur immediately next to UXO that require excavation or detonation.

Bynoe’s Wattle is associated with open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail margins, edges of roadside spoil mounds and in recently burnt patches (OEH, 2015). The physical disturbance and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for these species and may have positive effects.

Other native plant species

The proposed UXO remediation within a maximum of 11.8 hectares of native vegetation would involve removal of a moderately diverse range of non-threatened native plants, including a small number of mature trees. Mature trees have value within plant populations as sources of pollen and seed. There are moderate areas of these vegetation types and plant species in the locality, including around connected vegetation to the east and west within the study area (see Figure 2). This minor reduction in the extent of connected native vegetation would not threaten the persistence of local populations of native plants. Flora populations would persist within adjoining areas of alternative habitat beyond the project site.

6.1.3 Injury or mortality of fauna

Biomass reduction or soil excavation may result in the injury or mortality of fauna that may be sheltering at the site. As described above the project would remove or modify a very small proportion of the vegetation and habitat in the study area. Biomass reduction would happen slowly and in stages as transects are progressively cleared of UXO as part of phase 1 and then other contaminated material is removed in phases across the site. There would be extensive areas of refuge habitat for displaced fauna in the rest of the Boot Land. Many species of fauna such as adult birds and terrestrial mammals would easily evade injury during biomass reduction. Arboreal mammals, nesting birds and hollow-roosting birds or microbats may be vulnerable to impacts during slashing and removal of trees, where required, in ‘core biomass reduction areas’. Small terrestrial fauna, may be vulnerable to impacts during slashing or mechanical biomass reduction in ‘partial’ and ‘minimal biomass reduction areas’ performed for UXO removal or temporary access track construction or if they are sheltering in excavation areas. The potential injury or mortality of individuals within a maximum of 10.6 hectares of better quality habitat in native vegetation and 1.2 hectares of poor quality habitat that would be removed or modified for phase 1 of the project is highly unlikely to affect an ecologically significant proportion of any local populations. Phases 2 and 3 of the project would involve minor and highly localised impacts in a small area of poorer quality habitat and would injure or harm very few, if any animals.

Nesting birds and roosting microbats may be vulnerable to injury or mortality if present during clearing of trees within the around one hectare of ‘core biomass reduction areas’. There are no hollow bearing trees in ‘core biomass reduction areas’. All of the identified hollow-bearing trees at the site would be avoided and retained during biomass reduction. Less mobile fauna individuals may be resident in in ‘core biomass reduction areas’, sheltering in loose bark or fissures or in stick nests. Pre-clearing fauna surveys will be undertaken as part of the BMP to


reduce the risk of injury or mortality to native fauna and especially tree-dwelling fauna. These surveys will involve the inspection of trees for resident fauna as a precautionary measure prior to felling. The BMP will also contain protocols for the felling of habitat trees and measures for the safe management of native fauna if detected in trees or on site generally during construction (see Section 6). No trees greater than 100mm DBH would be removed in the remaining 10.8 hectares of Area C and there is around 90 hectares of additional refuge habitat in the remainder of the Boot Land site.

A number of other more mobile threatened fauna species may occur on occasion, probably on a transient basis only (see Appendix A). The removal of vegetation would have a negligible impact on these species. No hollow-bearing trees (potential breeding habitat for various threatened species) would be removed. Any of the more mobile species that may occur on occasion would breed elsewhere in the locality. Foraging resources present at the site would represent a negligible proportion of the foraging resources of these species available in the locality. None of these other species would rely on the resources present at the site for their continued survival in the locality. Overall, the site is likely to make a minor contribution to the maintenance of local populations of native species and threatened biota.

6.1.4 Isolation and fragmentation of habitat

The project would not create any permanent barriers to fauna movement or other ecological processes or sever any vegetated links. The project would not isolate any habitat.

Biomass reduction across the site and complete removal in ‘core biomass reduction’ areas would create small gaps in habitat for less mobile or shelter-dependant fauna. There would be extensive areas of refuge habitat for displaced fauna at the site as well as in adjoining areas in the rest of the Boot Land. Pollinator species and most other fauna would be able to traverse the gaps created, or traverse around the perimeter of the site, with minimal additional energy costs or risk of predation. The lowest 100 mm of vegetation, leaf litter and woody debris would continue to provide shelter substrate for small, less mobile fauna species after biomass reduction in all of the site except ‘core biomass reduction’ areas. Around half of the ‘core biomass reduction’ areas are already clear and open because of previous disturbance for the grenade range, topsoil scraping and construction of access tracks (see Figure 1). All such impacts would be temporary as the site is likely to regenerate in the short to medium term as described above. Overall the project would result in a very minor and short term increase in the degree of fragmentation of habitat at the site and in the locality.

6.2 Indirect impacts

The project includes excavation and use of slashers and other mechanical equipment that may in general result in indirect impacts on biodiversity values. Environmental management measures are likely to avoid or mitigate these potential impacts as described below.

6.2.1 Erosion and sedimentation

There are sensitive receptors for impacts of erosion and sedimentation within and immediately adjoining the site. Particularly sensitive areas include wetland and aquatic habitats in Castlereagh Swamp Forest and Anzac Creek.

Spreading of fill in ‘core biomass reduction areas’ as part of Phase 1 and excavation and of contaminated soil and stockpiles in Phase 2 of the project would expose subsoil and generate spoil material and could, in general, result in erosion and sedimentation. The project would be undertaken in accordance with an environmental management plan (EMP) and would include industry best practice methods for excavating, handling and storing sediments. Excavation areas would be surrounded by a silt fence (or suitable alternative) which is designed to isolate


sediments within the remedial area. Subsoils would only be exposed in the excavation area for a few hours and on access tracks for a few days before being mulched and stabilised. Vegetation would be able to regenerate within excavation footprints once remediation activities have been completed.

Biomass reduction and excavation of contaminated stockpiles across the remainder of the site may also, in general increase the risk of erosion. Biomass reduction would be to a height of at least 100 mm and would leave the rhizomes of mid storey and ground cover plants relatively undisturbed and capable of vegetative regeneration. Trees would be retained. Vegetation residues would be left in place. Vegetation residues would be spread, rather than piled and wherever practicable would be placed on exposed soil to reduce the risk that mulch may inhibit seedling regeneration. Larger branches and shrubs that have been trimmed with hand tools would be placed on the footprints for the excavation of contaminated stockpiles and other areas of exposed soil using the ‘brush matting’ technique to assist with natural regeneration. Overall the risk of increased erosion is negligible in partial, minimal and no biomass reduction areas and would not require specific mitigation measures.

Given the limited scale and duration of works and the proposed environmental management measures the project is highly unlikely to result in a tangible increase in the degree of erosion or sedimentation at the site.

6.2.2 Weed invasion and edge effects

‘Edge effects’ refers to changed environmental conditions at the interface of intact vegetation and cleared areas. Edge effects may result in impacts such as changes to vegetation type and structure, increased growth of exotic plants, increased predation of native fauna or avoidance of habitat by native fauna. Edge effects would result from reduction of vegetation cover at the site and then continue to affect vegetation and habitats adjoining the site until it has regenerated. The project would create relatively minor gaps in habitat. Connectivity would be maintained via mature trees and areas of minimal or no biomass reduction at the site, as well as within vegetation adjoining the site. In the context of the existing gaps in vegetation associated with existing clearing, railway lines, fences and tracks in the study area this would comprise a very minor increase in the degree of edge effects.

The project may increase the degree of weed infestation through dispersal of weed propagules (seeds, stems and flowers) into areas of native vegetation via erosion (wind and water) and via visitor shoes, clothing or vehicles. Given the limited scale and duration of works and the retention of native plant cover over the majority of the site, the project is unlikely to tangibly increase the degree of weed infestation. The project will include measures to further reduce this risk such as cleaning of construction vehicles before entering and exiting the site and exclusion of access from native vegetation outside of the immediate work area. A ‘clean on entry, clean on exit’ policy would be implemented during the project as outlined under the Environment Management Plan (detailed further in Section 7) to prevent the introduction or spread of these weeds.

Post-remediation monitoring is proposed to identify any tangible negative impacts of edge effects or weed infestation arising from the project (see Section 7.3.4). Additional mitigation measures, such as treatment of weed infestations, would be performed as appropriate to the results of monitoring.

6.2.3 Pests and pathogens

The project has the potential to introduce or spread pathogens such as Phytophthora (Phytophthora cinnamomi) and Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) throughout the study area through vegetation and soil disturbance and vehicle and foot traffic. There is little


available information about the distribution of these pathogens within the locality, and no evidence of these pathogens was observed during surveys.

The potential for impacts associated with these pathogens is low, given the disturbed nature and long term use of the site by Defence personnel. As a precautionary measure a ‘clean on entry, clean on exit’ policy should be implemented during the project as outlined under the Environment Management Plan (detailed further in Section 7) to prevent the introduction or spread of these pathogens.

6.2.4 Noise, light and vibration

Excavation and biomass reduction activities would generate noise and vibration which combined with general human activity is likely to discourage habitat use in the vicinity of the work area. These impacts would be short term and localised. Excavation and construction of pathways would result in noise and vibration. The site is located in the vicinity of Moorebank Avenue, which has high traffic volumes and the East Hills railway line. Habitats within and adjacent to the site therefore already experience moderate noise, light and vibration disturbance. Most of the species that are likely to nest or roost in the study area would be habituated to noise to a large extent. As described above there are substantial areas of alternative habitat in connected vegetation in the vicinity of the site. Native fauna displaced by biomass reduction or earthworks are likely to utilise this alternative habitat with relatively minor impacts associated with the risk or energy costs of movement. The project is unlikely to permanently displace any resident fauna. The project would only occur during daylight hours and so there would not be additional impacts of artificial lighting


7. Impact mitigation 7.1 Overview

The mitigation of adverse effects arising from the project is presented below according to the hierarchy of avoidance, mitigation and offsetting of impacts. The approach to impact mitigation has been prepared in consultation with G-Tek, the UXO remediation specialists who will be responsible for the project.

7.2 Avoidance of impacts

7.2.1 Phase 1

The UXO management areas developed in consultation with G-Tek provide considerable scope for avoiding or minimising impacts on threatened plant populations at the site (see Section 6.1.2 and Figure 5). Contractors would be trained to recognise threatened plant species and would pay due attention to:

Flagging tape marking the locations of threatened plants.

GPS points and plans indicating threatened plants and UXO management areas.

The instructions of the site manager and site ecologist.

The densest populations of threatened plants are in areas with comparatively open mid storey and groundcover vegetation that could be investigated for UXO without mechanical biomass reduction (see areas of ‘No biomass reduction’ on Figure 5). The risk of harm or mortality of threatened plants in these areas is low. Conversely areas of the site with dense mid storey vegetation, that would require mechanical slashing to achieve UXO remediation, tend to have few or no threatened plants. Further, UXO remediation would only be required in areas where evidence of UXO contamination is identified. Biomass reduction would only be conducted in areas where UXO remediation is required. Biomass reduction is unlikely to be required across the whole of the site; UXO material is likely to be concentrated around the site of the former grenade range in the north of the site and reduce farther away from this area (Guthrie, G.; G-Tek, pers. comm.).

Based on the above measures to avoid impacts it should be possible to investigate the site and to undertake remediation of UXO without having a significant impact on populations of threatened plants.

Monitoring of UXO remediation will be required to ensure that the proposed activities in UXO management areas are successfully avoiding impacts on threatened plants as intended. UXO remediation techniques and/or the extent of remediation may need to be modified to further reduce impacts on threatened plants.

7.2.2 Phase 2

The areas requiring remediation as part of phase 2 of the project are, by their nature, associated with disturbed environments such as the road of bullets, tracks, stockpiles and dumped fill. These areas have substantially less biodiversity value and less potential for impacts than an area of undisturbed habitat.

Potential impacts would be further reduced through the proposed pre-remediation surveys and purposeful placement of access tracks in areas of lower biodiversity value. Where excavation


and/or biomass reduction is required extra attention will be paid to avoid impacts to threatened plants, mature trees or habitat resources.

7.2.3 Phase 3

The areas requiring remediation as part of phase 3 of the project include near-intact native vegetation and habitat with high biodiversity value. The proposed ‘emu pick’ remediation technique would not result in any tangible impacts on these biodiversity values.

The risk of accidental impacts would be further reduced by educating contractors about the distribution and identification of threatened plants and other biodiversity values in the study area. Extra attention will be paid to avoid accidental impacts to threatened plants, mature trees or habitat resources.

7.3 Mitigation measures

7.3.1 Overview

The project would result in some unavoidable residual adverse impacts, including removal of small areas of native vegetation and habitat resources. These residual impacts are not expected to have a significant negative effect on any listed native biota, including threatened species, threatened ecological communities or their habitats (see Section 8). Mitigation measures are recommended to minimise the risk of impact. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (or equivalent) would be prepared including specific measures, work methods, contingencies, roles and responsibilities. The EMP would include, as a minimum, industry-standard measures for the management of soil, surface water, weeds and pollutants. GHD have prepared a draft Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) that will be an appendix to the EMP and will include site-specific measures to avoid impacts on threatened plants and other biodiversity values, including the procedures outlined below. These plans will also include any specific conditions included in the threatened species permit (or any additional approvals that may be required).

7.3.2 Pre remediation phase

The BMP and EMP would be required to address the following as a minimum:

Pre-remediation surveys of the areas requiring remediation in AoCs A, B, D, E and F, undertaken by a the Site Ecologist along with the Phase 1 Site manager or Phase 2 and 3 Site Manager and including:

– Targeted surveys for threatened plants, important habitat resources or signs of fauna occupancy within the areas requiring remediation and any other potential disturbance areas such as temporary stockpiles and access tracks.

– Planning for placement of temporary stockpiles and access tracks away from identified biodiversity values in order to minimise impacts as far as possible.

– Clear marking of threatened plants, important habitat resources or other biodiversity values in the vicinity of remediation areas.

This has already been completed in Area C of the site (see Section 4.2.3).

Threatened plant management measures, including:

– Removal of threatened plants should be avoided as far as is practicable, in accordance with the ‘UXO management areas’ identified in this report within Area C (see Section 6.1.2 and Figure 5) and any plants identified in pre-remediation surveys of the rest of the areas requiring remediation.


– Communicating to contractors the conservation value of threatened plants at the site and training in the identification of the four species present and measures for their protection (i.e. UXO management areas mapping and associated activities, flagging tape etc.)

Vegetation management measures, which should include (but not be limited to) the following:

– Removal of vegetation should be minimised as far as is practicable. – Biomass reduction in Area C should be completed in accordance with the ‘UXO

management areas’ identified in this report.

– Delineation and protection of exclusion zones around native vegetation to be retained. – Communicating to contractors the conservation value of vegetation and habitats and

their responsibilities with regards to protecting these habitats during construction.

– Hygiene procedures to prevent the introduction and spread of weeds and pathogens in areas of native vegetation. These would include exclusion zones around retained areas of native vegetation and/or provision of machine and footwear wash-down stations for all equipment and personnel working in areas of native vegetation.

Weed management measures, including:

– Communication with construction personnel with regards to their responsibility to abide by all procedures in the plan.

– A description of the type and location of weeds of concern (including noxious weeds) within the project site.

– A description of sensitive receivers (such as native vegetation and waterways) within or adjacent to the project site.

– Measures to prevent the spread of weeds, including hygiene procedures for equipment, footwear and clothing.

– Proposed weed control methods and targeted areas.

– Weed disposal protocols. Fauna management measures, including (but not limited to) the following:

– Clearing of mature trees should be minimised where possible. – Clearing surveys for nests, roosts and/or or sheltering fauna, hollow-bearing tree

management and rescue and relocation of resident fauna where possible. – Habitat features such as mature tree trunks and woody debris within the project site

should be left undisturbed as far as is practicable.

7.3.3 Remediation phase

The following principals would be specified in the BMP and EMP and followed throughout the remediation activities:

All works should be undertaken in accordance with the EMP and any other applicable guidelines identified in the EMP and/or by Defence.

Threatened plant and vegetation management measures should be adopted in accordance with the BMP.

Clearing surveys must be undertaken by a suitably qualified and licensed ecologist during any project stages that involve removal of native vegetation. Clearing methods and presence/fate of any resident fauna must be documented.


Wildlife should not be handled wherever possible. Contractors should only handle wildlife in an emergency situation. Uninjured wildlife should be gently encouraged to leave the site by the ecologist/ wildlife specialist. Injured wildlife would be taken to a local WIRES carer or veterinarian for treatment and care if necessary.

All equipment must be refuelled at least 20 metres away from drainage lines and all fuel and chemical storages should be bunded.

Areas of earthworks or mechanical slashing should be rehabilitated as soon as practicable after the completion of works. Vegetation from within the disturbance footprint should spread on any exposed soil using the ‘brush matting’ technique to assist with natural regeneration, help minimise erosion, restore soil organic matter and nutrients and to provide shelter for small fauna. Large sections of trunks and branches of cleared trees should be kept intact and replaced in disturbed areas to provide shelter habitat for small fauna.

7.3.4 Post remediation phase

Revegetation

Revegetation is proposed in portions of the site where natural regeneration is unlikely to be sufficient to restore native vegetation cover, specifically in:

The ‘Core biomass reduction area’ within Area C of the site (see Figure 5).

The remediation area surrounding the 45 stockpiles in Area E of the site (Figure 2).

The aim of the proposed revegetation is to restore native vegetation cover and to suppress weed growth in the short to medium term (years one to five after remediation). Native vegetation and topsoil would be removed within relatively extensive areas at these two locations and so seed fall from adjoining native vegetation is unlikely to be sufficient to restore vegetation cover and suppress weed growth.

Following excavation of stockpiles, the excavation should be validated in accordance with the RAP (GHD, 2015a) prior to reinstatement, as the excavation shall remove fill soils and expose the natural soils beneath. Once the area has been validated the vegetation should be reinstated. A mix of indigenous native species will be planted to help stabilise the soil and suppress weed growth. A suitably qualified bush regeneration contractor should be engaged to select and plant suitable native plant species of local provenance including canopy, mid storey and ground cover species. The success of revegetation would be monitored as described in the BMP (see below).

Vegetation cover and the function of ecological communitites would be maintained across the remainder of the site throughout the proposed remediation activities. All overstorey vegetation, the majority of mid storey and understorey vegetation and the majority of topsoil would be left undisturbed in:

The ‘Partial biomass reduction’, ‘Minimal biomass reduction’ and ‘No biomass reduction’ portions of the Phase 1 work area.

Temporary access tracks in the Phase 2 work area.

The entire Phase 3 work area.

Retained vegetation and topsoil is likely to contain sufficient regenerating plants, seed and/or fruiting plants to restore vegetation cover and suppress weed growth. Active revegetation should not be required in these areas.


Mid storey and understorey vegetation and the majority of topsoil would be removed at the locations of stockpiles in the Phase 2 work area. The majority of stockpiles contain less than 10m3 of soil material within a surface area of less than 100m2. The proposed spreading of vegetation within the disturbance footprint using the ‘brush matting’ technique, combined with seed fall from adjoining native vegetation is likely to be sufficient to restore vegetation cover and suppress weed growth. Active revegetation should not be required in these areas.

If the biodiversity monitoring prescribed in the BMP (see below) reveals any areas that have not achieved the anticipated regeneration of vegetation cover and suppression of weeds then supplementary, active revegetation may be required.

Monitoring

After remediation activities have been completed, biodiversity monitoring will be carried out in accordance with the BMP and the conditions of the threatened species permit. Biodiversity monitoring would comprise:

Review of the ecological surveys conducted to date and compilation as baseline data for the monitoring.

An initial monitoring round immediately after the conclusion of the project, comprising:

– Random meanders through the site to validate previous mapping and extent and distribution of vegetation zones, threatened plant populations and weed populations.

– Selection, set up and sampling of Small-flowered Grevillea monitoring plots. – Selection, set up and sampling of biometric plot/transects using the NSW BioBanking

Assessment Methodology (BBAM 2014)(see OEH, 2014). – Selection and set up of photo points.

Three repeat monitoring rounds, at six month intervals, for the first two years after the project, comprising:

– Random meanders through the site to detect any changes in the extent and distribution of vegetation zones, threatened plant populations and weed populations.

– Sampling of the Small-flowered Grevillea monitoring plots. – Visual inspections of the biometric plot/transects with reference to the data from the

previous round.

– Photos at each of the photo points. A further three monitoring rounds, at 12 month intervals, in years three to five after the

project using the methodology for repeat monitoring rounds described above.

A detailed description of the methodology for the post remediation phase biodiversity monitoring is included in the BMP.

A monitoring report would be prepared after each monitoring event and submitted to the Project Manager for review and approval. The reports will compare field data collected at each monitoring event against that collected during the initial baseline assessment and any subsequent data. The reports will discuss any trends or changes in native and exotic vegetation cover, threatened plant populations and vegetation condition over time to inform the overall assessment of the success or otherwise of impact mitigation measures and the regeneration of the site.

The key performance indicators (KPIs) for the proposed revegetation / natural regeneration areas are:

Years one and two:


– Evidence of regeneration of midstorey and groundcover species and of at least one overstorey species based on plot/transect data and visual inspection of the broad area disturbed by the project.

– Less than 10% cover of exotic plant species based on based on plot/transect data and visual estimation across the area disturbed by the project .

Years three to five:

– Native midstorey and groundcover vegetation cover within +/- 10% of the range of benchmark values for the equivalent vegetation type and regeneration of at least one overstorey species based on plot/transect data and and visual inspection of the broad area disturbed by the project.

– Less than 10% cover of exotic plant species and visual inspection of the broad area disturbed by the project.

If these KPIs are not met then supplementary planting of indigenous native plant species and/or more intensive treatment of exotic plants would be performed as appropriate. The monitoring report would specify the KPIs that have not been met, the areas requiring supplementary measures and the appropriate measures to be implemented.

7.3.5 Biodiversity offsets.

The project would not result in any significant impacts on any threatened biota listed under the EPBC Act (see Section 8 below) and so there is no requirement for biodiversity offsets under the EPBC Act and associated policy (DSEWPaC, 2012). Further, in the longer term the project is likely to ensure that the site is conserved and managed and is likely to result in improvements in biodiversity values through management actions undertaken at a biobank site. Remediation of UXO and other contaminants may also result in positive impacts on biodiversity values (though no evidence of negative impacts of contamination on biodiversity values was observed and human health risk is the primary driver for the project).


8. Assessment of Significance 8.1 Threatened biota

The desktop assessment, field surveys and habitat assessments described above have been used to identify the suite of threatened biota that may be affected by the project, through either direct or indirect impacts. If threatened biota is potentially affected by a proposed activity then the significance of impacts must be assessed according to the Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance (DotE, 2013a).

The suite of threatened biota potentially relevant to this assessment is presented in Appendix B, along with the nature of any previous records in the locality and an assessment of the likelihood of occurrence at the site or being affected by the project. Based on the targeted surveys and habitat assessments undertaken, the majority of the threatened biota presented in Appendix B do not occur in the study area. Given the limited scale and magnitude of impacts arising from the project and impact mitigation and environmental management measures described in Section 6, no additional threatened biota outside of the study area are likely to be affected by any off-site impacts of the project.

The study area contains local populations of four plant species that are listed as threatened species under the EPBC Act: Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora), Nodding Geebung (Persoonia nutans), Downy Wattle (Acacia pubescens) and Bynoe’s Wattle (A. bynoeana). The approach to UXO remediation has been designed to avoid or minimise impacts on these threatened plants as far as is practicable.UXO management areas have been specifically designed around populations of these threatened plants in Area C. A pre-remediation survey would be undertaken within the phase 2 remediation areas prior to any biomass reduction or soil disturbance. Any threatened plants within or near remediation areas would be marked. Based on the results of the initial ecological survey the phase 2 remediation areas would contain few if any threatened plants (see Figure 4). Contractors would be trained to recognise threatened plant species and would pay due attention to flagging tape, GPS points and plans indicating threatened plants. The proposed removal of contaminated material could be undertaken with direct impacts on very few, if any threatened plants.

There is a risk of residual impacts to threatened plants through accidental harm of some individuals and/or adverse modification of habitat through reduction of vegetation cover, compaction of soils, introduction of weeds and other indirect effects. An assessment of the likely significance of impacts on the local populations of these threatened plants has been prepared pursuant to the EPBC Act significant impact guidelines and is included as Appendix C. The outcome of the assessment is that the project would not have a significant impact on these threatened plants because:

The pre-remediation surveys, UXO management areas and other measures to avoid or mitigate impacts would ensure that the project harms a very small proportion of the populations of these threatened plants.

The biomass reduction and habitat modification as a result of the project is unlikely to have any negative impacts on these threatened plants because they are all associated with open, disturbed habitats.

There are local occurrences of three TECs listed under the EPBC Act at the site, including within the areas requiring remediation. The project would remove or modify vegetation and habitat within the local populations of these TECs and so an assessment has been prepared


pursuant to the EPBC Act significant impact guidelines and is included as Appendix C. The outcome of the assessment is that the project would not have a significant impact on these TECs because:

A small proportion of the species and habitat within the local occurrences of these TECs would be affected out of the 100 hectares of habitat collectively occupied at the Boot Land.

Complete vegetation removal and excavation of soils would be limited to contaminated areas with little habitat value; all other impacts would comprise only partial and temporary reduction of vegetation cover.

No habitat would be fragmented or isolated.

All native vegetation within areas requiring remediation would be allowed to regenerate.

The Grey-headed Flying-fox has been recently recorded in land adjoining the site (Hyder, 2013) and the project would remove foraging habitat for this species. An assessment of the likely significance of impacts on the local population of this threatened species has been prepared pursuant to the EPBC Act significant impact guidelines (see Appendix C). The outcome of the assessment is that the project would not have a significant impact on the Grey-headed Flying-fox because:

The project would not affect any roost camps or otherwise interfere with the life cycle of the species.

The project would remove a negligible proportion of the habitat resources available to this highly mobile speies in the locality and region.

All native vegetation and associated habitat resources within areas requiring remediation would be allowed to regenerate.

The site contains potential habitat for up to six additional species of threatened plants and the Giant Burrowing-frog (see Section 5.6). A number of additional threatened fauna species may possibly occur at the site based on the presence of marginal habitat resources or broadly suitable habitat outside of the species recently recorded range and are listed in Appendix B. There are no known populations of these species at the site or any specific habitat resources that suggest that the site would be important to a local population of these species if present from time to time. A general assessment of the significance of impacts on these threatened species arising from the project has been performed based on consideration of the Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance (DotE, 2013a). The project is not likely to result in a significant impact on any threatened species or their habitats because:

The project would temporarily modify 10.67 hectares of potential habitat for phase 1 of the project and small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat for phases 2 and 3. Phase 1 would also result in more substantial modification to 1.15 hectares of poor condition and cleared/exotic vegetation which would subsequently be revegetated upon conclusion of remediation. Biomass reduction would occur in a small proportion of this area at any given time. The entire disturbance footprint would be allowed to regenerate. The disturbance footprint does not contain any known populations of any of these threatened species or any specific habitat resources such as hollow-bearing trees or roost caves. The project is not likely to remove an ecologically significant proportion of any individuals or habitat resources or otherwise threaten the viability or persistence of any species in the locality or the region.

The vegetation to be removed or modified for the project is a small proportion of the habitat within the Boot Land site (around 100 hectares). The core biomass reduction area


is located in an area of relatively immature regrowth that contains dumped refuse and associated contamination and would have less value than the majority of the habitat at the site. The remainder of the site would be subject to only minor and localised impacts. Much of the site’s habitat value would be retained throughout the project, including resources associated with mature trees, woody debris, leaf litter and the lowest 100 mm of mid storey and groundcover vegetation. Overall the habitat to be removed or modified for the project would have relatively little importance to the survival of any threatened species that may utilise this habitat from time to time.

The project would create minor and temporary gaps in habitat, which in the context of the existing gaps in vegetation associated with previous clearing, fences and tracks at the site would comprise a very minor increase in the degree of habitat fragmentation.

Environmental management measures are recommended for the project to minimise the risk of direct impacts and to avoid direct and indirect impacts on habitat adjoining the site. Given the limited scale and duration of the project these measures are likely to avoid or mitigate any indirect impacts on threatened species or their habitats.

The project would not result in a significant increase in the operation of any KTPs listed under the EPBC Act nor have any effects that would substantially interfere with the maintenance or recovery of any threatened species.

8.2 Migratory species

A range of seasonally migratory or nomadic species are likely to utilise habitats within the study area on occasion. The EPBC Act requires an assessment of the significance of potential impacts of a project on migratory species with reference to the criteria specified in the Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance (DotE, 2013a).

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will (DotE, 2013a):

Substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species

An area of ‘important habitat’ for a migratory species is: habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of the species, and/or; habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle stages, and/or; habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species range, and/or; habitat within an area where the species is declining (DotE, 2013a).

As described in Section 5.6.4, the site would have little value for migratory species and does not comprise ‘important habitat’. Impacts would be restricted to the remedial disturbance footprint and its immediate vicinity and so the project would not substantially modify any important habitat.

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or

As described above the site does not comprise ‘important habitat’ for migratory species. Impacts would be restricted to the site and its immediate vicinity and so the project would not result in an invasive species becoming established in important habitat. Further, the project would include measures to avoid or minimise the risk of introducing invasive species to the site.


Seriously disrupt the lifecycle of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

Given the limited scale of the project and quality of habitat for migratory species only a small number of individuals of any migratory species would ever occupy habitat within the area potentially subject to impacts. The risk of injury or mortality of any of these individuals is very slight. The site contains a small proportion of the habitat resources available for migratory species in the study area and the locality. As described in Section 6.1.4, the project would not significantly increase the degree of fragmentation or isolation of habitat in the locality. Therefore the project would not seriously disrupt the lifecycle of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of any migratory species.

Based on the consideration of the criteria contained in the Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance (DotE, 2013a), the project would not be likely to have a significant impact on any migratory species.

8.3 The environment

The Significant impact guidelines 1.2 Matters of National Environmental Significance (DotE, 2013b) define a ‘significant impact’ as an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts.’

The guidelines identify questions and considerations to assist with determining whether an action would result in a significant impact on specific features of the natural environment. An assessment of the project’s potential impacts on relevant features of the natural environment is provided below.

8.3.1 Landscapes and soils

An action is likely to have a significant impact on landscapes and soils if there is a real chance or possibility that it will (DotE, 2013b):

Substantially alter natural landscape features.

The project would involve localised, minor impacts on natural landscapes and soils and excavation of fill material and stockpiles. The project would not substantially alter any natural landscape features.

Cause subsidence, instability or substantial erosion.

The project would involve only excavation of fill material and stockpiles. The excavations created would be too small and shallow to result in any subsidence or instability. The project would reduce vegetation cover and expose some surface soils. Specific mitigation measures are proposed to manage the risk of erosion (see Section 7.3.3). Given the small scale of the project and the proposed environmental management measures it is unlikely to cause substantial erosion (see also Section 6.2.1).

Involve medium or large-scale excavation of soil or minerals.

The project does not involve medium or large-scale excavation of soil or minerals.

8.3.2 Water resources

An action is likely to have a significant impact on water resources if there is a real chance or possibility that it will (DotE, 2013b):

Measurably reduce the quantity, quality or availability of surface or ground water.


The project would not cause any direct impacts on surface or ground water. The project would reduce vegetation cover and expose some surface soils and transport contaminants in the vicinity of surface water bodies. Specific mitigation measures are proposed to manage the risk of indirect impacts on surface water (see Section 7.3.3). Given the small scale of the project and the proposed environmental management measures it is unlikely to measurably reduce the quantity, quality or availability of surface or ground water (see also Section 6.2.1).

Channelise, divert or impound rivers or creeks or substantially alter drainage patterns.

The project would not channelise, divert or impound rivers or creeks or substantially alter drainage patterns.

Measurably alter water table levels.

The project does not involve groundwater extraction or interception, large scale excavations, broad scale land clearing or any other activities that would measurably alter water table levels.

8.3.3 Pollutants, chemicals, and toxic substances

An action is likely to have a significant impact through generation of pollutants, chemicals, and toxic substances if there is a real chance or possibility that it will (DotE, 2013b):

Generate smoke, fumes, chemicals, nutrients, or other pollutants which will substantially reduce local air quality or water quality.

The project would include generation of vehicle exhaust emissions and transport of contaminated materials. Specific mitigation measures are proposed to manage the risk of indirect impacts on surface water or air quality (see Section 7.3.3 and the RAP). Given the small scale of the project and the proposed environmental management measures it is unlikely to substantially reduce local air quality or water quality (see also Section 6.2.1).

Result in the release, leakage, spillage, or explosion of flammable, explosive, toxic, radioactive, carcinogenic, or mutagenic substances, through use, storage, transport, or disposal.

The project would involve transport of potentially toxic and carcinogenic materials from the stockpiles and asbestos fragment locations shown on Figure 2 to an off site treatment facility. Specific work methods, materials handling protocols and mitigation measures have been defined for the project (see the RAP, GHD, 2015a) and would be prescribed in an EMP. Given the small scale of the project and the proposed work methods and environmental management measures it is unlikely to result in the release of these materials.

Increase atmospheric concentrations of gases which will contribute to the greenhouse effect or ozone damage.

The project would include generation of vehicle exhaust emissions that would contribute to the greenhouse effect. Given the small scale of the project it would not measurably increase atmospheric concentrations of these gases.

Substantially disturb contaminated or acid-sulphate soils.

The project would disturb contaminated soils through the proposed excavation of such material and transport off site. Specific work methods, materials handling protocols and mitigation measures have been defined for the project (see the RAP, GHD, 2015a) and would be prescribed in an EMP. The proposed treatement of contaminated soils is unlikely to result in negative impacts on the natural environment.


8.3.4 Plants

An action is likely to have a significant impact on plants if there is a real chance or possibility that it will (DotE, 2013b):

Involve medium or large-scale native vegetation clearance.

Vegetation clearance, as defined under the EPBC Act,consists of the destruction of the above ground biomass of native vegetation and its substantial replacement by non-local species or by human artefacts. Substantial replacement by non-local species or human artefacts is defined as the achievement of more than 70% of the total cover by species or human artefacts that did not occur previously on the site (Threatened Species Scientific Committee, 2001). The project would include the temporary removal or modification of native vegetation through slashing and spreading of fill material. Native vegetation would be allowed to regenerate in natural soil profiles after the proposed remediation and active revegetation would be undertaken on areas of spread fill. Fill material would only be spread on areas of previously exposed subsoil or highly modified soil covered by poor condition vegetation. The project therefore does not include land clearance as defined under the EPBC Act.

Involve any clearance of any vegetation containing a listed threatened species which is likely to result in a long-term decline in a population or which threatens the viability of the species or will introduce potentially invasive species.

The project includes biomass reduction in vegetation containing a number of threatened flora species. Impacts on these threatened plant species are assessed in Section 8.1 and Appendix C in accordance with the EPBC Act Guideline 1.1 (DotE, 2013a). The outcome of this assessment is that the project would not be likely to result in a long-term decline in a population, threaten the viability of the species or introduce potentially invasive species.

Involve the use of chemicals which substantially stunt the growth of native vegetation.

The project does not include the use of chemicals which substantially stunt the growth of native vegetation.

Involve large-scale controlled burning or any controlled burning in sensitive areas, including areas which contain listed threatened species.

The project does not include any controlled burning.

8.3.5 Animals

An action is likely to have a significant impact on animals if there is a real chance or possibility that it will (DotE, 2013b):

Cause a long-term decrease in, or threaten the viability of, a native animal population or populations, through death, injury or other harm to individuals.

There is a risk that the project may cause the death, injury or other harm to individual animals during biomass reduction, vehicle movement, excavation or UXO detonation as assessed in Section 6.1.3. Specific mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this risk including pre-clearing surveys for resident fauna (see Section 7.3.3 and the BMP). Given the small scale of the project and the proposed environmental management measures it is unlikely to cause a long-term decrease in, or threaten the viability of, a native animal population or populations.

Displace or substantially limit the movement or dispersal of native animal populations or substantially reduce or fragment available habitat for native species.


The project includes only small scale biomass reduction and excavations that would create minor gaps in habitat. Connectivity of native vegetation and a substantial area of alternative or refuge habitat would be maintained around the disturbance area throughout the project. The project would not displace or substantially limit the movement or dispersal of native animal populations, substantially reduce or fragment available habitat for native species (see Section 6.1.4)

Reduce or fragment available habitat for listed threatened species which is likely to displace a population, result in a long-term decline in a population, or threaten the viability of the species.

The project includes biomass reduction in vegetation that comprises habitat for a number of threatened fauna species. Impacts on habitat for threatened fauna would be minor and temporary as described in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.4. Impacts on these threatened fauna species are assessed in Section 8.1 and Appendix C in accordance with the EPBC Act Guideline 1.1 (DotE, 2013a). The outcome of this assessment is that the project would not be likely to displace a population, result in a long-term decline in a population, or threaten the viability of the species.

Introduce exotic species which will substantially reduce habitat or resources for native species.

The project would include biomass reduction which may, in general increase edge effects and the risk of invasion of exotic plants or animals and/or exacerbate the engative impacts of exotic species which are already present at the site. As described in Section 6.2.2. Specific mitigation measures are proposed to reduce this risk including a clean on entry clean on exit policy for staff and vehicles and revegetation of more substantial gaps in vegetation created by the project (see Sections 7.3.3, 7.3.3 and the BMP). Given the small scale of the project and the proposed environmental management measures it is unlikely to introduce exotic species which will substantially reduce habitat or resources for native species.

Undertake large-scale controlled burning or any controlled burning in areas containing listed threatened species.

The project does not include any controlled burning.

8.4 Biodiversity values

The site contains native biota and habitats with considerable conservation significance, value and quality as described above. These biodiversity values are not especially sensitive to the impacts arising from the project because the vegetation and habitats at the site have evolved in the context of fire and other periodic disturbance. Many of the species at the site, notably including the four threatened plant species known to be present, have life cycles that are dependent on periodic disturbance and/or open vegetation structure.

The proposed UXO management areas for phase 1 and pre-remediation surveys for phases 2 and 3 provide considerable scope for avoiding or minimising impacts on threatened plant populations and other biodiversity values at the site. Phase 1 of the project would result in some unavoidable residual adverse impacts, including removal of small areas of native vegetation and habitat resources. Biomass reduction for phase 1 of the project would result in the removal or modification of a maximum of 11.8 hectares of vegetation, including 10.6 hectares of relatively intact native vegetation in good condition out of the 100 hectares of similar native vegetation in the Boot Land site. Phases 2 and 3 would result in excavation of fill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat.


The proposed temporary reduction in vegetation cover at the site would result in minor, localised and temporary impacts. The project would include targeted pre-remediation surveys to avoid impacts on threatened plants and more important habitat resources. The project is unlikely to affect an ecologically significant proportion of any of the native species at the site. No habitat would be permanently removed, modified, fragmented or isolated as a result of the project.

Post-remediation monitoring is proposed to confirm regeneration of vegetation at the site and to identify any tangible negative impacts arising from the project. Additional mitigation measures, such as treatment of weed infestations or erosion, would be performed as appropriate to the results of monitoring.

Given the above measures to avoid or mitigate impacts on native vegetation and habitat the project is unlikely to result in any significant negative impacts on biodiversity values on Commonwealth Land.

9. Conclusions The site is dominated by native vegetation that comprises a number of TECs, contains local populations of four threatened plant species and provides habitat for threatened fauna. The site is generally in good condition and has very high conservation significance. The project would result in direct impacts on biodiversity values including TECs, threatened plants and habitats. The risk of biodiversity impacts has been carefully considered in planning for the project and especially the approach to UXO remediation. The project includes specific work methods and mitigation measures to avoid impacts on threatened plants and other biodiversity values.

Phase 1 of the project requires biomass reduction to ensure that contractors have clear access to the soil surface to detect and remove UXO material. UXO management areas have been developed in consultation with G-Tek and provide considerable scope for avoiding or minimising impacts on threatened plant populations and other biodiversity values at the site. Phase 1 of the project would result in some unavoidable residual adverse impacts, including reduction in vegetation cover and removal of habitat resources. Biomass reduction for phase 1 would result in the removal or modification of a maximum of 11.8 hectares of vegetation, including 10.6 hectares of relatively intact native vegetation in good condition out of the 100 hectares of similar native vegetation in the Boot Land site. The extent of biomass reduction would vary significantly between UXO management areas. The densest populations of threatened plants are in areas with comparatively open mid storey and groundcover vegetation that could be investigated for UXO without mechanical biomass reduction. The risk of harm or mortality of threatened plants in these areas is low. Conversely areas of the site with dense mid storey vegetation, that would require mechanical slashing to achieve UXO remediation, tend to have few or no threatened plants. Further, UXO remediation would only be required in areas where evidence of UXO contamination is identified.

Phases 2 and 3 would result in excavation of fill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat. Potential impacts would be further reduced through the proposed pre-remediation surveys and purposeful placement of access tracks in areas of less value. Where excavation and/or biomass reduction is required extra attention will be paid to avoid impacts to threatened plants, mature trees or habitat resources.

Mitigation measures are recommended to minimise the risk of impact. An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (or equivalent) would be prepared and include, as a minimum, industry-standard measures for the management of soil, surface water, weeds and pollutants. GHD have prepared a draft Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) that will be an appendix to the EMP and will include site-specific measures to avoid impacts on threatened plants and other


biodiversity values, including the procedures outlined in this report. Post-remediation monitoring is proposed to confirm regeneration of vegetation at the site and to identify any tangible negative impacts arising from the project. Additional mitigation measures, such as treatment of weed infestations or erosion would be performed as appropriate to the results of monitoring.

The significance of impacts on threatened biota and migratory species arising from the project have been assessed according to the Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Matters of National Environmental Significance (DotE, 2013a). These residual impacts are not expected to have a significant negative effect on any listed native biota, including threatened species, threatened ecological communities, migratory species or their habitats.

The proposed reduction in vegetation cover at the site would result in minor, localised and temporary impacts. The project is unlikely to affect an ecologically significant proportion of any of the native species at the site. No habitat would be permanently removed, modified, fragmented or isolated as a result of the project. The project would not result in any significant negative impacts on biodiversity values on Commonwealth Land.

Based on the above considerations, the project is not likely to have a significant impact on biodiversity values or on any MNES listed under the EPBC Act. Additional assessment by DotE or approval by the Minister is therefore unlikely to be required. Consequently, the results of this report could be used by Defence to prepare an application for a Threatened Species Permit under Section 200 of the EPBC Act for the project.


10. Limitations This report: has been prepared by GHD for the Commonwealth and may only be used and relied on by the Commonwealth for the purpose agreed between GHD and the Commonwealth as set out in Section 1 of this report.

GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any person other than the Commonwealth arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed at the date of preparation of the report. GHD has no responsibility or obligation to update this report to account for events or changes occurring subsequent to the date that the report was prepared.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on assumptions made by GHD described in this report. GHD disclaims liability arising from any of the assumptions being incorrect.

GHD has prepared this report on the basis of information provided by the Commonwealth and others who provided information to GHD (including Government authorities), which GHD has not independently verified or checked beyond the agreed scope of work. GHD does not accept liability in connection with such unverified information, including errors and omissions in the report which were caused by errors or omissions in that information.

The opinions, conclusions and any recommendations in this report are based on information obtained from, and testing undertaken at or in connection with, specific sample points at the time of the field survey. Site conditions at other parts of the site may be different from the site conditions found at the specific sample points or at other times of year.

Investigations undertaken in respect of this report are constrained by the particular site conditions, such as the location of buildings, services and wetlands. As a result, not all relevant site features and conditions may have been identified in this report.

Site conditions (including the presence of threatened biota, hazardous substances and/or site contamination) may change after the date of this Report. GHD does not accept responsibility arising from, or in connection with, any change to the site conditions. GHD is also not responsible for updating this report if the site conditions change.


11. References Australian Weeds Committee (2014) Weeds of National Significance http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/

Clark, Noreen R & Jones, David C., 1950- & Geological Survey of New South Wales (1991), Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 sheet 9030, Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Minerals and Energy, Sydney.

Clark, Noreen R & Jones, David C., 1950- & Geological Survey of New South Wales (1991), Geology of the Penrith 1:100,000 sheet 9030, Geological Survey of New South Wales, Department of Minerals and Energy,

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2009). BioBanking Assessment Methodology Operational Manual. Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville NSW.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) (2009). Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. DECCW, Sydney <http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/08214dnrpflyingfox.pdf>

Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (2013). Policy and guidelines for fish habitat conservation and management (2013 update). NSW Department of Primary Industries, a part of the Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services. Available from: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/publications/policies,-guidelines-and-manuals/fish-habitat-conservation (accessed November 2013).

Department of the Environment (DotE) (2015a) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (s266B) Approved Conservation Advice (including listing advice) for Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/129-conservation-advice.pdf

Department of the Environment (DotE) (2015b) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (s266B) Approved Conservation Advice (including listing advice) for Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/119-conservation-advice.pdf

DotE (2013a) Matters of National Environmental Significance Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth of Australia.

DotE (2013b) Significant impact guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land and Actions by Commonwealth Agencies. Commonwealth of Australia.

DotE (2013c) Draft EPBC Act referral guidelines for the vulnerable Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory). http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/draft-Koala-referral-guidelines.

DotE (2015c). Species Profiles and Threats Database. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

DSEWPaC (2011)Guidelines for the Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2011/6086/2011-6086-final-eis-guidelines.pdf

Fairfull, S. and Witheridge, G. (2003) Why do Fish Need to Cross the Road? Fish Passage Requirements for Waterway Crossings. NSW DPI, Cronulla, 16 pp.

http://www.weeds.org.au/WoNS/

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/threatenedspecies/08214dnrpflyingfox.pdf

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/publications/policies,-guidelines-and-manuals/fish-habitat-conservation

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/publications/policies,-guidelines-and-manuals/fish-habitat-conservation

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/129-conservation-advice.pdf




http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/draft-koala-referral-guidelines

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl


GHD (2015a) Remedial Action Plan ‘Boot Land’, Moorebank, NSW - Lot 4 in DP1197707, formerly Part Lot 3001 in DP 125930. Report Prepared for Department of Defence.

GHD (2015b) Biodiversity Management Plan ‘Boot Land’, Moorebank NSW. Report Prepared for Department of Defence.

Gibbons, P. and Lindenmayer, D.B. (2002) Tree hollows and wildlife conservation in Australia. CSIRO Publishing. Google Maps (2014) Google Maps (https://maps.google.com.au/maps). Accessed April 2014.

G-tek Australia Pty Limited (2014). Post activity report: UXO Technical Survey Location 31, “Boot Land”, Moorebank NSW. Report prepared for GHD Pty Ltd.

Hyder (2013). Flora and Fauna Assessment: Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance.

Keast A, Recher, HF, Ford H and Saunders D, (1985), Birds of Eucalypt Forest and Woodland: Ecology, Conservation, Management, Surrey, Beatty and Sons Pty Ltd in assoc with RAOU. MICL (2013), Project approvals required. http://www.micl.com.au/environment/project-approvals.aspx

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (2005) Persoonia nutans.R Br (Nodding Gebung) Recovery Plan. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville NSW.

NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2003) Downy Wattle (Acacia pubescens) Recovery Plan. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville, NSW.

OEH (2014a) BioNet: NSW Wildlife atlas. Accessed March 2014.

OEH (2014b) Threatened Species profiles website (http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/index.aspx.) Accessed April 2014.

OEH (2014e) Koala habitat and feed trees http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/koalahabitat.htm

Office of Environment (OEH) (2012c) Vegetation Types Database. (http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/BioBanking/VegTypeDatabase.htm) Accessed April 2014.

PB (2011) Moorebank Intermodal Freight Terminal - Existing Ecological Values. Report prepared for the Department of Finance and Deregulation. URS (2004). Flora survey and assessment, Moorebank Defence site, Moorebank, NSW. Report prepared for GHD Group.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008a) Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora, Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, ACT.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2008b) Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest, Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, ACT.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2013) Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Acacia bynoeana (Bynoe's wattle) Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, ACT.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2015a) Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest of the Sydney Basin Bioregion, Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, ACT.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2015b) Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Castlereagh Scribbly Gum and Agnes Banks Woodlands of the Sydney Basin Bioregion Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Canberra, ACT.

https://maps.google.com.au/maps

http://www.micl.com.au/environment/project-approvals.aspx

http://www.micl.com.au/environment/project-approvals.aspx

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/index.aspx

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/animals/koalahabitat.htm

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/BioBanking/VegTypeDatabase.htm

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/64910-conservation-advice.pdf










GHD | Report for Department of Defence - 'Boot Land', Moorebank, NSW, 21/23492

Appendices

This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibil ity or l iabil ity arising from or in connection with this draft document.


Appendix A – Field Survey Data


Table 12 Plant species recorded at the Boot Land site

Scientific Name Common Name Exotic Plot 1

Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Brunoniella australis Blue Trumpet 1 Brunoniella pumilio Dwarf Blue Trumpet 1 1 Cheilanthes sieberi Rock Fern 2 2 2 2 2 Alternanthera pungens Khaki Weed * 3 3 Alternanthera philoxeroides Alligator Weed * x Laxmannia gracilis Slender Wire Lily 2 Centella asiatica Indian Pennywort 2 4 Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper x Conyza bonariensis Flaxleaf Fleabane * 2 2 Hypochaeris radicata Catsear * 2 Lagenifera stipitata Blue Bottle-daisy 1 Ozothamnus diosmifolius White Dogwood 1 Senecio madagascariensis Fireweed * 2 Solenogyne bellioides Solengyne 1 1 Vernonia cinerea 2 2 2 Vittadinia cuneata A Fuzzweed 1 Xerochrysum bracteatum Golden Everlasting 2 Wahlenbergia communis Tufted Bluebell 1 Allocasuarina littoralis Black She-Oak 1 3 Hypericum gramineum Small St John's Wort 1 Dichondra repens Kidney Weed 2 2 Baumea acuta 2 Baumea teretifolia 1 Chorizandra sp. 2




Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Cyperus tenellus * 2 Eleocharis minuta * 2 Fimbristylis dichotoma Common Fringe-sedge 1 2 Gahnia aspera Rough Saw-sedge 2 Lepidosperma laterale Variable Sword-sedge 2 2 3 3 3 5 Ptilothrix deusta 2 2 Schoenus apogon Fluke Bogrush 2 Hibbertia aspera Rough Guinea Flower 2 1 Hibbertia obtusifolia Hoary Guinea Flower 2 Astroloma humifusum Native Cranberry 2 2 Lissanthe strigosa Peach Heath 3 3 4 2 3 Monotoca elliptica Tree Broom-heath 3 2 Monotoca scoparia 2 Bossiaea heterophylla Variable Bossiaea 2 2 Desmodium varians Slender Tick-trefoil 1 Dillwynia floribunda 2 Dillwynia glaberrima 2 3 2 Dillwynia parvifolia 2 Glycine clandestina Twining glycine 1 2 2 2 Glycine microphylla Small-leaf Glycine 1 2 Glycine tabacina Variable Glycine 1 1 2 Hardenbergia violacea False Sarsaparilla 2 1 1 1 2 2 Pultenaea pedunculata Matted Bush-pea 2 Pultenaea tuberculata 2 Pultenaea villosa Hairy Bush-pea 2 2 2 3 2 3 Daviesia ulicifolia subsp. ulicifolia 2 1 2 2




Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Acacia brownii Heath Wattle 2 1 Acacia decurrens Black Wattle 2 3 3 2 3 Acacia falcata 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Acacia parramattensis Parramatta Wattle 2 Acacia pubescens Downy Wattle 2 Geranium solanderi Native Geranium 2 3 Goodenia hederacea Ivy Goodenia 1 2 2 2 2 Goodenia paniculata 3 Gonocarpus tetragynus Poverty Raspwort 2 Patersonia sericea Silky Purple-Flag 2 Cyperus brevifolius 2 Juncus continuus 2 2 Ajuga australis Austral Bugle 1 Cassytha glabella 2 2 2 Isotoma fluviatilis Swamp Isotome 3 Pratia purpurascens Whiteroot 2 2 3 2 2 3 Mitrasacme polymorpha 1 1 Lomandra brevis 3 Lomandra cylindrica 3 3 2 3 1 Lomandra filiformis Wattle Matt-rush 3 2 2 3 Lomandra filiformis subsp. coriacea Wattle Matt-rush 3 2 Lomandra filiformis subsp. filiformis 3 3 5 Lomandra glauca Pale Mat-rush 2 Lomandra longifolia Spiny-headed Mat-rush 4 2 2 Lomandra multiflora subsp. multiflora

Many-flowered Mat-rush 2 2 2 3 3 4




Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Sida rhombifolia Paddy's Lucerne * 1 Nymphoides geminata Entire Marshwort 2 Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel * 2 Angophora bakeri Narrow-leaved Apple 2 3 3 3 Callistemon linearis Narrow-leaved

Bottlebrush 1 2

Eucalyptus eugenioides Thin-leaved Stringybark 1 Eucalyptus fibrosa Red Ironbark 4 3 3 4 4 Eucalyptus longifolia Woollybutt 4 Eucalyptus parramattensis Parramatta Red Gum 2 3 3 Eucalyptus sclerophylla Hard-leaved Scribbly

Gum 4 4

Eucalyptus sideroxylon Mugga Ironbark 2 2 Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum 3 Kunzea ambigua Tick Bush 4 3 Leptospermum parvifolium 2 Leptospermum polygalifolium Tantoon 4 Leptospermum trinervium Slender Tea-tree 3 Melaleuca decora 2 6 3 3 Melaleuca erubescens Pink Honeymyrtle 3 Melaleuca linariifolia Flax-leaved Paperbark 2 Melaleuca nodosa 5 3 4 2 Olea europaea subsp. cuspidata African Olive x Acianthus exsertus Mosquito Orchid 2 Diuris sp. 2 Pterostylis acuminata Pointed Greenhood 1 2 2




Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Oxalis perennans 1 Philydrum lanuginosum Frogsmouth 5 Dianella revoluta var. revoluta A Blue Flax Lily 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Phyllanthus hirtellus Thyme Spurge 2 Phyllanthus similis 1 Billardiera scandens Hairy Apple Berry 2 1 1 2 1 Pittosporum undulatum Sweet Pittosporum 1 Plantago lanceolata Lamb's Tongues * 2 2 Anisopogon avenaceus Oat Speargrass 2 Aristida vagans Threeawn Speargrass 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Aristida warburgii 2 2 2 Axonopus compressus Broad-leaved Carpet

Grass * 3

Axonopus fissifolius Narrow-leafed Carpet Grass

* 3

Chloris gayana Rhodes Grass * 2 Cynodon dactylon Common Couch 4 4 5 Entolasia stricta Wiry Panic 3 2 4 2 3 3 4 4 Eragrostis benthamii 2 Eragrostis brownii Brown's Lovegrass 2 2 3 2 2 Eragrostis cilianensis Stinkgrass * 3 Eragrostis curvula African Lovegrass * 4 5 1 Imperata cylindrica Blady Grass 2 2 2 Juncus continuus * 2 Panicum simile Two-colour Panic 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 Paspalidium distans 2




Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Paspalum dilatatum Paspalum * 2 1 Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass * 2 2 Poa sp. * 2 Rytidosperma fulvum Wallaby Grass 1 2 Rytidosperma pilosum Smooth-flowered Wallaby

Grass 2

Rytidosperma tenuius A Wallaby Grass 1 2 2 Setaria parviflora * 2 4 3 Themeda australis Kangaroo Grass 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 Echinopogon caespitosus var. caespitosus

Tufted Hedgehog Grass 1 2 2 2

Microlaena stipoides var. stipoides Weeping Grass 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 Bambusa sp. Unidentified bamboo * x Cortaderia selloana Pampas Grass x Banksia aemula 2 Banksia paludosa 3 Banksia spinulosa Wallum Banksia 3 Hairpin Banksia 3 Hakea dactyloides Finger Hakea 2 Hakea sericea Needlebush 3 2 3 2 2 Persoonia laurina Laurel Geebung 2 Persoonia linearis Narrow-leaved Geebung 2 Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora Small-flower Grevillea 2 1 Persoonia nutans Nodding Geebung x Lepyrodia scariosa 3 Rubus fruticosus sp. agg. Blackberry complex * x




Plot 2

Plot 3

Plot 4

Plot 5

Plot 6

Plot 7

Plot 8

Plot 9

Plot 10

Opportunistic

Opercularia diphylla Stinkweed 2 1 Opercularia hispida Hairy Stinkweed 2 Opercularia varia Variable Stinkweed 2 2 2 2 Pomax umbellata Pomax 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Boronia polygalifolia Dwarf Boronia 2 Stylidium graminifolium Grass Triggerplant 2 1 Pimelea linifolia Slender Rice Flower 2 2 2 2 1 Verbena hispida Rough Verbena * 2 Lantana camara Lantana * x Xanthorrhoea concava 3 4 2 2 Xanthorrhoea minor 4 Bursaria spinosa var. spinosa 3 3 2 3 2

Cover abundance rankings within each survey area: 1 Foliage sparsely or very sparsely present, foliage cover <5%; 2 1-5% Plentiful, foliage cover 1-5 %; 3 5-25% foliage cover; 4 26-50% foliage cover; 5 51-75% foliage cover; 6 76-100% foliage cover;

x Opportunistic record, relative abundance not recorded.



Table 13 BioBanking Plot/transect data

Veg. Zone ID

Veg Type ID

Plot ID Native plant species richness

Native overstorey cover

Native mid- storey cover

Native ground cover (grasses)

Native ground cover (shrubs)

Native ground cover (other)

Exotic plant cover

Number of trees w ith hollow s

Over storey regeneration

Total length of fallen logs

Easting Northing Zone

1 HN513 Benchmark 34 16.5-21.55 25.54-40.5 10.5-16.5 0-10 10.5-16.5 0 > = 0 1 > = 0

6 27 18 34 8 6 8 0 0 1 15 308589.6 6240067.6 56

7 41 30 12.5 30 16 12 0 0 1 43 308822.7 6240125.2 56

10 32 22 35 28 8 46 0 0 1 33 308662.9 6240486.4 56

2 HN542 Benchmark 40 10-20 23-33 12-24 0-10 12-24 0 > = 1 1 > = 30

1 46 22.5 22 8 60 24 0 2 1 2 308330.8 6240149.1 56

4 47 12.5 40 18 34 24 0 2 1 4 308105.3 6240121.9 56

3 HN542 Benchmark 40 10-20 23-33 12-24 0-10 12-24 0 > = 1 1 > = 30

2 9 0 4.5 6 12 16 0 0 0.6 0 308389.3 6240155.9 56

3 22 3 8 36 0 24 30 0 0.6 1 308447.2 6240166.4 56

5 29 0 35 30 60 4 34 0 0.6 0 308197.1 6239864.6 56

5 HN512 Benchmark 38 15.1-25.6 13.8-30.3 14.7-24.6 0-10 14.7-24.6 0 > = 0 1 > = 0

8 41 27.5 45 34 14 42 0 0 1 41 308715.8 6240814.5 56

9 33 12 8 18 10 14 0 0 1 34 308799.7 6241130.6 56



Table 14 Opportunistic fauna observations

Class Common Name Scientific Name Observation Type1

Amphibia Bibron's toadlet Pseudophryne bibronii W

Common eastern froglet Crinia signifera W Eastern Dw arf Tree Frog Litoria fallax W Aves Australian magpie Cracticus tibicen O Australian raven Corvus coronoides W

Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike Coracina novaehollandiae O Brow n thornbill Acanthiza pusilla W Chestnut teal Anas castanea O Crested pigeon Ocyphaps lophotes O

Double-barred f inch Taeniopygia bichenovii W Eastern rosella Platycercus eximius O Eastern spinebill Acanthorhynchus tenuirostris O Eastern w hipbird Psophodes olivaceus O

Eastern yellow robin Eopsaltria australis O Grey butcherbird Cracticus torquatus W Grey fantail Rhipidura albiscapa O Grey shrike-thrush Colluricincla harmonica O

Little eagle Hieraaetus morphnoides (V) O Noisy miner Manorina melanocephala W Pacif ic Black duck Anas superciliosa O Rainbow lorikeet Trichoglossus haematodus O

Red w attlebird Anthochaera carunculata O Red-brow ed finch Neochmia temporalis O Rufous w histler Pachycephala rufiventris W Spotted pardalote Pardalotus punctatus W

1: O – observed, W – heard; (V) – vulnerable species listed under the TSC Act


Appendix B – Threatened Biota Assessment


Table 15 Assessment of likelihood of occurrence of threatened biota

Family Scientif ic Name Common Name

TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2

Source Habitat Description Likelihood of Occurrence

Hylidae Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog

E1 V 12 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Formerly occurred from Brunsw ick Heads to victoria, but >80% populations now extinct. Inhabits marshes, natural and artif icial freshw ater to brackish w etlands, dams and in stream w etlands. Prefers sites containing cumbungi (Typha spp.) or spike rushes (Eleocharis spp.), w hich are unshaded and have a grassy area and/or rubble as shelter/refuge habitat nearby. Gambusia holbrooki is a key threat as they feed on green and Golden Bell Frog eggs and tadpoles.

Possible

Hylidae Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn's Tree Frog

V V Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs on plateaus and eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range south from Watagan State Forest. Occurs along permanent rocky streams w ith thick fringing vegetation associated w ith eucalypt w oodlands and heaths among sandstone outcrops, hunting either in shrubs or on the ground.

Possible

Hylidae Litoria raniformis Southern Bell Frog

E1 V Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Currently, the species is know n to exist only in isolated populations in the Coleambally Irrigation Area, the Low bidgee f loodplain and around Lake Victoria. Usually found in or around permanent or ephemeral Black Box/Lignum/Nitre Goosefoot sw amps, Lignum/Typha sw amps and River Red Gum sw amps or billabongs along f loodplains and river valleys. They are also found in irrigated rice crops, particularly w here there is no available natural habitat (OEH 2013).

Absent




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Myobatrachidae Heleioporus australiacus

Giant Burrow ing Frog

V V 3 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs along the coast and eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range south from Wollemi National Park. Appears to exist as 2 populations w ith a 100km gap in records betw een Jervis Bay and Eden. Northern population occurs on sandy soils supporting heath, w oodland or open forest. Breeds in ephemeral to intermittent streams w ith persistent pools. Only infrequently moves to breeding sites, most commonly found on ridges aw ay from creeks, several hundred metres from w ater.

Likely

Myobatrachidae Mixophyes balbus

Stuttering Frog

E1,2 V Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs along the east coast of Australia. Has undergone a massive range reduction particularly in the south of its range: w ithin the Sydney Basin, White (2008a) located only 3 populations south of Sydney (Macquarie Pass and Mt Werong) and Daly et al. (2002, in White 2008a) found only 2 extant populations betw een Macquarie Pass and Victoria. Inhabits rainforest and w et, tall, open forest. Shelter in deep leaf litter and thick understorey vegetation on the forest f loor. Feeds on insects and smaller frogs, breeding in streams during summer after heavy rain. The species does not occur in areas w here the riparian vegetation has been disturbed or w here there have been signif icant upstream human impacts (Mahony et al 1997).

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Myobatrachidae Pseudophryne australis

Red-crow ned Toadlet

V 11 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Restricted to Sydney Basin, from Now ra to Pokolbin and w est to Mt Victoria. Inhabits heathland and open w oodland on Haw kesbury and Narrabeen Sandstones, w ithin 100m of ridgelines. Breeds in ephemeral feeder creeks or f looded depressions, requiring unpolluted w ater betw een 5.54 and 6.5 pH. Shelters under rocks, amongst masses of dense vegetation or leaf litter. Populations restricted to immediate vicinity of breeding areas.

Unlikely

Elapidae Hoplocephalus bungaroides

Broad-headed Snake


Nocturnal, sheltering in rock crevices and under f lat sandstone rocks on exposed clif f edges during autumn, w inter, and spring, moving to shelters in hollow s of large trees w ithin 200m of escarpments in summer. Feeds mostly on geckos and small skinks, and occasionally on frogs and small mammals.

Unlikely

Varanidae Varanus rosenbergi

Rosenberg's Goanna

V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2012 (OEH 2014a)

In NSW mainly occurs on the mid coast region from Wollemi NP to Now ra; the ACT and Goulburn regions and the South-w est Slopes. Inhabits coastal heathlands, w et and dry sclerophyll forests, w oodlands and mallee communities. Termite mounds are an important habitat feature: eggs are laid in the mounds in summer and incubate till spring, w hen the young dig themselves out. Young may return to the mound as a refuge for some months, w hile adults shelter in burrow s dug under rocks or logs, or in rock crevices, hollow logs or even rabbit burrow s (Sass 2008).

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Camaenidae Meridolum corneovirens

Cumberland Plain Land Snail

E1 188 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Occurs w ithin a small area of the Cumberland Plain, from Richmond and Windsor to Picton.Found primarily under litter of bark, leaves and logs, or in loose soil around grass clumps w ithin Cumberland Plain Woodland. Has also been found under rubbish. Feeds on fungus. During periods of drought can burrow into the soil to escape the dry conditions.

Possible

Austrocorduliidae Austrocordulia leonardi

Sydney haw k dragonfly

E (FM Act) Know n to occur w ithin the Sydney Metro CMA (DPI 2014b)

The Sydney haw k dragonfly has a very restricted distribution. The know n distribution of the species includes three locations in a small area south of Sydney, from Audley to Picton. The species is know n from the Haw kesbury-Nepean, Georges River, Port Hacking and Karuah drainages. The Sydney haw k dragonfly has specif ic habitat requirements, and has only ever been collected from deep and shady riverine pools w ith cooler w ater. Larvae are found under rocks w here they co-exist w ith Austrocordulia refracta.

Unlikely

Gomphomacromiidae

Archaeophya adamsi

Adam's emerald dragonfly

E (FM Act) Know n to occur w ithin the Sydney Metro CMA (DPI 2014b)

The species is only know n from a few sites in the greater Sydney region. Larvae have been found in small creeks w ith gravel or sandy bottoms, in narrow , shaded rif f le zones w ith moss and rich riparian vegetation. Adult dragonflies generally f ly aw ay from the w ater to mature before returning to breed. Males congregate at breeding sites and often guard a territory. Females probably lay their eggs into the w ater.

Unlikely

Acanthizidae Chthonicola sagittata

Speckled Warbler


Within NSW most frequently reported from the hills and tablelands of the Great Dividing Range, rarely from the coast. Inhabits a w ide range of Eucalyptus-dominated communities w ith a grassy understorey, a sparse shrub layer, often on rocky ridges or in gullies. Sedentary and requires large, relatively undisturbed remnants to persist in an area. Forages on the ground for seeds and insects, and nests in a slight hollow in the ground or at the base of a low dense plant.

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Accipitridae Circus assimilis Spotted Harrier


Occurs throughout Australian mainland, except in densely forested or w ooded habitats of the coast, escarpment and ranges, and rarely in Tasmania. Individuals disperse w idely in NSW and comprise a single population. Inhabits grassy open w oodland, including acacia and mallee remnants, inland riparian w oodland, grassland and shrub steppe (e.g. chenopods). Most commonly in native grassland, but also in agricultural land, foraging over open habitats, including edges of inland w etlands. Builds a stick nest in a tree and lays eggs in spring (or sometimes autumn).

Unlikely

Accipitridae Hieraaetus morphnoides

Little Eagle V 18 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Occurs throughout NSW except most densely forested parts of the Dividing Range escarpment. Occupies habitats rich in prey w ithin open eucalypt forest, w oodland or open w oodland. Sheoak or acacia w oodlands and riparian w oodlands of interior NSW are also used. For nest sites it requires a tall living tree w ithin a remnant patch, w here pairs build a large stick nest in w inter and lay in early spring.

Know n

Accipitridae Lophoictinia isura

Square-tailed Kite

V,3 2 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Occurs across NSW, resident in north, northeast and along w est-f lowing rivers. Summer breeding migrant to southeast of state. Inhabits a variety of habitats, including w oodlands and open forests, w ith preference for timbered w atercourses. Favours productive forests on the coastal plain, box-ironbark-gum w oodlands on the inland slopes, and Coolibah/River Red Gum on the inland plains. In Sydney area, nests in mature living trees w ithin 100m of ephemeral/permanent w atercourse. Large home range > 100 km2.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Accipitridae Pandion cristatus

Eastern Osprey


Favours coastal areas, especially the mouths of large rivers, lagoons and lakes. They feed on f ish over clear, open w ater. Breeding takes place from July to September in NSW, w ith nests being built high up in dead trees or in dead crow ns of live trees, usually w ithin one kilometre of the sea, though there are a handful of records from inland areas.

Unlikely

Ardeidae Botaurus poiciloptilus

Australasian Bittern

E1 E Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Widespread but uncommon over most NSW except the northw est. Favours permanent freshw ater w etlands w ith tall dense reedbeds particularly Typha spp.and Eleocharis spp., w ith adjacent shallow , open w ater for foraging. Roosts during the day amongst dense reeds or rushes and feeds mainly at night on frogs, f ish, yabbies, spiders, insects and snails.

Possible

Burhinidae Burhinus grallarius

Bush Stone-curlew


Scattered distribution across NSW. Inhabits low land grassy w oodland and open forest and, in coastal areas, Casuarina and Melaleuca w oodlands, saltmarsh and mangroves. Requires a low , sparse groundcover, some fallen timber and leaf litter, and a general lack of a shrubby understory (DEC 2006).

Possible

Cacatuidae Callocephalon fimbriatum

Gang-gang Cockatoo

V,3 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2006 (OEH 2014a)

Largely confined to area bounded by Thornleigh and Wahroonga in the north, Epping and North Epping in the south, Beecroft and Cheltenham in the w est and Turramurra/ South Turramurra to the east. Last know n breeding population in the Sydney Metropolitan area. Habitat as above.

Likely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Climacteridae Climacteris picumnus victoriae

Brow n Treecreeper (eastern subspecies)


Occurs from Corow a, Wagga Wagga, Temora, Forbes, Dubbo and Inverell to the east coast, in areas such as the Snow y River Valley, Cumberland Plain, Hunter Valley and parts of the Richmond and Clarence Valleys. Most common on the inland slopes and plains. Inhabits eucalypt w oodlands and dry open forest, usually dominated by stringybarks or rough-barked species w ith open grassy understorey. Fallen timber is important foraging habitat. Nests in hollow s in standing trees or stumps.

Unlikely

Dasyornithidae Dasyornis brachypterus

Eastern Bristlebird

E1 E Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs in three disjunct areas of south-eastern Australia: southern Queensland/northern NSW, the Illaw arra Region and in the vicinity of the NSW/Victorian border. Illaw arra population comprises an estimated 1600 birds, mainly from Barren Grounds Nature Reserve, Budderoo National Park and the Jervis Bay area. Habitat characterised by dense, low vegetation including heath and open w oodland w ith a heathy understorey. The f ire history of habitat is important, and the Illaw arra and southern populations reach maximum densities in habitat that have not been burnt for over 15 years.

Unlikely

Falconidae Falco subniger Black Falcon V 2 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

The Black Falcon is w idely, but sparsely, distributed in New South Wales, mostly occurring in inland regions. Some reports of ‘Black Falcons’ on the tablelands and coast of New South Wales are likely to be referable to the Brow n Falcon. Occurs in plains, grasslands, foothills, timbered w atercourses, w etland environs, crops, and occasionally over tow ns and cities. Breeding occurs along timbered w aterways in in land areas.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Meliphagidae Anthochaera phrygia

Regent Honeyeater

E4A E 4 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

In NSW confined to tw o know n breeding areas: the Capertee Valley and Bundarra-Barraba region. Non-breeding f locks occasionally seen in coastal areas foraging in f low ering Spotted Gum and Sw amp Mahogany forests, presumably in response to drought. Inhabits dry open forest and w oodlands, particularly Box-Ironbark w oodland and riparian forests of River Sheoak, w ith an abundance of mature trees, high canopy cover and abundance of mistletoes.

Possible

Meliphagidae Epthianura albifrons

White-fronted Chat

V 2 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); 2 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

There are tw o isolated sub-populations of White-fronted Chats currently know n from the Sydney Metropolitan CMA: at New ington Nature Reserve and at Tow ra Point NR. This species is unlikely to cross the 25km separating these areas, or the greater distances separating other colonies outside the CMA.

Unlikely

Meliphagidae Melithreptus gularis gularis

Black-chinned Honeyeater (eastern subspecies)


Widespread in NSW, but rarely recorded east of Great Dividing Range except in Richmond and Clarence River areas and scattered sites in the Hunter, Central Coast and Illaw arra regions. Mostly in upper levels of drier open forests /w oodlands dominated by box and ironbark eucalypts, or less commonly smooth-barked gums, stringybarks and tea-treas. Forage over home range of >5 ha. Tend to occur w ithin largest w oodland patches in the landscape. They forage for insects, nectar and honeydew . The nest is hidden by foliage high in the crow n of a tree.

Likely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Neosittidae Daphoenositta chrysoptera

Varied Sittella V 26 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Sedentary, occurs across NSW from the coast to the far w est. Inhabits eucalypt forests and w oodlands, especially rough-barked species and mature smooth-barked gums w ith dead branches, mallee and Acacia w oodland. Sensitive to habitat isolation and loss of structural complexity, and adversely affected by dominance of Noisy Miners. Cleared agricultural land is potentially a barrier to movement. Builds a cup-shaped nest of plant f ibres and cobw ebs in an upright tree fork high in the living tree canopy, and often re-uses the same fork or tree in successive years.

Likely

Petroicidae Petroica boodang

Scarlet Robin V 4 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

In NSW occurs from coast to inland slopes. Breeds in drier eucalypt forests and temperate w oodlands, often on ridges and slopes, w ithin open understorey of shrubs and grasses and sometimes in open areas. In autumn and w inter it migrates to more open habitats such as grassy open w oodland or paddocks w ith scattered trees. Abundant logs and coarse w oody debris are important habitat components.

Possible

Petroicidae Petroica phoenicea

Flame Robin V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 1992 (OEH 2014a)

Breeds in upland moist eucalypt forests and w oodlands, often on ridges and slopes, in areas of open understorey. Migrates in w inter to more open low land habitats such as grassland w ith scattered trees and open w oodland on the inland slopes and plains. Forages from low perches, feeding on invertebrates taken from the ground, tree trunks, logs and other coarse w oody debris. Fallen logs and coarse w oody debris are important habitat components. Open cup nest of plant f ibres and cobw eb is often built near the ground in a sheltered niche, ledge or shallow cavity in a tree, stump or bank.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Psittacidae Glossopsitta pusilla

Little Lorikeet V 15 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Occurs from coast to w estern slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Inhabits dry, open eucalypt forests and w oodlands. Occurrence is positively associated w ith patch size, and w ith components of habitat complexity including canopy cover, shrub cover, ground cover, logs, fallen branches and litter. Feed primarily on profusely-f low ering eucalypts and a variety of other species including melaleucas and mistletoes. On the w estern slopes and tablelands Eucalyptus albens and E. melliodora are particularly important food sources for pollen and nectar respectively. Mostly nests in small (opening approx. 3cm) hollow s in living, smooth-barked eucalypts, especially Eucalyptus viminalis, E. blakelyi and E. dealbata. Most breeding records are from the w estern slopes.

Likely

Psittacidae Lathamus discolor

Sw ift Parrot E1,3 E 9 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Migratory, travelling to the mainland from March to October. Breeds in Tasmania from September to January. On the mainland, it mostly occurs in the southeast foraging on w inter f low ering eucalypts and lerps, w ith records of the species betw een Adelaide and Brisbane. Principal over-w inter habitat is box-ironbark communities on the inland slopes and plains. Eucalyptus robusta, Corymbia maculata and C. gummifera dominated coastal forests are also important habitat.

Possible

Psittacidae Neophema chrysogaster

Orange-bellied Parrot

E4A,3 CE Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Breeds in Tasmania and migrates in w inter to SE South Australia and southern Victoria. There are occasional reports from NSW, including Shellharbour, Maroubra and the Shoalhaven. In w inter, usually found w ithin 3 km of the coast in saltmarsh and strandline/ foredune vegetation. May also occur on golf-courses and other grassy areas, including improved pasture.

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Rostratulidae Rostratula australis

Australian Painted Snipe


Normally found in permanent or ephemeral shallow inland w etlands, either freshw ater or brackish. Nests on the ground amongst tall reed-like vegetation near w ater. Feeds on mudflats and the w ater's edge taking insects, w orm and seeds. Prefers fringes of sw amps, dams and nearby marshy areas w ith cover of grasses, lignum, low scrub or open timber.

Possible

Strigidae Ninox strenua Pow erful Ow l V,3 17 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Occurs from the coast to the w estern slopes. Solitary and sedentary species. Inhabits a range of habitats from w oodland and open sclerophyll forest to tall open w et forest and rainforest. Prefers large tracts of vegetation. Nests in large tree hollow s (> 0.5 m deep), in large eucalypts (dbh 80-240 cm) that are at least 150 years old. Pairs have high f idelity to a small number of hollow -bearing nest trees and defend a large home range of 400 - 1,450 ha. Forages w ithin open and closed w oodlands as w ell as open areas.

Likely

Tytonidae Tyto tenebricosa Sooty Ow l V,3 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2013 (OEH 2014a)

Occurs in the coastal, escarpment and tablelands regions of NSW. More common in the north and absent from the w estern tablelands and further w est. Inhabits tall, moist eucalypt forests and rainforests, and are strongly associated w ith sheltered gullies, particularly those w ith tall rainforest understorey. Roosts in tree hollow s, amongst dense foliage in gullies or in caves, recesses or ledges of clif fs or banks. Nest in large (>40cm w ide, 100cm deep) tree hollow s in unlogged/unburnt gullies w ithin 100m of streams or in caves.

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Burramyidae Cercartetus nanus

Eastern Pygmy-possum


Occurs along the east coast of NSW, and inland to the Pillaga, Dubbo, Parkes and Wagga Wagga. Inhabits range of habitats from coastal heath and w oodland though open and closed forests, subalpine heath and rainforest (Tulloch and Dickman 1995). Inhabits rainforest, sclerophyll forests and heath. Banksia spp. and myrtaceous shrubs and trees are favoured food sources and nesting subject sites in drier habitats. Diet mostly pollen and nectar from Banksia spp., Eucalyptus spp., Callistemon spp. and insects (Ward and Turner 2008). Nests in hollow s in trees, under the bark of Eucalypts, forks of tea-trees, abandoned bird nests and Xanthorrhoea bases (Ward and Turner 2008, Tulloch and Dickman 2006).

Likely

Dasyuridae Dasyurus maculatus

Spotted-tailed Quoll

V E 4 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Inhabits a range of environments including rainforest, open forest, w oodland, coastal heath and inland riparian forest, from the sub-alpine zone to the coastline. Den sites are in hollow -bearing trees, fallen logs, small caves, rock crevices, boulder f ields and rocky-clif f faces. Females occupy home ranges of up to 750 ha and males up to 3,500 ha, usually traversed along densely vegetated creek lines.

Possible

Emballonuridae Saccolaimus flaviventris

Yellow -bellied Sheathtail-bat


Migrates from tropics to SE Aus in summer. Forages across a range of habitats including those w ith and w ithout trees, from w et and dry sclerophyll forest, open w oodland, Acacia shrubland, mallee, grasslands and desert. Roosts communally in large tree hollow s and buildings (Churchill 2008).

Likely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Macropodidae Petrogale penicillata

Brush-tailed Rock-w allaby

E1 V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 1996 (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs from the Shoalhaven north to the Queensland border. Now mostly extinct w est of the Great Dividing Range, except in the Warrumbungles and Mt Kaputar. Occurs on rocky escarpments, outcrops and clif fs w ith a preference for complex structures w ith f issures, caves and ledges facing north. Diet consists of vegetation in adjacent to rocky areas eating grasses and forbs as w ell as the foliage and fruits of shrubs and trees.

Absent

Molossidae Mormopterus norfolkensis

Eastern Freetail-bat


Occurs in dry sclerophyll forest and w oodland east of the Great Dividing Range. Forages in natural and artif icial openings in vegetation, typically w ithin a few kilometres of its roost. Roosts primarily in tree hollow s but also recorded from man-made structures or under bark (Churchill 2008).

Likely

Muridae Pseudomys novaehollandiae

New Holland Mouse

P V Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs in disjunct, coastal populations from Tasmania to Queensland. In NSW inhabits a variety of coastal habitats including heathland, w oodland, dry sclerophyll forest w ith a dense shrub layer and vegetated sand dunes (Wilson and Bradtke 1999). Populations may recolonise/ increase in size in regenerating native vegetation after w ildfire, clearing and sandmining. Presence strongly correlated w ith understorey vegetation density, and high f loristic diversity in regenerating heath (Lock and Wilson 1999).

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Peramelidae Isoodon obesulus obesulus

Southern Brow n Bandicoot (eastern)

E1 E Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs mainly in 2 areas: Ku-ring-gai Chase and Garigal National Parks N of Sydney, and far SE NSW including Ben Boyd National Park, East Boyd State Forest, Nadgee Nature Reserve, Nadgee State Forest, South East Forest and Yambulla State Forest but also occurs betw een these areas. Inhabits scrubby vegetation, including heath, shrubland, and heathy forest and w oodland. Often associated w ith w ell-drained soils and dry heathland communities, and prefers periodically burnt areas as this increases insect abundance.

Unlikely

Petauridae Petaurus australis

Yellow -bellied Glider


Occurs along the east coast to the w estern slopes of the Great Dividing Range. Inhabits a variety of forest types but prefers tall mature eucalypt forest w ith high rainfall and rich soils. Relies on large hollow -bearing trees for shelter and nesting, w ith family groups of 2-6 typically denning together. In southern NSW its preferred habitat at low altitudes is moist gullies and creek f lats in mature coastal forests. Mostly feeds on sap, nectar and honeydew .

Possible

Petauridae Petaurus norfolcensis

Squirrel Glider V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2006 (OEH 2014a)

Occurs along the drier inland slopes as w ell as coastal habitats. Inhabits w oodland and open forest w ith a Eucalyptus, Corymbia or Angophora overstorey and a shrubby understorey of Acacia or Banksia. Key habitat components include reliable w inter and early-spring f low ering Eucalypts, Banksia or other nectar sources, and hollow -bearing trees for roost and nest sites (van der Ree and Suckling 2008, Quin et al 2004), w ith social groups moving betw een multiple hollow s. Social groups include one or tw o adult males and females w ith offspring, and have home ranges of 5-10ha w ithin NSW (van der Ree and Suckling 2008, Kavanagh 2004).

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Phascolarctidae Phascolarctos cinereus

Koala V V 103 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs from coast to inland slopes and plains. Restricted to areas of preferred feed trees in eucalypt w oodlands and forests. Home range varies depending on habitat quality, from < 2 to several hundred hectares.

Possible

Potoroidae Potorous tridactylus

Long-nosed Potoroo, Cobaki Lakes and Tw eed Heads West population

E2,V V Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Restricted to east of the Great Dividing Range, w ith annual rainfall >760 mm. Inhabits coastal heath and dry and w et sclerophyll forests. Requires relatively thick ground cover and appears restricted to areas of light and sandy soil (Johnston 2008). Feeds on fungi, roots, tubers, insects and their larvae, and other soft-bodied animals in the soil.

Possible

Pteropodidae Pteropus poliocephalus

Grey-headed Flying-fox

V V 100 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Roosting know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Roosts in camps w ithin 20 km of a regular food source, typically in gullies, close to w ater and in vegetation w ith a dense canopy. Forages in subtropical and temperate rainforests, tall sclerophyll forests and w oodlands, heaths, sw amps and street trees, particularly in eucalypts, melaleucas and banksias. Highly mobile w ith movements largely determined by food availability (Eby and Law 2008). Will also forage in urban gardens and cultivated fruit crops.

Likely

Vespertilionidae Chalinolobus dwyeri

Large-eared Pied Bat

V V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2005 (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs from the coast to the w estern slopes of the divide. Largest numbers of records from sandstone escarpment country in the Sydney Basin and Hunter Valley (Hoye and Schulz 2008). Roosts in caves and mines and most commonly recorded from dry sclerophyll forests and w oodlands. An insectivorous species that f lies over the canopy or along creek beds (Churchill 2008). In southern Sydney appears to be largely restricted to the interface betw een sandstone escarpments and fertile valleys.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Vespertilionidae Falsistrellus tasmaniensis

Eastern False Pipistrelle


Occurs on southeast coast and ranges. Prefers tall (>20m) and w et forest w ith dense understorey. Absent from small remnants, preferring continuous forest but can move through cleared landscapes and may forage in open areas. Roosts in hollow trunks of Eucalypts, underneath bark or in buildings. Forages in gaps and spaces w ithin forest, w ith large foraging range (12km foraging movements recorded) (Churchill 2008, Law et al 2008).

Likely

Vespertilionidae Miniopterus australis

Little Bentw ing-bat


Occurs from Cape York to Sydney. Inhabits rainforests, w et and dry sclerophyll forests, paperbark sw amps and vine thickets. Only one maternity cave know n in NSW, shared w ith Eastern Bentw ing-bats at Willi Willi, near Kempsey. Outside breeding season roosts in caves, tunnels and mines and has been recorded in a tree hollow on one occasion. Forages for insects beneath the canopy of w ell-timbered habitats (Churchill 2008, Hoye and Hall 2008).

Likely

Vespertilionidae Miniopterus schreibersii oceanensis

Eastern Bentw ing-bat


Generally occurs east of the Great Dividing Range along NSW coast (Churchill 2008). Inhabits various habitats from open grasslands to w oodlands, w et and dry sclerophyll forests and rainforest. Essentially a cave bat but may also roost in road culverts, stormw ater tunnels and other man-made structures. Only 4 know n maternity caves in NSW, near Wee Jasper, Bungonia, Kempsey and Texas. Females may travel hundreds of kilometres to the nearest maternal colony (Churchill 2008).

Likely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Vespertilionidae Myotis macropus

Southern Myotis


Mainly coastal but may occur inland along large river systems. Usually associated w ith permanent w aterw ays at low elevations in f lat/undulating country, usually in vegetated areas. Forages over streams and w atercourses feeding on f ish and insects from the w ater surface. Roosts in a variety of habitats including caves, mine shafts, hollow -bearing trees, stormw ater channels, buildings, under bridges and in dense foliage, typically in close proximity to w ater (Campbell 2011). Breeds November or December (Churchill 2008)

Likely

Vespertilionidae Scoteanax rueppellii

Greater Broad-nosed Bat


Occurs on the east coast and Great Dividing Range. Inhabits a variety of habitats from w oodland to w et and dry sclerophyll forests and rainforest, also remnant paddock trees and timber-lined creeks, typically below 500m asl. Forages in relatively uncluttered areas, using natural or man-made openings in denser habitats. Usually roosts in tree hollow s or f issures but also under exfoliating bark or in the roofs of old buildings. Females congregate in maternal roosts in suitable hollow trees (Hoye and Richards 2008, Churchill 2008).

Likely

Anthericaceae Caesia parviflora var. minor

Small Pale Grass-lily

E1 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2001 (OEH 2014a)

In NSW occurs in Barcoongere State Forest betw een Grafton and Coffs Harbour. May be more w idely distributed as not often identif ied to subspecies level. Grow s in damp open places in open forest on sandstone.

Unlikely

Apocynaceae Cynanchum elegans

White-f low ered Wax Plant

E1 E 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 1992 (OEH 2014a)

Occurs from Gerroa (Illaw arra) to Brunsw ick Heads and w est to Merriw a in the upper Hunter. Most common near Kempsey. Usually occurs on the edge of dry rainforest or littoral rainforest, but also occurs in Coastal Banksia Scrub, open forest and w oodland, and Melaleuca scrub. Soil and geology types are not limiting.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Apocynaceae Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora

Marsdenia viridif lora R. Br. subsp. viridif lora population in the Bankstow n, Blacktow n, Camden, Campbelltow n, Fairf ield, Holroyd, Liverpool and Penrith local government areas


Recent records are from Prospect, Bankstow n, Smithfield, Cabramatta Creek and St Marys. Previously know n north from Razorback Range. A climber that grow s in vine thickets and open shale w oodland.

Unlikely

Campanulaceae Wahlenbergia multicaulis

Tadgell's Bluebell in the local government areas of Auburn, Bankstow n, Baulkham Hills, Canterbury, Hornsby, Parramatta and Strathfield


Found in disturbed sites and grow s in a variety of habitats including forest, w oodland, scrub, grassland and the edges of w atercourses and w etlands. Typically occurs in damp, disturbed sites (w ith natural or human disturbance of various forms), typically amongst other herbs rather than in the open.

Absent

Casuarinaceae Allocasuarina glareicola

E1 E 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 1996 (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Primarily restricted to small populations in and around Castlereagh NR (NW Cumberland Plain), but w ith an outlier population at Voyager Point, Liverpool. Also reported from Holsw orthy Military Area. Grow s on tertiary alluvial gravels, w ith yellow clayey subsoil and lateritic soil. Occurs in Castlereagh open w oodland.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Convolvulaceae Wilsonia backhousei

Narrow -leafed Wilsonia


In NSW it is scattered along the coast w ith a northern limit of Wamberal, N of Sydney. Most extensive stands at Jervis Bay. Grow s on the margins of saltmarshes and lakes.

Unlikely

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia sp. Bankstown

E4A CE 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2006 (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Listed under EPBC Act as Hibbertia puberula subsp. glabrescens.Know n only from Bankstow n airport. Habitat is very heavily modif ied, lacks canopy species and is currently a low grass/shrub association w ith many pasture grasses and other introduced herbaceous w eeds. Soil at the site is a sandy (Tertiary) alluvium w ith a high silt content.

Unlikely

Dilleniaceae Hibbertia stricta subsp. furcatula


2 know n populations: one either side of the Woronora River gorge including the Menai-Bangor, Alfords Point and Illaw ong areas in the north and Maandow ie Reserve, Loftus on the southern side; and w est and southw est of Now ra. Occurs in dry sclerophyll forest and w oodland. Northern metapopulation occurs on upper slopes and above the Woronora escarpment, at or near the interface of Haw kesbury sandstone and the Lucas Heights soil landscape. Southern population appears to occur in sandy soils on sandstone,w ith one record from gravelly clay soil.

Unlikely

Ericaceae Epacris purpurascens var. purpurascens


Occurs from Gosford in the north, Narrabeen in the east, Silverdale in the w est and Avon Dam vicinity in the South. Grow s in a range of sclerophyll forest, scrubs and sw amps, most of w hich have a strong shale soil inf luence.

Unlikely

Ericaceae Leucopogon exolasius

Woronora Beard-heath


Occurs along the upper Georges River and in Heathcote NP, Royal NP and is also know n from the Blue Mountains along the Grose River. Grow s in w oodland on sandstone and prefers rocky hillsides along creek banks up to 100 m altitude. Associated species include Eucalyptus piperita and E. sieberi and Pultenaea f lexilis, Leptospermum trinervium and Dillw ynia retorta.

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Ericaceae Leucopogon fletcheri subsp. fletcheri


Restricted to NW Sydney betw een St Albans and Annangrove, w ithin the Haw kesbury, The Hills and Blue Mountains LGAs. Occurs in dry eucalypt w oodland or shrubland on clayey lateritic soils, generally on f lat to gently sloping terrain along ridges and spurs. Flow ers August to September.

Unlikely

Fabaceae (Faboideae)

Pultenaea parviflora

E1 V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 1999 (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs on the Cumberland Plain, w ith core distribution from Windsor to Penrith and east to Dean Park, and outliers in Kemps Creek and Wilberforce. Grow s in dry sclerophyll w oodlands, forest or in grasslands on Wianamatta Shale, laterite or Tertiary alluvium, on infertile sandy to clay soils. Associated communities include Castlereagh Ironbark Forest, Shale Gravel transition Forest and intergrade w ith Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland.

Possible

Fabaceae (Faboideae)

Pultenaea pedunculata

Matted Bush-pea


3 disjunct populations in NSW: in the Cumberland Plains in Sydney, the coast betw een Tathra and Bermagui and the Windellama area south of Goulburn (w here it is locally abundant). NSW populations typically among w oodland vegetation but also found on road batters and coastal clif fs. In Windellama it is largely confined to loamy soils in dry gullies.

Possible

Fabaceae (Mimosoideae)

Acacia bynoeana

Bynoe's Wattle

E1 V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2011 (OEH 2014a)

Endemic to central eastern NSW, currently know n from only 34 locations, many of only 1-5 plants. Grow s mainly in heath/ dry sclerophyll forest on sandy soils, prefers open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail margins, road edges, and in recently burnt open patches. Flow ers September to March, and fruit matures in November.

Possible




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2



Acacia prominens

Gosford Wattle, Hurstville and Kogarah Local Government Areas


Occurs at a few sites along the railw ay line at Penshurst, at Carss Bush Park, Carss Park and there is an unconfirmed siting at Oatley Park, Oatley. Grow s in open situations on clayey or sandy soils. Habitats mostly cleared and occurs as isolated or small groups of trees.

Unlikely


Acacia pubescens

Dow ny Wattle V V 4182 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs mainly in Bankstow n-Fairf ield-Rookw ood and Pitt Tow n areas, w ith outliers at Barden Ridge, Oakdale and Mountain Lagoon. Grow s on alluviums, shales and shale/sandstone intergrades. Soils characteristically gravely, often w ith ironstone. Occurs in open w oodland and forest, in communities including Cooks River/ Castlereagh Ironbark Forest, Shale/ Gravel Transition Forest and Cumberland Plain Woodland. Flow ers August to October.

Know n

Geraniaceae Pelargonium sp. Striatellum

Omeo Storksbill

E1 E Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Omeo Storksbill Pelargonium sp. (G.W. Carr 10345), syn. P. striatellum, is a tufted perennial forb know n from only 3 locations in NSW, w ith tw o on lake-beds on the basalt plains of the Monaro and one at Lake Bathurst. It has a narrow habitat that is usually just above the high-w ater level of irregularly inundated or ephemeral lakes, in the transition zone betw een surrounding grasslands or pasture and the w etland or aquatic communities.

Absent

Moraceae Streblus pendulinus

Siah's Backbone

E Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Siah's Backbone occurs from Cape York Peninsula to Milton, south-east New South Wales (NSW), as w ell as Norfolk Island (ATRP 2010; Jessup 2003; The Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust 2011). Siah’s Backbone is found in w armer rainforests, chiefly along w atercourses. The species grow s in w ell developed rainforest, gallery forest and drier, more seasonal rainforest (ATRP 2010).

Absent




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Myrtaceae Callistemon linearifolius

Netted Bottle Brush


Recorded from the Georges to Haw kesbury Rivers in Sydney, and north to Nelson Bay. There is also a recent record from the northern Illaw arra. In Sydney, recent records are limited to the Hornsby Plateau area near the Haw kesbury River. Grow s in dry sclerophyll forest on the coast and adjacent ranges.

Possible

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camfieldii

Camfield's Stringybark

V V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 1991 (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs from Raymond Terrace to Waterfall, w ith populations know n from Norah Head (Tuggerah Lakes), Peats Ridge, Mt Colah, Elvina Bay Trail (West Head), Terrey Hills, Killara, North Head, Menai and the Royal NP. Occurs in exposed situations on sandstone plateaus, ridges and slopes near the coast, often on the boundary of tall coastal heaths or low open w oodland. It grow s in shallow sandy soils overlying Haw kesbury sandstone.

Unlikely

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus nicholii

Narrow -leaved Black Peppermint

V V 2 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a)

Naturally occurs only in New England Tablelands from Nundle to north of Tenterf ield. Widely planted as urban street tree. Grow s in dry grassy w oodland, on shallow and infertile soils, mainly on granite.

Absent

Myrtaceae Eucalyptus scoparia

Wallangarra White Gum

E1 V 1 record w ithin 10km, last recorded 2005 (OEH 2014a)

Occurs mostly in Queensland w ith only three know n occurrences in NSW near Tenterf ield. In NSW it is found on w ell-drained granitic hilltops, slopes and outcrops, often as scattered trees in open forest and w oodland.

Absent

Myrtaceae Melaleuca biconvexa

Biconvex Paperbark

V V Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Scattered, disjunct populations in coastal areas from Jervis Bay to Port Macquarie, w ith most populations in the Gosford-Wyong areas. Grow s in damp places, often near streams or low -lying areas on alluvial soils of low slopes or sheltered aspects.

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Myrtaceae Melaleuca deanei

Deane's Paperbark


Occurs from Now ra- St Albans and w est to the Blue Mountains, w ith most records in Ku-ring-gai / Berow ra and Holsw orthy/Wedderburn areas. Mostly grow s on broad f lat ridgetops, dry ridges and slopes and strongly associated w ith low nutrient sandy loam soils, sometimes w ith ironstone. Grow s in heath- open forest, often in sandstone ridgetop w oodland communities.

Unlikely

Orchidaceae Caladenia tessellata

Thick Lip Spider Orchid


Occurs from Central Coast NSW to southern VIC. Mostly coastal but extends inland to Braidw ood in southern NSW. In NSW grow s in grassy dry sclerophyll w oodland on clay loam or sandy soils, and less commonly in heathland on sandy loam soils (Duncan 2010).

Unlikely

Orchidaceae Cryptostylis hunteriana

Leafless Tongue Orchid

V,2 V Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs in coastal areas from East Gippsland to southern Queensland. Habitat preferences not w ell defined. Grow s mostly in coastal heathlands, margins of coastal sw amps and sedgelands, coastal forest, dry w oodland, and low land forest. Prefers open areas in the understorey and is often found in association w ith Cryptostylis subulata and the Cryptostylis erecta. Soils include moist sands, moist to dry clay loam and occasionally in accumulated eucalypt leaves. Flow ers November-February.

Unlikely

Orchidaceae Genoplesium baueri

Bauer's Midge Orchid

E1,2 E Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs from Ulladulla to Port Stephens, w ith only 13 know n extant populations. Grow s in sparse sclerophyll forest and moss gardens over sandstone

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Orchidaceae Pterostylis gibbosa

Illaw arra Greenhood

E1,2 E Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Know n from a small number of populations in the Illaw arra, Now ra and Hunter regions. First collected in w estern Sydney. Only visible above the ground betw een late summer and spring, and only w hen soil moisture levels can sustain its grow th. Grow s in open forest or w oodland, on f lat or gently sloping land w ith poor drainage. In the Illaw arra region, the species grow s in w oodland dominated by Eucalyptus tereticornis, E. longifolia and Melaleuca decora. Near Now ra, the species grow s in an open forest of Corymbia maculata, E.tereticornis and E. paniculata. In the Hunter region, the species grow s in open w oodland dominated by E. crebra, E.tereticornis and Callitris endlicheri.

Unlikely

Orchidaceae Pterostylis saxicola

Sydney Plains Greenhood

E1,2 E 6 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs in w estern Sydney betw een Picton and Freemans Reach. Grow s in small pockets of shallow soil in depressions on sandstone rock shelves above clif f lines. Associated vegetation above these rock shelves is sclerophyll forest or w oodland on shale or shale/sandstone transition soils.

Unlikely

Orchidaceae Thelymitra sp. Kangaloon

Kangaloon Sun Orchid

E4A,2 CE Species or species' habitat may occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Only know n from three locations near Robertson in the Southern Highlands. Grow s in seasonally sw ampy sedgeland on grey silty clay loam at 600–700 m above sea level. Flow ers in late October and early November.

Unlikely

Poaceae Deyeuxia appressa


Know n only from tw o pre-1942 records in Sydney, at Saltpan Creek and Killara. May be extinct in the w ild. Thought to occur in moist conditions.

Unlikely

Proteaceae Grevillea parviflora subsp. parviflora

Small-f low er Grevillea


Occurs betw een Moss Vale/Bargo and low er Hunter Valley, w ith most occurrences in Appin, Wedderburn, Picton and Bargo. Broad habitat range including heath, shrubby w oodland and open forest on light clay or sandy soils, and often in disturbed areas such as on the fringes of tracks.

Know n




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Proteaceae Persoonia nutans

Nodding Geebung

E1 E 18 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Occurs from Richmond to Macquarie Fields on the Cumberland Plain. Grow s only on aeolian and alluvial sediments in sclerophyll forest and w oodland vegetation communities. Largest populations occur in Agnes Banks Woodland or Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland.

Know n

Rhamnaceae Pomaderris brunnea

Brow n Pomaderris

V V Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Mainly occurs in SW Sydney (Wollondilly and Camden LGAs), w ith other populations in the Haw kesbury-Wollemi region, near Walcha in the New England tablelands and Gippsland in VIC. In NSW, grow s in moist w oodland or open forest on clay and alluvial soils on f lood plains and creek lines. Near Sydney occurs in open w oodland dominated by E. amplifolia w ith Allocasuarina sp. and Bursaria sp. understorey, or on alluvial f lats w ith eucalypts including E. elata, E. piperita and E. punctata (Sutter 2011).

Possible

Rhamnaceae Pomaderris prunifolia

P. prunifolia in the Parramatta, Auburn, Strathfield and Bankstow n Local Government Areas


Know n from only 3 sites w ithin population range: at Rydalmere, w ithin Rookw ood Cemetery and at The Crest of Bankstow n. At Rydalmere occurs along a road reserve near a creek, among grass species on sandstone. At Rookw ood Cemetery occurs in small gully of degraded Cooks River / Castlereagh Ironbark Forest on shale soils.

Unlikely

Rutaceae Asterolasia elegans


Occurs north of Sydney, in the Baulkham Hills, Haw kesbury and Hornsby LGAs, may also occur in the w estern part of Gosford LGA. 7 know n populations. Occurs on Haw kesbury sandstone, commonly amongst rocky outcrops and boulders in sheltered forests on mid- to low er slopes and valleys.

Unlikely




TSC Act Status1

EPBC Act Status2


Thymelaeaceae Pimelea curviflora var. curviflora

V V Species or species' habitat likely to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Confined to area betw een north Sydney in the south and Maroota in the north-w est. Former range extended to Parramatta River including Five Dock, Bellevue Hill and Manly. Grow s on shaley/lateritic soils over sandstone and shale/sandstone transition soils on ridgetops and upper slopes amongst w oodlands. Often grow s amongst dense grasses and sedges. Flow ers October to May.

Unlikely

Thymelaeaceae Pimelea spicata Spiked Rice-f low er

E1 E 319 records w ithin 10km (OEH 2014a); Species or species' habitat know n to occur w ithin 10km (DotE 2014a)

Disjunct populations w ithin the Cumberland Plain (from Mount Annan and Narellan Vale to Freemans Reach and Penrith to Georges Hall) and Illaw arra (from Mt Warrigal to Gerroa) (DEC 2005). In the Cumberland Plain region, restricted to areas w hich support or historically supported Cumberland Plain Woodland. Grow s on w ell-structured clay soils derived from Wianamatta Shale. In the Illaw arra, grow s on variable soils in close proximity to the coast on hills or coastal headlands. Inhabits coastal w oodland or grassland w ith emergent shrubs (DEC 2005).

Unlikely

1 - Key: CE – Critically Endangered; E – Endangered; V – Vulnerable; EP – Endangered, E4A = Critically Endangered, E1 = Endangered, E2 = Endangered Population,

Appendix C – EPBC Act Assessments of Significance

EPBC Act Assessments of Significance

Under the EPBC Act an action will require approval from the minister if the action has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a MNES. An assessment of significance has been prepared for MNES that would be affected by the project in accordance with the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 (DotE, 2013a). Assessments of significance for the endangered species Nodding Geebung (Persoonia nutans) and the three vulnerable species: Bynoes Wattle (Acacia bynoeana); Small-flower Grevillea (Grevillea parviflora parviflora); and the Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) are provided below.

Threatened plants

Assessment of Significance Nodding Geebung

According to the DotE (2013b) ‘significant impact criteria’ for an endangered species, an action is likely to have a significant impact on an endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

i). Lead to a long term decrease in the size of a population

There are at least three individuals of the Nodding Geebung in or near areas requiring remediation w ithin a know n local population of at least 40 individuals in the Boot Land site (see Figure 4). All recorded individuals occur in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland and Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest w ith the greatest numbers along the disturbed edges of vegetation patches and in natural clearings. The population of this species on site w ould be likely to f luctuate in response to f ire and other disturbance (OEH, 2014b).

The project includes specif ic w ork methods and mitigation measures to avoid impacts on threatened plants. All Nodding Geebung individuals observed in or near areas requiring remediation for phase 1 have been marked w ith f lagging tape and included in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ or ‘no biomass reduction areas’. Any Nodding Geebung individuals observed in or near areas requiring remediation for phases 2 and 3 w ould be detected during pre-remediation surveys and pusposefully avoided. There may be accidental damage to these plants or additional plants that w ere not detected and/or damage to plants that are immediately next to UXOs that require excavation or detonation. Overall the project w ould injure or remove a very small proportion of the local population of Nodding Geebung. There are at least 40 individuals in the study area, including at least 37 that are w ell aw ay from areas requiring remediation and at no risk of harm from the project.

Any individuals that are harmed and any habitat for the species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate. In the long term, the size of the population w ould be maintained (if ever reduced).

Reduce the area of occupancy of the species

The project includes only temporary modif ication of vegetation and habitat. Native vegetation and habitat in areas requiring remediation w ould regenerate to its current condition in the short to medium term. The project w ould not reduce the area of occupation of the species.

Fragment an existing population into two or more populations

The project w ould not permanently remove or otherw ise isolate any habitat for this species. The population of Nodding Geebung at the site w ould be maintained as a single population.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species

The Nodding Geebung occurs in a limited range of vegetation types all of w hich are TECs. Within these vegetation types it has specif ic habitat requirements related to vegetation structure and microclimate w hich are probably a product of disturbance regimes (OEH, 2014b). Given the limited range and specif ic habitat requirements of the species all occupied habitat is probably necessary ‘for the long-term maintenance of the species’ and ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered habitat critical to the survival of the species (as per the definition in DotE, 2013).

The project w ould have minor, temporary effects on habitat critical to the survival of the species through biomass reduction. Nodding Geebung seed germination is promoted by f ire and also by physical disturbance w ith disturbed sites having the greatest abundance of the species (OEH, 2015). A signif icant majority of the individuals of this species at the site w as in open areas (pers. obs.) w ith most Nodding Geebung individuals located along the edges of tracks (see Figure 3). The physical disturbance and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for the species and may have positive effects.

Assessment of Significance Nodding Geebung

Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

The project may affect the breeding cycle of the species through a short term reduction in the extent of native vegetation that may provide shelter and food for pollinator species. The three individuals in or near areas requiring remediation are at the edge of the project disturbance footprint and are in the near vicinity of vegetation that w ould be disturbed. Any such impacts w ould affect a small proportion of the local population of Nodding Geebung. There are at least 40 individuals in the study area, including 38 that are w ell outside the site. There is the potential for the project to have positive impacts on the breeding cycle of the local population: Nodding Geebung seed germination is promoted by f ire and also by physical disturbance w ith disturbed sites having the greatest abundance of the species (OEH, 2015). Any negative impacts on breeding success w ould be minor and localised and w ould not disrupt the breeding cycle of the local population.

Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

The project w ould modify habitat for the Nodding Geebung through the reduction of vegetation cover in up to 11.5 hectares of native vegetation for phase 1 of the project and minor, localised disturbance of surface soil and vegetation for phase 2. All impacts w ould be temporary. All vegetation in areas requiring remediation w ould be allow ed to regenerate after reduction for the project. The majority of mature trees and topsoil and a large proportion of mid storey and groundcover plants w ould be left undisturbed across the site. Mechanical slashers w ould be set to around 100mm height. Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants, vegetation at the site is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion (see Section 7.3.4). Connectivity of habitat w ould be maintained through and around the site throughout all stages of the project. Nodding Geebung seed germination is promoted by f ire and also by physical disturbance w ith disturbed sites having the greatest abundance of the species (OEH, 2015). The project w ould not have an adverse effect on habitat for the species such that it is likely to decline.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to the endangered or critically endangered species becoming established in the endangered species’ habitat

The project may increase the degree of w eed infestation through dispersal of w eed propagules (seeds, stems and f low ers) into areas of native vegetation via erosion (w ind and w ater) and via visitor shoes, clothing or vehicles. Given the limited scale and duration of w orks and the retention of native plant cover over the majority of the site, the project is unlikely to tangibly increase the degree of w eed infestation. The project w ill include measures to further reduce this risk such as cleaning of construction vehicles before entering and exiting the site and exclusion of access from native vegetation outside of the immediate w ork area.

Post-remediation monitoring is proposed to identify any tangible negative impacts of edge effects or w eed infestation arising from the project (see Section 7.3.4). Additional mitigation measures, such as treatment of w eed infestations, w ould be performed as appropriate to the results of monitoring.

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

Remediation activities at the site have the potential to introduce or spread pathogens such as Phytophthora (Phytophthora cinnamomi) through vegetation and soil disturbance and vehicle and foot traff ic. There is little available information about the distribution of plant diseases w ithin the locality, and no evidence of disease w as observed during surveys.

The potential for impacts associated w ith disease is low , given the disturbed nature and long term use of the site by Defence personnel. As a precautionary measure a ‘clean on entry, clean on exit’ policy should be implemented during the project as outlined under the Environment Management Plan (detailed further in Section 6) to prevent the introduction or spread of these pathogens.

No diseases that may cause the Nodding Geebung to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.

Interfere with the recovery of the species The ‘Persoonia nutans.R Br (Nodding Gebung) Recovery Plan’ (DEC, 2005) comprises the National and NSW State Recovery Plan for the shrub Persoonia nutans (Proteaceae), and as such considers the conservation requirements of the species across its know n range. It identif ies the future actions to be taken to ensure the short

Assessment of Significance Nodding Geebung and long-term viability of the Nodding Geebung in nature and the parties w ho w ill carry out these actions. The main identif ied threats to the survival of the Nodding Geebung are habitat loss and fragmentation (due to clearing for mining, and rural/residential development) and inappropriate f ire regimes, particularly frequent f ire (DEC 2005). The species is also threatened by habitat degradation due to disturbance associated w ith unrestricted access to Nodding Geebung habitat. The recovery plan lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery. The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘Minimise the loss and fragmentation of Nodding Geebung habitat using land-use planning mechanisms’ w hich has been addressed in the project through targeted surveys for the species, exclusion of biomass reduction, excavation and access track construction in the vicinity of Nodding Geebung and regeneration of habitat.

• ‘To identify and minimise the threats operating at sites w here the species occurs’ (DEC, 2005) w hich has been addressed in the project through targeted surveys for the species, exclusion of biomass reduction, excavation and access track construction in the vicinity of Nodding Geebung

The project is unlikely to harm any individual Nodding Geebung, affect its life cycle, have any notable adverse effects on habitat for the species or otherw ise interfere w ith the recovery of the species.

Conclusion of Assessment of Significance:

The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the population of the Nodding Geebung that occurs at the Boot Land site.

Assessment of Significance Bynoe’s Wattle

An ‘important population’ of a vulnerable species is defined by DotE (2013b) as ‘…a population that is necessary for the species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are:

Key source populations either for breeding or dispersal

Populations that are necessary for maintaining genetic diversity, and/or

Populations that are near the limit of the species’ range’.

There at least f ive individuals of Bynoe’s Wattle in or near areas requiring remediation as part of phase 1 of the project. This is the only area in the Boot land w here this species has been observed to date. The individuals recorded occur in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland in the southw est of the site. Additional records are know n from Holsw orthy Army Base to the south and southeast (OEH 2014). It is likely that additional individuals are present in the locality how ever the total population of the species is probably less than 1000 plants and the observed populations at most locations are very small (1-5 plants) (OEH, 2015). In this context, the population of f ive plants at the site is likely to be important ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered an important population (as per the definition in DotE, 2013).

According to the DotE (2013b) ‘significant impact criteria’ for vulnerable species, an action is likely to have a significant impact on an vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population

The project includes specif ic w ork methods and mitigation measures to avoid impacts on threatened plants. All of the f ive stems of Bynoe’s Wattle recorded in the study are located in areas requiring remediation and so extra attention w ould be paid to avoiding impacts on these individuals. All f ive stems are located in ‘no biomass reduction areas’ and have been marked w ith f lagging tape and so there is minimal risk of accidental damage to these plants. Any additional plants in or near the areas that w ould be disturbed for phases 2 and 3 are likely to be detected during pre-remediation surveys. There is a risk of impacts to additional plants that may be present but are not detected and/or damage to plants that are immediately next to UXO that require excavation or detonation or containminated soil that requires excavation.

Bynoe’s Wattle is associated w ith open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail margins, edges of roadside spoil mounds and in recently burnt patches (OEH, 2015). The physical disturbance and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for these species and may have positive effects.

Any individuals that are harmed and any habitat for the species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate.

Assessment of Significance Bynoe’s Wattle In the long term the size of the population w ould be maintained (if ever reduced).



Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

The project w ould not permanently remove or otherw ise isolate any habitat for the species. The population of Bynoe’s Wattle at the site w ould be maintained as a single population

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

Bynoe’s Wattle occurs at less than 50 locations and has specif ic habitat requirements related to vegetation structure and microclimate w hich are probably a product of disturbance regimes (OEH, 2014b). Given the limited range and specif ic habitat requirements of the species all occupied habitat is probably necessary ‘ for the long-term maintenance of the species’ and ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered habitat critical to the survival of the species (as per the definition in DotE, 2013).

The project w ould have minor, temporary effects on habitat critical to the survival of the species through biomass reduction and very minor, localised disturbance of surface soil in the immediate vicinity of UXO or contaminated soils. All impacts w ould be temporary. Bynoe’s Wattle is associated w ith open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail margins, edges of roadside spoil mounds and in recently burnt patches (OEH, 2015). The f ive individuals at the site w ere located in open vegetation (w hich is w hy no biomass reduction is proposed in this area). The physical disturbance and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for the species and may have positive effects.

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

The project may affect the breeding cycle of the species through a short term reduction in the extent of native vegetation that may provide shelter and food for pollinator species. Bynoe’s Wattle produces few seeds and appears to have only local dispersal of seed. It is likely the species is able to resprout from rootstock after f ire. The species also maintains a long-term soil-stored seedbank and plants appear periodically, perhaps in response to local disturbance (OEH, 2015). Any negative impacts on breeding success w ould be minor and localised and w ould not disrupt the breeding cycle of the local population.


The project w ould modify habitat for Bynoe’s Wattle through the reduction of vegetation cover in up to 11.5 hectares of native vegetation and minor, localised disturbance of surface soil in the immediate vicinity of UXO for phase 1 of the project. Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat. Potential impacts w ould be further reduced through the proposed pre-remediation surveys and purposeful placement of access tracks in areas of less value. Where excavation and/or biomass reduction is required extra attention w ill be paid to avoid impacts to threatened plants.

All impacts w ould be temporary. All vegetation at the site w ould be allow ed to regenerate after reduction for the project. The majority of mature trees and topsoil and a large proportion of mid storey and groundcover plants w ould be left undisturbed across the site. Mechanical slashers w ould be set to around 100mm height. Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ and ‘no biomass reduction’ areas, trees, low plants and plants that can resprout, vegetation at the site it is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion (see Section 6.3.3). Connectivity of habitat w ould be maintained through and around the site throughout all stages of the project. Bynoe’s Wattle is associated w ith open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail margins, edges of roadside spoil mounds and in recently burnt patches (OEH, 2015). The disturbance arising from the

Assessment of Significance Bynoe’s Wattle project may have a positive effect on potential habitat. The project w ould not have an adverse effect on habitat for the species such that it is likely to decline.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat




The project has the potential to introduce or spread pathogens such as Phytophthora (Phytophthora cinnamomi) through vegetation and soil disturbance and vehicle and foot traff ic. There is little available information about the distribution of plant diseases w ithin the locality, and no evidence of disease w as observed during surveys.


No diseases that may cause Bynoe’s Wattle to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.

Interfere with the recovery of the species The ‘recovery plan decision’ for the Bynoe’s Wattle is currently ‘Recovery Plan required, included on the Commenced List (1/11/2009)’ (DotE, 2015c). The main threats to Bynoe's Wattle are land clearing, habitat fragmentation and/or habitat degradation from road, trail and pow erline maintenance; and recreational vehicle use, w eed invasion and inappropriate f ire regimes (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2013) The approved conservation advice lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery of Bynoe’s Wattle (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2013). The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘Ensure there is no inappropriate disturbance in areas w here Bynoe’s w attle occurs, excluding necessary actions to manage the conservation of the species’ (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2013). This has been addressed in the project through targeted surveys for the species and exclusion of biomass reduction, excavation and access track construction in the vicinity of the species.

In addition, the NSW Office of Environment and heritage has identif ied priority actions to help the recovery of Bynoe's Wattle in New South Wales. The follow ing actions are relevant to the project:

• ‘Ensure that planning and maintenance staff are aw are of the species and that processes are in place to avoid impacting upon it’

• ‘Limit movement of people through Bynoe’s Wattle populations’ (OEH 2015) w hich has been addressed through the measures specif ied in the BMP.

• ‘Ensure there is no inappropriate disturbance in areas w here Bynoe’s w attle occurs’, each of w hich have been addressed through the previous and proposed survey for the species and the measures to avoid impacts on plants and occupied habitat specif ied in the BMP,

The project is unlikely to harm any individual Bynoe’s Wattles, affect its life cycle, have any notable adverse effects on habitat for the species or otherw ise interfere w ith the recovery of the species.

Conclusion

The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the important population of Bynoe’s Wattle that occurs at

Assessment of Significance Bynoe’s Wattle

the site.

Assessment of Significance Downy Wattle

An ‘important population’ of a vulnerable species is defined by DotE (2013a) as ‘…a population that is necessary for the species’ long-term survival and recovery. This may include populations identified as such in recovery plans, and/or that are:




There are at least 263 stems of the Dow ny Wattle in the local population at the Boot land (see Figure 4). The stems recorded in the local population occur in Shale-Gravel Transition Forest and Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest and are likely to occur in broader areas in these communities. The population of this species w ould be likely to f luctuate in response to f ire (OEH, 2014b). Dow ny Wattle w as very abundant in some areas that had been burnt f ive to ten years ago, including tw o dense patches w ith estimated counts of around 50 and 100 stems each. Dow ny Wattle is a clonal species w ith clumps of tens or even hundred of stems potentially comprising only one genetic individual (NPWS, 2003). Nonetheless, the population of several hundred stems in an extensive patch of habitat at the site is likely to be viable and self sustaining and w ould be important in the context of the extensively cleared suburbs in the locality and the regional distribution of the species w hich is concentrated in the south-w estern suburbs of Sydney (OEH, 2014b). In this context, the population of Dow ny Wattle at the site is likely to have considerable value as a ‘key source population either for breeding or dispersal’ and ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered an important population (as per the definition in DotE, 2013a).

According to the DotE (2013a) ‘significant impact criteria’ for vulnerable species, an action is likely to have a significant impact on an vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:


There are no know n Dow ny Wattles in areas requiring remediation as part of the project. There is a patch of around 20 stems w ithin around 20 metres of the road of bullets and multiple patches of one to 20 stems w ithin 50 metres of several stockpies near the centre of the site, just east of the central easement (see Figure 4). The project includes specif ic w ork methods and mitigation measures to avoid impacts on these know n stems and other threatened plants. The proposed remediation and associated activities such as use of temporary access tracks w ould be sited so as to avoid direct and indirect impacts on these Dow ny Wattles. Any additional Dow ny Wattles in or near the areas that w ould be disturbed for phases 2 and 3 are likely to be detected during pre-remediation surveys. There is a risk of impacts to additional plants that may be present but are not detected and/or damage to plants that are immediately next to UXO or contaminated soil that requires excavation.

Any stems that are harmed and any habitat for the species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate. In the long term the size of the population w ould be maintained (if ever reduced).




The project w ould not permanently remove or otherw ise isolate any habitat for the species. The population of Dow ny Wattle at the site w ould be maintained as a single population.


Dow ny Wattle occurs at a small number of locations centred around southw estern Sydney and has specif ic

Assessment of Significance Downy Wattle habitat requirements related to soil type (OEH, 2014b). Given the limited range and specif ic habitat requirements of the species all occupied habitat is probably necessary ‘for the long-term maintenance of the species’ and ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered habitat critical to the survival of the species (as per the definition in DotE, 2013).

The project w ould have minor, temporary effects on habitat critical to the survival of the species through biomass reduction and very minor, localised disturbance of surface soil in the immediate vicinity of areas requiring remediation. The Dow ny Wattle is know n to persist in disturbed or modif ied environments (OEH, 2014b). The physical disturbance and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat.


The project may affect the breeding cycle of the species through a short term reduction in the extent of native vegetation that may provide shelter and food for pollinator species. Dow ny Wattle is a clonal species w ith clumps of tens or even hundred of stems potentially one genetic individual (NPWS, 2003). Dow ny Wattle produces few seeds, often w ith low viability and/or survival and appears to have only local dispersal of seed (NPWS, 2003). It is likely the species is able to resprout from rootstock after f ire. The species is likely to maintain a long-term soil-stored seedbank and germination is likely to be triggered by f ire or other local disturbance (NPWS, 2003). Given the importance of clonal stems and the soil seed bank to the reproduction of the species, short term impacts on pollination w ould have a minor effect on the local population. Any negative impacts on breeding success w ould be minor, temporary and localised and w ould not disrupt the breeding cycle of the local population.


The project w ould modify habitat for Dow ny Wattle through the reduction of vegetation cover in up to 11.5 hectares of native vegetation and minor, localised disturbance of surface soil in the immediate vicinity of UXO for phase 1 of the project. No Dow ny Wattles have been observed in this area though it contains potential habitat.

Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat. Potential impacts w ould be further reduced through the proposed pre-remediation surveys and purposeful placement of access tracks in areas of less value. Where excavation and/or biomass reduction is required extra attention w ill be paid to avoid impacts to threatened plants.

All impacts w ould be temporary. All vegetation at the site w ould be allow ed to regenerate after reduction for the project. The majority of mature trees and topsoil and a large proportion of mid storey and groundcover plants w ould be left undisturbed across the site. Mechanical slashers w ould be set to around 100mm height. Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants outside of areas requiring biomass reduction, plant communtities at the site are likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion (see Section 6.3.3). Connectivity of habitat w ould be maintained through and around the site throughout all stages of the project. Dow ny Wattle is associated w ith open, sometimes slightly disturbed sites such as trail margins, edges of roadside spoil mounds and in recently burnt patches (OEH, 2015). The project w ould not have an adverse effect on habitat for the species such that it is likely to decline.




Assessment of Significance Downy Wattle




No diseases that may cause Dow ny Wattle to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.

Interfere with the recovery of the species The Dow ny Wattle (Acacia pubescens) Recovery Plan (NPWS, 2003) comprises the National and NSW State Recovery Plan for the shrub Acacia pubescens (Fabaceae (Mimosoideae)), and as such considers the conservation requirements of the species across its know n range. It identif ies the future actions to be taken to ensure the short and long-term viability of the Dow ny Wattle in nature and the parties w ho w ill carry out these actions. Know n threats to the species include habitat loss, habitat degradation (through w eed invasion, mechanical damage, rubbish dumping, illegal track creation, and inappropriate f ire regimes), disease and hybridisation (NSW NPWS, 2003). The recovery plan lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery of this species. The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘Informed environmental assessment and planning decisions are made’ (NSW NPWS, 2003), w hich has been addressed through the preparation of this report in accordance w ith relevant policy and guidelines.

The project is unlikely to directly harm any Dow ny Wattles, affect the life cycle of the species, have any notable adverse effects on habitat for the species or otherw ise interfere w ith the recovery of the species.

Conclusion

The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the important population of Dow ny Wattle that occurs at the site.

Assessment of Significance Small-flower Grevillea





There are at least 1110 stems of the Small-f low er Grevillea in or near areas requiring remediation the majority of w hich are in Area C. The observed local population comprises a total of at least 1564 stems in the Boot Land site. The individuals recorded in the study area occur in Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland and Cooks River Castlereagh Ironbark Forest w ith the greatest numbers along the disturbed edges of vegetation patches and in natural clearings. The local population of this species w ould be likely to f luctuate in response to f ire and other disturbance (OEH, 2014b).

Given the large number of stems observed and the presence of f low ering, fruiting and juvenile plants, the population at the site is likely to be important ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered an important population (as per the definition in DotE, 2013).

According to the DotE (2013a) ‘significant impact criteria’ for vulnerable species, an action is likely to have a significant impact on an vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:


The project includes specif ic w ork methods and mitigation measures to avoid impacts on threatened plants. A targeted survey has been undertaken to identify and mark threatened plants in or near areas requiring remediation. Contractors w ould be trained to recognise threatened plant species and w ould pay due attention to f lagging tape, GPS points and plans indicating threatened plants and UXO management areas. The densest populations of Small-f low er Grevillea are in areas w ith comparatively open mid storey and groundcover vegetation that could be investigated for UXO w ithout mechanical biomass reduction (see areas of ‘No biomass reduction’ on Figure 4). The risk of harm or mortality of threatened plants in these areas is very low . Conversely areas of the site w ith dense mid storey vegetation, that w ould require mechanical slashing to achieve UXO remediation, tend to have few er Small-f low er Grevillea stems. Further, UXO remediation w ould only be required in areas w here evidence of UXO contamination is identif ied.

Any Small-f low er Grevillea individuals observed in or near areas requiring remediation for phases 2 and 3 w ould be detected during pre-remediation surveys and pusposefully avoided.

The project w ould result in impacts on the local population of Small-f low er Grevillea, including:

Slashing of a maximum of 78 Small-f low er Grevillea stems in ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas in patches of mid storey vegetation that is too dense to clear w ith mechanical hand tools.

Slashing of plants that may be present but that w ere not detected in the survey in ‘core biomass reduction’ and ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas.

Accidental damage to plants in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ or ‘no biomass reduction areas’.

Damage to plants that are immediately next to UXO that require excavation or detonation.

Small-f low er Grevillea plants are capable of suckering from a rhizome and most populations demonstrate a degree of vegetative spread, particularly after disturbance such as f ire (OEH, 2015). Small-f low er Grevillea plants at the site are likely to regenerate after slashing or mechanical biomass reduction provided that the rhizome is not uprooted or otherw ise disturbed and the topsoil is not removed (Makinson, B. RBG, pers. comm.). Biomass reduction w ould be to a height of around 100 mm and w ould leave the rhizomes of Small-f low er Grevillea and other shrubs relatively undisturbed and capable of vegetative regeneration. Overall the project w ould injure or remove a very small proportion of the population of at least 1564 stems of Small-f low er Grevillea in the study area that includes:

Around 468 stems recorded in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ w hich are likely to escape harm.

Around 564 stems recorded in ‘no biomass reduction areas’ w hich are at very little risk of harm.

At least 464 stems in the local population that are outside the site and at no risk of harm from the

Assessment of Significance Small-flower Grevillea

project.

It should be noted that the number of stems of Small-f low er Grevillea in portions of the Boot Land outside of the site is likely to be far greater than 464 because these areas have been surveyed w ith much less intensity than the site.

Small-f low er Grevillea often occurs in open, slightly disturbed sites such as along tracks (OEH, 2015) and the majority of the stems in or near areas requiring remediation w ere in open areas (pers. obs.). The short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for the species and may have positive effects.

Any individuals that are harmed and any habitat for the species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate. In the long term the size of the population w ould be maintained.


The project includes only temporary modif ication of vegetation and habitat. Native vegetation and habitat at the site w ould regenerate to its current condition in the short to medium term. The project w ould not reduce the area of occupation of the species.


The project w ould not permanently remove or otherw ise isolate any habitat for the species. The population of Small-f low er Grevillea at the site w ould be maintained as a single population.


Given the size of the local population, occupied habitat at the site is probably necessary ‘for the long-term maintenance of the species’ and ‘to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development’ and should be considered habitat critical to the survival of the species (as per the definition in DotE, 2013).

The project w ould have minor, temporary effects on habitat critical to the survival of the species through biomass reduction and localised disturbance of surface soil in areas requirring remediation. All impacts w ould be temporary. Small-f low er Grevillea often occurs in open, slightly disturbed sites such as along tracks (OEH, 2015) and the majority of the stems in or near areas requiring remediation w ere in open areas (pers. obs.). The physical disturbance and short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for the species and may have positive effects.


Small-f low er Grevilleas are insect-pollinated and seed dispersal is limited (OEH, 2015). The project may affect the breeding cycle of the species through a short term reduction in the extent of native vegetation that may provide shelter and food for pollinator species. Plants are capable of suckering from a rootstock and most populations demonstrate a degree of vegetative spread, particularly after disturbance such as f ire (OEH, 2015). As described above biomass reduction w ould be to a height of around 100 mm and Small-f low er Grevillea plants at the site are likely to regenerate after slashing or mechanical biomass reduction (Makinson, B. RBG, pers. comm.). Any negative impacts on breeding success w ould be minor and localised and w ould not disrupt the breeding cycle of the local population.


The project w ould modify habitat for Small-f low er Grevillea through the reduction of vegetation cover in up to 11.5 hectares of native vegetation and minor, localised disturbance of soil at other areas requiring remediation. All impacts w ould be temporary. All vegetation in areas requiring remediation w ould be allow ed to regenerate after reduction for the project. The majority of mature trees and topsoil and a large proportion of mid storey and groundcover plants w ould be left undisturbed across the site. Mechanical slashers w ould be set to around 100mm height. Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants outside of areas requiring remediation, vegetation at the site it is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion (see Section 6.3.3). Connectivity of habitat w ould be maintained

Assessment of Significance Small-flower Grevillea through and around the site throughout all stages of the project.

Small-f low er Grevillea often occurs in open, slightly disturbed sites such as along tracks (OEH, 2015) and the majority of the stems in or near areas requiring remediation w ere in open areas (pers. obs.). The short term reduction in vegetation cover for the project is highly unlikely to reduce the quality of habitat for the species and may have positive effects. The project w ould not have an adverse effect on habitat for the species such that it is likely to decline.







No diseases that may cause Small-f low er Grevillea to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.

Interfere with the recovery of the species The ‘recovery plan decision’ for the Small-f low er Grevillea is currently ‘Recovery Plan not required, included on the Not Commenced List (1/11/2009)’ (DotE, 2015c). The approved conservation advice for the Small-f low er Grevillea identif ies the main threats to the species as habitat loss and fragmentation through clearing for urban development; agriculture; road maintenance; w eed invasion; rubbish dumping; recreational activities; and inappropriate f ire regimes (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2008). The approved conservation advice lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery of the Small-f low er Grevillea (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2008). The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘Manage threats to areas of vegetation that contain populations/occurrences/remnants of Small-f low er Grevillea’

• ‘Ensure road w idening and maintenance activities (or other infrastructure or development activities) in areas w here the species occurs do not adversely impact on know n populations’.

• ‘Liaise w ith land managers to encourage the preparation of site management plans and the implementation of appropriate threat abatement measures, particularly in f ire management, bush regeneration, roadside management, w eed control, fencing and signage’.

• ‘Ensure this species is considered in all planning matters on land that contains or may contain populations of the species’.

• ‘Minimise adverse impacts from land use at know n sites’. • ‘Mark and fence off sites during development/road maintenance activities’. • ‘Ensure that personnel responsible for planning and undertaking maintenance activities are able to

identify the species and are aw are of its habitat’. • ‘Avoid use of heavy machinery in areas of know n populations’. • ‘Manage sites to prevent introduction of invasive w eeds, w hich could become a threat to Small-f low er

Grevillea, using appropriate methods’ (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2008).

Each of the above listed recovery and threat abatement actions have been addressed in the project through the previous and proposed survey for the species and the measures to avoid impacts on plants and occupied

Assessment of Significance Small-flower Grevillea habitat specif ied in the BMP,

The project is unlikely to harm any individual Small-f low er Grevilleas, affect its life cycle, have any notable adverse effects on habitat for the species or otherw ise interfere w ith the recovery of the species.

Conclusion

The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the important population of Small-f low er Grevillea that occurs at the site.

Threatened ecological communities

Assessment of Significance Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CEEC)

According to the DotE (2013) ‘significant impact criteria’ for endangered or critically endangered ecological communities, an action is likely to have a significant impact on a community species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

Reduce the extent of an ecological community

Biomass reduction for phase 1 of the project w ould result in the removal of some plants and temporary modif ication of vegetation structure w ithin a maximum of 3.56 hectares of Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest out of the 11.27 hectare local occurrence in the Boot Land site. The project does not comprise land clearance as defined under the EPBC Act (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2001). Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat w ithin the local occurrence of the community. Native vegetation w ould be allow ed to regenerate after the proposed remediation. Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants outside of areas requiring remediation and in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ and ‘no biomass reduction’ areas, vegetation at the site it is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion. In the medium and longer term the project w ould not reduce the extent of the ecological community.

Fragment of increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines

The project includes only temporary modif ication of vegetation and habitat. Native vegetation and habitat in areas requiring remediation w ould regenerate to the current condition in the short to medium term. Nom permanent gaps in habitat w ould be created. The project w ould not fragment the local occurrence of the community.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community

The community occurs on specif ic soil types w ithin a restricted distribution that coincides w ith the Sydney region. The natural extent of the community has been extensively cleared and is subject to ongoing development pressure. All occupied habitat other than the smallest or most degraded remnants w ould be critical to the survival of the community. The local occurrence at the site is in good condition and part of a continuous patch of vegetation greater than 100 hectares in area and as such comprises habitat critical to the survival of the community.

The project w ould have minor adverse effects on habitat critical to the survival of the community through biomass reduction and very minor, localised disturbance of soil in areas requiring remediation. All impacts w ould be temporary.

Modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients of soil) necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of groundwater levels or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns

Assessment of Significance Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CEEC)

The project w ould include excavation of contaminated soil at the areas requiring remediation show n on Figure 2. Figure 2 also provides indicative estimates of the volume of soil to be removed. This w ould alter surface w ater drainage patterns in the vicinity of areas requiring remediation. Any such impacts w ould be minor and localised. Further, the proposed excavation w ould remove only f ill, stockpiles and contaminated soil and at most locations w ould result in the restoration of more natural soil profiles and land surface.

An EMP is recommended for the proposal, w hich w ould contain measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts (i.e. erosion and sedimentation) on native vegetation adjoining the subject site, including this community.

Any alterations as a result of the proposal are unlikely to result in destruction of abiotic conditions necessary for the ecological communities’ survival in the locality.

Cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna harvesting

Phase 1 of the project w ould affect up to 3.56 hectares of Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest comprising:

No ‘core biomass reduction’ and as such no removal of native trees >100mm diameter DBH.

Up to 2.98 hectares of vegetation removal in ‘partial biomass reduction’ areas. Mid storey and groundcover vegetation cover w ill be reduced w ith a slasher. Trees w ith >100mm DBH w ill be retained.

Up to 0.25 hectares of vegetation modif ication in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ areas. The minimum amount of mid-storey and groundcover vegetation required to achieve access for UXO remediation w ill be removed w ith mechanical tools.

Minimal impacts on vegetation in 0.34 hectares of ‘no biomass reduction’ areas. UXO remediation w ill be undertaken around mid-storey and groundcover vegetation.

Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat.

All direct impacts w ould be minimised and/or temporary. Any individual plants that are harmed and any habitat for species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate. In the long term, the size of the component populations w ithin the local occurrence of the community w ould be maintained (if ever reduced).

The project w ould remove some native plants and displace some native animals that are component species of the community. The individual plants and animals affected w ithin the areas requiring remediation w ould not be an ecologically signif icant proportion of any of the individual species that make up the community. The project is not likely to remove, modify or fragment a signif icant proportion of the habitat for this community at the Boot Land or in the locality. The extensive areas of f loristically similar vegetation in the study area and locality are likely to be suff icient to maintain viable local populations of the species that comprise the community. Given the scale and context of the project it is unlikely to modify the composition of any vegetation beyond the areas requiring remediation and immediately adjoining areas. As such, the project is not likely to cause a substantial change in the composition of the community.

Cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an ecological community, including but not limited to:

Assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological community, to become established, or

No invasive species that may cause the Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.

Causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological community

The proposal does not directly involve production or transport of any fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the community. The project involves transport of excavated sediments and UXO off site including movement of these materials through the local occurrence of the community. This w ould only occur w here the areas requiring remediation are located w ithin the local occurrence of the community and across short section of temporary access tracks. Contaminants w ould then be transported out of the site via existing access tracks. The

Assessment of Significance Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (CEEC) proposed remediation w ould be conducted under a RAP including best practice methods for handling and transporting contaminants (GHD, 2015a). The transport of contaminants is highly unlikely to result in effects that w ould kill or inhibit the grow th of species in the ecological community.

Construction vehicles and equipment w ould cause a minor localized increase in the risk of hydrocarbon contamination for the duration of remediation actvitities. This w ould not be ‘regular’ (if at all) and is highly unlikely to kill or inhibit the grow th of any species in the ecological community.

Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community The ‘recovery plan decision’ for the Cooks River – Castlereagh Ironbark Forest is currently ‘Recovery Plan required’ listed ‘w ithin the Conservation Advice’ (4/3/2015) (DotE, 2015c). The main threats to Cooks River – Castlereagh Ironbark Forest are clearance and fragmentation due to increased urbanisation, inappropriate f ire regimes, w eed invasion, hydrological changes, predation and displacement of native fauna by domestic pets and other species, climate change, dryland salinity, grazing, mow ing and disease. The approved conservation advice lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery of the Cooks River – Castlereagh Ironbark Forest CEEC (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2015). The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘Avoid disturbances to native vegetation’ • ‘Protect the soil seedbank’ • Prevent the spread of Phytophthora cinnamomi’ ,each of w hich have been addressed through measures

to avoid impacts on native species and habitat resources specif ied in the BMP,

The project w ould not permantly remove any vegetation w ithin the local occurrence of the community, affect its species composition, have any notable adverse effects on habitat for the community or otherw ise interfere w ith the recovery of the community.


The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the local occurrence of Cooks River - Castlereagh Ironbark Forest at the site.

Assessment of Significance Shale – Gravel Transition Forest (CEEC)



There is no Shale – Gravel Transition Forest in the area proposed for biomass reduction for phase 1 of the project. Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat w ithin the local occurrence of the community. The project w ould include the temporary removal or modif ication of native vegetation through slashing and spreading of f ill material. Native vegetation w ould be allow ed to regenerate after the proposed remediation. The project does not comprise land clearance as defined under the EPBC Act (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2001). Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants outside of areas requiring remediation and in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ and ‘no biomass reduction’ areas, vegetation at the site it is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion. In the medium and longer term the project w ould not reduce the extent of the ecological community.


The project includes only temporary modif ication of vegetation and habitat. Native vegetation and habitat in areas requiring remediation w ould regenerate to its current condition in the short to medium term. The project w ould not fragement the local occurrence of the community.

Assessment of Significance Shale – Gravel Transition Forest (CEEC)






An EMP is recommended for the proposal, w hich w ould contain measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts (i.e. erosion and sedimentation) on native vegetation adjoining the subject site, including this CEEC.



There is no Cumberland Plain Woodland in the area proposed for biomass reduction for phase 1 of the project Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat.

All direct impacts w ould be minimised and/or temporary. Any individuals that are harmed and any habitat for species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate. In the long term the size of the component populations w ithin the local occurrence of the community w ould be maintained (if ever reduced).

The project w ould remove some native plants and displace some native animals that are component species of the community. The individual plants and animals affected w ithin the areas requiring remediation w ould not be an ecologically signif icant proportion of any of the individual species that make up the community. The project is not likely to remove, modify or fragment a signif icant proportion of the habitat for this community at the Boot Land or in the locality. The extensive areas of f loristically similar vegetation in the study area and locality are likely to be suff icient to maintain viable local populations of the species that comprise the community. Given the scale and context of the project it is unlikely to modify the composition of any vegetation beyond the areas requiring remediation and immediately adjoining areas. As such, the project is not likely to cause a substantial change in the composition of the community.



No invasive species that may cause the Cumberland Plain Woodland to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.


The proposal does not directly involve production or transport of any fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the community. The project involves transport of excavated sediments and UXO off site including movement of these materials through the local occurrence of the community. This w ould only occur w here the areas requiring remediation are located w ithin the local occurrence of the community and across short section of temporary access tracks. Contaminants w ould then be transported out of the site via existing access tracks. The

Assessment of Significance Shale – Gravel Transition Forest (CEEC) proposed remediation w ould be conducted under a RAP including best practice methods for handling and transporting contaminants (GHD, 2015a). The transport of contaminants is highly unlikely to result in effects that w ould kill or inhibit the grow th of species in the ecological community.


Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community The ‘recovery plan decision’ for Shale-Gravel Transition Forest is currently ‘Recovery Plan required, at the time of listing a recovery plan w as in preparation for Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale-Gravel Transition Forest (17/11/2009) (DotE, 2015c). The main threats to Shale-Gravel Transition Forest are clearing for urban, industrial or rural development, the consequent fragmentation of native vegetation remnants, inappropriate grazing and f ire regimes, w eed invasion and the low level of protection in reserves (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2008b) The approved conservation advice lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery of the Shale-Gravel Transition Forest CEEC (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2018b). The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘Implement appropriate management regimes to maintain the biodiversity, including threatened species, of the ecological community’ (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2008b) w hich has been addressed through measures to avoid impacts on native species and habitat resources specif ied in the BMP as w ell as the proposed future conservation of the site as a biodiversity offset.



The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the local occurrence of Cumberland Plain Woodland at the site.

Assessment of Significance Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland (CEEC)



Biomass reduction for phase 1 of the project w ould result in the removal of some plants and temporary modif ication of vegetation structure w ithin a maximum of 6.39 hectares of Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland out of the 39.11 hectare local occurrence in the Boot Land site. Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat w ithin the local occurrence of the community. The project w ould include the temporary removal or modif ication of native vegetation w ithin the local occurrence of the community through slashing and spreading of f ill material. Native vegetation w ould be allow ed to regenerate after the proposed remediation. The project does not comprise land clearance as defined under the EPBC Act (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2001). Given the retention of topsoil and the extent of undisturbed plants outside of areas requiring remediation and in ‘minimal biomass reduction’ and ‘no biomass reduction’ areas, vegetation at the site it is likely to regenerate in the short term. Post-regeneration vegetation is likely to have a similar structure and species richness to the current situation in the medium term. Monitoring is proposed to ensure that vegetation is regenerating as anticipated and to detect and manage any problems that may arise such as w eed infestations or erosion. In the medium and longer term the project w ould not reduce the extent of the ecological community.


The project includes only temporary modif ication of vegetation and habitat. Native vegetation and habitat in areas requiring remediation w ould regenerate to the current condition in the short to medium term. Nom permanent

Assessment of Significance Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland (CEEC) gaps in habitat w ould be created. The project w ould not fragment the local occurrence of the community.






An EMP is recommended for the proposal, w hich w ould contain measures to reduce direct and indirect impacts (i.e. erosion and sedimentation) on native vegetation adjoining the subject site, including this community.



Phase 1 of the project w ould affect up to 6.39 hectares of Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland comprising:

Up to 0.99 hectares of vegetation removal in ‘core biomass reduction’ areas. All vegetation w ill be removed w ith a slasher to create a clear level surface. Native trees >100mm diameter at breast height (DBH) w ill be retained if practicable.





All direct impacts w ould be minimised and/or temporary. Any individuals that are harmed and any habitat for species that is modif ied w ould be allow ed to regenerate. In the long term the size of the component populations w ithin the local occurrence of the community w ould be maintained (if ever reduced).

The project w ould remove some native plants and displace some native animals that are component species of the community. The individual plants and animals affected w ithin the areas requiring remediation w ould not be an ecologically signif icant proportion of any of the individual species that make up the community. The project is not likely to remove, modify or fragment a signif icant proportion of the habitat for this community at the Boot Land or

Assessment of Significance Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland (CEEC)

in the locality. The extensive areas of f loristically similar vegetation in the study area and locality are likely to be suff icient to maintain viable local populations of the species that comprise the community. Given the scale and context of the project it is unlikely to modify the composition of any vegetation beyond the areas requiring remediation and immediately adjoining areas. As such, the project is not likely to cause a substantial change in the composition of the community.



No invasive species that may cause the Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.


The proposal does not directly involve production or transport of any fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or pollutants into the community. The project involves transport of excavated sediments and UXO off site including movement of these materials through the local occurrence of the community. This w ould only occur w here the areas requiring remediation are located w ithin the local occurrence of the community and across short section of temporary access tracks. Contaminants w ould then be transported out of the site via existing access tracks. The proposed remediation w ould be conducted under a RAP including best practice methods for handling and transporting contaminants (GHD, 2015a). The transport of contaminants is highly unlikely to result in effects that w ould kill or inhibit the grow th of species in the ecological community.


Interfere with the recovery of an ecological community The ‘recovery plan decision’ for the Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland is currently ‘Recovery Plan required listed w ithin the Conservation Advice’ (4/3/2015) (DotE, 2015c). The main threats to Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland are clearance and fragmentation due to increased urbanisation, inappropriate f ire regimes, w eed invasion, hydrological changes, predation and displacement of native fauna by domestic pets and other species, climate change and disease (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2015b) The approved conservation advice lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery of the Cooks River – Castlereagh Ironbark Forest CEEC (Threatened Species Scientif ic Committee, 2015). The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• Avoid disturbances to native vegetation • Protect the soil seedbank • Prevent the spread of Phytophthora cinnamomi, each of w hich have been addressed through measures

to avoid impacts on native species and habitat resources specif ied in the BMP,



The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the local occurrence of Castlereagh Scribbly Gum Woodland at the site.

Threatened fauna

Assessment of Significance Grey-headed Flying-fox (Vulnerable)





The Grey-headed Flying-fox is a highly mobile species w hich regularly travels up to 50km in a night to forage, and has been show n to make migratory movements of almost 1000 km w ithin a year (Churchill 2008, Webb and Tidemann, 1996). The subsequent mixing of populations means that genetically the species can be treated as one population across its entire range in eastern Australia (Webb and Tidemann, 1996), and the numbers in any one camp are influenced by food availability and the requirements of mating and raising young (KBCS, 2011). This regional population is therefore collectively considered an important population.

According to the DEWHA (2009) ‘significant impact criteria’ for vulnerable species, an action is likely to have a significant impact on an vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

ii). Lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population

The Grey-headed Flying-fox w as observed foraging in vegetation at the study area during previous surveys (Hyder, 2013). Grey-headed Flying-foxes are likely to forage on the site in eucalypts and other f low ering species on occasion. Biomass reduction for phase 1 of the project w ould result in the removal of some plants and temporary modif ication of vegetation structure w ithin of a maximum of 11.8 hectares of vegetation, including 10.6 hectares of relatively intact native vegetation in good condition out of the 100 hectares of similar native vegetation in the Boot Land site. Phases 2 and 3 w ould result in excavation of f ill material or contaminated soil and biomass reduction in small, localised areas of poorer condition habitat. There w ould be a minor, localised and temporary reduction in the amount of foraging resources available for the species immediately after biomass reduction. Given the mobility of the species this w ould comprise a negligible reduction in available resources. There are no roost camps in the study area. The localised, partial reduction in vegetation cover for the project w ould not affect the ability of this species to move betw een breeding and foraging areas. Given the high mobility of this species and the proximity of large areas of connected native vegetation in the region (including Holsw orthy Special Area, Heathcote National Park and the Royal National Park), the removal of this vegetation is very unlikely to lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population.


The project includes only temporary modif ication of small areas of vegetation and habitat. Native vegetation and habitat in areas requiring remediation w ould regenerate to its current condition in the short to medium term. The project w ould not reduce the area of occupation of the species.


The project w ould not permanently remove or otherw ise isolate any habitat for the species. Given the mobility of the species and the small area of vegetation to be removed, the project w ould not fragment the existing important population into tw o or more populations.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of the species

The draft national recovery plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox states that foraging habitat that meets at least one of the follow ing criteria qualif ies as critical habitat:

• productive during w inter and spring, w hen food bottlenecks have been identif ied.

• know n to support populations of > 30 000 individuals w ithin an area of 50 kilometre radius (the maximum foraging distance of an adult).

• productive during the f inal w eeks of gestation, and during the w eeks of birth, lactation and conception (September to May).

Assessment of Significance Grey-headed Flying-fox (Vulnerable)

• productive during the f inal stages of fruit project and ripening in commercial crops affected by Grey-headed Flying-foxes (months vary betw een regions).

• know n to support a continuously occupied camp (DECCW, 2009).

The site contains the Red Bloodw ood (Corymbia gummifera), w hich is a highly productive late summer and early autumn flow ering forage tree along w ith Eucalyptus, Banksia and Melaleuca species in the blossom diet of the species that f low er throughout the year (Eby and Law , 2008). Habitat at the site probably meets the broad definition of habitat critical for the survival of the species.

The project w ould have minor adverse effects on habitat critical to the survival of the species through biomass reduction and very minor, localised disturbance of soil in areas requiring remediation. All impacts w ould be temporary.


There are no roost camps in the study area. No local roosting and breeding habitat w ould be affected by the project.

Grey-headed Flying-foxes w ould forage on the site in eucalypts and other blossom-bearing species on an occasional basis. Trees productive in w inter and spring are important during food bottlenecks for this species, and trees productive in summer and autumn are important during the w eeks of birth, lactation and conception (DECCW, 2009). Flow ering of species in the blossom diet of the species w ould take place intermittently through the year, including at these critical periods, though probably not in every year (Eby and Law , 2008). The maximum of 10.5 hectares of mid storey vegetation and small number of mature trees that w ould be removed at the site w ould contain a very small proportion of the foraging resources that support the breeding cycle of the regional population. There is around 90 hectares of alternative habitat in the Boot Land site and many thousands of hectares of habitat in the locality that w ould provide suff icient alternative foraging resources. The project w ould not disrupt the breeding cycle of the species.


Phase 1 of the project w ould affect up to 11.8 hectares of Grey-headed Flying-fox habitat comprising:

Up to 0.99 hectares of vegetation removal in ‘core biomass reduction’ areas. All vegetation w ill be removed w ith a slasher to create a clear level surface. Native trees >100mm diameter at breast height (DBH) w ill be retained if practicable.





All direct impacts w ould be minimised and/or temporary. Impacts w ould be largely restricted to foraging resources associated w ith mid storey shrubs. Only a small number of mature trees w ith DBH >100mm w ould be removed, comprising only those trees grow ing in or immediately adjacent to mounded f ill in up to 0.9 hectares of core biomass reduction areas. No habitat in or near roost camps w ould be affected. Grey-headed Flying-foxes w ould easily traverse the gaps in habitat created.

Impacts associated w ith modif ication of fauna habitat w ould be minor, localised and temporary and are unlikely to remove a signif icant proportion of the habitat resources that are relied upon by the important population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to the vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable

Assessment of Significance Grey-headed Flying-fox (Vulnerable) species’ habitat

No invasive species that may cause the Grey-headed Flying-fox to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.


The project has the potential to introduce or spread animal disease or pathogens that affect food species such as Phytophthora (Phytophthora cinnamomi) through vegetation and soil disturbance and vehicle and foot traff ic. There is little available information about the distribution of plant diseases w ithin the locality, and no evidence of disease w as observed during surveys.


No diseases that may cause the Grey-headed Flying-fox to decline are likely to become established in the study area as a result of the project.

Interfere with the recovery of the species The Draft National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus (DECCW, 2009) comprises the National and NSW State Recovery Plan for the species. Know n threats to the species include habitat loss, deliberate destruction associated w ith commercial horticulture, competition w ith Black Flying-foxes, conflict w ith humans, electrocution on pow erlines, entanglement in netting and on barbed-w ire, climate change and disease (DECCW, 2009). The recovery plan lists priority recovery and threat abatement actions that can be taken to support the recovery. The follow ing are relevant to the project:

• ‘To identify and protect foraging habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flying-foxes throughout their range’ w hich has been addressed through measures to avoid impacts on native species and habitat resources specif ied in the BMP,

• ‘To protect and enhance roosting habitat critical to the survival of Grey-headed Flying-foxes’ (DECCW, 2009)’ w hich has been addressed through targeted survey for roost camps and confirmation that the project w ould not affect any roosting habitat critical to the survival of the species.

The project is unlikely to harm any individual Grey-headed Flying-foxes, affect its life cycle, have any notable adverse effects on habitat for the species or otherw ise interfere w ith the recovery of the species.


The project is not likely to have a signif icant impact on the important regional population of the Grey-headed Flying-fox that may occur at the site.

GHD

133 Castlereagh St Sydney NSW 2000 - T: +61 2 9239 7100 F: +61 2 9239 7199 E: [email protected]

© GHD 2015

This document is and shall remain the property of GHD. The document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the Terms of Engagement for the commission. Unauthorised use of this document in any form whatsoever is prohibited. G:\21\23492\WP\207955.docx

Document Status

Rev No.

Author Reviewer Approved for Issue Name Signature Name Signature Date

0 B Harrington

J Tipping

J Tipping

3/2/15

1 B Harrington

J Tipping

J Tipping

30/4/15

2 B Harrington

J Tipping

J Tipping

25/05/2015

www.ghd.com

Department of Defenceenvironment.gov.au/system/files/pages/02e85d31-caba-4ad9... · GHD | Report...

Documents

Transcript of Department of Defenceenvironment.gov.au/system/files/pages/02e85d31-caba-4ad9... · GHD | Report...