Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment€¦ · Project Name Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment-...

F or r e s t e r s B ea c h R e s i d e n t i a l D e ve l o p m e n t – R E D F L A G V AR I A T IO N R E P O R T

Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment

Red Flag Variation Report

Prepared for Travers Bushfire and Ecology

28 October 2010


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D ii

Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment R e d F l a g V a r i a t i o n R e p o r t

PREPARED FOR Travers Bushfire and Ecology

PROJECT NO 10SUTENV-0013

DATE 28 October 2010


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D iii

DOCUMENT TRACKING

ITEM DETAIL

Project Name Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment- Red Flag Variation Report

Project Number 10SUTENV-0013

Prepared by DJ

Approved by RH

Status FINAL

Version 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document has been prepared by Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd with support from Travers Bushfire

and Ecology.

Disclaimer

This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the contract between

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and Travers Environmental. The scope of services was defined in consultation with Travers

Environmental, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the

subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should

obtain up to date information.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this

report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific

assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D iv

Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ v

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. v

Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. vi

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Biobanking Assessment .......................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Impact on Red Flagged Areas ................................................................................................. 3

1.3 Red Flag Variation Criteria ...................................................................................................... 5

2 Response to Red Flag Variation Criteria ................................................................................. 6

2.1 Avoiding and Minimising Impacts on Red Flags ...................................................................... 6

2.2 Contribution to Regional Biodiversity Values .......................................................................... 8

2.2.1 Relative Abundance .......................................................................................................... 8

2.2.2 Percent Remaining is High .............................................................................................. 12

2.2.3 Percent Native Vegetation (by area) is High ................................................................... 13

2.2.4 Condition of Red Flagged Vegetation in the Region ....................................................... 15

2.2.5 Relative Abundance of Individual Threatened Species or their Habitat on the Site ....... 16

2.3 Viability .................................................................................................................................. 16

2.3.1 Current or Future Land Use ............................................................................................ 16

2.3.2 Size and Connectedness ................................................................................................ 17

2.3.3 Condition ......................................................................................................................... 17

2.4 Other Matters that may be Considered ................................................................................. 17

3 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 20

References .............................................................................................................................................. 21

Biobanking Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix 1- Conversion of Mapped Vegetation Types to Biometric Vegetation Types ......................... 26

Appendix 2- Conversion of Mapped Condition Categories to Biobanking Condition Categories ........... 27


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D v

List of Figures

Figure 1: Proposed Development Footprint ............................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Red Flags .................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3: Biometric Vegetation Types and Proposed Development Footprint ........................................... 7

Figure 4: 'Region' Derived from Adjacent CMA Subregions .................................................................... 10

Figure 5: Distribution of Vegetation Types ............................................................................................... 11

Figure 6: Native Vegetation Extent........................................................................................................... 14

Figure 7: Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................................................ 18

Figure 8: Connectivity and Patch Size ..................................................................................................... 19

List of Tables

Table 1: Vegetation Types and Impact ...................................................................................................... 1

Table 2: Ecosystem Credits Required ........................................................................................................ 1

Table 3: Red Flag Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 3

Table 4: Impact on Red Flag Vegetation .................................................................................................... 8

Table 5: Relative Abundance of Vegetation in Surrounding Regions ........................................................ 9

Table 6: Percent Remaining of Each Vegetation Type ............................................................................ 13

Table 7: Native Vegetation Cover of CMA Subregions ............................................................................ 13

Table 8: Condition of Red Flagged Vegetation ........................................................................................ 15


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D vi

Abbreviations

ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION

Assessment

Methodology BioBanking Assessment Methodology and Credit Calculator Operational Manual

Credit Calculator BioBanking Credit Calculator

DECC NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (now DECCW)

DECCW NSW Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (formerly DECC)

EEC Endangered Ecological Community

ELA Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd

EPBC Act Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999

EP&A Act NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

Operational

Manual BioBanking Assessment Methodology and Credit Calculator Operational Manual

Region CMA Subregion where the red flag area is located and adjoining CMA subregions

LHCCREMS Lower Hunter and Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy

TSC Act NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act, 1995


© E C O L O G I C AL AU S T R AL I A P T Y L T D 1

1 Introduction

1.1 BIOBANKING ASSESSMENT

In September 2010, a Biobanking Assessment was completed for the proposed development at Lots 1-

8 DP 23010 The Entrance Road (Central Coast Highway), Forresters Beach. The Biobanking

Assessment was undertaken in accordance with the Biobanking Assessment Methodology Operational

Manual (DECC 2009a). The credit calculator used for the assessment was Version 1.1 (DECC, 2009b),

and the report was completed by an accredited Biobanking assessor. The accredited assessor details

are as follows:

Accreditation Number: 0080

In total, the area of native vegetation impacted by the proposal (and therefore assessed) is 0.93 ha, with

0.35 ha of native vegetation to be impacted by a proposed APZ and 0.58 ha subject to the development

footprint. Impact on three vegetation types was recorded, along with the development of some cleared

land (Table 1 and Figure 1).

Table 1: Vegetation Types and Impact

Biometric Vegetation Type Endangered Ecological

Community (EEC) Total Area on

Site (ha) Area Impacted-

APZ (ha)

Area Impacted-

Development (ha)

Total Area Impacted

(ha)

Blackbutt - Smooth-barked Apple shrubby open forest on coastal sands of the southern North Coast

N/A 0.09 0.025 0.025 0.05

Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin

Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplain in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Coast Bioregions

0.77 0.22 0.16 0.38

Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin


0.67 0.1 0.4 0.50

Total N/A 1.53 0.35 0.58 0.93

In accordance with the Biobanking Assessment Report (ELA 2010) the ecosystem credits required to

offset the development were calculated for the proposal, and no species credits were required due to

the absence of threatened species on the site. In total 45 credits are required to offset the development,

as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Ecosystem Credits Required

Biometric Vegetation Type Number of

Credits Required

Blackbutt - Smooth-barked Apple shrubby open forest on coastal sands of the southern North Coast 2

Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin 16

Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin 27

Total 45



Figure 1: Proposed Development Footprint



1.2 IMPACT ON RED FLAGGED AREAS

The Biobanking Assessment Report (ELA 2010) identified an impact, due to the proposed development

and associated APZs, on red flagged areas as defined by the Biobanking Assessment Methodology. A

red flag is triggered in Biobanking when there is an impact on any of the following:

• a vegetation type >70% cleared in the CMA for which it is mapped (not in Low condition);

• a critically endangered or Endangered Ecological Community (EEC) listed under the TSC Act or

EPBC Act (not in Low condition); and

• a threatened species that cannot withstand further loss.

Despite efforts to avoid and minimise impacts (outlined in Section 2.1), two vegetation types (being

Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin and Swamp

Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin) meet the

definition of the Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplain in the NSW North Coast, Sydney

Basin and South Coast Bioregions EEC listed on the schedules of the TSC Act are to be impacted by

the proposed development (Figure 2).

In total, 0.88 ha of Swamp Sclerophyll Forest (EEC) vegetation will be cleared, or modified by an APZ,

from the proposed development (Table 3). This impact is made up of:

• 0.32 hectares of modification for the required Asset Protection Zones, where impacts on the

vegetation will be restricted to selective thinning of the existing trees and slashing the

understorey (not complete removal). Management of the APZ will maximise overstorey and

midstorey cover, particularly where hollows are present;

• 0.56 hectares of complete removal through the proposed development.

Table 3: Red Flag Vegetation

Biometric Vegetation Type EEC Name %

Cleared in CMA

Total Area on Site (ha)

Area Impacted- APZ (ha)

Area Impacted-

Development (ha)

Total Area

Impacted (ha)



60% 0.77 0.22 0.16 0.38



60% 0.67 0.10 0.40 0.50

Total N/A N/A 1.44 0.32 0.56 0.88



Figure 2: Red Flags



1.3 RED FLAG VARIATION CRITERIA

The existence of red flags within the proposed development area means that a Biobanking Statement

cannot be issued for this development, unless a red flag variation is granted by the Director-General of

DECCW. In order to apply for a red flag variation a request to DECCW is required satisfying Section

2.3 of the Biobanking Assessment Methodology and Credit Calculator Operational Manual (DECC

2009a).

Section 2.3 of the Operational Manual outlines the criteria to be considered for a development to be

regarded as improving or maintaining biodiversity values, even if a red flag has been triggered. The

following criteria need to be addressed:

1. Options to avoid impacts on red flag areas are considered (see Section 2.1 of this report)

2. Highly cleared vegetation types have been considered (not relevant to this assessment as

vegetation types impacted are 60% cleared, not highly cleared (≥90%))

3. Contribution to regional biodiversity values must be low (Section 2.2 of this report). The

application for a Biobanking statement needs to provide evidence that the contribution of the

red flag area to regional biodiversity values is low. This includes an assessment of relative

abundance of the impacted vegetation type in the region, an assessment of the proportion of

the vegetation type remaining from pre-1750 distribution, an assessment of the overall

vegetation cover of the region and whether the red flagged vegetation is generally in good

condition throughout the region.

4. Viability must be low or not viable (Section 2.3 of this report). The application for a Biobanking

statement needs to provide evidence that the red flag area has low viability, or is not viable, in

the long term. The viability assessment of the red flagged vegetation should consider such

factors as condition, patch size and isolation, current or proposed tenure and surrounding land

use.

5. Other matters (not relevant to this assessment). Other matters that can be considered include

whether the development is in accordance with a regional plan, and whether additional

environmental contributions have been made or extra credits retired, in addition to those

generally required, to offset the impacts on the red flag areas.

This report provides the information required for DECCW to assess a red flag variation for the

Forresters Beach site. ELA believe that a red flag variation is justified based on the information

provided below.



2 Response to Red Flag Variation Criteria

2.1 AVOIDING AND MINIMISING IMPACTS ON RED FLAGS

Significant effort has been made to avoid impacts on red flagged vegetation, including changes to the

proposed development footprint. Initially the development proposal for the site included a 20 lot

subdivision, with the retention of only a small amount of vegetation on site, including a 5m wildlife

corridor. The original proposal would have lead to almost all of the EEC on site being removed.

This current proposal has modified the original plan from a 20 lot subdivision to retain the existing 8 lot

layout, with associated proposed APZ works (Figure 3). One unviable residual lot will remain. The

changes to the original plan have avoided and minimised impacts on the red flags in several ways,

including;

• The retention of 0.56 hectares of EEC on site, representing 39% of the EEC on site and a

significantly greater amount than what was to be conserved under the proposed 20 lot

subdivision;

• The retention of a further 0.32 hectares of EEC within the APZ. While this area will be managed

to reduce fuel load, the management will maximise overstorey and midstorey cover where

possible, including the retention of hollow bearing trees;

• The maintenance of corridor connectivity along the north-western edge of the site. This corridor

is between 31-35m in width (excluding the APZ which is an additional 13m in width), and

entirely consists of EEC vegetation.

In addition, the development area has been proposed in areas immediately adjacent to existing

residential areas (i.e. residential development) to minimise indirect impacts, consolidate the overall

impact area and reduce the potential for further fragmentation and/or isolation of habitat.



Figure 3: Biometric Vegetation Types and Proposed Development Footprint

F or r e s t e r s B ea c h R e s i d e n t i a l D e ve l o p


2.2 CONTRIBUTION TO REGIONAL BIODIVERSITY VALUES

The contribution to regional biodiversity values was assessed for the red flagged vegetation on site,

using regional datasets where available. Under the Biobanking Assessment Methodology the ‘region’ is

defined as both the CMA subregion where the red flag area is located (in this case the Wyong CMA

subregion) and adjoining CMA subregions, including the Yengo, Pittwater and Hunter CMA subregions

(see Figure 4). In some cases consistent data is not available across this entire region. Where alternate

regions have been used they have been identified in the relevant sections.

The use of regional vegetation datasets in this assessment, while the best data currently available, does

have limitations. The data in some cases is several years old, and therefore the extant mapping may

require revision. In addition, the vegetation types mapped in the regional data sets differ to the revised

Biometric Vegetation Types. From the vegetation descriptions in each report ELA ecologists have

converted the vegetation mapping to the Biometric Vegetation Types, however this process is difficult

and errors can be made in assigning the correct vegetation type. Finally, most vegetation types only

map patches greater than a minimum size (for example 0.5 hectares) and generally only map

vegetation in reasonably good condition. It is highly likely that smaller patches of these vegetation

types exist in the study area, however have not been included in this assessment as the patches are

too small to map, or the condition is disturbed and therefore has not been mapped.

The contribution to regional biodiversity values included an assessment of the relative abundance of

each red flagged vegetation type, the percent remaining of the vegetation type, percent native

vegetation remaining in the region and vegetation condition across the region. The results are included

below.

2.2.1 Relative Abundance

The first measure for the contribution to regional biodiversity values criteria is a measure of relative

abundance of the red flagged vegetation types in the ‘region’. Firstly, as stated previously and to

provide a basis for measuring the impact on a regional basis, 1.44 hectares of EEC occurs on site,

made up of two vegetation types (Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast,

Sydney Basin- 0.77 hectares and Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North

Coast and northern Sydney Basin- 0.67 hectares). Of this, 0.32 hectares (22.2%) of the EEC is

impacted by the APZ, and 0.56 hectares (38.9%) is impacted by the proposed clearing. This combines

for a total impact on the EEC of 0.88 hectares (61.1%) (Table 4).

Table 4: Impact on Red Flag Vegetation

Biometric Vegetation Type Total

Area on Site (ha)

Area Impacted- APZ (ha)

Area Impacted- APZ (%)

Area Impacted-

Development (ha)

Area Impacted-

Development (%)

Total Area

Impacted (ha)

Total Area

Impacted (%)


0.77 0.22 28.6% 0.16 20.8% 0.38 49.4%


0.67 0.1 14.9% 0.4 59.7% 0.50 74.6%

Total 1.44 0.32 22.2% 0.56 38.9% 0.88 61.1%



Analysis was conducted into the relative abundance of each of the red flagged vegetation types in

several regions, at various scales. As data was not available over the entire ‘region’ as defined above,

ELA have used vegetation mapping available at different scales. This vegetation mapping has been

converted to Biometric Vegetation Types by Eco Logical Australia ecologists, and the resulting digital

data layers interrogated. Details on the vegetation types allocated to each Biometric Vegetation Type

are included in Appendix 1.

As described above, different scales were used to help determine the overall abundance of each

vegetation type due to the absence of vegetation mapping across the entire ‘region’. The scales (and

associated data layers) that were assessed include:

• Gosford LGA vegetation mapping (Bell 2004)

• Wyong LGA vegetation mapping (Bell 2002)

• Lower Hunter Central Coast Regional Environmental Management Strategy vegetation mapping

(LHCCREMS) (NPWS 2000)

Although data across the ‘region’ was not available, ELA are confident that the data used captures the

majority of the local Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney

Basin and Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern

Sydney Basin vegetation types, as these vegetation types are predominantly coastal, and would be

largely incorporated into the mapping used.

The results of the analysis for each vegetation type can be seen in Table 5, and the distribution of each

vegetation type is displayed in Figure 5.

Table 5: Relative Abundance of Vegetation in Surrounding Regions

Biometric Vegetation Type

Total Area of Impact-

Development and APZ (ha)

Area in Gosford LGA (ha)

Area in Wyong LGA

(ha)

Area in REMS Study

Area (ha)

Total Area (ha)

Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin 0.38 70.5 681.5 101.6 853.6

Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin 0.5 429.1 1,030 6,974.8 8,433.9

Total 0.88 499.6 1,711.5 7,076.4 9,287.5

The results for the Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin

are summarised below:

• 70.5 hectares is recorded within the Gosford LGA. The clearing of 0.38 hectares represents

0.5% of the total extent of the vegetation type in the Gosford LGA;

• 681.5 hectares is recorded within the Wyong LGA, just to the north of the study site. The

clearing of 0.38 hectares represents 0.06% of the total extent of the vegetation type in the

Wyong LGA;

• 101.6 hectares is recorded within the LCCREMS study area, to the north of Gosford and Wyong

LGAs. The clearing of 0.38 hectares represents 0.37% of the total extent of the vegetation type

in the LCCREMS study area;

• In total 0.04% of the extent of Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central

Coast, Sydney Basin is impacted by this proposal in the regions assessed.



Figure 4: 'Region' Derived from Adjacent CMA Subregions



Figure 5: Distribution of Vegetation Types



The results for Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern

Sydney Basin are summaries below:

• 429.1 hectares is recorded within the Gosford LGA. The clearing of 0.5 hectares represents

0.12% of the total extent of the vegetation type in the Gosford LGA;

• 1,030.0 hectares is recorded within the Wyong LGA, just to the north of the study site. The

clearing of 0.5 hectares represents 0.05% of the total extent of the vegetation type in the

Wyong LGA;

• 7,076.4 hectares is recorded within the LCCREMS study area, to the north of Gosford and

Wyong LGAs. The clearing of 0.5 hectares represents <0.01% of the total extent of the

vegetation type in the LCCREMS study area;

• In total 0.01% of the extent of Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North

Coast and northern Sydney Basin is impacted by this proposal in the regions assessed.

Finally, when considering the vegetation types as a combined entity, the impact on 0.88 hectares of red

flagged EEC represents 0.01% of the combined vegetation types within the Gosford and Wyong LGAs

and the LCCREMs study area.

The above information indicates that the two red flagged vegetation types impacted by the proposal are,

compared to the small impact on this site, relatively abundant in the regions analysed.

2.2.2 Percent Remaining is High

Several data sources were utilised to determine the percent remaining of each vegetation type, again at

various scales due to the lack of consistent data across the ‘region’. The data sources used include:

• DECCW Vegetation Types Database (DECCW, 2008a)




The Gosford LGA vegetation mapping (Bell 2004) was not able to be used for this assessment as the

report did not contain information on the pre-1750 status of each vegetation type.

The DECCW Vegetation Types database contains a percent cleared figure for each vegetation type, by

CMA. For the other two data sources (where analysis was required) the pre-1750 data for each

vegetation type was compared to the extent remaining to determine the percent remaining for each of

the two red flagged vegetation types.

The results of the analysis are displayed in Table 6. The DECCW vegetation types database records

each vegetation type as being 60% cleared within the Hunter Central Rivers CMA region, therefore

leaving 40% of each vegetation type remaining. Using the vegetation types in Bell (2002) for the

Wyong LGA, the Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin

has 22% of its original extent remaining, while 34% of the Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal

lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin remains in the LGA. A total of 30% of both

vegetation types original extent remains in the Wyong LGA.



The LHCCREMS data indicates that 50% of the Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the

Central Coast, Sydney Basin remains in the region, with 38% of the Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on

coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin remaining across the region. In total,

across the LHCCREMS region, 38.4% of both vegetation types remain in the region.

Table 6: Percent Remaining of Each Vegetation Type




% Remaining

in HCR CMA

% Remaining in Wyong

LGA

% Remaining in LHCCREMs

Region

Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin 0.38 40% 22% 50%

Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin 0.5 40% 34% 38%

Total 0.88 40% 30% 38.4%

In conclusion, the percent remaining in the regions assessed, for each vegetation type, is between 22-

50%.

2.2.3 Percent Native Vegetation (by area) is High

The area of native vegetation was calculated for the region, being the Wyong, Hunter, Pittwater and

Yengo CMA subregions (Table 7 and Figure 6). The DECCW state-wide vegetation extent layer was

used for the assessment (Keith and Simpson, 2006) and was intersected with the four CMA subregions

to determine the proportion of each region with native vegetation cover.

Table 7: Native Vegetation Cover of CMA Subregions

Native Vegetation Cover

Pittwater Wyong Yengo Hunter Total

Cleared 15,528 (18%) 74,753 (36%) 9,635 (7%) 339,366 (74%) 439,283 (49%)

Vegetated 73,000 (82%) 131,777 (64%) 128,835 (93%) 118,400 (26%) 452,012 (51%)

Total 88,529 (100%) 206,531 (100%) 138,470 (100%) 457,766 (100%) 891,296 (100%)

In total, 51% (452,012 hectares) of the assessment region contains native vegetation cover. The

proportion of vegetation cover for three of the CMA subregions is high, with Wyong containing 64%

vegetation cover, Pittwater 82% and Yengo 93%. The other CMA subregion, Hunter, has been heavily

cleared through in agriculture and mining, and contains only 26% native vegetation cover.

As stated earlier, the two vegetation types impacted are predominantly coastal communities, and

therefore very little of each vegetation type is likely to extend into the Hunter CMA subregion. This

assessment demonstrates that the majority of the CMA subregions assessed are relatively well

vegetated, especially when considering the two coastal CMA subregions (Wyong and Pittwater), which

are between 64-82% vegetated.



Figure 6: Native Vegetation Extent



2.2.4 Condition of Red Flagged Vegetation in the Region

For each red flagged vegetation type an assessment of the condition of the extant vegetation was

conducted. The assessment utilised the same vegetation information used previously in the

assessment, being:

• Gosford LGA vegetation mapping (Bell 2004)




Each vegetation layer contained condition coding that was converted to Biobanking condition categories

(Moderate/Good and Low) by ELA ecologists. Appendix 2 contains more details.

As stated earlier, as these regional vegetation mapping studies generally mapped remnant/intact

vegetation, there are likely to be additional areas that meet the biometric moderate-good condition

criteria that have not been mapped.

The results are displayed in Table 8 for each of the regions studied.

Table 8: Condition of Red Flagged Vegetation

Region Gosford LGA Wyong LGA LCCREMS Total




M/G Low M/G Low M/G Low M/G Low


0.38 70.5 0.0 627.9 53.6 96.6 5.0 794.9 58.6


0.5 429.1 0.0 1,013.6 16.5 6,491.5 483.3 7,934.2 499.8

Total 0.88 499.6 0.0 1,641.4 70.1 6,588.0 488.3 8,729.1 558.4

The Gosford LGA extant vegetation mapping identified both vegetation types as being in

moderate/good condition across their entire range within the Local Government Area, with 70.5

hectares of Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin and

429.1 hectares of Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern

Sydney Basin in moderate/good condition.

The Wyong LGA extant vegetation layer identifies a small proportion of each vegetation type in low

condition. 7.9% (53.6 hectares) of the Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central

Coast, Sydney Basin within Wyong LGA is identified as being in low condition, with a further 1.6% (16.5

hectares) of the Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern

Sydney Basin community also in low condition. In total, the combined proportion of low condition

vegetation within the Wyong LGA is 4.3% (70.1 hectares).

The LHCCREMS layer again identifies some low condition vegetation, but the vegetation is

predominantly in moderate/good condition within the region. 4.9% (5.0 hectares) of the Melaleuca

nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin within the LHCCREMS study

area is identified as being in low condition, with a further 7.4% (488.3 hectares) of the Swamp



Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin community

also in low condition. In total, the combined proportion of low condition vegetation within the

LHCCREMS study area is 7.4% (488.3 hectares).

In total, 6.9% (58.6 hectares) of the Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central

Coast, Sydney Basin is in low condition across the assessment region, with 6.3% (499.8 hectares) of

the Swamp Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin

community also in low condition. In total, 6.4% (558.4 hectares) of the combined vegetation types are in

low condition.

The condition of the red flagged vegetation types, in the regions where data is available, is

predominantly moderate/good condition, with only a very small proportion of the vegetation mapped as

low condition.

2.2.5 Relative Abundance of Individual Threatened Species or their Habitat on the Site

This section is not relevant to this Red Flag variation request as no threatened species were recorded on site.

2.3 VIABILITY

Part 4 of Section 2.3 requires an assessment of the viability of the red flag areas to determine whether

they are low or not viable.

In order for a red flag variation to be approved, a red flag area must have low viability, and have limited

ability to persist for long periods. In order to determine the viability of a site at least one of the following

measures needs to be considered:

• Current or known (i.e. already approved) future land use

• Size and connectedness

• Condition

2.3.1 Current or Future Land Use

The study site is currently set within an urban environment, with residential development adjoining the

site on the south-east to north-east side boundary, and the Central Coast Highway forming the north-

western and western boundary (Figure 7).

The residential development to the east of the site is currently impacting on the vegetation of the site,

with tracks and some cleared areas currently caused by unrestricted access, and thoroughfare to the

Central Coast Highway. It is assumed that continued unrestricted access by neighbouring residential

lots will lead to further degradation of the vegetation on site, thus affecting future viability.

The Central Coast Highway is currently undergoing a major series of upgrades to the south of the study

site, including the Carlton Rd to Ocean View Drive upgrade recently announced by the RTA/NSW

Government. The upgrades are converting the current two lane road to a four lane divided road. Whilst

the Central Coast Highway adjacent to the study site is currently still two lanes, the continued upgrade

of the major arterial road is likely to occur, converting the Central Coast Highway adjacent to the site to

a four lane divided road. Any increase in road width will impact directly on vegetation on site (through

clearing), will potentially indirectly affect vegetation condition (through increased runoff) and will further

reduce the sites already limited connectivity, therefore reducing the sites viability in the long term.



Finally, the existing eight lots contained within the study site are zoned Residential 2(a) under the

current Gosford LGA Local Environmental Plan (LEP). Under the Draft LEP 2009 the properties remain

in residential zoning (R2). The residential zoning of these lands indicates that some form of residential

development on the study site is likely, thus further reducing the viability of the vegetation on site.

2.3.2 Size and Connectedness

The vegetation on site (1.53 hectares) is part of a contiguous vegetation patch that is 9.1 hectares in

size (Figure 8), extending both north and south of the site along the Central Coast Highway. The

connectivity of the patch is tenuous, with limited established and viable linkages to other surrounding

vegetation due to incompatible land uses adjoining the site. The vegetation is not part of an identified

strategic link in the region.

The connectivity extending north of the site is cut by residential development surrounding Maas Parade

and Boos Road, making any link to the more northerly vegetation patches (especially Wyrrabalong

National Park) unfeasible. Connectivity to the large patch of vegetation to the west of the site is broken

by the Central Coast Highway, with this link likely to remain under continued pressure due to the

expansion of the Central Coast Highway. Connectivity to the south-west is broken by residential

development along Crystal Road, while the residential development to the south-east along Blue Wave

Crescent also cuts connectivity to broader vegetation patches.

Finally, the proposal allows for some connectivity (30-35 metres width plus APZ) to be maintained within

the vegetation patch, even though links to other patches are not possible, with a vegetated corridor

parallel to the Central Coast Highway set aside. Therefore connectivity is maintained through the site to

the remaining vegetation to the north and south.

2.3.3 Condition

The condition of the vegetation on site is generally moderate/good, however cleared tracks and trails do

pass through the property, and are likely to further encroach under the current management practises of

the site. Some weed infestation is present on site, particularly in the Swamp Mahogany swamp forest

on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin vegetation community, where

common weed species include Camphor Laurel, Lantana, Bitou Bush and Senna pendula.

2.4 OTHER MATTERS THAT M AY BE CONSIDERED

Other matters that may be considered, outlined in Part 5 of Section 2.3 of the Biobanking Assessment

Methodology and Credit Calculator Operations Manual, such as regional plans and additional

environmental contributions, are not relevant to this site.



Figure 7: Surrounding Land Uses



Figure 8: Connectivity and Patch Size

F or r e s t e r s B ea c h R e s i d e n t i a l D e ve l o p


3 Conclusion

The proposed development is impacting on two vegetation types that meet the definition of the Swamp

Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplain in the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Coast

Bioregions Endangered Ecological Community (EEC), being made up of the two vegetation types:

Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin and Swamp

Mahogany swamp forest on coastal lowlands of the North Coast and northern Sydney Basin. The

proposed development will clear 0.56 hectares of the EEC, with an additional 0.32 hectares to be

impacted by the proposed APZ (vegetation thinning).

This report has demonstrated that the development has attempted to avoid and minimise impacts on

the red flagged vegetation by maintaining the existing 8 lot subdivision (reducing from a 20 lot

subdivision), and providing a vegetated corridor along the western boundary adjacent to the Central

Coast Highway. The vegetated corridor remaining consists entirely of the red flagged vegetation types.

The proposed development has been deliberately placed immediately adjacent to existing impacts (i.e.

residential development) to minimise indirect impacts, consolidate the overall impact area and avoid

further fragmentation and/or isolation of habitat.

The assessment has also demonstrated that the small site contains only a small proportion of each

vegetation type in the regions examined, with the impact of 0.88 hectares being only 0.01% of the EECs

current extent. The percent remaining of each vegetation type, compared to the pre-1750 extent, is

between 22-50%, and the CMA subregions examined are predominantly vegetated, with the exception

of the Hunter CMA subregion (where each vegetation type is unlikely to occur). In addition, the two

vegetation types are predominantly in moderate/good condition as mapped by the regional vegetation

maps, with little low condition vegetation identified across the region.

The long term viability of the site was also examined, with the current and future land uses explored for

the site. Adjoining residential development is currently impacting on the site, with additional impacts

likely from the Central Coast Highway. Further, the lots associated with the development are zoned

residential in both the current Gosford LEP, and the draft LEP 2009 recently on exhibition, suggesting

residential development on the site at some stage is likely. The site is also poorly connected to

surrounding vegetation, is not part of a strategic link, and currently has some weed infestation,

particularly along informal tracks and trails across the site.

Considering the above, ELA believe a red flag variation is justified under Section 2.3 of the Biobanking

Operational Manual.



References

Bell, S. (2002) The natural vegetation of the Wyong Local Government Area, Central Coast, New South

Wales Technical Report. Final Report to Wyong Shire Council- Version 4.

Bell, S. (2004) The natural vegetation of the Gosford Local Government Area, Central Coast, New

South Wales Technical Report. Final Report to Gosford City Council- Version 2

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008a) Vegetation Types Database. Website:

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/biobanking/VegTypeDatabase.htm Date Retrieved: December

2009

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2008b) Biobanking Assessment Methodology.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2009a). BioBanking Assessment Methodology and

Credit Calculator Operational Manual.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2009b). Biobanking Credit Calculator.

ELA (2010) Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment- Biobanking Assessment Report. Report

prepared for Travers Bushfire and Ecology.

Keith, D & Simpson, C. (2006) NSW Extant Native Vegetation- Version 002. Prepared for NSW

Department of Environment and Conservation.

National Parks and Wildlife Service (2000) Vegetation Survey, Classification and Mapping Lower

Hunter and Central Coast Region- Version1.2. A project undertaken for The Lower Hunter and Central

Coast Regional Environment Management Strategy

Travers Bushfire and Ecology (2010) Flora and fauna assessment Lots 1- 8 DP 23010 924-938 the

Entrance Road Forresters Beach.



Biobanking Glossary

The following glossary has been taken from the Biobanking Assessment Methodology and Operational

Manual (DECC 2009a)

accredited assessor this is a person who has been accredited in accordance with s. 142B(1)(c) of the

TSC Act to use the methodology and credit calculator.

adjacent remnant area The area of moderate to good condition native vegetation of which the biobank

site or development site is a part which is linked (≤100m for woody vegetation and ≤30m for non-woody

vegetation) to the next area of native vegetation. Adjacent remnant area provides landscape context to

the biobank or development site and may extend onto adjoining land.

assessment circle Circles of 100 ha and 1000 ha in which percent native vegetation cover in the

landscape is assessed, taking into account both cover and condition of vegetation, for credit profiles

and for Landscape Value score.

benchmarks (vegetation benchmarks) Quantitative measures of the range of variability in vegetation

condition where there is relatively little evidence of modification by humans since European (post-1750)

settlement. Benchmarks are defined for specified variables for vegetation communities. Vegetation with

relatively little evidence of modification generally has minimal timber harvesting (few stumps, coppicing,

cut logs), minimal firewood collection, minimal exotic weed cover, minimal grazing and trampling by

introduced or overabundant native herbivores, minimal soil disturbance, minimal canopy dieback and no

evidence of recent fire or flood. It is not subject to high-frequency burning and has evidence of

recruitment of native species. Benchmarks are available by vegetation class (sensu Keith 2004) at

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/projects/BiometricTool.htm and can also be obtained from

reference sites or published sources.

biobanking agreement An agreement between the landowner and the Minister for Climate Change

and the Environment (under Part 7A of the TSC Act) for the purpose of establishing a biobank site. The

agreement states the management actions to be carried out to improve biodiversity values on the site

and thereby create biodiversity credits under the scheme (s. 127D of the TSC Act).

biobank site Land designated by a biobanking agreement to be a biobank site. This term is also used

in the Operational Manual for land that is being assessed as a biobank site

biobanking statement A statement issued under s. 127ZL of the TSC Act, specifying the number and

class of credits to be retired for a particular development in accordance with the methodology. The

statement may include other conditions to minimise the impact of the development on biodiversity

values. If provided to consent or determining authority under the EP&A Act, the statement must be

included as a condition of development consent or approval.

biodiversity credits Ecosystem or species credits required to offset the loss of biodiversity values on

development sites or created on biobank sites from management actions that improve biodiversity

values.

biodiversity values Include composition, structure and function of ecosystems, and include (but are

not limited to) threatened species, populations and ecological communities and their habitats, as

defined by the TSC Act, and exclude fish or marine vegetation, unless that fish or marine vegetation has

been the subject of an order under s. 5A of the TSC Act.



cleared land Where the native over-storey has been cleared, there is no native mid-storey (or the

native mid-storey has been cleared), and less than 50% of the ground cover vegetation is indigenous

species or greater than 90% of the ground cover (dead or alive) is cleared.

CMA area The area of operation of a catchment management authority, as described in Schedule 2 of

the Catchment Management Authorities Act 2003.

CMA sub-region Sub-regions of catchment management authority areas as set out in the

Environmental Outcomes Assessment Methodology, Native Vegetation Regulation 2005.

connectivity A measure of the degree to which an area(s) of native vegetation is linked with other

areas of vegetation.

Credit Calculator A computer program that applies the methodology and calculates the number and

classes of credits required at a development site or created at a biobank site.

credit profile A description of the credit created or required in a vegetation zone or group of zones,

according to the attributes of CMA sub-region, vegetation type, vegetation formation, surrounding

vegetation cover, and patch size including low-condition vegetation.

critically endangered ecological community As defined in s. 4(1) of the TSXC Act and any additional

critically endangered ecological communities listed under Part 13 of the EPBC Act.

development Includes development within the meaning of the Environmental Planning and

Assessment Act, 1979 and includes an activity within the meaning of Part 5 of that Act, and may also

include projects under Part 3A of that Act.

ecosystem credits The class of biodiversity credits created or required for the impact on general

biodiversity values and some threatened species, i.e. for biodiversity values except threatened species

or populations that require species credits. Species that require ecosystem credits are listed in the

Threatened Species Profile Database (TSPD).

endangered ecological community As defined in s. 4(1) of the TSXC Act and any additional

endangered ecological communities listed under Part 13 of the EPBC Act. Endangered and critically

endangered ecological communities are collectively referred to as EECs.

grassland Native vegetation classified in the vegetation formation Grasslands in Ocean Shores to

Desert Dunes: the Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT (Keith, D. 2004, Department of

Environment and Conservation NSW, Hurstville NSW). Grasslands are generally dominated by large

perennial tussock grasses, a lack of woody plants, the presence of broad-leaved herbs in inter-tussock

spaces, and their ecological association with fertile, heavy clay soils on flat topography in regions with

low to moderate rainfall.

habitat An area or areas occupied, or periodically or occasionally occupied, by a species, population or

ecological community, including any biotic or abiotic component.

impact assessment The impact assessment that is referred to in s. 127ZK(3)(c) of the TSC Act and

must be prepared in accordance with the methodology. The methodology requires the impact

assessment to address the criteria used to justify an impact on a red flag area, the assessment of

indirect impacts of the development, and the assessment of the direct impacts of the development.

individual A single, mature organism.

Landscape Value A measure of fragmentation, connectivity and adjacency of native vegetation at a

site. Landscape Value comprises: (a) percent native vegetation cover in the 100-ha and 1000-ha

assessment circles in which the development or biobank sites are located; (b) connectivity with

surrounding vegetation; and (c) total adjacent remnant area.



low-condition vegetation Woody native vegetation with native over-storey percent foliage cover less

than 25% of the lower value of the over-storey percent foliage cover benchmark for that vegetation type,

and

• less than 50% of ground cover vegetation is indigenous species, or

• greater than 90% of ground cover vegetation is cleared.

Native grassland, wetland or herbfield where:

• less than 50% of ground cover vegetation is indigenous species, or

• more than 90% of ground cover vegetation is cleared.

If native vegetation is not in low condition, it is in moderate to good condition.

management zone Where the extent of development impact or improvement through management

varies over a vegetation zone, a management zone is used for the purpose of calculating the change in

Site Value for that vegetation zone.

Methodology means the Biobanking Assessment Methodology.

Mitchell Landscape Landscape with relatively homogeneous geomorphology, soils and broad

vegetation types, mapped at a scale of 1:250 000.

moderate to good condition vegetation Native vegetation that is not in low condition.

native vegetation Vegetation described in section 6 of the NV Act. Native vegetation is used as a

surrogate for general biodiversity values in the methodology.

Operational Manual Means the Biobanking Operational Manual, which provides guidance on how to

use the credit calculator and undertake surveys.

patch size, including low-condition vegetation The area of moderate- to good- and low- condition

native vegetation of which the biobank site or development site is a part which is linked to (≤100m from

for woody vegetation and ≤30m for non-woody vegetation) the next area of native vegetation. Patch

size including low condition vegetation provides landscape context to the biobank or development site,

and may extend onto adjoining land.

percent vegetation cover (percent native vegetation cover in the landscape, surrounding vegetation

cover) The percentage of native vegetation cover in the 100-ha and 1000-ha assessment circles in

which the vegetation zone is located. The percent native vegetation cover within the assessment circles

is visually estimated from aerial or satellite imagery, taking into account both cover and condition of

vegetation

plot An area in which some of the 10 site attributes that make up the Site Value score are assessed in

a vegetation zone.

red flag area An area of land at the development site with high biodiversity conservation values where

the impact of the development on biodiversity values cannot be offset by the retirement of biodiversity

credits in order to improve or maintain biodiversity values, unless the Director General determines that

strict avoidance of the red flag area is unnecessary in the circumstances.

retirement of biodiversity credits A change in the status of a credit such that the credit can no longer

be bought or sold. Retirement of credits may be required to comply with a biobanking statement or a

direction issued by the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, or they may be retired

voluntarily.



site attributes Attributes used to assess Site Value and threatened species habitat. The 10 site

attributes are native plant species richness, native over-storey cover, native mid-storey cover, native

ground cover (grasses), native ground cover (shrubs), native ground cover (other), exotic plant cover

(as a percentage of total ground and mid-storey cover), number of trees with hollows, proportion of

over-storey species occurring as regeneration, and total length of fallen logs.

Site Value A quantitative measure of structural, compositional and functional condition of native

vegetation, measured by site attributes.

species credits The class of biodiversity credits created or required for the impact on threatened

species that cannot be reliably predicted to use an area of land based on habitat surrogates. Species

that require species credits are listed in the Threatened Species Profile Database.

species polygon The actual area of habitat, or number of individuals of a threatened species, impacted

by development at the development site or by management actions at the biobank site.

threatened population An endangered population as defined in s. 4(1) of the TSC Act.

threatened species Critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable threatened species and

populations as defined in s. 4(1) of the TSC Act; or any additional threatened species listed under Part

13 of the EPBC Act as critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable.

threatened species sub-zone The area of vegetation that is assessed initially to determine which

threatened species are assessed for biodiversity credits at a development site and a biobank site.

threatened species survey A targeted survey for a threatened species, undertaken in accordance with

DECC guidelines to determine if the species is present.

transect A line or narrow belt along which environmental data is collected.

vegetation class Level of classification of vegetation communities defined in Ocean Shores to Desert

Dunes: the Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT (Keith, D. 2004, Department of

Environment and Conservation NSW, Hurstville, NSW). There are 99 vegetation classes in NSW.

vegetation type The finest level of classification of native vegetation used in the methodology.

Vegetation types are assigned to vegetation classes, which in turn are assigned to vegetation

formations. There are approximately 1600 vegetation types within NSW.

Vegetation Types Database A database which contains the information on each vegetation type used

in the methodology and comprises a description of each vegetation type, its class and formation, the

CMA area within which the vegetation type occurs, the percent cleared value of the vegetation type, and

the source of the information.

vegetation zone (zone) A relatively homogenous area in a proposal area (development or biobank site)

that is of the same vegetation type and broad condition. A single zone must not contain a mix of

vegetation in low condition and not in low condition. Zones with the same vegetation type and in

moderate to good condition (i.e. not in low condition) can be combined within one ecosystem credit

profile (as a sub-zone). A zone may comprise one or more discontinuous areas.

viability The ability of biodiversity values in an area to persist for many generations or long time

periods.

wetland Native vegetation classified in the vegetation formation defined as Freshwater Wetland in

Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes: the Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT (Keith, D.

2004, Department of Environment and Conservation NSW, Hurstville, NSW).

zone see vegetation zone.



Appendix 1- Conversion of Mapped Vegetation Types to Biometric Vegetation Types

Gosford (Bell 2004)

Mapped Vegetation Type Biometric Vegetation Type

Estuarine Paperbark Scrub Forest Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin Estuarine Paperbark Scrub Forest (Casuarina variant)

Alluvial Floodplain Blechnum Forest


Alluvial Floodplain Woolybutt Forest

Alluvial Paperbark Sedge Forest

Coastal Sand Swamp Forest

Coastal Sand Swamp Forest - Cabbage Palm variant

Narrabeen Alluvial Sedge Woodland

Narrabeen Alluvial Sedge Woodland - Melaleuca thicket variant

Swamp Mahogany - Paperbark Forest

Wyong (Bell 2002)


Alluvial Redgum Footslopes Forest Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin Alluvial Woollybutt-Melaleuca Sedge Forest

Alluvial Robusta-Paperbark Sedge Palm Forest


Coastal Sand Mahogany-Paperbark Swamp Forest

Munmorah Palm Apple Dry Drainage Line Forest

Narrabeen Alluvial Drainage Line Complex

LCCREMS (NPWS 2000)


Wyong Paperbark Swamp Forest Melaleuca nodosa closed shrubland on alluvium of the Central Coast, Sydney Basin

Apple - Palm Gully Forest


Riparian Melaleuca Swamp Woodland

Swamp Mahogany - Paperbark Forest



Appendix 2- Conversion of Mapped Condition Categories to Biobanking Condition Categories

Gosford (Bell 2004)

Mapped Condition Biometric Vegetation Type

Xr, Xs Low Condition

All other vegetation Moderate/Good Condition

Wyong (Bell 2002)


FR, R Low Condition

FG, FS, G, S Moderate/Good Condition

LCCREMS (NPWS 2000)


P, SM Low Condition

AN, M, MF, R, SU, W Moderate/Good Condition



HEAD OFFICE

Suite 4, Level 1

2-4 Merton Street

Sutherland NSW

T 02 8536 8600

F 02 9542 5622

SYDNEY

Suite 604, Level 6

267 Castlereagh Street

Sydney NSW 2000

T 02 9993 0566

F 02 9993 0573

ST GEORGES BASIN

8/128 Island Point Road

St Georges Basin NSW 2540

T 02 4443 5555

F 02 4443 6655

CANBERRA

Level 4

11 London Circuit

Canberra ACT 2601

T 02 6103 0145

F 02 6103 0148

HUNTER

Suite 17, Level 4

19 Bolton Street

Newcastle NSW 2300

T 02 4910 0125

F 02 4910 0126

NAROOMA

5/20 Canty Street

Narooma NSW 2546

T 02 4476 1151

F 02 4476 1161

COFFS HARBOUR

35 Orlando Street

Coffs Harbour Jetty NSW 2450

T 02 6651 5484

F 02 6651 6890

ARMIDALE

92 Taylor Street

Armidale NSW 2350

T 02 8081 2681

F 02 6772 1279

BRISBANE

93 Boundary St

West End QLD 4101

T 0429 494 886

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

108 Stirling Street

Perth WA 6000

T 08 9227 1070

F 08 9227 1078

Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment€¦ · Project Name Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment-...

Documents

Transcript of Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment€¦ · Project Name Forresters Beach Biobanking Assessment-...