camden valley way ref - ecological assessment · 2014. 6. 26. · u2.1.1 u utsc act division 5...

CAMDEN VALLEY WAY COBBITY ROAD TO COWPASTURE ROAD UPGRADE

MAY 2010

Ecological Assessment

Document Verification

Job title: Camden Valley Way Cobbity Road to Cowpasture Road Upgrade

Document Title Ecological Assessment

File Name \\Sydney\active\Projects\2009\RTA\CVW Cobbity to Cowpasture ‐ 986\REPORT\May final\CVW COBBITY TO COWPASTURE_Mayl2010_Final.doc

Revision Date Prepared by Checked by Approved by

Draft 16.10.09 Jacqui Coughlan

Natascha Arens

Natascha Arens

Draft v2 March 2010

Jacqui Coughlan

Natascha Arens

Natascha Arens

Final Draft

April 2010 Natascha Arens & Jacqui Coughlan

Jacqui Coughlan

Natascha Arens

Final draft v2

26 April 2010

Natascha Arens & Jacqui Coughlan

Natascha Arens

Natascha Arens

Final 27 May 2010

Natascha Arens & Jacqui Coughlan

Natascha Arens

Natascha Arens

nghenvironmental prints all documents on sugar cane paper made from 100% bagasse (a by‐product of sugar production).

206/410 elizabeth st surry hills nsw 2010 australia t 61 2 8202 8333 f 61 2 9211 1374 web: www.nghenvironmental.com.au email: [email protected]

1/216 carp street bega (po box 470) bega nsw 2550 australia ralia

t 61 2 6492 8333 f 61 2 6494 77733

102/63‐65 johnston st wagga wagga nsw 2650 australia

t 61 2 6971 9696 f 61 2 6971 9693

unit 9 / 65 tennant street fyshwick act 2609 australia

t 61 2 6280 5053 f 61 2 6280 9387

suite 4/4 234 naturaliste terrace dunsborough wa 6281 australia t 61 8 9759 1985 f 61 2 6494 7773

Table of Contents

U1U UINTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDU .................................................................... 1

U1.1U UPROJECT DESCRIPTIONU .......................................................................................................... 1

U1.2U USCOPE OF THIS REPORTU ......................................................................................................... 1

U2U USTATUTORY CONSIDERATIONSU ............................................................................. 2

U2.1U UNSW THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION (TSC) ACT 1995U .............................................. 2 U2.1.1U UTSC Act Division 5 s126G Biodiversity CertificationU ..................................................................................... 3

U2.2U USTATE ENVIRONMENT PLANNING POLICY (SYDNEY REGION GROWTH CENTRES) 2006U ...... 3

U2.3U UNSW NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 (NPW ACT)U .............................................. 3

U2.4U UNSW FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1994 (FM ACT)U ............................................................ 4

U2.5U USTATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 44 – KOALA HABITAT PROTECTIONU ........ 5

U2.6U UENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 (CWTH) (EPBC ACT)U ....................................................................................................................................... 6

U3U UMETHODOLOGYU ................................................................................................... 7

U3.1U UBACKGROUND REVIEWU ......................................................................................................... 7 U3.1.1U UDatabase SearchesU ....................................................................................................................................... 7 U3.1.2U ULiterature ReviewU ........................................................................................................................................ 7

U3.2U UFIELD SURVEY – FLORAU .......................................................................................................... 8

U3.3U UFIELD SURVEY ‐ FAUNA AND FAUNA HABITATU ...................................................................... 9

U3.4U UFIELD SURVEY ‐ AQUATIC HABITATU ..................................................................................... 10

U4U URESULTSU ............................................................................................................. 12

U4.1U UFLORAU .................................................................................................................................. 12 U4.1.1U UExisting EnvironmentU ................................................................................................................................. 12

U4.2U UVEGETATION COMMUNITIESU .............................................................................................. 12 U4.2.1U UPrevious studiesU ......................................................................................................................................... 12 U4.2.2U UCurrent surveyU ........................................................................................................................................... 15

U4.3U UPLANT SPECIES AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCEU ..... 18 U4.3.1U UEndangered Ecological CommunitiesU ........................................................................................................ 18 U4.3.2U UEndangered PopulationsU ............................................................................................................................ 18 U4.3.3U UListed Threatened SpeciesU ......................................................................................................................... 19 U4.3.4U UOther Significant SpeciesU ........................................................................................................................... 22

U4.4U UFAUNAU ................................................................................................................................. 22 U4.4.1U UFauna HabitatU ............................................................................................................................................ 22 U4.4.2U UThreatened SpeciesU ................................................................................................................................... 23

U4.5U UAQUATIC HABITATU............................................................................................................... 25 U4.5.1U UExisting EnvironmentU ................................................................................................................................. 25

U4.5.2U UThreatened speciesU .................................................................................................................................... 26

U4.6U UEPBC‐EU ................................................................................................................................. 27

U5U UASSESSMENT OF IMPACTSU ................................................................................. 28

U5.1U UFLORAU .................................................................................................................................. 28 U5.1.1U UThreatened CommunitiesU .......................................................................................................................... 28

U5.2U UFAUNA IMPACTSU ................................................................................................................. 33

U5.3U UAQUATIC IMPACTSU .............................................................................................................. 38 U5.3.1U UConstruction ImpactsU ................................................................................................................................. 38 U5.3.2U UOperational ImpactsU .................................................................................................................................. 38

U5.4U UREGIONAL IMPACTSU ............................................................................................................ 41

U6U UMITIGATION MEASURESU .................................................................................... 43

U6.1U UTERRESTRIAL SAFEGUARDSU ................................................................................................. 43

U6.2U UAQUATIC SAFEGUARDSU ....................................................................................................... 45 U6.2.1U UConstructionU .............................................................................................................................................. 45

U7U UCONCLUSIONU ..................................................................................................... 47

U8U UREFERENCESU ....................................................................................................... 48 UAppendix AU UConcept design and field survey extentU ........................................... 8‐1

UAppendix BU UDatabase search resultsU.................................................................... 8‐2

UAppendix CU UThreatened species ASSESSMENTU .................................................... 8‐3

UAppendix DU UFlora field survey extentU ................................................................... 8‐4

UAppendix EU UFauna survey locations & resultsU ...................................................... 8‐5

UAppendix FU UVegetation descriptions & photosU .................................................... 8‐6

UAppendix GU UAssessments of SIGNIFICANCEU ......................................................... 8‐7

UAppendix HU USite photosU ........................................................................................ 8‐8

UAppendix IU UAquatic descriptionsU ......................................................................... 8‐9

UAppendix JU UFauna Species listU ........................................................................... 8‐10

Ecological Assessment Camden Valley Way (Cowpasture Rd to Cobbity Rd) Upgrade

1 0BINTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 8BPROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW (RTA) is preparing a concept design for the proposed upgrade to Camden Valley Way, between Cobbitty Road, Cobbitty and Cowpasture Road / Bringelly Road, Horningsea Park, in south west Sydney.

Camden Valley Way (CVW) will be upgraded to four lanes for its entire length, with a wide median designed to facilitate future widening to six lanes as required. The proposed upgrade of Camden Valley Way would cater for an expected increase in traffic volumes over the coming years associated with the development of the adjacent South West Growth Centre.

nghenvironmental have been engaged to prepare an ecological assessment to enable the RTA to satisfy the provisions of Section 111 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

The Study Area is the area bound by blue on the concept maps provided by the RTA and provided as Appendix A.

1.2 9BSCOPE OF THIS REPORT

The nature and scope of this report was to assess the ecological characteristics of the study area including:

• The identification of flora and fauna species, habitat, populations and ecological communities within the study area.

• An assessment of the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed activity on terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna species, populations, critical habitats, ecological communities and their habitats.

• An assessment of the ecological impacts and ecological significance of any impacts of the proposed activities.

• The identification of any amelioration measures that may be considered appropriate for the project.

Final May 2010 1


2 1BSTATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS

This report considers only issues related to the biodiversity of the study site and is guided by the intent of the following Acts and Environmental Planning Instruments:

• Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act).

• Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

• Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (TSC Act).

• National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NPW Act).

• NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act).

• State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 – Koala Habitat Protection.

• State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006.

2.1 NSW THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION (TSC) ACT 1995

The objects of this Act are to:

(a) conserve biological diversity and promote ecologically sustainable development.

(b) prevent the extinction and promote the recovery of threatened species, populations and ecological communities.

(c) protect the critical habitat of those threatened species, populations and ecological communities that are endangered.

(d) eliminate or manage certain processes that threaten the survival or evolutionary development of threatened species, populations and ecological communities.

(e) ensure that the impact of any action affecting threatened species, populations and ecological communities is properly assessed.

(f) encourage the conservation of threatened species, populations and ecological communities by the adoption of measures involving co‐operative management.

An Assessment of Significance (also known as a Seven‐part Test), is a set of factors which must be considered by decision makers regarding the effect of a proposed development or activity on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. These factors form part of the threatened species assessment process under section 5A of the EP&A Act.

Final May 2010 2


2.1.1 26BTSC Act Division 5 s126G Biodiversity Certification

Under section 126G of the TSC Act, the Minister may confer biodiversity certification on an Environmental Planning Instrument (EPI) if satisfied that the EPI, in addition to any other relevant measures to be taken, will lead to an overall improvement or maintenance of biodiversity values.

Pursuant to section 126I of the Act, developments or activities proposed to be undertaken within the certified areas do not need to undertake assessment of impacts on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats, that would normally be required by part 4 or 5 of the EP&A Act.

This means that in bio‐certified areas there would be no requirement to address the ‘assessment of significance’ (‘seven –part test’) required under section 5A of the EP&A Act, prepare Species Impact Statements or obtain the concurrence of the Department of Environment Climate Change and Water (DECCW).

Biocertification does not apply to EPBC listed species and communities so the normal commonwealth impact assessment process still applies for potential impacts to EPBC listed species and communities.

It should also be noted that biocertification does not come into effect until areas have been re‐zoned. CVW has yet to undergo re‐zoning, however the RTA is currently negotiating with the Department of Planning (DoP) and Council to achieve re‐zoning. This ecological assessment had been prepared based on the assumption that the biocertification would apply prior to any clearing.

2.2 10BSTATE ENVIRONMENT PLANNING POLICY (SYDNEY REGION GROWTH CENTRES) 2006

In 2007 the Minister conferred biodiversity certification on the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP for the purposes of the Threatened Species Conservation Act. The majority of the Camden Valley Way route between Cowpasture Road and Cobbity Road falls within the South West Growth Centre and is therefore subject to biocertification. Biocertification of the SEPP is subject to conditions listed in Schedule s1 to 4 “Conditions of Biodiversity Certification”. The conditions of these Schedules are addressed in this report where relevant. Parts of the route that have not received biocertification still require assessment according to the TSC Act. The certified and non‐certified areas of the route are shown on figures in the relevant sections of this report.

2.3 NSW NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 (NPW ACT)

The objectives of the NPW Act are to:

• conserve nature and objects, places or features (including biological diversity) of cultural value within the landscape.

• foster public appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of nature and cultural heritage and their conservation.

Final May 2010 3


• provide for the management of land reserved under this Act in accordance with the management principles applicable for each type of reservation.

The objectives of the Act are to be achieved by applying the principles of ecologically sustainable development.

• The precautionary principle – Namely that if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

• Inter‐generational equity – The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

• Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity – Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

• Improved valuation of pricing of environmental resources – This principle relates to giving monetary values to environmental resources.

This report has incorporated these principles in its approach to evaluating potential ecological constraints and opportunities within the study area.

2.4 NSW FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1994 (FM ACT)

The objectives of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act), as amended in December 1997, are to conserve, develop and share the fisheries resources of New South Wales for the benefit of present and future generations, and in particular to:

(a) conserve fish stocks and protect key fish habitats.

(b) conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of fish and marine vegetation.

(c) promote ecologically sustainable development, including the conservation of biological diversity; and, consistent with these objectives, to:

I. promote viable commercial fishing and aquaculture industries.

II. promote quality recreational fishing opportunities.

III. appropriately share fisheries resources between the users of those resources.

To assist in the protection of key fish habitats, the FM Act enables the Minister for Fisheries to make Habitat Protection Plans (HPPs) for the protection of any fish habitat, “whether the habitat is critical for the survival of the species or required to maintain harvestable populations of fish”.

Habitat Protection Plan 1 – General is relevant to the proposal. This is the first Habitat Protection Plan to be developed under the Act, as it deals broadly with dredging and reclamation activities, fish passage requirements, the protection of mangroves, seagrasses and other marine vegetation, and the importance of snags. The objectives of this Plan are:

Final May 2010 4


i. to provide protection, where necessary, for all fish habitat, and in particular those habitat features which may be affected by the activities subject to this plan.

ii. To restate the relevant requirements of the habitat provisions of the Act in a form which can be readily distributed to and understood by other Government agencies and the community.

iii. to establish a requirement for public authorities who propose to remove snags from waterways to notify the Minister.

iv. to outline the process for individuals or agencies to follow when consent, notification or consultation is required, and to describe how each application will be processed.

An Assessment of Significance (also known as the Seven‐part Test), is a set of factors which must be considered by decision makers regarding the effect of a proposed development or activity on threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or their habitats. These factors form part of the threatened species assessment process under section 5A of the EP&A Act.

2.5 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING POLICY NO. 44 – KOALA HABITAT PROTECTION

State Environmental Planning Policy No. 44 ‐ Koala Habitat Protection, commenced in February 1995. The aim of the policy is to ensure that;

i) for any development application (DA) to which the policy applies, consent is not issued without investigation of the presence of core koala habitat.

"Core koala habitat" is defined as "an area of land with a resident population of koalas, evidence of attributes such as breeding females (that is, females with young) and recent sightings of and historical records of a population".

ii) any identification of core koala habitat will require a plan of management to accompany any DA relating to such areas, before Council consider the granting of consent.

iii) in respect of rezoning involving an area of potential or core koala habitat, the Director of Planning may require a local environmental study to be prepared.

The policy requires land to be assessed for potential koala habitat that is land containing at least 15% of the "total number of trees in the upper or lower strata" of the tree types listed in Schedule 2 of the policy. If land is potential koala habitat, further investigations to determine if core koala habitat is present are required. If investigations reveal that core habitat is not present no further provisions of the policy apply. If core habitat is present, a plan of management for the site must be prepared prior to development taking place.

The proposed Camden Valley Way upgrade works would likely be assessed under Part 5 of the EP&A Act and as such a DA would not be required. However, it is the RTA’s practice to consider SEPP 44 criteria in its environmental assessment process.

Final May 2010 5


Final May 2010 6

2.6 ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 (CWTH) (EPBC ACT)

Approval of the Federal Environment Minister is required if an action is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (MNES) including:

i. World Heritage Properties

ii. Listed threatened species and ecological communities

iii. Migratory species protected under international agreements

iv. Wetlands of international importance

v. Commonwealth marine areas

vi. National Heritage Places

vii. Nuclear Actions (including uranium mines)

If an action is likely to have a significant impact on a MNES it must be referred to the Commonwealth Environment Minister. Once a project has been referred, the Minister must make a decision on whether the project constitutes a ‘controlled action’ – i.e. one that will, or is likely to, have a significant impact on a MNES.F

1F

Once deemed a controlled action the minister must nominate an assessment process on which the approval decision will be based. There are several levels of possible assessment, ranging from the provision of additional (‘preliminary’) information to requirement for impact assessment or approval in a ‘particular manner’ (not controlled action – manner specified i.e. allowed to proceed under a specific set of conditions).

1 An action includes a project, development, undertaking or any activity or series of activities. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ‐ SECT 528 Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 23.


3 2BMETHODOLOGY

3.1 11BBACKGROUND REVIEW

3.1.1 27BDatabase Searches

Prior to undertaking field investigations, searches of relevant databases were undertaken to identify the diversity of flora and fauna known to, or potentially occurring in the study area. These database searches included the following:

• Database searches of a 10 km radius around the study area using Bionet and DECCW Wildlife Atlas search tools for protected and threatened terrestrial flora and fauna species and populations.

• A database search for threatened aquatic species listed on the Fisheries Management Act 1994 (FM Act) and previously recorded within the catchment area was also undertaken using the Bionet search tool.

• A search of the EPBC Protected Matters search tool to determine which threatened species, populations and Endangered Ecological Communities (EECs) have potential habitat within 10 kms of the proposal site.

• Database searches of the Department of Primary Industries noxious weeds database for the Liverpool, Camden and Campbelltown Local Government Areas.

• A search of the ROTAP (Rare or Threatened Australian Plants) database using the PlantNET website for any known records of ROTAP species occurring within a 10km radius of the study area.

• A search of the DECCW Threatened Species Profile Database for the Cumberland Catchment Management Authority subregion.

The results of the database searches are presented in Appendix B. Based upon the results of these searches an assessment as to the likely presence of threatened species, populations and ecological communities within the study area has been undertaken and is provided in Appendix C.

3.1.2 28BLiterature Review

A number of previous studies have been undertaken within the study area and are of relevance to the proposed scope of works. The literature review ensures that the results from surveys conducted during differing climatic variations and seasons are considered. This approach increases the probability of considering the presence of, and possible impacts on native species known or likely to occur at the site, particularly any plants and animals that are of regional, state or national conservation significance that were not identified during the field survey. The following reports, maps and other documents were reviewed for information on aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna.

• Aerial photographs of the study area.

Final May 2010 7


• Topographic maps.

• A review of existing information on protected and threatened flora and fauna species, populations, Endangered Ecological Communities (EEC), and their habitats as defined by the TSC Act and EPBC Act that occur or are likely to occur. Specifically, information pertaining to Cumberland Plain Woodland critically endangered ecological community (CEEC), River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains EEC, Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) and the Cumberland Plain Land Snail.

• NSW NPWS (2002) Native Vegetation Maps of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney.

• Liverpool City Council Vegetation Mapping (Biodiversity Strategy) and State of the Environment Report 2007/08.

• Campbelltown Biodiversity Study and State of the Environment Report 2007/08.

• Camden Council State of Environment Report 2006/07.

• nghenvironmental (2009) Field Survey – Targeted searches for Spiked Rice‐flower and Cumberland Plain Land Snail – Denham Court Road/Ingleburn Road and Camden Valley Way intersection upgrade.

• LesryK (2008) Ecological Constraints Analysis of Camden Valley Way between Narellan Road and the Cowpasture/Bringelly Road Intersection.

• UBM (2006 & 2007) Species Impact Statement and flora and fauna assessment prepared for Camden Valley Way between Cowpasture Road and Bernea Road.

• RTA (2006) Camden Valley Way Corridor ‐ The Cross Roads, Casula to Nepean River, Camden – Preliminary Environmental Investigation.

• LesryK (2006) Flora and fauna assessment – Intersection CVW and Raby Road.

• NPWS (1997) Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey (UBBS).

3.2 12BFIELD SURVEY – FLORA

The primary flora survey was undertaken on the 7th and 8th September 2009 and was confined to areas located within the study area (bound by the blue line) shown in the Strategic Concept Design Plans in Appendix A.

LesryK undertook a detailed botanical survey of the study area in December 2007 which included compilation of a detailed list of flora species occurring in the area and the identification of vegetation communities present. Two EECs were noted during this survey in the study area including Cumberland Plain Woodland and River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest as well as one threatened flora species, Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower). Given the extensive species list already generated as part of previous survey work the primary aim of this survey was to specifically target known constraint areas and focus on categorising areas of EEC along both sides of Camden Valley Way according to their condition. Nineteen spot surveys were undertaken along the study area within areas of vegetation and a number of factors were assessed at each site in order to determine the condition of the vegetation. The factors are as follows:

Final May 2010 8


• The nature and quality of existing native vegetation (dominant native species were noted).

• Structural diversity, age class of canopy vegetation and projected foliage cover.

• Weed species present, their extent and density (Noxious weeds were noted where present.

• Remnant size and connectivity.

• Resilience/Recovery potential.

The resilience/recovery potential refers to the potential of a plant community, species or ecosystem to recover after disturbance and includes an evaluation of the above factors as well as disturbance history and on‐going disturbance, soil conditions and evidence of recruitment/regeneration. This assessment was based on a matrix developed for other nearby Cumberland Plain vegetation remnants by Ian Perkins (cited in Ian Perkins Consultancy Services 2001) and the Best Practice Guidelines for Bush Regeneration on the Cumberland Plain (DIPNR 2003).

A general walk‐over of vegetated sections of the study area was also undertaken in order to determine the extent of vegetation communities and general condition. Information was marked on aerial photographs in the field and this data, along with an analysis of the high resolution aerial photographs available, was used to mark out the vegetation community boundaries displayed in Maps 1‐7 in Appendix D1.

Based upon the above factors, areas of EEC located within the study area were ranked as being of poor, moderate or good condition and mapped accordingly. This mapping has been used to better assess the impact of the proposed concept design upon areas of EEC as defined under the TSC and EPBC Acts.

Targeted searches were also undertaken for threatened species and noxious weeds identified in the background searches and literature review. A detailed targeted survey (approximately three person hours) was undertaken around the Denham Court Road area where Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) has been recorded previously. This survey involved transects, approximately 2 m apart, along the entire length of the area defined in XFigure 4‐3X. Surveys focused on those areas of vegetation located within the proposed construction footprint and some time was also spent locating previous records using a hand‐held GPS.

Following the uplisting of the Cumberland Plain Woodland ecological community from endangered to critically endangered under the TSC and EPBC Acts in December 2009 a second site survey was undertaken on the 27th January 2010. This survey was required to determine those areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland which meet the condition thresholds and description as outlined by the listing advice developed by the Threatened Species Scientific Committee under the EPBC Act (DEWHA 2009b). Each area of Cumberland Plain Woodland mapped during the primary survey was assessed as per the condition requirements outlined in Table 1 of the listing advice.

3.3 13BFIELD SURVEY ‐ FAUNA AND FAUNA HABITAT

Fauna and fauna habitat surveys were undertaken during 7th to 9th September 2009 within the study area shown in the Strategic Concept Design Plans in Appendix A. Surveys were conducted through a

Final May 2010 9


combination of driving the entire route, walking large sections of the route and conducting point surveys at 18 locations. For ease of presentation, survey locations are shown on the same figures as survey results (Appendix E Maps 1‐7).

Surveys comprised the following:

• An inventory of hollow‐bearing trees (HBT) including, location, approximate tree size and approximate number of hollows.

• Timed 20 minute bird surveys conducted at three locations along the route (fauna sites 8, 10 and 17). These sites were chosen because they supported better quality vegetation in larger remnants, likely to provide meaningful bird survey results.

• Opportunistic observations of birds (heard and seen) continuously while conducting other surveys.

• Searches for the Cumberland Plain Land Snail at seven locations where appropriate habitat occurred (fauna sites 6, 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17). Surveys involved searching through leaf litter layers, particularly at the base of trees, using a three pronged fork.

• Anabat detection at three locations over two nights – Fauna site 10 and 17 and Bonds Creek upstream of fauna site 5. Calls were sent to Glenn Hoye of Fly By Night Bat surveys for analysis.

• Fauna habitat descriptions to characterise the type and quality of habitat and microhabitat available along the route, sampled at 18 locations.

3.4 14BFIELD SURVEY ‐ AQUATIC HABITAT

The study area includes waterways and man‐made dams. Lesryk (2008) identified aquatic habitats within the study area to be of low to moderate ecological value and no aquatic habitats present on site would offer a suitable environment for threatened fish species.

In light of the above the primary objectives of the aquatic survey were to:

• Confirm the conclusions of the Lesryk (2008) report by providing a description of the aquatic habitats present in the study area.

• Provide construction and operational mitigation measures to safeguard against impacts on aquatic habitats, including advice on the type of crossings to be used and where possible aquatic habitats to avoid.

An aquatic habitat assessment of the study area was undertaken on the 8th September 2009.

Waterways were surveyed for up to 100 metres (m) upstream and downstream of Camden Valley Way (CVW) and the following recorded:

• Incidental sightings of aquatic fauna species.

• Presence of in‐stream habitat (e.g. snags, riffles, gravel beds). In particular, the survey aimed to identify habitats of aquatic fauna and flora species listed as threatened under the FM Act.

• Water flow and appearance.

Final May 2010 10


• Water depth.

• Creek bed type (e.g. mud, gravel, bedrock).

• Bank characteristics (e.g. stability, gradient).

• Riparian vegetation characteristics (e.g. width, bank trailing vegetation, structure, disturbance).

• Creek crossings.

• Presence of blockage of fish passage.

Due to the high number of dams and their relative homogeneity in terms of aquatic habitat potential (Lesryk 2008), a representative number of manmade dams (five) were also surveyed along CVW within the study area and the following recorded:

• Incidental sightings of aquatic fauna species.

• Riparian vegetation characteristics (e.g. width, bank trailing vegetation, structure, disturbance).

The sizes (i.e. surface area) of the dams were estimated using available aerial photographs.

The quality of the aquatic habitat was assessed as Low, Medium or High according to the following criteria (Table 3‐1).

Table 3‐1 Aquatic habitat quality

Habitat Value Waterbody

Low • Intermittent or permanent waterbody

• No or limited in‐stream habitat such as snags, riffles, pools, vegetation

• No riparian vegetation or high level of disturbance of riparian vegetation due to vegetation removal and weed infestations

Medium • Intermittent or permanent waterbody

• Refuge and/or breeding habitat for native fish present

• Semi continuous or continuous riparian vegetation present

High • Permanent waterbody

• Potential habitat for threatened aquatic species

• High diversity of instream habitat present including snags, riffles, pools, vegetation

• Low level of disturbance of riparian vegetation with minimal weed infestations

Final May 2010 11


4 3BRESULTS

4.1 15BFLORA

4.1.1 29BExisting Environment

The majority of vegetation within the study area has been highly modified as a result of agricultural, commercial and residential development along Camden Valley Way. This has resulted in many areas of vegetation containing little structural diversity and a dominance of exotic species, particularly within the understorey and ground layer components. Canopy cover and condition varies greatly across the study area from scattered remnant trees to dense patches of regrowth and few stands with an intact canopy layer of mature trees. Appendix F provides a description of the vegetation at each survey location shown in Appendix D1. This information was used to rank areas of vegetation and characterise vegetation communities within the study area. Notes were also made on the condition of the vegetation and the presence of any noxious weeds.

4.2 16BVEGETATION COMMUNITIES

4.2.1 Previous studies

Vegetation mapping undertaken by the National Parks and Wildlife Service in 2002 indicates areas of Shale Hills Woodland, Shale Plains Woodland and Alluvial Woodland within the study area. This mapping is illustrated in XFigure 4‐1X and XFigure 4‐2X. Shale Plains Woodland and Shale Hills Woodland do not differ significantly from a floristic perspective, with both communities being dominated by Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and Eucalyptus moluccana (Grey Box).

Eucalyptus crebra (Narrow‐leaved Ironbark) can often occur within both communities while E. eugenioides (Thin‐leaved Stringybark) and Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) are typically restricted to the Shale Plains Woodland. The habitat of each community differs with Shale Hills Woodland being largely confined to the southern half of the Cumberland Plain and occurring at higher elevations and on steeper slopes than Shale Plains Woodland. Shale Hills Woodland most often occurs in undulating country with a relatively high degree of ruggedness.

Both communities are included within the definition of Cumberland Plain Woodland Critically Endangered Ecological Community (CEEC) under the TSC Act and Cumberland Plain Shale Woodland and Shale‐Gravel Transition Forest CEEC under the EPBC Act. For the purposes of this assessment all areas of Shale Plain Woodland and Shale Hills Woodland have been collectively referred to as Cumberland Plain Woodland.

Alluvial Woodland occurs exclusively along, or in close proximity to minor watercourses draining soils derived from Wianamatta Shale and is the most common community found on soils of recent alluvial deposition. The upper tree stratum of Alluvial Woodland varies significantly with the two most common species being Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and E. amplifolia (Cabbage Gum). A lower stratum of small trees including Acacia parramattensis subsp. parramattensis, Melaleuca decora, M. styphelioides (Prickly‐leaved Tea‐tree), Backhousia myrtifolia (Grey Myrtle), Casuarina cunninghamiana (River Oak) and C. glauca (Swamp Oak) is often present. Alluvial

Final May 2010 12


Woodland falls within the definition of River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains which is listed as an EEC under the TSC Act. For the purposes of this assessment this community is referred to as River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest.

Figure 4‐1: Vegetation Mapping undertaken by NSW NPWS (2002) for the northern section of the study area (shown in red). Map Unit 9 Shale Hills Woodland (blue), Map Unit 10 Shale Plains Woodland (yellow) and Map Unit 11 Alluvial Woodland (green). Horizontal hatched areas indicate canopy cover less than 10% (non‐urban areas).

Start of Study Area

Final May 2010 13


Figure 4‐2: Vegetation Mapping undertaken by NSW NPWS (2002) for the southern section of the study area (shown in red). Map Unit 9 Shale Hills Woodland (blue), Map Unit 10 Shale Plains Woodland (yellow) and Map Unit 11 Alluvial Woodland (green). Horizontal hatched areas indicate canopy cover less than 10% (non‐urban areas) and diagonal hatched areas indicate urban areas with less than 10% canopy cover.

End of Study Area

Final May 2010 14


4.2.2 Current survey

Two native woodland/forest communities are identified within the study area with the remaining vegetation being highly modified with both native and exotic components. These vegetation types are described below.

42BCumberland Plain Woodland

Cumberland Plain Woodland is mostly restricted to hills and plains with soil derived from Wianamatta Shale and occur on the driest parts of the Cumberland Plain (DEWHA 2009). This is the dominant vegetation community occurring across the study area and is generally described as medium‐height eucalypt woodland with a lower tree layer, an open, low shrub layer and/or a prominent (usually grassy) ground layer (Tozer 2003). The condition of this community within the study area, particularly the understorey, varied greatly as a result of past disturbance history. Better quality areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland within the study area comprise a tree layer dominated by Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and E. moluccana (Grey Box) with E. crebra (Narrow‐leaved Ironbark), E. eugenioides (Thin‐leaved Stringybark) and Corymbia maculata (Spotted Gum) occurring less frequently. The mid‐storey is often dominated by a lower tree stratum of the dominant tree species and less frequently Exocarpus cupressiformis (Native Cherry), Acacia implexa (Hickory Wattle) and Acacia parramattensis (Parramatta Wattle). The majority of stands within the study area contained a mid‐storey dominated by the exotic species Olea europaea subsp. africana (African Olive). Areas of good condition woodland contained a native understorey dominated by Bursaria spinosa (Blackthorn) along with Dillwynia sieberi to a lesser extent. Many patches contained a dense understorey of Bursaria spinosa indicating a low fire frequency in these areas. The ground layer was found to be in poor to moderate condition through much of the study area due to weed invasion, grazing by cattle and rabbits and a dense shrub layer of Bursaria spinosa. In areas of good condition the ground stratum was predominately grassy with Themeda australis (Kangaroo Grass) and Aristida vagans being the dominant native grasses in these areas. Native forb species recorded include Brunoniella australis, Einadia nutans (Climbing Saltbush) and Dichondra repens (Kidney Weed) as well as the native fern Cheilanthes sieberi subsp. sieberi.

It should be noted that only those areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland within the study area were mapped and this community does extend into adjacent areas outside the area of proposed works. In addition, it is also noted that one area classified as Cumberland Plain Woodland to the south of Raby Road and adjacent to the golf course is part of a Remembrance Drive planting.

Condition of Cumberland Plain Woodland

A condition class (poor, moderate or good) was assigned to each area of Cumberland Plain Woodland within the study area and is mapped in Maps 1 to 7 in Appendix D1. The condition categories were based on the number of representative species occurring in the patch as listed in the joint scientific committee’s final determination, percentage of native canopy cover (as per the then DECC classification of high quality habitat in biocertification areas), structural diversity and the resilience of the patch. It should be noted that only those areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland within the study area were mapped and this community does extend into adjacent areas outside the area of proposed works. A description of the general characteristics and criteria of each condition class is provided in XTable 4‐1X.

Final May 2010 15


Table 4‐1 Outline of condition criteria for the study area. Condition Class Description

Poor Poor structural diversity – One or more layers usually absent: <5% of remnant canopy or young regrowth, mid‐storey and understorey absent or dominated by exotic woody weeds including African Olive, African Boxthorn and Lantana. Ground layer modified as a result of mowing, weed invasion or heavy grazing and dominated by exotic species.

Remnant of small size with limited connectivity to adjacent areas of vegetation and provides limited to no fauna habitat value.

Low resilience potential due to previous soil disturbance, clearing, high weed density and lack of native diversity. Limited regeneration evident.

Moderate Moderate structural diversity – Canopy partially intact or areas of older regrowth with some scattered mature trees also present (5‐10% canopy cover). Mid‐storey and understorey are present and contains some native diversity although woody weeds are still prevalent in many stands. Ground layer is in moderate condition with a number of native grasses present or has been heavily grazed but is still dominated by native species.

Remnant is of moderate size or is connected to other areas of woodland outside the study area and provides movement corridor for fauna as well as some habitat value.

Resilience is moderate to high due to limited soil disturbance and the presence of native species and good structural diversity.

Good Good structural diversity – Canopy is mostly intact and has a diverse age class of the dominant eucalypts including a number of mature remnant trees. Canopy cover is greater than 10%. Mid‐storey and understorey is predominantly native and well structured. The ground stratum is in good condition and contains a number of native grasses and forbs.

Remnant is relatively large given the fragmented nature of woodland within the study area and provides good fauna habitat for foraging and roosting as well as being connected to adjacent areas of woodland.

Resilience is high with limited to no soil disturbance evident and a relatively high abundance of native species with low weed density.

43BRiver‐Flat Eucalypt Forest

River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest occurs on the flats, drainage lines and river terraces of coastal floodplains where flooding is periodic and where soils are generally rich in silt, lack deep humic layers and have little or no saline (salt) influence (DECC 2007).This community occurs in moderate condition along the creeks within the study area (Bonds Creek, Riley’s Creek and South Wianamatta Creek) and was also noted as being in poor condition along an unnamed drainage channel at survey location six

Final May 2010 16


(CH2700‐2750). The composition of River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest on Coastal Floodplains is primarily determined by the frequency and duration of water logging and the texture, nutrient and moisture content of the soil (DECC 2008).

Within the study area this community comprised a tall open tree layer dominated by Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) with E. amplifolia (Cabbage Gum) also being recorded at Riley’s Creek. A dense small tree layer of Casuarina glauca (Swamp oak) and Melaleuca styphelioides (Prickly‐Leaved Tea Tree) was evident at all sites. The understorey at most sites was dominated by exotic species including African Boxthorn and African Olive. Scattered shrubs of Bursaria spinosa (Blackthorn) were noted at Bonds Creek. The ground layer at all sites was dominated by a high density of exotic species including Wandering Jew, Purple Top, Rhodes Grass, Couch, African Lovegrass and Plantain. A dense infestation of the exotic Juncus acutus (Sharp Rush) was noted throughout the majority of Riley’s Creek. Other creek lines contained Typha orientalis as the dominant in‐stream vegetation.

Areas of River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest along the three creek lines within the study area were noted as being of moderate condition. Maps 1 to 7 of Appendix D1 indicate the location of this community within the study area. The canopy layer at each site was generally found to be intact and in good condition although clearing of adjacent lands have reduced the width of riparian vegetation significantly.

The vegetation is generally well connected along the creeks and provides fauna habitat as a movement corridor. The understory and ground layer at all three sites was in poor condition due to heavy weed invasion. These areas would have low to moderate resilience potential due to the degree of weed infestation and the ongoing management issues associated with creek lines such as nutrient enrichment and weed dispersal from upstream areas. Vegetation along the unnamed drainage channel was noted as being of poor condition due to the lack of connectivity and size of this patch of vegetation as well as the lack of floristic diversity.

44BModified Roadside Vegetation

The remainder of the study area consists of disturbed or modified roadside vegetation. These areas have been cleared of native vegetation although some occasional or small clumps of remnant trees including Eucalyptus tereticornis (Forest Red Gum) and E. moluccana (Grey Box) still occur. The understorey and ground layer of these areas has been cleared of vegetation and is maintained as pasture, lawn or road verge. Highly disturbed open grassy areas contain the exotic species African Lovegrass, Rhodes Grass and Kikuyu.

All areas within the study area that are not mapped in Maps 1 to 7 in Appendix D1 contain modified roadside vegetation. These areas do not meet the criteria of Cumberland Plain Woodland (as defined by the TSC and EPBC Acts) due to the absence of any ecological functioning that defines a vegetation community, such as nutrient recycling. These areas do not contain components of the indigenous native species sufficient to re‐establish the characteristic native understorey, and regrowth that is likely to achieve a near natural structure or seral stage towards that structure (NSW Scientific Committee 2009 and DEWHA 2009a). In addition, the projected foliage cover within these areas is less than 10% and therefore is not included as part of the EPBC listed CEEC (DEWHA 2009b).

Final May 2010 17


4.3 17BPLANT SPECIES AND VEGETATION COMMUNITIES OF CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

4.3.1 30BEndangered Ecological Communities

The following eleven endangered ecological communities are present in the Camden, Campbelltown and/or Liverpool LGA’s:

• Cumberland Plain Woodland (TSC‐ critically endangered; EPBC‐ critically endangered)

• Freshwater Wetlands (TSC‐ endangered)

• Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest (TSC‐ endangered)

• River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest (TSC‐ endangered)

• Shale/Sandstone Transition Forest (TSC‐ endangered; EPBC‐ endangered)

• Elderslie Banksia Scrub Forest (TSC‐ endangered)

• Western Sydney Dry Rainforest (TSC‐ endangered)

• Moist Shale Woodlands (TSC‐ endangered)

• Cooks River/Castlereagh Ironbark Forest (TSC‐ endangered)

• Castlereagh Swamp Woodland (TSC‐ endangered)

• Shale Gravel Transition Forest (TSC‐ endangered; EPBC‐ critically endangered)

Based upon existing mapping (NSW NPWS 2002) and the field investigations two of the above vegetation communities (Cumberland Plain Woodland and River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest) are present within the study area and have the potential to be impacted by the proposed works. No other EECs listed above are present within the study area.

Specific effort was made to categorise areas of EEC and CEEC occurring within the study area according to their condition in order to gain a better understanding of the associated impacts as a result of the proposal. These impacts are discussed in Section X5.1X below.

4.3.2 31BEndangered Populations

One endangered population listed under the TSC Act of the native vine Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora is listed as occurring within the Camden, Campbelltown and Liverpool LGA’s. Recent records of this species are from Prospect, Bankstown, Smithfield, Cabramatta Creek and St Marys. Previous records are also known from the north around Razorback Range. This species was not recorded during the survey but has been recorded four times within a 10km radius of the site including one record from 2003 located towards the northern end of the study area along Camden Valley Way. The remaining three records are located outside the study area with one record from 2007 located along the Cabramatta Creek and two records from 2008 located in Bringelly along The Northern Road.

Final May 2010 18


This species is known to occur in vine thickets and open shale woodland, in Grey Box ‐ Forest Red Gum grassy woodland on flats of the Cumberland Plain and Grey Box ‐ Forest Red Gum grassy woodland on shale of the southern Cumberland Plain. Based upon the availability of habitat and the presence of previous records within the study area a seven‐part test under the TSC Act has been undertaken and is provided in Appendix G.

4.3.3 32BListed Threatened Species

Plant species listed on the TSC Act and/or EPBC Act previously recorded or with potential to occur within a 10 km radius of the study area are listed in Appendix C along with a consideration of the likelihood of occurrence and potential for impact as a result of the proposal for each species. This list also includes consideration of species predicted to occur as listed on the DECCW Threatened Species Profile Database for the Cumberland Catchment Management Authority subregion.

No listed threatened species were recorded within the study area. One species, Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower), is listed as endangered under the TSC and EPBC Acts and is known to occur within the study area. Based upon previous studies this species has been recorded around the Denham Court Road area (approximately 250m from CVW) and within a section of the Camden Lakeside Golf Course (approximately 540m from CVW). This second area was not surveyed as part of this assessment as it is located outside the survey area and would not be affected by the works.

Table 4‐2 below outlines the details of previous records of this species within this area. XFigure 4‐3X shows the approximate area of known Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) records from around Denham Court Road and an outline of the areas surveyed. nghenvironmental also undertook targeted surveys around the Denham Court Road area in January 2009 (nghenvironmental 2009). During this survey the RTA representative onsite indicated an additional record of Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) within an area adjacent to the proposed road footprint along Denham Court Rd. This record was indicated to be approximately 20 m from the south western extent of the footprint of the proposed alignment. However a GPS location has not been found for this anecdotal record and nor is the source of the record known. It does not appear on the DECCW Wildlife Atlas database and is not discussed in the Ecological Constraints Analysis undertaken by Lesryk (2008).

Final May 2010 19


Final May 2010 20

Table 4‐2: Details of previous records of Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) for the Denham Court area.

Location/Record Date Easting and Northing

(GDA94 Zone 56)

Details

LesryK record

DECCW Sighting Key: SADBI0019616

3.4.2008 298190E 6238765N Four individuals recorded

LesryK record

DECCW Wildlife Atlas record

13.12.2007 298250E 6238750N No details available

DECCW Sighting Key: SRXLI0016670

22.07.2003 298193E 6238862N Approx 8 individuals located

DECCW Sighting Key: SJJTI0041653


DECCW Wildlife Atlas record.


DECCW Sighting Key: 7766

16.03.1992 298200E 6238800N Approx 800 individuals

Specific effort was made to relocate the previous records of this species using a hand held GPS however no individuals were located. This may be attributed to the cryptic nature of the species and lack of rainfall for the month prior to the survey. Weather at the time of the survey was mild with temperatures reaching a maximum of 21°C, however the survey area was very dry with climate data from Camden Airport indicating only 13mm of rainfall in the month prior to the survey (Bureau of Meteorology website). During drought periods Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) is known to survive by dying back to the tap‐root and re‐sprouting from its base when favourable conditions return. Thus any individuals of the species may not have been visible above ground. However all previous records, with the exception of the anecdotal record, of this species occur outside the proposed development footprint with the most recent records from 2007 and 2008 occurring towards the southern end of the area illustrated in Figure 4‐3 and furthest from the proposed works. A seven‐part test under the TSC Act and Assessment of Significance under the EPBC Act has been undertaken for this species and is provided in Appendix G.


Figure 4‐3: Location of previous records of Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) and survey areas around Denham Court Road.

Final May 2010 21


4.3.4 33BOther Significant Species

No species regarded as being of regional significance (based on James et al. 1999) were recorded during the survey. However, LesryK noted three regionally significant species within 1500m of CVW including:

• Vittadinia sulcata (Burr‐daisy) – located east of the intersection of Camden valley Way and Park Road.

• Austrostipa setacea (Corkscrew Grass) – located south of Denham Court Road.

• Solanum cinereum (Narrawa Burr) – located south of Denham Court Road.

A number of other ROTAP species have been recorded within a 10 km radius of the study area (Appendix B). While none of these species were recorded during the survey and there are no legislative requirements to control impacts to these species, areas of known occurrence for these species should be avoided where possible. This typically coincides with areas of moderate to good condition Cumberland Plain Woodland, particularly where the ground layer is in relatively good condition.

4.4 18BFAUNA

4.4.1 34BFauna Habitat

45BWoodland Patches

Fauna habitat along the route occurs mainly in the remnant woodland patches. Due to the impacts of disturbances such as grazing and mowing many of these patches have poor quality lower strata and limited microhabitat availability. Larger remnants occur where Denham Court Road and St Andrews Road intersect CVW on the southern side.

These remnants provide habitat for native reptiles, birds and mammals but due to the fragmentation and surrounding urban environment the suite of fauna persisting will be comprised of species that are resilient to edge effects, highly mobile not threatened by predation from feral cats. The woodland patches at Denham Court Road and St Andrew Road intersections support high diversities of native birds, including regionally significant species. In general, the more developed woodland patches occur to the south/east of the existing CVW.

46BHollow‐bearing trees

Approximately 33 hollow‐bearing trees were recorded along the route. Hollow‐bearing trees provide habitat for a number of threatened species known to inhabit the vicinity of the site. Small hollows provide suitable habitat for threatened Microchiropteran bats and small glider species as well as native parrot species. Medium sized hollows provide habitat for larger possums and gliders and cockatoos. Only the very largest hollows provide habitat for threatened forest owls and no hollows of such a size were observed along the route.

The locations of all hollow‐bearing trees are shown on Maps 1 to 7 of Appendix E.

The hollow bearing trees occur in four clusters or sections along the route:

Final May 2010 22


1. South of Denham Court Road in the non‐biocertified remnant patch of woodland (6 trees). 2. Between chainage 4850 and 6200 on the southern side of CVW, including around the

intersection with St. Andrews Road (17 trees). 3. Riley Creek north of Raby Road Intersection (approx. chainage 6800) (3 trees). 4. Between chainage 9200 and 9400 at Springfield Road intersection (7 trees).

47BLinear Strips

Linear strips of vegetation are more prone to edge effects such as changed microclimate and weed invasion and therefore provide less optimal habitat than more intact patches, particularly for ground dwelling and less mobile fauna. However, in addition to the woodland remnants, the linear strips of roadside vegetation support numerous large habitat trees, many of which were confirmed to contain hollows and others which can be presumed to contain hollows because of their size and age. Due to the height and orientation of branches on such trees, hollows are not always visible.

4.4.2 35BThreatened Species

Database searches revealed records or predicted occurrences of 31 TSC Act threatened species within a 10 km radius of the site, or predicted to occur within the Cumberland CMA subregion. This excludes fish which are addressed in section 4.5 below. The EPBC Act protected matters search tool revealed nine migratory birds species for which habitat or breeding may occur within the search area. EPBC listings are not based on records but provide a general guide only based on predictive modelling of species occurrence. In some instances, the EPBC protected matters search tool may predict the occurrence of ‘species or species habitat’ within a search area whilst Bionet and DECCW wildlife atlas databases show no records of the species.

Table 4‐3 provides a breakdown of the source of information on threatened species (n.b. some of the species listed in act is provided in Appendix C. occur in more than one category). Results of database searches are provided in Appendix B and assessment of the likelihood of occurrence and impact is provided in Appendix C.

Table 4‐3 Summary of threatened and migratory species revealed in database searches.

Type of record Type of presence Number of species

Type of species

Threatened fauna species with records on Bionet or Wildlife Atlas within 10 km of the site.

Known record 30 3 frogs, 12 birds, 11 mammals, 1 snail.

Threatened species predicted to occur

Species or species habitat mayoccur in the area (no bionet or

wildlife atlas records).

3 All frogs

Migratory terrestrial species Species or species habitat mayoccur in the area; breeding may or likely to occur within area (no bionet or wildlife atlas records).

7 All birds

Final May 2010 23


Final May 2010 24

Type of record Type of presence Number of species

Type of species

Migratory wetland/marinespecies



2 Both birds

Listed marine species (overfly commonwealth marine area).



9 Both birds

The results of the database searches were analysed to assess the likelihood that any of these species would occur on the site or be impacted by the proposal. The assessment was based on results of field work and research on species habitat preferences. Where a species was considered likely to occur, was known to occur or considered likely to be impacted, a seven‐part test pursuant to Section 5A of the EP&A Act was prepared. Seven part tests are not required for biocertified areas, however mobile species may move from certified to non‐certified areas and this was taken into consideration when assessing likely impacts.

Of the species revealed in database searches, the majority were considered unlikely to occur due to the lack of suitable habitat. Of those likely or known to occur, it was concluded the proposal would have a low likelihood of impact on the majority of these species. This is mainly due to the relatively small amount and low quality of habitat to be removed. Rationale for this conclusion is outlined for each species in Appendix C. Two threatened species were recorded during surveys in the study area (Cumberland Plain Land Snail (Meridolum corneovirens) and East Coast Freetail Bat (Micronomus norfolkensis). Seven part tests were conducted for those species and are provided in Appendix G. These tests concluded that the proposal was unlikely to impact on threatened species to the extent that a viable local population would be placed at risk of extinction.

Two shells of the Cumberland Plain Land Snail were detected at fauna site 6 on the eastern side of CVW, just south of its intersection with Cowpasture Road, which is an area that is biocertified. Lesryk (2008) also recorded the snails during surveys of the route but the majority of records are from well outside the road footprint. A seven‐part test for this species is provided in Appendix G.

The threatened bat species M. norfolkensis was recorded at fauna site 17 on the southern side of Denham Court Road. The triangle of vegetation does not have biocertification. The species was also recorded in remnant vegetation to the east of the intersection of CVW and St Andrews Road (fauna site 10) a site which does have biocertification. A seven part test is provided for this species in Appendix G.

Several species of birds considered to be regionally significant (NPWS 1997) were detected both during surveys for this report and surveys by Lesryk (2008). Regional significance applies to species that may not meet the criteria for formal listing as threatened at national and state levels, however, may be in danger of extinction in regional areas and are thus considered regionally significant. The protection of regional populations is fundamental to biodiversity conservation, particularly for the maintenance of genetic diversity and ecosystem stability.


Lesryk (2008) concluded that as a result of habitat removal, fragmentation and residential development of the area along with associated threats such as feral and domestic animals, it was highly unlikely that Spotted‐tailed Quoll, Koala, Bush‐stone Curlew and Green and Golden Bell Frog would persist in the vicinity of the study site and that these species are probably now locally extinct. Following field surveys and assessment of the location and age of database records for these species, nghenvironmental concur with this assessment.

All fauna species recorded during surveys are listed in Appendix J.

4.5 19BAQUATIC HABITAT

4.5.1 36BExisting Environment

The study area includes two types of aquatic habitats, waterways and man‐made dams, both of which are described in detail in the following sections. Refer to Appendix H for site photos.

48BWaterways

A number of waterways were located within the study area and crossed Camden Valley Way (CVW). An analysis of 1:25 000 topographical maps indicated that the CVW crossings were mostly located within the uppermost upper reaches of the waterways.

Appendix I provides a listing of the waterways and their general characteristics in terms of their disturbance and their habitat value. Included in Table 1 of Appendix I is the waterways’ class according to Fairfull and Witheridge (2003) whose classification is used by the Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) (DPI Fisheries) to determine crossing types and provide an indication of the fish habitat value of a waterway. The stream order according to the Strahler system is also given. The stream order is used by a number of government bodies including DECCW to determine appropriate riparian widths.

A total of 9 waterway crossings were encountered along CVW. The majority of waterways are Class 3 waterways according to Fairfull and Witheridge (2003). Class 2 waterways occur only at the creeks named Bonds Creek, Riley’s Creek and South Creek. All creeks to varying degrees provide some habitat potential for aquatic fauna including amphibians and fish. The Common Froglet (Crinea signifera) was heard calling at a number of creeks while the Plague Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki) was observed in Riley’s Creek. The plague minnow is considered a pest species under the FM Act. Those waterways providing the highest habitat potential include South Creek, Riley’s Creek and Bonds Creek which were flowing at the time of survey. The other unnamed waterways within the study area are intermittent, were dry at the time of the survey and would only provide very limited habitat value for aquatic species. Most of the waterways are considered disturbed due to human and/or stock access and vegetation clearing. Riparian vegetation was very limited at most creeks with continuous, though limited (i.e. 5m width) riparian vegetation only found at some of the named creeks. In‐stream habitat in the form of snags and/or vegetation was also only apparent at the named creeks.

The named creeks are considered to have medium habitat value while the unnamed waterways are of low habitat value. These conclusions concur with those of Lesryk (2008).

Final May 2010 25


Final May 2010 26

49BMan‐made dams

A number of man‐made dams of varying sizes are located along both the northern and southern side of Camden Valley Way (CVW). Appendix I provides a list of the dams located within the study area and within 100m of the study area.

Within the study area, a total of 11 and 2 dams were located on the northern and southern side of CVW respectively. These were for the most part located on private property except for 2 dams located on a golf course.

Within 100m of the study area, a total of 15 and 8 dams were located on the northern and southern side of CVW respectively. These were for the most part located on private property except for 4 dams located on a golf course.

The dams were all similar in terms of habitat potential. In general, the following characteristics apply to all the dams:

• Large expanse of open water.

• Varying widths of fringing emergent vegetation mostly composed of common Typha and/or Juncus.

• Limited riparian vegetation with the dams generally located in open grassed areas.

• Limited aquatic habitats such as large woody debris. The dams provide some habitat potential for aquatic species including birds, fish and amphibians. The Common Froglet (Crinea signifera) was heard calling at some of the dams while a number of common water birds were also observed. Lesryk (2008) also lists a number of fish species observed or likely to occur within the dams including eels (Aguilla sp.), Catfish (Tandanus tandanus), the Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio), Goldfish (Carassius auratus) and the Plague Minnow (Gambusia holbrooki). Due to their disturbed nature, the dams are considered to be of low habitat value. This conclusion concurs with that of Lesryk (2008).

4.5.2 37BThreatened species

Field surveys did not identify any threatened or protected aquatic species.

Database searches revealed four fish species previously recorded or with the potential to occur within the Hawkesbury and Nepean Catchment. An assessment of the potential for these threatened species to occur within the study area has concluded that it is unlikely these would occur within the waterways nd ams f e udy ea ppendix C a Xa d o th st ar (A nd


Table 4‐4X).

Table 4‐4 Threatened aquatic species likelihood of occurrence

Species Listing Likelihood of occurrence

Macquarie Perch

Macquaria australasica 4.6 EPBC‐

E

TSC‐V

Occurs in lakes and flowing streams usually in deep holes with rock or gravel substrates. Inhabits cool, clear water of rivers, lakes and reservoirs. The waterways within the study area do not support its habitat

Australian Grayling Prototoctes maraena

EPBC‐VFM‐P

This species prefers creeks with gravel beds and moderate flows. The waterways within the study area do not support its habitat.

Trout Cod Maccullochella maquariensis

FM‐E Trout cod are often found close to cover and in relatively fast currents, especially in fairly deep water close to the bank, and often congregate around snags. They tend to remain at the one site and to have small home ranges. The waterways within the study area do not support its habitat

Silver Perch Bidyanus bidyanus

FM‐V Silver Perch seem to prefer fast‐flowing, open waters, especially where there are rapids and races. The waterways within the study area do not support its habitat

EPBC‐E: Listed as endangered on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act EPBC‐V: Listed as vulnerable on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act TSC‐V: Listed as vulnerable on the Threatened Species Conservation act FM‐E: Listed as endangered on the Fisheries Management Act FM‐V: Listed as vulnerable on the Fisheries Management Act FM‐P: Listed as protected on the Fisheries Management Act

Final May 2010 27


5 4BASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS

For biocertified areas of the road upgrade an assessment of impacts under the TSC Act is not specifically required. This includes the majority of the route either side of the road. Non‐certified areas include all creeks, the triangle of vegetation to the south‐east of the intersection of CVW and Denham Court Road and the triangle of vegetation south east of the intersection of St Andrews Road with CVW. However in order for the RTA to fulfil its requirements under section 111 o EP& Act to examine and take into account to the fullest extent possible, all matters affecting or likely to affect the environment by reason of the activity, seven part test have been prepared to consider both biocertified areas and non biocertified areas.

The biocertification areas do not apply to items listed under the EPBC Act that would be impacted by the works.

5.1 20BFLORA

5.1.1 38BThreatened Communities

The proposed deviation would require the removal of woodland vegetation, riparian vegetation, isolated trees and groundcover vegetation from within the proposed road widening footprint and intersection areas.

Two state listed threatened communities, Cumberland Plain Woodland CEEC and River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest EEC occur within the study area. In addition, one nationally listed threatened community Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale‐Gravel Transition Forest CEEC also occurs within the study area.

Cumberland Plain Woodland was uplisted from the endangered to the critically endangered category of the TSC Act and EPBC Act list of threatened ecological communities in December 2009. The definition of the threatened community differs under each of the Acts and is discussed below along with an assessment of impacts to each of the communities as a result of the proposal.

50BCumberland Plain Woodland CEEC as defined under the TSC Act

The NSW Scientific Committee determination states that “Cumberland Plain Woodland sites are characteristically of woodland structure, but may include both more open and more dense areas, and the canopy is dominated by species including one or more of the following: Eucalyptus moluccana, Eucalyptus tereticornis, Eucalyptus crebra, Eucalyptus eugenioides and Eucalyptus maculata. The understorey is generally grassy to herbaceous with patches of shrubs, or if disturbed, contains components of indigenous native species sufficient to re‐establish the characteristic native understorey. The Cumberland Plain Woodland includes regrowth which is likely to achieve a near natural structure or is a seral stage towards that structure”.

Based upon the condition class descriptions provided in XTable 4‐1X it is considered that all areas of good, moderate and poor condition Cumberland Plain Woodland mapped in Appendix D1 would meet the criteria as defined by the NSW Scientific Committee (2009). Areas of modified roadside vegetation that contain scattered remnant trees of the characteristic overstorey species for this

Final May 2010 28


community would not be included within the definition as these areas do not contain sufficient native components required for re‐establishment of the characteristic native understorey. That is, these areas are of low resilience and are unlikely to respond to assisted natural regeneration due to the extent and degree of prior disturbance.

Areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland CEEC as defined under the TSC Act are mapped in Appendix D2. These figures also highlight those areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland located outside the biocertified areas within the study area. Table 5‐1 below provides an estimate of the area of CEEC as defined by the TSC Act likely to be impacted upon by the proposed works. Areas were calculated based upon the mapping provided in Appendix D2 and an outline of the development footprint based upon the most recent concept design (January 2010).

Table 5‐1: Approximate areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland CEEC (TSC Act) to be impacted by the proposed works.

TSC listed CEEC Area to be impacted within Biocertified areas of the development footprint

Area to be impacted within non‐Biocertified areas of the development footprint

Total area to be impacted

Poor Condition 4.18ha 0.26ha 4.44ha

Moderate Condition 8.66ha 2.2ha 10.86ha

Good Condition 1.98ha 0.42ha 2.4ha

TOTAL 14.82ha 2.88ha 17.7ha

The total area of Cumberland Plain Woodland CEEC located within the development footprint is 17.7 hectares, including biocertified and non‐biocertified areas. The majority of the non‐biocertified Cumberland Plain Woodland is located around the Denham Court Road area and the southern side of Camden Valley Way just south of this intersection. Vegetation would be removed from along the road edge and through a triangular patch of vegetation in order to realign the Denham Court Road and Ingleburn Road intersection. The realignment of the Denham Court Road intersection is driven by Denham Court Road being an identified link road into the south west growth centre. Vegetation within this area links to the southeast to a larger patch of woodland which extends to the southwest towards better quality vegetation around St Andrews Road. While the proposed works would reduce the size of the patch at Denham Court Road it would not fragment or isolate any areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland as vegetation to be removed is located around the edge of the patch. Specific safeguards would be implemented to ensure no impacts occur to areas located outside of the proposed road footprint.

Two smaller areas of CPW would also be removed from non‐certified areas around Raby Road. Vegetation within this area is a narrow strip along the road edge and provides only minimal connectivity along the road reserve.

Final May 2010 29


Final May 2010 30

The removal of 2.88 ha of CPW from within non‐certified areas would not cause the local extinction of the community which extends into adjacent areas and would not affect the dispersal of propagules between remaining areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland. Cumberland Plain Woodland is present throughout the surrounding areas within the Campbelltown, Camden and Liverpool Council areas. Based upon mapping undertaken in 1997 the extent of Cumberland Plain Woodland in these council areas was 583.2ha, 1104.4ha and 1598.1ha, respectively (DEWHA 2009). Thus the removal of 2.88ha of Cumberland Plain Woodland from within the study area and within non‐biocertified areas would not adversely affect the extent of the CEEC such that its local occurrence is placed at risk of extinction. The assessment of significance found that the combined area of biocertified and non‐certified areas could lead to significant impacts as a result of further fragmentation and clearing as a key threatening process. It should be noted that despite this being the outcome of this assessment of significance, S126I (2) of the TSC Act states:

‘an activity to which Part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 applies that a biodiversity certified EPI provides can be carried out without the need for development consent is, for the purposes of that Part, taken to be an activity that is not likely to significantly affect any threatened species, population or ecological community, or its habitat.’

51BCumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale‐Gravel Transition Forest CEEC as defined under the EPBC Act

The definition of this ecological community under the EPBC Act is more stringent on the condition thresholds that define the community. The listing advice provided on the DEWHA website outlines a set of condition thresholds that “are intended to function as a set of criteria that assists in identifying when the EPBC Act is likely to apply to an ecological community” (DEWHA 2009b). In order to comply with the definition of this community under the EPBC Act, areas of CPW must meet the condition thresholds:

• All patches must meet the following criteria: o minimum projected foliage cover of canopy trees is 10% or more o characteristics corresponding to the key diagnostic characteristics as outlined in the

listing advice

• Patches that meet the above criteria must also comply with the following condition thresholds:

o Minimum patch size is ≥0.5ha AND ≥50% perennial understorey vegetation coverF

2F is

made up of native species; OR o The patch is >5ha AND ≥30% of the perennial understorey vegetation cover is made

up of native species; OR o The patch is ≥0.5ha AND ≥30% of the perennial understorey vegetation cover is

made up of native species AND the patch is contiguousF

3F with a native vegetation

remnant (any native vegetation where cover in each layer present is dominated by native species) that is ≥5ha in area; OR

2 Perennial understorey vegetation cover includes vascular plant species of the ground and shrub layers with a life‐cycle of more than two growing seasons. Measurements of perennial understorey vegetation cover exclude annuals, cryptograms, leaf litter or exposed soil. 3 Contiguous means the woodland patch is continuous with, or in close proximity (within 100m) of another patch of vegetation that is dominated by native species in each vegetation layer present.


o The patch is ≥0.5ha AND ≥30% of the perennial understorey vegetation cover is made up of native species AND the patch has at least on tree with hollows per hectare or at least one large tree (≥80cm DBH) per hectare from the upper tree layer species outlined in the listing advice.

The analysis undertaken to determine areas of CPW located within the study area that meet the criteria of the nationally listed ecological community included an assessment of the following:

• Vegetation mapping provided in Appendix D3 of Cumberland Plain Woodland including the condition and size of each patch mapped and the proximity/connectivity of each patch to areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland located outside the study area.

• Surveys undertaken in January 2010 as well as the flora survey results from the initial survey (Appendix F) to determine approximate percentage of perennial understorey vegetation cover.

• Vegetation mapping undertaken by NSW NPWS (2002) for the Cumberland Plain vegetation including areas of Shale Plains, Shale Hills and Shale‐Gravel Transition Forest with a canopy cover greater than 10%. This mapping was used as a guide to identify patches of potential CEEC located outside of the study area.

Based upon this analysis areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland (CPW) which comply with the condition thresholds outlined above are mapped in Appendix D3. Areas of CPW CEEC have been mapped within the development footprint and equate to an area of 11.18 ha.

This vegetation occurs as linear strips along the road edge with the majority of remnants located along the eastern road edge between Denham Court Road and St Andrews Road. This linear strip of vegetation is well connected along the road edge and also adjoins larger remnants located outside the study area. An Assessment of Significance under the EPBC Act has been undertaken for the potential removal of 11.18ha of CPW CEEC and is provided in Appendix G.

On a regional scale it should be noted that the majority of extant Cumberland Plain Woodland areas in NSW are highly fragmented and consist of regrowth with few if any remnants remaining in a natural state. The community also has a highly restricted distribution and is subject to continual development pressures. Given these considerations, the findings of the assessment in Appendix G and in order to be consistent with the objectives of the draft recovery plan which is currently being prepared, it is recommended that the proposal be referred to the Minister of Environment.

52BRiver‐Flat Eucalypt Forest EEC (listed under the TSC Act)

The works would also require the removal of some riparian vegetation from along the road edge at each of the three creek line locations to allow for road widening and the installation of culverts. Figures in Appendix D2 outline the areas of River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest EEC located within the development footprint. The total area of this community to be impacted by the proposed development is 1.52 ha. Approximately 1.07 ha of this is located outside biocertified areas and thus subject to a 7‐part test under the TSC Act (Appendix G). This assessment has concluded no significant impact based upon the following factors:

• The majority of vegetation to be removed is in poor to moderate quality.

Final May 2010 31


• Only a small amount of vegetation would be removed and this community occurs along a number of creek lines and floodplain areas on the Cumberland Plain.

• This community is present in adjacent areas which would not be affected and subsequently works would not cause the community to become extinct within the locality.

53BThreatened Populations

One endangered population of Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora listed under the TSC Act has been previously recorded within the study area and a seven‐part test was undertaken in order to ascertain the potential impacts to this population should it still be present within the study area. This assessment concluded that no significant impact to this population was likely based on appropriate measures being implemented to ensure the patch of vegetation located outside the study area extent at CH300‐350 is not impacted.

54BThreatened Species

One endangered species, Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower), listed under the TSC and EPBC Acts is known to occur within the study area around Denham Court Road (refer to XFigure 4‐3X). While targeted surveys for this species did not reveal its occurrence, previous surveys undertaken in 2008 did reveal four individuals in the study area. Subsequently, a seven‐part test and assessment of significance have been undertaken and are provided in Appendix G.

These assessments have concluded no significant impact based upon the following considerations:

• All previous records of the species are located outside the field survey extent and the proposed road development footprint.

• Specific measures would be implemented to ensure no access to the area of known occurrence occurs during the proposed works.

55BNoxious Weeds

Spread of weeds could occur during vegetation removal and movement of machinery in infested areas. This could result in further degradation of habitat and reduction in floristic diversity, if not controlled.

56BKey Threatening Processes

The following key threatening processes have the potential to be triggered as a result of the proposed works:

• Clearing of Native Vegetation

The clearing of native vegetation is considered a major contributor to the loss of biodiversity. In its determination, the NSW Scientific Committee found that ‘clearing of any area of native vegetation, including areas less than two hectares in extent, may have significant impacts on biological diversity’. Clearing can lead to direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and associated genetic impacts, habitat degradation and off‐site impacts such as downstream sedimentation.

The proposal would require the removal of approximately 17.7ha of Cumberland Plain Woodland (only 2.88ha within non‐biocertified locations) and 1.52 ha of River‐Flat Eucalypt

Final May 2010 32


Forest (including 1.07ha which is located within non‐biocertified areas). The majority of the vegetation to be removed is in poor and moderate condition due to exotic species presence and previous clearing. Due to this vegetation removal the proposal can be considered to result in the operation of this key threatening process. However, the vegetation to be removed as part of this proposal is considered minor in terms of the local extent of this community in surrounding areas as well as the fragmented nature of the vegetation. As such the proposal is not likely to contribute significantly to the operation of clearing as a threatening process.

• Invasion of native plant communities by exotic perennial grasses

Exotic perennial grasses are those that are not native to NSW and have a life‐span of more than one growing season. Of particular concern within the study area is African Lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) which was noted in dense tussocks along the road verge at a number of locations. This species readily invades both disturbed and non‐disturbed areas and competes with native perennial grass species.

Combined flora impacts and constraint areas are shown in Figure 5‐1.

5.2 21BFAUNA IMPACTS

The majority of the woodland vegetation that provides fauna habitat in the study area is contained within a linear strip along the existing roadside and is of variable quality. The majority of the woodland vegetation to be removed falls within biocertified areas for which the impacts have been offset. Approximately 4 ha of fauna habitat will be removed from non‐biocertified areas within the study area. The two key areas of non‐certified vegetation are:

• Remnant vegetation to the east of intersection of CVW and St Andrews Road. The majority of this remnant will not be impacted by the proposal. A threatened bat species was recorded here so the retention of hollow‐bearing trees at this location should be prioritised.

• Remnant vegetation at the intersection of CVW and Denham Court Road. A threatened bat species was recorded here (to the south of the intersection) so the retention of hollow‐bearing trees at this location should be prioritised. The degraded nature of the ground layer and understorey at this location means impacts to Cumberland Land Snail would be unlikely.

These two remnants also correspond to the high quality CPW recorded during vegetation surveys (as mapped in Appendix D1).

Impacts to non‐certified areas on the southern side of CVW between Springfield Road and Raby Road are unlikely to result in significant impacts on any species or community. Between Raby Road and St Andrews Road, in the non‐certified areas, the amount and quality of roadside vegetation increases and numerous hollow‐bearing trees were recorded. Impacts to this section, on the southern side of the road should be minimised.

The main impact to fauna habitat would be from loss of hollow‐bearing trees which occur along the length of the route. Table 5‐2 lists the locations and descriptions of hollow‐bearing trees with a high priority for retention. An overall habitat tree retention rate of 30% will be attained by retaining a minimum 10 of the 33 habitat trees, thereby reducing impacts on threatened fauna and fauna

Final May 2010 33


Final May 2010 34

habitat to an acceptable level (in particular for hollow‐dependant birds and bats). The 30% retention rate provides a minimum benchmark to aim for while recognising that some tree loss will occur. It is not possible to accurately predict or quantify the impact of removing these trees and there are no published benchmarks on how much hollow loss would constitute a significant impact.

It is recognised that design constraints may not allow retention in all of these cases. In the case where a nominated tree cannot be retained a nearby tree of similar size should be chosen in order to achieve the overall 30% retention rate. Habitat trees with high priority for retention have been chosen on the basis of their size (dbh), location in proximity to other areas of higher ecological importance such as creek lines or woodland remnants and location in non‐certified areas. Should 30% retention be unable to be achieved then a nest box program should be developed to provide for bat boxes of suitable design. This program should be designed following the collection of detailed data during the removal of hollow‐bearing trees, and once the final figure of number of trees and number of hollows per tree is known. Nest boxes can be used as supplementary habitat to compensate for loss of naturally occurring hollows. However retention of natural hollows is preferential to provision of artificial hollows.

Table 5‐2 Habitat and hollow bearing trees with high priority for retention.

Waypoint Easting Northing General location (Area 1 2 3 or 4)

174 298143 6239125 1

175 297983 6238945 1

177 297941 6238864 1

214 298022 6238929 1*

188 296748 6237585 2*

211 296876 6237792 2

190 294153 6234559 4

191 294138 6234533 4

179 295727 6236405 3

180 295746 6236428 3

197 295729 6236402 3

Note: Eastings and Northings are in coordinate system GDA 1994 MGA zone 56. *Threatened bat recorded here


Figure 5‐1 Flora constraints and impacts

Final May 2010 35


Final May 2010 36

Figure 5‐2 Fauna constraints and impacts


Construction of the upgrade will increase the width of the road, however, fauna habitat in the study area is already highly fragmented and occurs primarily in a roadside linear remnant with little contiguous vegetation to the east or west of Camden Valley Way. The existing width and substrate of the road to some degree already acts as a barrier to movement and genetic dispersal of less mobile ground dwelling fauna species. However the lack of contiguous vegetation in the area means there is unlikely to be any fauna movement corridor on which the widened road would impact. Any fauna existing in this area is likely to be occurring in small isolated patches of remnant vegetation. For mobile species such as birds and bats, the increased road width will not substantially increase the barrier effect or isolation of any population. The width of the road will increase under the proposal but is unlikely to increase the degree of isolation of any population of fauna species since they would already be genetically isolated as a result of a long history of habitat fragmentation and to some extent the historical presence of the road

Seven part tests have been conducted to assess the potential for significant impact on the three threatened species recorded in, or immediately outside of, the study area: the bats M. norfolkensis and F .tasmaniensis the land snail M. corneovirens. Both tests concluded there was unlikely to be a significant impact on the species as a result of the proposed upgrade. In the case of M. norfolkensis and F .tasmaniensis retention of 30% of the hollow bearing trees and the use of bat boxes as supplementary habitat in the study area will substantially mitigate against potential impacts on the species. The species was recorded at two sites, one of which is not bio‐certified. Given this is a mobile species it can be assumed that it utilises suitable habitats elsewhere in the study area. Potential impacts to biocertified areas were offset at the time the Sydney Region Growth Centres SEPP received biocertification, ensuring an overall net gain and non‐significant impact. There is not expected to be a residual significant impact on threatened fauna species from removal of fauna habitat in the small percentage of non‐biocertified areas in the study area.

Combined fauna impacts and constraint areas are shown in Figure 5‐2.

57BKey Threatening Processes.

A number of key threatening processes (KTPs) are relevant to the proposal including:

• Loss of hollow bearing trees – Up to 33 hollow bearing trees (HBTs) would be removed as a result of the proposal. HBTs are an important habitat component for microchiropteran bats and many native birds. Approximately 30% of hollow‐bearing trees will be retained in the study area.

• Clearing of native vegetation – The proposed works would require the removal of a total of 17.7 ha of TSC Act listed CPW, 11.18ha of EPBC Act listed CPW and 1.52 ha of River Flat Eucalypt Forest. However the impacts of approximately 80% of this total area have already been offset as part of the biocertification process for the clearing of TSC listed communities. . The residual (unmitigated) impact is the loss of approximately 3.95 ha of TSC Act listed native vegetation, the majority of which is disturbed roadside vegetation in a linear remnant. Though the works are considered to result in the operation of this key threatening process, it would not result in significant impacts to any threatened species.

• Removal of dead wood and dead trees – East Coast Freetail Bat and Eastern False Pipistrelle are both is listed under the determination for this KTP as species with potential adverse

Final May 2010 37


affects from the removal of standing dead trees. Standing dead trees are in low abundance at the proposal site. Some standing dead trees would be removed as part of the proposals. These have been included in the hollow‐bearing tree counts and associated mitigation.

5.3 22BAQUATIC IMPACTS

5.3.1 39BConstruction Impacts

The proposed works would duplicate CVW using land on the northern and southern side of the existing road. Potential construction impacts on aquatic biodiversity mostly relate to water quality impacts. These could occur as a result of the following:

• Chemical spills as a result of concrete works and accidental chemical spills.

• Erosion and Sedimentation during excavations and other earth works including stockpiling.

• Turbid runoff.

At waterways these impacts have the potential to migrate downstream, therefore impacting a long section of a waterway.

At man‐made dams, impacts are more likely to occur where these are located within the study area. Dams located outside but within 100m of the study area have limited potential to be impacted although indirect impact through turbid runoff is possible.

As the topography is relatively flat within the study area, these potential impacts would easily be controlled through standard erosion and sedimentation controls and industry standard guidelines (refer to Section X6.2X).

Where the extension of current waterway crossings would be required, the use of cofferdams and the diversion of sections of waterways may be temporarily required. These have the potential to temporarily impact on fish passage.

5.3.2 40BOperational Impacts

58BWaterway crossings and diversions

The proposed works would widen the existing road and would require that existing waterway crossings be extended. The waterways within the study area are either Class 2 or 3 waterways according to Fairfull and Witheridge (2003) (Appendix I). The recommended crossings for these are:

• Class 2: Bridge, arch structure, culvert or ford

• Class 3: Culvert or ford

All current crossings are either culverts or bridges in compliance with the Fairfull and Witheridge (2003) recommendations. However, a number of these existing culverts physically block fish passage during low flow (i.e. bottom of culvert raised above the surface of the creek bed). It is to be noted, however, that the crossings are mostly located within the upper reaches of the waterways except for the Sydney Water Supply Channel. Therefore, only limited impact to fish habitat

Final May 2010 38


connectivity results from these barriers and the proposed works are unlikely to exacerbate these impacts. Furthermore, the waterways in the study area do not provide suitable habitat for threatened or protected species.

Lengthening of the culverts would be required to allow for the road widening works. This has the potential to limit penetration of light through the culverts. Light can be an important factor in determining diel fish migration patterns, that is, whether fish will migrate preferably during the day, night or both. However, the timing of migrations can differ between species, geographical locations, age and even individuals (Ibbotson et al. 2006, Reebs 2002). This may limit the impact of the lack of light in culverts as a physiological barrier to fish migrations. However, Australian and some United States guidelines recommend taking into account light penetration when designing road crossings (Fairfull and Witheridge 2003, California Department of Transportation 2007). This is most likely as a precautionary measure as the ecology of freshwater species, including the impact of light on fish migrations, is still poorly understood. As discussed previously, the crossings within the study area are mostly located within the upmost upper reaches of the waterways and, therefore, only limited impact to fish habitat connectivity would result from these potential physiological barriers.

A number of waterways run parallel and in close proximity of CVW. This is especially evident between chainage 7100 and 7300 at Riley’s Creek along the southern side of CVW. A number of smaller roadside drainage lines also occur parallel to CVW at other locations. These drainage lines/waterways may need to be diverted should works be unable to avoid them.

The lengthening of existing waterway crossings and diversion of sections of waterways has the potential to trigger the following key threatening processes:

• Alteration to the natural flow regimes of rivers and streams and their floodplains and wetlands (TSC Act).

• Installation and operation of instream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural flow regimes of rivers and streams (FM Act).

59BRiparian Vegetation

The proposed works would require the removal of riparian vegetation where the proposed road would cross a waterway. Riparian vegetation plays important environmental roles including:

• Providing bed and bank stability and reducing bank and channel erosion.

• Protecting water quality by trapping sediment, nutrients and other contaminants.

• Providing a diversity of habitat for terrestrial, riparian and aquatic flora and fauna species.

• Providing connectivity between wildlife habitats.

• Allowing for conveyance of flood flows and controlling the direction of flood flows.

• Providing an interface between developments and waterways.

The then Department of Water and Energy (DWE) published guidelines for riparian corridor management for controlled activities (DWE 2008; XFigure 5‐3X). The guidelines specify that when

Final May 2010 39


determining an appropriate riparian corridor width, the following three riparian corridor zones should be considered.

1. A Core Riparian Zone (CRZ) is the land contained within and adjacent to the channel. The Department will seek to ensure that the CRZ remains, or becomes vegetated, with fully structured native vegetation (including groundcovers, shrubs and trees). The width of the CRZ from the banks of the stream is determined by assessing the importance and riparian functionality of the watercourse, merits of the site and long‐term use of the land. There should be no infrastructure such as roads, drainage, stormwater structures, services, etc. within the CRZ.

2. A Vegetated Buffer (VB) protects the environmental integrity of the CRZ from weed invasion, micro‐climate changes, litter, trampling and pollution. There should be no infrastructure such as roads, drainage, stormwater structures, services, etc. within the VB. The recommended width of the VB is 10 metres but this depends on merit issues.

Figure 5‐3 Riparian Corridor Zones (Source: DWE 2008)

The DWE recommends that a vegetated CRZ width based on watercourse order as classified under the Strahler system be considered in the design of any controlled activity. However, the final CRZ width would be determined after a merit assessment of the site and consideration of any impacts of the proposed activity. CRZ widths should be measured from the top of the highest bank and on both sides of the watercourse.

Table 5‐3 Recommended CRZ widths

Types of Waterways CRZ widths

Any first order1 watercourse and where there is a defined channel where water flows intermittently

10m

Any permanently flowing first order watercourse orAny second order1 watercourse And where there is a defined channel where water flows intermittently or permanently

20m

Any third order1 or greater water course and where there is a defined channel where water flows intermittently or permanently. Includes estuaries, wetlands and any parts of rivers influenced by tidal waters

20‐40m

1 as classified under the Strahler System of ordering watercourses and based on current 1:25 000 topographic maps 2 merit assessment based on riparian functionality of the river, lake or estuary, the site and long‐term land use.

Final May 2010 40


Based on the Strahler method of ordering waterways, the waterways in the study area are all order 1 waterways (Section X4.5.1X, Appendix I). The core riparian zone recommended by the DWE guidelines would therefore be 10m for all the waterways within the study area. However, the waterways currently do not have such wide riparian corridors with the widest riparian width of 5m mostly found along the named creeks. It is therefore important to maintain the limited riparian vegetation that is left to limit impacts on the waterways.


• Degradation of native riparian vegetation along New South Wales water courses (FM Act).

It has been estimated that the footprint of the proposed duplicated road would impact around 1.5 ha of River‐Flat Eucalypt Forest in the riparian zone based on a 5 m riparian width and a duplicated road width of 50m including road verges and median.

60BInstream Habitat

Some limited aquatic habitats are present within the waterways, especially in the named creeks where some instream vegetation, large woody debris and boulders occur. Instream habitat has the potential to be impacted at waterway crossings.


• Removal of large woody debris from New South Wales rivers and streams (FM Act).

61BThreatened Aquatic Species

Threatened aquatic species are unlikely to occur within the waterways of the study area and therefore no impacts on these would result from the proposed works (Section X4.5.2X and Appendix I).

5.4 23BREGIONAL IMPACTS

The growth centres SEPP will result in the clearing of 186 7ha of native vegetation within the north west and south west growth centres. The Growth Centres currently contain 3868 ha of high quality native vegetation comprising seven endangered ecological communities, with high quality defined as having a greater than 10% native species canopy cover.

Biodiversity certification of these areas is based on the following outcomes which are specified in conditions to the certification:

• Protection of 2000 ha of native vegetation within the Growth Centres to offset the 1867 ha of native vegetation to be lost within the Growth Centres.

• Provision of $530 million of funding for the protection of high value areas both within and outside of the Growth Centres.

Final May 2010 41


• 75% of this funding to be spent outside the Growth Centres, targeting the largest and best vegetation remnants with the remaining funds spent on acquiring land within the Growth Centres that is identified in the SEPP (DECC 2007).

As previously discussed, the majority of vegetation clearing as a result of the proposal would occur within the area subject to biocertification. The proposal would result in an additional 3.95 ha vegetation to be cleared with only 0.42 ha of this vegetation classified as good or high quality EEC. This represents an additional 0.21% of vegetation clearing across the Growth Centres SEPP.

Final May 2010 42


6 5BMITIGATION MEASURES

All the environmental issues would be managed through the implementation of RTA QA specifications G35/36 (Environmental Management), G38/39 (Soil and Water Management) and G40 (Clearing and Grubbing) and by industry standard onsite environmental management.

Furthermore, nghenvironmental proposes the following site specific safeguards to mitigate impacts to biodiversity at the study site and in the surrounding area.

6.1 24BTERRESTRIAL SAFEGUARDS

• Suitable fencing is to be installed to ensure known Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) and the patch of woodland located outside the study area at CH300‐350 where the species Marsdenia viridiflora subsp. viridiflora was recorded in 2003, are protected. The fencing would be on the edge of the construction zone and would have signage that identified the area as an environmental exclusion zone.

• A number of noxious weeds were recorded within the study area; care should be taken to ensure these species and other weeds such as African Lovegrass (Eragrostis curvula) at the site are not dispersed through surrounding areas. The use of herbicides would be restricted to controlling exotic species at the site and suitable application methods would be employed to ensure no impacts occur to surrounding areas of CEEC/EEC. Management plans specified in this report should be consulted (refer to Table 6‐1).

• The extent of the construction envelope would be clearly marked with defined construction access routes and the movement of vehicles and plant outside of these areas would be avoided. Trees and vegetation to be retained would be protected through temporary fencing, especially areas of CEEC/EEC.

• Any fallen timber located within the construction footprint would be relocated to adjacent areas of habitat.

• The number of trees to be removed should be minimised and limited to those trees that are in alignment with the proposed route. All trees to be removed would be mulched and re‐used in surrounding areas.

• Trees to be removed should be appropriately marked prior to their removal. Hollow‐bearing trees should be distinguished from other trees.

Final May 2010 43


Table 6‐1: Control guidelines for noxious weeds identified within the study area.

Noxious Weeds

Source of control guidelines

African Boxthorn

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/206176/African‐boxthorn.pdf

Blackberry HUhttp://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0012/302601/blackberry‐control‐manual‐complete.pdfU

Bridal Creeper http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/guidelines/wons/pubs/a‐asparagoides.pdf

Lantana http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/guidelines/wons/pubs/l‐camara.pdf

Large‐leaf Privet

HUhttp://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests‐weeds/weeds/profiles/privet/privet‐agfactU

Mother‐of‐millions

HUhttp://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/44727/Mother_of_millions_‐_Primefact_45‐final.pdfU

Prickly Pear Hhttp://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au/prickly_pear_history.htm

Tiger Pear Liverpool Council Class 4 Management Plan

HUhttp://www.northwestweeds.nsw.gov.au/tiger_pear.htmU

African Lovegrass

DPI Noxious and Environmental Weed Control Handbook (4th Edition)

HUhttp://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/123317/noxious‐and‐environmental‐weed‐control‐handbook.pdfU

• While it is accepted that some of the hollow‐bearing trees would have to be removed, the progression of the detailed design would consider the location of these trees and removal of hollow bearing trees would be minimised as much as possible. Recommendations regarding retention of hollow‐bearing trees are provided in XTable 5‐2X and implementation of these recommendations during detailed design would result in an overall retention rate of approximately 30% of hollow‐ bearing trees along the route. This will serve to mitigate against impacts on fauna habitat in general and habitat for threatened bats in particular.

• A nest box program would be developed once the final tree removal data are known, including an estimation of the number of hollows per tree.

• A suitable monitoring and maintenance program would be put in place to ensure the nest boxes continue to function well.

• Where hollow‐bearing trees require removal, a two‐stage clearing process would be employed so that hollow‐bearing trees are left standing for a minimum of 24 hours following clearing of surrounding vegetation. A qualified ecologist with experience in fauna handling should be

Final May 2010 44


present on site during the removal of dead and/or hollow‐bearing trees. This process should involve the following steps:

Clearing of non hollow‐bearing vegetation

o Clearly mark all trees containing hollows which are to be removed.

o Clear non hollow‐bearing trees and shrubs first.

o Allow hollow‐bearing trees to remain standing overnight (at minimum).

Clearing of hollow bearing vegetation

After at least 1 night, hollow‐bearing trees can be removed in accordance with the steps below.

o When removing hollow‐bearing trees, a spotter should be present at each tree to be removed to look for signs of animal movement in the tree to be cleared. The spotter should be able to communicate directly with plant operators.

o Prior to clearing hollow‐bearing trees, use an excavator or loader to hit the trunk as high up the tree as possible several times. Wait at least 30 seconds. Repeat this process several times.

o If taking the tree down in stages, remove non‐hollow‐bearing limbs first. Then remove hollow‐bearing limbs.

o Once the hollow‐bearing limbs or hollow‐bearing tree are on the ground, the spotter must check each hollow for signs of wildlife before the next limb/tree is removed.

Handling Wildlife

o Direct contact with any wildlife should be avoided wherever possible

o Any uninjured wildlife must be encouraged to leave the site.

o Injured wildlife should be handled by WIRES or similarly‐qualified personnel.

6.2 25BAQUATIC SAFEGUARDS

6.2.1 41BConstruction

• An erosion and sedimentation control plan would be developed for the project. This would be developed in reference to the Blue Book Volumes 1 and 2D.

• Erosion and sediment control measures are to be implemented and maintained to:

o prevent sediment moving off‐site and sediment laden water entering any water course, drainage lines, or drain inlets.

o reduce water velocity and capture sediment on site.

o minimise the amount of material transported from site to surrounding pavement surfaces.

o divert clean water around the site.

• Erosion and sedimentation controls are to be checked and maintained on a regular basis (including clearing of sediment from behind barriers) and records kept and provided on request.

Final May 2010 45


• Erosion and sediment control measures are not to be removed until the works are complete or areas are stabilised.

• Work areas are to be stabilised progressively during the works.

• The maintenance of established stockpile sites during construction is to be in accordance with the RTA Stockpile Site Management Procedures 2001.

• Refuelling would be undertaken in a bunded area at least 40m from any waterbodies.

• Notification would be given to the Minister of dredging works and reclamation and any matters raised by the Minister would be considered within 28 days after the giving of the notice.

• Water crossing types would comply with Fairfull and Witheridge (2003) and be installed in such a way to prevent physical blockage of fish passage during low flow.

• Where crossings currently block fish passage in low flow areas, these would be reinstated during the works to allow fish passage.

• Where possible, works would avoid any waterway diversions. Where this is not possible waterway sections diverted would be reinstated with appropriate riparian widths and instream habitat following consultation with DPI (Fisheries).

• Preference would be given to waterway crossings in areas:

o Devoid of native riparian vegetation.

o Devoid of instream habitat (e.g. large woody debris, vegetation).

• Large woody debris would be managed using the following guidelines:

o Lopping (trimming) would be considered as a first option.

o Instream realignment would be considered as the next option.

o If realignment is unfeasible, relocation within the river channel is preferable to removal.

o Removal would be considered as a last resort.

• Where trees are to be removed from the riparian zone these would be used to re‐snag a creek in consultation with DPI (Fisheries).

• Impacted riparian zones would be revegetated under an appropriate Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) following completion of the works.

Final May 2010 46


7 6BCONCLUSION

While the landscape in the vicinity of the site is highly fragmented, the remaining vegetation remnants are important for the persistence of mobile fauna species such as birds and bats in the region and some locations support moderate to good quality Cumberland Plain Woodland CEEC. For this reason, despite biocertification and the deemed lack of significant impact, it would be desirable to align the upgrade to favour the cleared areas in order to retain the maximum number of hollow bearing trees and remnant vegetation. Although in a highly fragmented landscape, connectivity to other remnant vegetation is better on the eastern/southern side of the road. The western side of the existing CVW is more cleared, while the eastern side supports more of the larger remnants. Impacts to biodiversity would be less if the realignment favoured the western/northern side of the existing road. Specifically, the final upgrade design should avoid impacts to the following:

• remnant vegetation to the east of intersection of CVW and St Andrews Rd.

• remnant vegetation at the intersection of CVW and Denham Court Road.

• Hollow‐bearing trees along the entire route.

• vegetation mapped as ‘good’ quality (these areas generally correspond with those listed above with fauna habitat value).

None of the creek lines/ riparian strips along the route provides functional connectivity.

The project will not impact on the location of Pimelea spicata (Spiked Rice‐flower) records. Specific mitigation measures would be employed to ensure that records adjacent to the site are not impacted as a result of the proposed works.

No significant impacts are expected to TSC listed species or communities. This is largely due to the biocertification of the majority of the route and the already agreed offset conditions. The residual impacts of non‐biocertified areas are small.

The EPBC listed Cumberland Plain Woodland CEEC has recently been up‐listed from endangered to critically endangered. Given the predicted removal of 11.18 ha of this community it is recommended that the proposal be referred to the Commonwealth Environment Minister for assessment and approval.

Final May 2010 47


8 7BREFERENCES

California Department of Transportation (2007). Fish Passage Design for Road Crossings. An Engineering Document Providing Fish Passage Design Guidance for Caltrans Projects.

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2007) Identification Guidelines for River‐flat Eucalyptus Forest on Coastal Floodplains, Department of Environment and Climate Change, Hurstville. Available Uhttp://www.environment.nsw.gov.au//resources/threatenedspecies/EEC_River_flat_Eucalypt.pdfU [Accessed 29‐09‐2009].

Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) (2008) NSW Scientific Committee Determination River‐flat eucalypt forest on coastal floodplains of the NSW North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner bioregions ‐ endangered ecological community listing, Hurstville. Available from Uhttp://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/RiverflatEucalyptForestEndSpListing.htmU [Accessed 29‐09‐2009].

Department of Environment and Climate Change (2007) Western Sydney Growth Centres An assessment of the proposal to confer biodiversity certification on State Environmental Planning Policy (Sydney Region Growth Centres) 2006 under section 126G of the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. Available from HUhttp://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/07589wsgcentres.pdfUH (Accessed 8‐04‐2009)

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009a). Cumberland Plain Woodlands in Community and Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environmental, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Available from HUhttp://www.environment.gov.au/spratUH. [Accessed 29‐09‐2009].

Department of Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts (2009b) Threatened Species Scientific Committee. Commonwealth Listing Advice on Cumberland Plain Shale Woodlands and Shale‐Gravel Transition Forest. [Online]. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra, ACT. Available from HUhttp://www.environment.gov.au/cgi‐bin/sprat/public/publicshowcommunity.pl?id=112&status=Critically+EndangeredUH [Accessed 06‐01‐2010].

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

Ian Perkins Consultancy Services (2001) and the Best Practice Guidelines for Bush Regeneration on the Cumberland Plain (DIPNR 2003).

Ibbotson, A.T., Beaumont, W.R.C., Pinder, A., Welton, S., Ladle, M. (2006). Diel migration patterns of Atlantic salmon smolts with particular reference to the absence of crepuscular migration. Ecology of Freshwater fish 15: 544‐551

New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service (2002) Interpretation Guidelines for the Native Vegetation Maps of the Cumberland Plain, Western Sydney, Final Edition NSW NPWS, Hurstville.

Final May 2010 48


Final May 2010 49

nghenvironmental (2009) Targeted Searches for Spiked Rice‐Flower and Cumberland Land Cnail, Camden Valley Way, Upgrade – North of Cobbity Road to Cowpasture Road.

NPWS. (1997). Western Sydney Urban Bushland Biodiversity survey.

NSW Department of Energy and Water (2008). Guidelines for controlled activities – Riparian Corridors.

NSW Department of Environment and Conservation (2004) Draft NSW and National Recovery Plan for Pimelea spicata R. Br. NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, Hurstville NSW.

NSW Scientific Committee (2009) Cumberland Plain woodland – critically endangered ecological community listing, NSW Scientific Committee – final determination. Available from Uhttp://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/cumberlandwoodlandsFD.htm U[Accessed 06‐01‐2010]

Reebs, S. G. (2002). Plasticity of diel and circadian activity rythms in fishes. Reviews in Fish biology and Fisheries 12: 349‐371.

Strahler, A.N. (1964). Quantitative geomorphology of drainage basins and channel networks. In Chow, V.T. (ed.) Handbook of Applied Hydrology, New York, McGraw‐Hill, section 4‐11.

Tozer, M (2003). The native vegetation of the Cumberland Plain, western Sydney: systematic classification and field identification of communities, Cunninghamia Vol. 8(1), p1‐75.

camden valley way ref - ecological assessment · 2014. 6. 26. · u2.1.1 u utsc act division 5...

Documents